Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
This issue arose following the Supreme Court judgment in 2020, which found certain custody orders to be unlawful. The amendment to the legacy Act to try to deal with that has also been found unlawful by the Northern Ireland courts, so the Government are carefully exploring how to lawfully address this complex issue, alongside our commitment to implement legacy mechanisms that are fully compliant with human rights. I will, of course, keep the House updated.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Will the Secretary of State withhold the remedial order until he is certain that he can deliver the Prime Minister’s pledge to prevent Gerry Adams from receiving compensation?
Hilary Benn
The Government are currently considering the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the representations made to it.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
I am a veteran, as many Members know, and lots of my colleagues served in Northern Ireland. I was based in a barracks in Germany that was attacked by terrorists, so I get it, but the last Government’s legacy Act offered a path to immunity for those who committed the most appalling terrorist crimes. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is no surprise that the legislation was so widely opposed and has been found to be unlawful?
Hilary Benn
I thank my hon. Friend for his service in our armed forces, alongside all those who served. He is absolutely right about the flawed piece of legislation that this Government inherited, and we are working hard to put that right.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
In his opening remarks, the Secretary of State left out one crucial detail: the truth is that the last Government did legislate with cross-party support to prevent people like Gerry Adams from receiving taxpayer-funded compensation. The High Court in Northern Ireland ruled that that was incompatible with the European convention on human rights, and the Conservative Government then appealed that judgment. When the Labour party came to power last summer, it dropped that appeal. Will the Secretary of State please set out why the Government decided to drop that appeal?
Hilary Benn
As I told the House a moment ago, the courts found that clauses 46 and 47 were unlawful. Although the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal was not obviously asked to rule on that, because we had withdrawn the appeal, it did comment unfavourably on those provisions. We supported clauses 46 and 47 at the time, but they have not worked, and that is why we have to find an alternative way forward. I just say to the House that the main issue here is the Carltona principle, which the last Government argued meant it was lawful for junior Ministers to sign ICOs. The amendment to try to deal with that failed, and we need to find another way of reaffirming that principle. That is at the heart of this case.
Alex Burghart
The whole House will have heard the Secretary of State not give a reason why the Government did not continue the appeal. Government lawyers told the last Government that there were grounds for appeal. Policy Exchange, in a report in January written by Professor Richard Ekins and Sir Stephen Laws, said that the High Court had almost certainly been “mistaken” in its judgment and that there were strong grounds for an appeal. Why did the Government drop it, and why have the Government not yet brought forward their own legislation to clear this mess up once and for all?
Hilary Benn
The Supreme Court judgment was in 2020, and the last Government could not find a legal solution in almost three years. I am committed to finding one, and I promise that I will update the House when we have found it.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
With New Decade, New Approach, the UK Government committed to make funding available for a range of projects aimed at supporting community and reconciliation initiatives. My officials regularly discuss these commitments with their devolved counterparts. On addiction services, it is now for the Northern Ireland Department of Health to consider how best to use this funding and bring forward a business case to the Government on that basis.
Colum Eastwood
The people of Derry were made a promise during the NDNA negotiations. I remember, because I negotiated that particular part of it. They were promised that the Northlands addiction treatment centre would be given £1 million for the development of a brand-new addiction centre. The Northlands organisation has saved countless lives in Derry, but it has now been told by the Department of Health in Stormont that its core funding has been cut, and that the promised money is not guaranteed. Does the Minister agree that the Department of Health is in no position to undermine an international agreement?
Fleur Anderson
The hon. Member is a powerful advocate for his constituents, for the Northlands centre, and for the need for services to tackle the scourge of addictions. I join him in recognising the need for support for people with addictions, but given that this matter is devolved, it is now up to the Department for Health to present a business plan, based on its review of addiction services, for the services that will provide the best support for the most people.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
Economic growth is this Government’s priority, and our industrial strategy is central to that. It will be published in June, and will support the Executive’s plans for growth. The latest figures from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency show that Northern Ireland experienced stronger growth than the United Kingdom as a whole last year.
Katrina Murray
Northern Ireland has a long and proud history of advanced engineering industries. What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that companies such as Spirit AeroSystems have access to the Government’s increased investment in defence?
Hilary Benn
I am sure that my hon. Friend, and the whole House, welcomes the recently announced increase in defence expenditure. Northern Ireland has a strong and significant defence sector, and Spirit is part of that. The Secretary of State for Defence has made it very clear that he wants the increased expenditure to result in more jobs and more orders for British companies.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Economic growth will be supported by physical connectivity. One example is the new Grand Central station in Belfast, where there is some controversy over Irish language signage. The Secretary of State has commented that there are
“so many more important things”
in which to be involved, but, setting that view to one side, can he confirm that if there were no Executive at Stormont, he, as Secretary of State, would be in a position to make decisions on that and other equally important issues?
Hilary Benn
The new Grand Central station is a magnificent piece of infrastructure, and I recommend any Members who have not yet had a chance to visit it to do so. I am not contemplating for one second that there will not be an Executive in place. Perhaps the single most important contribution that the Executive can make to continued economic growth in Northern Ireland is to stay in place and give confidence to those whom we are all working hard to encourage to come and invest in Northern Ireland’s economic future.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
I regularly receive representations from businesses, some of our biggest employers, who are frustrated by the apprenticeship levy. They pay in like businesses in Britain, but cannot access the fund to reinvest in skills and fix our broken skills pipeline. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is merit in devolving this to the Assembly as part of a package of measures to encourage the Executive to take responsibility and control, to be ambitious for the local economy, and to drive growth?
Hilary Benn
There is a great deal that the Executive can do to help promote economic growth. I have just given one example, and investing in and supporting the development of skills is another. Northern Ireland has the lowest unemployment in the United Kingdom, but it also has a higher rate of worklessness, and getting more people back into work and giving them the skills that will enable them to take part in the economy will help to boost growth.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Economic growth has been severely damaged as a result of the Northern Ireland protocol and the Windsor framework. The new EU arrangement will enable animals and food to travel unfettered between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Why was manufacturing not included in that arrangement, and when will the customs process be removed?
Hilary Benn
The agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures that was reached with the European Union on Monday is extremely significant. As the hon. Member will know, it has been widely welcomed by businesses throughout Northern Ireland, including supermarkets, retailers and farmers, because of the assistance it will give in getting rid of many of the elements associated with the SPS arrangement. It is the fruition of this Government’s determination, when we came into office, to negotiate a closer relationship with the EU, which is exactly what we have done.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
As we have just heard, since last we met in this place for Northern Ireland questions, we have had the announcement of the UK-EU SPS agreement. That comes as a great reassurance to many Northern Irish agrifood retailers, but the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry has cautioned that key trade barriers remain, particularly around broader regulatory divergence across supply chains and ongoing customs issues under the Windsor framework. In the Secretary of State’s opinion, how will the latest arrangements ease east-west trade in practice? What specific customs reform does he intend to pursue to further cut red tape and unlock the full potential of dual-market access and latent economic growth in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
On customs, in addition to the SPS deal, the significantly reduced Windsor framework customs arrangements, introduced on 1 May, will of course remain in place, because the UK is not in the EU customs union and we have no intention of joining it. It is clear from the text of the agreement what will be removed and that customs information will remain for SPS goods, but we are working hard to make life easier and introduced changes on 1 May. Reducing the number of lines of information that need to be provided from 75 to 21 is a very good example of how we are working with the EU to make it easier for goods to flow.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The veterans who served in Operation Banner did so with distinction in very difficult circumstances, and ultimately helped to bring about the peace that Northern Ireland now enjoys. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude. Together with the Defence Secretary and Minister for Veterans, I am currently considering measures for our legacy legislation to ensure better protections for elderly veterans.
David Davis
Seven hundred and twenty-two of our soldiers were killed by paramilitary murderers during the troubles. Not one of those deaths will be revisited. Because of the current circumstances, however, hundreds of brave men—who, as the Secretary of State says, served their country with honour, patriotism and integrity—face a sword of Damocles of politically motivated trials hanging over them. I can think of no better example of two-tier justice. Whatever the Government do, they have to take that away, and do so in a way that cannot be circumvented by clever, politically motivated lawyers. Will he give the House an undertaking that he will do that?
Hilary Benn
I agree with what the former Defence Secretary said in 2019. He said:
“The British Army uphold British values, which is the rule of law, and that’s what we stand for.”
I advise the right hon. Gentleman to be a little bit careful about using the phrase “politically motivated” prosecutions—I hope I have correctly quoted him. Let us be clear: decisions about any prosecutions, in any cases, are taken by the independent Public Prosecution Service, which is entirely separate from the Executive.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I strongly support the petition brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). As of this morning, it has more than 90,000 signatures, showing the strength of public feeling on this issue. Almost a year ago, the Labour party published its manifesto, saying that it would scrap the legacy Act, yet it has still presented no alternative. Victims are in limbo, and veterans are in limbo. The last Labour Government handed out letters of comfort for terrorists, but nothing for elderly veterans. When will the Secretary of State finally show the House his plans, and how can veterans have confidence that they will get the protection they deserve?
Hilary Benn
We have begun the process of repealing and replacing the legacy Act in the proposed draft remedial order. It will deal with the conditional immunity that was struck down by the courts, and which we came into office committed to remove because it did not command support across Northern Ireland, as it would have given immunity to terrorists, including those who killed the soldiers to whom the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) referred earlier. I intend to bring forward legislation to complete that process when parliamentary time allows, because this Government inherited a completely hopeless piece of legislation, which has been found time and again to be incompatible with our international obligations.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will know that, as part of a Northern Ireland Affairs Committee inquiry, we have been engaging with victims across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom to assist them in their quest for some personal closure, truth and justice on legacy. Veterans, like many other victims, have indicated to us that while they are listened to, they have not been heard. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he intends to announce his proposals on legacy in parallel with the Irish Government before the summer recess?
Hilary Benn
I will inform the House of proposals in due course. I am in discussions with the Irish Government, and that is well known publicly. The reason the legacy Act resulted in so much trouble and difficulty, and produced so much incompatibility with our international obligations, is that the last Government, having negotiated the Stormont House agreement with the parties and the Irish Government, decided to perform a 180° turn and put in legislation that did not command support in Northern Ireland. I want to make progress on this as quickly as possible, and I am continuing to talk to all the parties about doing so.
Gavin Robinson
I caution the Secretary of State that he should be adhering to the three-stranded approach, and where it is appropriate to talk to the Irish Government, it should be within that context. He should not be subjugating our responsibilities on legacy, but he should not be letting the Irish Government get away with their obfuscation on this issue either.
One of the most startling things the Committee experienced last week was a victim who asked us collectively whether we were aware of Government plans to secure a ceasefire from dissident republicans that, in return, would lead to the release of dissident republican prisoners. Can I ask the Secretary of State, in all good conscience, to recognise that dissident republicans are a cancer in Northern Ireland, and more of them should be in jail? Will he rule out the suggestion that was brought to us as a Committee?
Hilary Benn
I can say directly to the right hon. Gentleman: there are no such plans.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Good Friday agreement has brought peace, security and a better life to the people of Northern Ireland. It remains an unparalleled achievement almost 30 years on from its signing, and I pay tribute to all those involved in its creation for their political courage, bravery and willingness to compromise.
Shockat Adam
I recently visited the west bank and the Occupied Palestinian Territories with the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). There we saw a systematic process of one community being taken over by another, with the Israeli Government building walls and fences to protect the settler community. The Secretary of State is of course aware of the great results Mo Mowlam achieved in securing peace in Northern Ireland following a process of engagement with both sides—a process that resulted in walls and fences being broken down, and a mutual respect and a common peace being achieved. Will the Government commit to using the lessons of Mo Mowlam and the Northern Ireland peace process to help secure a lasting peace in the middle east?
Hilary Benn
I share with the hon. Member and the whole House a wish to see lasting peace in the middle east, and what is happening at the moment is appalling and intolerable. However, I think the most important lesson from the Good Friday agreement was the courageous political leadership shown by the parties to the conflict—people such as John Hume and David Trimble—and I have to say that, tragically, that same courageous political leadership is absent in the middle east.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
Rates of violence against women and girls are higher in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the UK. This Government are committed to working with the Executive to tackle this emergency, and I have met and supported many politicians and organisations across Northern Ireland that are doing just that. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), and I recently met the Northern Ireland TEO—The Executive Office—and Justice Ministers in Belfast to discuss working closely together, including on online safety and support for frontline organisations.
Dr Sullivan
The strategy for tackling violence against women and girls must challenge the attitudes that enable it. What recent discussions has the Minister had with stakeholders across Northern Ireland to support these campaign efforts?
Fleur Anderson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about tackling attitudes. I have met and I am supporting many groups, and I will highlight two that I have visited. The excellent Foyle Family Justice Centre in Derry/Londonderry supports victims, and the St Joseph’s Boys’ school in Creggan is doing fantastic work, with the support of White Ribbon NI, through the shaping mindsets programme, which tackles toxic masculinity head-on in the school.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister of State for all she does on her visits to encourage people across Northern Ireland, especially women, ladies and young girls. What we really need in Northern Ireland is legislative change, longer sentences and more people convicted. What discussions has she had with the Minister responsible for police and justice in Northern Ireland to ensure that, legislatively, we are moving fast to try to stop violence against women and ladies in Northern Ireland?
Fleur Anderson
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue, and he is absolutely right that what we do needs to be rooted in what happens on the ground. I met the executive unit working with the police to tackle perpetrators, and they are seeing evidence of that. The legislation for our jurisdictions can be joined up—that is absolutely right—but what has come across to me on many visits is the need to tackle what happens online. The Online Safety Act 2023 is now being enacted through Ofcom, which undertook a consultation in Belfast recently on its draft guidance. It proposes practical steps for online safety, and steps to tackle misogyny, pile-ons, domestic abuse and other harms. He is absolutely right about what we can do, through our efforts on the ground, if we all work together.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The trade deal with the USA, together with the agreements with the EU and India, are very significant. Northern Ireland exporters, including those exporting services, technology and farming goods, will benefit in the same way as those in other parts of the UK. In particular, the US deal is a major opportunity for Northern Ireland farmers to sell their high-quality beef to a US market of over 300 million people.
Dr Evans
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer, but there seem to be wildly different interpretations of what the deal means for Northern Ireland. Will he clarify what it means for imports and exports in the light of the impact of EU tariffs? Was that explicitly discussed at the EU-UK summit?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that EU retaliatory tariffs directed at the USA would have an impact in Northern Ireland, because of its dual-market access. I can write to him with further details of how precisely that would work. It depends partly on whether there is less or more than a 3% difference between the tariff in the EU and the tariff that applies in the UK.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which we will discuss next month at the East-West Council, remains strong. The deal with the EU will enable the smooth flow of agrifood and plants within the UK’s internal market. That is why it has been overwhelmingly welcomed by businesses.
Jim Allister
In referring to the deal with the EU, what the Secretary of State ignores, of course, is that Northern Ireland continues to be under a foreign customs code, which means that there are still customs checks on all goods, including agriculture goods, moving within the United Kingdom. Ideologically and personally, is he committed to the Union? I am not asking if he is committed to the consent principle; any separatist can accept that. Is he personally and ideologically a Unionist?
Hilary Benn
The Government and I support the Union, and I also support the Good Friday agreement. I point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that when it comes to customs arrangements, there are no mandatory checks. There are checks that apply generally on the basis of risk and intelligence.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The Government have begun the process of repealing and replacing the previous Government’s legacy Act. The draft remedial order in Parliament represents the first step. The Government will address the other issues arising from several court findings of incompatibility in primary legislation.
Greg Smith
I listened carefully to the answers the Secretary of State gave just now to the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). The Secretary of State must understand the severe anxiety, particularly for our veterans, caused by not having a timescale on this matter. Will he at least commit to putting in place a deadline? Will he also take seriously the findings of the Policy Exchange report?
Hilary Benn
I listen carefully to all the representations that are made to me, including in that report, which I have read. I am committed to introducing legislation as soon as possible, although that is subject to the availability of parliamentary time. This Government came into office absolutely committed to remedying the absolute failure of the Legacy Act passed by the previous Government.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
My deepest condolences—and those of the whole House, I am sure—are with the families and friends of Jennie, Martyn and David, who were tragically killed in the fire in Bicester last week.
I welcome to the Under-Gallery Cheryl Korbel, the mother of Olivia. I am always humbled by those with the courage to respond to appalling heartbreak by campaigning for change. I know that the whole House will pay tribute to her extraordinary courage and extraordinary resolve.
Because of the actions taken by this Government, the UK is now the fastest growing economy in the G7, interest rates have been cut four times, and we have secured our third trade deal in three weeks—deals with India, the US and the EU. These deals are in the national interest and will improve the lives of working people and businesses across the United Kingdom.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Lewis Cocking
This Labour Government have been in power now for almost 12 months. When will the Prime Minister stop defying the will of the British people, stop dancing around the subject, and stop all illegal immigration into the United Kingdom, which has been rising on his watch?
The Prime Minister
It was the previous Government who lost control of immigration; they had record numbers for net migration, and lost control of the borders. We are bringing forward legislation to give law enforcement the greatest possible powers. What are the Conservatives doing? They are voting against it.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We all know that the economy was left in an absolute mess by the Tories. We had to stabilise the economy with tough decisions, but they were the right decisions. Because of them, the economy is beginning to improve: there were those growth figures last year—we had the highest growth in the G7; there were four interest rate cuts in a row; and there have been three trade deals. However, I recognise that people are still feeling the pressure of the cost of living crisis, including pensioners, and as the economy improves, we want to make sure that people feel those improvements each day as their lives go forward. That is why we want to ensure that more pensioners are eligible for winter fuel payments as we go forward. As you would expect, Mr Speaker, we will make only the decisions that we can afford, and that is why we will look at that as part of a fiscal event.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
It was extraordinary listening to that last answer from the Prime Minister. Inflation was 2% when the Conservatives left office; it is now nearly double that. When will he recognise that it is Labour’s Budget that is driving up inflation?
The Prime Minister
What the right hon. Lady forgot to say was that inflation rose to more than 11% on the Conservatives’ watch, and she did not say a word. I am confident that those numbers will come down; the Bank of England is confident that they will come down, too, which is why we have seen four interest rate cuts in a row. I notice that the right hon. Lady cannot resist grabbing any opportunity to talk the country down. She does not mention the growth figures, the interest rate figures, the record investment, wages being up more than prices, the 200,000 jobs created or the three trade deals. The reason is that the Conservatives have not learned and they have not changed. As George Osborne said, the Leader of the Opposition does not have a credible economic plan.
Mrs Badenoch
That is laughable from the Prime Minister. He knows that inflation was brought down by us to 2%—bang on target. We were reacting to a war in Ukraine that brought inflation up all over Europe. While he is doing trade deals with countries such as the US and India, their inflation is going down, but it is going up here. Why? The Office for National Statistics says that the inflation figures are driven by significant increases in household bills. We warned him repeatedly that this is exactly what would happen—what his policies would do. We called it “awful April”. The Prime Minister came into office saying that he would tackle the cost of living crisis. He has failed. He has not got a clue, has he?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady talks of the Conservatives’ record. There was the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget; inflation was through the roof; there was a £22 billion black hole; living standards were at an all-time low; energy prices went through the roof; and mortgages went through the roof. We are taking measures to bring prices down. The EU deal will bring prices down; that is why supermarkets have welcomed it. What does she do? She opposes measures to bring prices down.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister needs to stop whining about what the last Government did and look at what he is doing. He is the Prime Minister. Look at the numbers this morning. As if inflation figures were not bad enough, we have also learned that the Deputy Prime Minister is on manoeuvres. The Prime Minister has lost control of the economy and he has lost control of his Cabinet. The Deputy Prime Minister is sitting there staring at me. She knew exactly what she was doing when she briefed the papers. She is demanding eight new tax rises—as if we have not suffered enough. People out there are struggling. Businesses are struggling. People are losing their jobs. We cannot have more tax rises. Will the Prime Minister rule out new tax rises this year?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady has not learned or changed. The Conservatives lost the election because of their appalling record on the NHS, on health, on prisons—you name it. Now she accuses everyone of whining about the impact that had on the country. It had a huge impact on working people across the country and they are absolutely right to complain about it. She wants to talk about the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister, working with the Chancellor, is building 1.5 million new homes, reforming our planning system, putting £7 billion into our economy, and bringing forward an Employment Rights Bill, which will be the single biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation.
Mrs Badenoch
That is desperate stuff. The whole House will have heard the Prime Minister refuse to rule out new tax rises. The whole House heard it: he did not rule them out. There is open warfare in his Cabinet. The Deputy Prime Minister is clearly calling the shots. What have we learned? We are heading for new tax rises. We know that inflation is up. It is just more and more bad news from a Prime Minister who has lost control. We heard the Prime Minister’s earlier answer on winter fuel. Let us try to get some more information. I shall ask him a simple question. It requires only one word: yes or no. Is he planning to U-turn on winter fuel cuts?
The Prime Minister
I made it clear in my earlier answer that as the economy improves, we want to take measures that will impact people’s lives, so we will look at the threshold, but that will have to be part of a fiscal event. The Conservatives lost control of every element of the economy, of prisons, of borders, of the NHS—you name it—and now she has lost control of her party. The Conservatives are sliding into oblivion. They will have to trade on their past, because that is all they have.
Mrs Badenoch
I made it really easy for the Prime Minister. It was a simple question—yes or no—and he could not answer it. I wonder how the public feel about a man who cannot give a straight answer to a simple question. Look at the MPs behind him—they are all cheering. When this inevitable U-turn on winter fuel comes, and it will, from a desperate Prime Minister, what will he say to the 348 MPs who went over the top and voted for the winter fuel cut last September? Just like the British public, how can any of them ever trust him again?
The Prime Minister
It is only because of the measures that we have taken that the economy is improving, with growth at the highest rate in the G7, four interest rate cuts, and three trade deals, because countries want to trade with us. Those things are because of the decisions that we have made, and all those decisions were opposed by Conservative Members. They have learned absolutely nothing and they are going absolutely nowhere.
Mrs Badenoch
This is a Prime Minister who says he is taking measures, but the jobs tax is killing jobs, inflation is up, and business confidence is down. Everyone is worried. He promised to cut bills, but today we see that they are rising because of his policies. He promised not to raise taxes on working people, but his jobs tax means that people are losing their jobs. Every week, we come here with a new company that says it is shedding jobs, and that is on his watch. He promised to protect pensioners, but his winter fuel cut has driven thousands into hardship. His MPs hate this—he cannot see them, but they all look sick just hearing what it he is going to do. [Interruption.] They are laughing—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I expect better from Whips, and to Boyzone at the back, I have my eye on you.
Mr Speaker
Order. Which one of you wants to leave first? [Interruption.] There we are, we have the first volunteer. Are you going to behave? I call the Leader of the Opposition to respond.
Mrs Badenoch
His MPs are laughing, just as they laughed at the Budget. Hands up who here wanted winter fuel cuts? Not a single one of them. The fact is, this Prime Minister is destroying them. They need to look at what they are doing to the country. The truth is, and we all know it, that it is this Prime Minister, this Labour Government and their policies that are shafting the country, is it not?
The Prime Minister
They look in pretty good form to me, and there are lots of them. The Leader of the Opposition talks about business confidence. I did not have time yesterday to read out all the businesses that have come out in support of our EU deal, and I do not have time today—it is a long list. I went immediately to Lidl and spoke to the staff there. They are delighted with the deal we put forward yesterday. Business like the work we are doing, and it is giving them confidence in the EU deal, but the right hon. Lady is opposed to each and every measure.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend; we are united by a shared focus on creating better life chances for our children, and I am delighted to hear that her constituents are already benefiting from our changes. Thanks to our plan for change, we will deliver free breakfast clubs in every primary school in England. I am determined to support parents to give every child the best start in life. That is why we are rolling out free childcare, expanding the first 300 school-based nurseries, and delivering more family hubs.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Can I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the terrible fire in Bicester last Thursday? I know from my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) how deeply the close-knit community there has been affected by this tragedy. The firefighters Martyn Sadler and Jennie Logan were true heroes, as was Dave Chester. I hope that the prayers and thoughts of the House are with their loved ones and the two firefighters still in hospital.
The Prime Minister has rightly said that his new trade deals will give a much-needed boost to economic growth, and thus the public finances, but will he make sure that struggling families and pensioners see the benefits of this growth? He teased the House in his answer to the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen); will he commit now to reversing his cuts to the winter fuel payment in full?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for his comments about the Bicester tragedy; it is important that in a moment like this the House comes together. We are taking measures to help with the cost of living crisis. The EU deal yesterday was so important because of the impact it will have on prices, particularly in supermarkets. That will directly benefit those who are affected by the cost of living crisis.
What I said before was that the economy is beginning to improve, but people are still feeling the pressure. That is why we are taking the measures we are taking and striking the trade deals we are striking. As it improves, I want people to feel the benefit of the measures we are taking. That is why I want to ensure that more pensioners are eligible for the winter fuel allowance. It is important, as Members would expect, that we are clear that we can afford the decision we are making. That is why this will now be looked at in a fiscal event.
Ed Davey
I think that I welcome what the Prime Minister has said, but we will look at the details. I hope that he will use some of these new proceeds to help others, like carers. The Government’s changes to the personal independence payment will have big consequences for family carers like Ginny, who cares for her husband Tim, who has myotonic dystrophy. Ginny holds her husband’s hand to keep him steady as he walks. He falls frequently and chokes on his food. Ginny is the sole earner in the family—she works part time on top of caring for Tim—but she has calculated that under the Government’s cuts her family will lose £12,000 a year. Will the Prime Minister tell Ginny and many family carers like her what he expects them to do?
The Prime Minister
We have approached this on the basis of the principle that we must support those who need support. On the question of getting people into work, we should support people into work where they can work—and of course, where they can work, they should—but it is undeniable that the current arrangements do not work and need to be reformed. That is why we are bringing forward necessary reform to ensure that the system works better.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for reading that victim impact statement. I know from talking to Cheryl how hard it was for her to make that victim impact statement in the first place; it took a huge amount of courage, and grief. She wanted to read that statement to the perpetrator, as she should have been able to do. I know from the meetings that I have had with her how visceral the pain is to her of not having been able to do so. I therefore thank my hon. Friend for reading that impact statement out in the Chamber, allowing it to be heard by the whole world.
Cowards who commit these heinous crimes should face the consequences of their actions, which have a huge impact on victims’ lives. That is why we will force offenders to attend their sentencing hearings, with longer sentences, unlimited fines and prison sanctions for those who seek to avoid facing justice. I pay tribute again to Cheryl, who I will meet later this afternoon, for having the incredible courage to push for that change, notwithstanding the incredibly painful impact it has had on her and her family.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Government assure us that Northern Ireland is still in the United Kingdom’s customs union. If so, how is it that British steel can be sold to the United States tariff-free, but that same British steel if sold into Northern Ireland is subject to EU tariffs? Why on Monday did the Prime Minister not even try to take back control over the trade laws that govern Northern Ireland?
The Prime Minister
It is important that we reduce tariffs on steel into the US market and other markets—including the EU markets—for obvious reasons. It is also vital that we seek to ensure that we reduce any barriers in trade within the United Kingdom as a whole. Yesterday was a step towards that. There is further work to do, but we do want to get to that place where we can trade without those barriers in the United Kingdom. We will continue to work on that.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is an excellent champion for his constituents. We are committed to supporting our nation’s high streets to adapt and thrive. Planning applications are required for any new betting office to ensure that locals have a say on individual cases and that communities can use the planning system to allow for a change of use of their properties. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets the meeting that he has asked for.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman knows the very limited impact of the inheritance tax, only on farmers at a very high level. He will also know the record amount of money in the Budget that we put into farming and the measures taken yesterday with the EU deal, which will massively help farmers who sell their product into the EU market.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Our plan for change will see the railways reformed to deliver more reliable and better value services for passengers right across the country. My hon. Friend has been a champion for better railways and easier journeys for her constituents. Open access operators have huge potential to offer passengers more choice. I will be delighted to ensure that she and other interested MPs meet the Rail Minister to put their case forward.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The evidence is certainly coming in: the highest growth in the G7; four interest rate cuts in a row; and trade deals with countries across the world that want to do deals with this country because they can see the stability that this Government have brought about. Instability with the Conservatives; stability and growth with this Labour Government.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
May I begin by congratulating Tommy and everyone selected to represent the British and Irish Lions? It is an incredible achievement and we will be cheering them on.
It is important that we protect those with severe disabilities or lifelong health conditions who cannot work, paying them a premium and stopping those reassessments, which is part of the reform that we are bringing about. Ultimately, we also need to get back to face-to-face assessments by trained assessors and health professionals, which fell to only one in 10 assessments under the previous Government.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The Prime Minister
I am very proud that we have removed over 24,000 people: the highest record for nearly 10 years. We are taking other measures to get back control of our borders, including the Borders Bill, which gives our law enforcement enhanced powers, including terrorism-like powers. What did the hon. Member’s party do? What did he do? He voted against them, and I will tell you why: they do not want to fix this problem, because it benefits them not to fix it. Party before country.
It is very good that the hon. Member is standing in for the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) today. There was no sign of him yesterday at the EU summit. He was the first through the e-gates to somewhere in the south of France: Nice work if you can get it!
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend rightly and powerfully raises the broken promises of the Scottish National party on mental health services. This is important, and we will have positive discussions with the devolved Governments to work on addressing mental health waiting times. The SNP promised to invest in frontline mental health services, then cut them by £54 million in real terms this year. With a record settlement in the Budget and two decades in power, the SNP is out of excuses and out of ideas. Scotland deserves better than that.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
What we contribute into a pot is parts for fighter jets, and if we were to stop that, they could not be used by other countries in other conflicts, including those in which we are involved—[Interruption.] The hon. Member does not know the detail at all. They are not sold directly. They go into a pot. If we were to stop that, they would not then be available to others around the world who desperately need them in the conflicts they are engaged in, and that is why we will not do it.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend and celebrate Lisa and all those who have saved this important source of local support. The Conservatives left local councils on the brink, unable to provide these vital services, letting down patients across the country. We are committed to improving dementia care through our plan for change, which is why we provided a £69 billion boost for local government, invested £26 billion in the NHS and made £3.7 billion available for social care, including an £880 million increase in the social care grant.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
Sentencing is a matter for our courts, and I celebrate the fact that we have independent courts in this country. I am strongly in favour of free speech. We have had free speech in this country for a very long time, and we protect it fiercely. But I am equally against incitement to violence against other people, and I will always support the action taken by our police and courts to keep our streets and people safe.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
I recently visited St Catherine’s hospice in Lostock Hall, which serves wonderfully my constituents in South Ribble, those of Ribble Valley and some of your constituents in Chorley, Mr Speaker. I discovered that the hospice has to pay an excessive £350,000 a year for medication, which can only be sourced from the private sector, not the NHS. After some investigating, I found that there is a postcode lottery for integrated care boards. Some ICBs are fully funded and supply all medication, some subsidise it and some do not supply it at all. Evidence shows that there is a disparity between hospices in the more deprived areas not being funded and those in the more affluent areas being funded. Will the Prime Minister please speak with the Health Secretary as a matter of urgency and get free medication supplied by all ICBs to all hospices across the country?
The Prime Minister
We have put record amounts into the NHS in the Budget, and we are beginning to see the results of that. I accept the point that my hon. Friend makes, and we will look again to ensure that the money is properly used in the most efficient way.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady’s experience is deeply concerning, and I know it must have affected her. I think she was hoping to see, and later saw, her grandchild, but it must have impacted on her, and it is deeply concerning—we need to recognise that. Ministers, including the Foreign Secretary, have raised it on numerous occasions with their counterparts both in China and Hong Kong. Preventing UK citizens, including Members of Parliament, from entering Hong Kong without justification or for simply expressing their views is completely unacceptable. It will only undermine Hong Kong’s international reputation and the relationship we have with it, and so we will continue to raise it.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
You will know, Mr Speaker, that I have raised on several occasions in the House the case of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, the British-Egyptian human rights campaigner who has been imprisoned in Egypt for many years, and whose mother Laila went on a 100-day hunger strike. I thank the Prime Minister for fulfilling his promise to contact President Sisi of Egypt to secure Alaa’s release, but unfortunately, months on, Alaa remains in prison and this week Laila started her hunger strike again. Could I appeal to the Prime Minister to again speak directly to President Sisi to secure Alaa’s release?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this case not just today, but on the many occasions that he has. It is incredibly important that we do everything we can in this case. I have met Laila and given her my commitment to do everything I possibly can. I have had a number of contacts myself, but I will not stop doing everything within my power to secure that release.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming my six-year-old constituent, Teddy, and his mum, Laura, to Prime Minister’s questions? Teddy is a self-professed eco-warrior, on a mission to change the world. He started out by saving thousands of plastic chocolate and sweet tubs from landfill, because they are not currently recyclable. Will the Prime Minister commit to asking the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution to meet Teddy and me to discuss how we can make those tubs recyclable? Does he agree with me that no matter how small you are, you are never too little to make a big difference?
The Prime Minister
On behalf of the whole House, I welcome Teddy. It is incredible that he has done so much already, and he is in the Gallery today. Many of us struggle for a whole lifetime to make an impact on Government policy, but Teddy is already having an impact aged six. I will make sure that he gets to speak to the relevant Minister.
Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)
Following on from the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), this week is National Epilepsy Week, an important opportunity to raise awareness of a condition that affects so many but often remains invisible. Epilepsy comes with fear and uncertainty: the anxiety about having a seizure, the impact of losing a driving licence and the worry about medication shortages. In the UK, one in 100 people live with epilepsy, which works out as up to six of us in the Chamber, including myself. Will the Prime Minister join me and the inspiring campaigners watching from the Gallery in marking National Epilepsy Week, as we continue to raise awareness of seizures?
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her tireless campaigning on this issue, alongside the campaigners who are with us today. I know the impact that epilepsy has on people across the country, including on over 100,000 children and young people. We are committed to improving care for people with neurological conditions and we are setting up the UK-wide Neuro Forum to improve treatment and care for those with such conditions.
Points of Order
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I put on the record the sad passing yesterday of Patrick O’Flynn, a political journalist who was well known to many hon. Members? He died after a short battle with cancer. He was a Lobby journalist for some 20 years, spending many days, weeks and months in the Press Gallery. He will be much missed and I pass on the condolences of all hon. Members to his wife, Carole Ann, and his two children.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his point of order. Patrick was a long-serving and well-respected member of the Lobby. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our condolences to his family, for somebody who was taken so young.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on how I can get a response from the Department for Work and Pensions. I have written to the Secretary of State in relation to one of my constituents, who was told by a first-tier tribunal that the DWP must make payments to him backdated to January 2020. The tribunal decision was in February and we have been chasing the Department for a response for over a month. Will you advise me on how I can get a response?
Mr Speaker
I think the hon. Lady knows exactly what she is going to do next, but she has certainly put the matter on the record and I hope Members on the Treasury Bench have heard. I find it pretty appalling that Government Departments are not answering correspondence from all Members, from all political parties, on time. In the end, Back Benchers are answerable to their constituents, and if Departments cannot provide a reply, they are letting down hon. Members. I hope the relevant officials are listening and answering as I speak.
Regulation of Bailiffs (Assessment and Report)
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of the effectiveness of current regulation of the debt collection and civil enforcement sectors and to report to Parliament on the potential merits of statutory regulation of those sectors; and for connected purposes.
Today, I introduce the Regulation of Bailiffs (Assessment and Report) Bill. We are in this place to speak up when others cannot and to put right what is clearly wrong. This Bill to get a grip on rogue bailiffs does exactly that.
I want to share some truly heartbreaking stories: stories of vulnerable people left petrified in their own homes and disabled people terrified that vital equipment could be wrongfully taken from them. It is time that despicable practices in the enforcement sector came to an end for the thousands across the country who have suffered serious injustices at the hands of cold-hearted rogue bailiffs—those who have brought shame to their own industry. I came into politics to fight for social justice and that is why I am proud to be a Labour MP, but nothing has fuelled that fight more than hearing from those crushed by the worst elements of the enforcement sector; their pain and their stories have imprinted themselves on me with lasting force, and it is for them that I am absolutely determined to change the law.
Let me first thank StepChange and particularly Sophie Morris, who is in the Gallery today. I also want to give credit to the Enforcement Conduct Board, known as the ECB, which voluntarily regulates 95% of the sector. In my view, it should oversee this regulation. At present it issues guidelines for the enforcement sector, but that, of course, is the issue: these guidelines lack legal heft.
The Statute of Marlborough, which passed in 1267 during the reign of Henry III, is one of England’s oldest pieces of legislation still partly in force today. It shows that even 750 years ago people were thinking about the need for fair debt collection, yet here we are today faced with the same challenges.
As a former regulator at the Financial Conduct Authority, I understand the importance of setting clear standards. The last changes to enforcement law were made about a decade ago and introduced a three-stage process and stronger protections for vulnerable people. Despite those changes, aggressive practices and inconsistent standards still exist. That is why the independent ECB was created in 2022 to voluntarily oversee the sector. According to Citizens Advice, one in three people who have had contact with a bailiff have experienced behaviour that breaks Ministry of Justice expectations, and even among the bailiffs that are regulated under its current scope, 1% of visits were deemed too aggressive by the ECB. That equates to hundreds if not thousands of visits a year. That is why we need a fair and proportionate debt collection system.
I want to tell Members Michael’s story. He is an inspirational chap who I welcomed to Parliament last week. Michael’s story began with an horrific motorbike accident that completely upended his life. He sustained injuries that made him unable to walk or stand, and after a lengthy spell in hospital, getting by on sick pay alone, he lost his job. During this time he received a letter demanding a full year’s council tax to be paid at once—by the way, we must end that punitive rule that is triggered when someone misses just one council tax payment. I am grateful to Martin Lewis for campaigning on that, and I welcome the Government’s consultation too.
Returning to Michael’s story, bailiffs were sent to collect the council tax. He was at home, bedridden and unable to move. The bailiffs visited repeatedly but he could not hear their knocks or get out of bed. Despite that, they unfairly added extra charges to his debt for their visits. He was left without carpet and with a broken bed and a broken boiler. On top of all this, he was preparing to become a dad. What should have been a proud and exciting moment in his life became one of immense stress and fear—fear that the bailiffs, given that they had nothing else left to take, might seize his baby daughter’s toys, her changing table or even her cot. As a father, I could sense the deeply personal pain behind that fear—the heartbreak of possibly failing her in the one way he still felt he could provide.
Michael went from being a homeowner with a near perfect credit score to nearly losing everything. I am pleased to say that he is back on his feet, and although he is still paying the debt off he is hoping to clear it soon. He is doing well. I took him out on to the Terrace last week in the sunshine, and we reflected on how unfair bailiff practices had added to his hardship.
I also recently met Adam, who got into debt through falling behind on council tax and card repayments after losing an agency job and struggling to find new work. His experience, like many others, began with letters and ended with visits to his home. As is often the case with rogue bailiffs, the visits were aggressive and intimidating. One forced his foot in the door, threatening to come in, which breaks virtually every rule in the book. Adam told me it was like
“someone was trying to boot down the door”.
He immediately told the bailiff that he had a disability and was classed as vulnerable. The bailiff said that he did not care and would take away Adam’s belongings regardless. A bailiff saying that he did not care? What cruelty!
The enforcement system is broken and punishes those who are already struggling. When rules allow such passive, cruel indifference to people in crisis, it is not about one bailiff in one moment: it is about the sort of society we want to be. Adam had Government-funded equipment for his disability—a specially adapted device—but again the bailiff said that he did not care and would take it anyway. Adam contacted StepChange. Its advisers helped him to come up with a payment plan, which the bailiffs wrongfully refused. He became genuinely terrified of being at home on his own.
Adam has made progress with his debts, and I welcomed him to Parliament last week alongside Michael. Both cases are littered with dozens of examples of unregulated rogue bailiff activity. The ECB does a good job, but many bailiffs are not in its perimeter. Statutory regulation would enable it to be even firmer and to drive up standards, so it is time for the Government to fix the regulation in the enforcement sector.
I do not want anyone in this country to have to worry about losing their disability equipment or their children’s toys. No one should ever have to face the same hardship. Fourteen years of Conservative Government saw only a few, although welcome, tweaks to the law. That has to change. The Labour party is built on principles of social justice, equality and fairness. That is why we need to bring bailiff regulation on to a statutory footing, changing the lives of millions of people in the process. For Michael and Adam, and in honour of all that they and countless others have endured, let us bring in statutory regulation of the debt and civil enforcement sectors once and for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Mr Luke Charters, Adam Jogee, David Williams, Alex Baker, David Burton-Sampson, Amanda Martin, Callum Anderson, Lee Pitcher, Mike Reader, Alison Hume, Euan Stainbank and Dr Allison Gardner present the Bill.
Mr Luke Charters accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June, and to be printed (Bill 249).
Business and the Economy
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 88 / Noes: 253 - Question accordingly negatived.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets that unemployment is rising and causing misery for young people in particular, that this Government has displayed a negligible understanding of business and that investors and entrepreneurs are being driven overseas; further regrets that over 200,000 businesses have closed since Labour took office, as a result of the Government’s policies to raise employers’ National Insurance contributions, in breach of the Labour Party manifesto commitment, to scrap Business Property Relief, to impose £4.5 billion of additional costs on businesses through the Employment Rights Bill and increases to business rates; and calls on the Government to urgently change course to support jobseekers, small and medium-sized enterprises, family businesses and entrepreneurs who take risks to create wealth and jobs that benefit people across the country.
Allow me to paint a picture. A small business owner navigates the early morning darkness to their high street shop. They twist the keys and lift the shutters. They turn on the lights, the card machine, the heater and the shop music. They open the door in time for their first customer of the day, putting to the back of their mind the question of how to meet the rising costs placed on them by this Government—the taxes they have to pay before they open that door and the unreformed business rates, with many more than doubling. How will they pay the jobs tax on their staff? How will they ever keep their business intact when they seek to pass it to their children after they have gone? Not one single person around the Cabinet table truly understands those pressures, yet this Labour Government have crossed the road to start a fight with Britain’s businesses.
When it comes to business, the Government have broken every one of their promises. Members on the Government Benches looked business owners in the eye at the election and told them that they would be on their side, but it took barely 100 days for this Labour Government to revert to type. At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor slapped a £25 billion jobs tax on business, meaning that employers will have to pay an additional £900 a year for an employee on the median wage, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
Only a few weeks later, the Business Secretary tabled the now 300-page, trade union-dictated Employment Rights Bill, drowning employers in red tape. Helen Dickinson, the CEO of the British Retail Consortium, said that businesses are
“left with little choice but to increase prices”—
as we have seen today—“or to reduce investment.” The CEO of UKHospitality, Kate Nicholls, said that these measures
“will simply force businesses to cut jobs, freeze recruitment, cancel planned investment, reduce trading hours and, in the worst-case scenario, close their doors for good.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
My hon. Friend is so popular. I am interested by how he is starting this debate, because it chimes with what I am hearing in my constituency, where venues such as pubs, restaurants and cafes, which are such a vital part of the effort to regenerate our high streets and local community spaces, are seeing their margins slashed because of the cost of labour and the increase in business rates. Does he agree that Labour’s jobs tax and the ending of business rates relief is putting the regeneration of our town centres and community spaces at risk?
Andrew Griffith
How tragic is it that from Gosport to Gloucester and everywhere between, businesses on our high streets are closing? This Government do not understand that. If they do understand, they do not care, and if they care, they have not acted. The message from this Government to anyone willing to put their capital, time and energy on the line by taking risk to create wealth as a business owner is abundantly clear.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Exactly to that point, is it not a shame that for the first time ever since records began in 2012, the number of new businesses registered at Companies House has fallen? The exact risk-taking behaviour that we need to grow the economy is not taking place; is that not a damning indictment of what this Government are doing?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. I believe that all of us come to this House to try to do our best and to grow the economy, but any Government faced with that terrible metric about the failure rate and formation rate of businesses would be acting immediately, with haste, and reversing so many of the measures. The choices this Government have made have delivered precisely the outcome my hon. Friend describes.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Pubs are the lifeblood of communities, particularly in rural constituencies such as mine in Broadland and Fakenham. People could perhaps make an argument for individual tax rises, but it is the combination of three in particular that are hitting pubs so badly. It is the increase in the minimum wage—the Government are very good at increasing prices for everyone else, but not themselves—as well as the removal of business rates relief for hospitality and leisure, and the rise in national insurance contributions for employers. The latter point is not so much about the overall percentage rise, but the reduction in the threshold from £9,200 to £5,000, which particularly impacts those who employ part-time staff and those on low wages. It is a triple whammy on pubs. Is that why so many are closing across the country?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point about that triple whammy, and about the cumulative effect of changes and the consequences—potentially unintended—that manifest themselves most acutely in industries such as UK hospitality and retail, which have the great virtue, among many others, of contributing to the character of the places in which we live and giving so many young people their first step on the ladder of opportunity and their first experience of work. Without those businesses, it will be inexorably harder for young people. That is one reason that it is of such great concern that the number of people employed on payrolls under this Government has already fallen by 100,000, with a faster rate of decline in the first quarter of this year. This Government are perfectly positioned to achieve the unbroken track record of every Labour Government in modern history of leaving office with unemployment higher than when they started.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that another factor that will undermine job creation and employment under this Government is their approach to international wealth coming into this country? When other countries, such as the US, are granting golden visas, we are closing the door with these ideologically-driven non-dom reforms, which will not even raise any money. If the Government want to increase job opportunities, they should take the chance at the next Budget to reverse that foolhardy policy.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. He will correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, one millionaire is leaving our wonderful country every 45 minutes. That is to say nothing of a generation of young people who are yet to have their opportunity. How tragic it would be to think that young people see greater opportunity—notwithstanding their birthright of being born in this wonderful country—in other parts of the world than is present on their doorstep, in their communities and in the heart of their families.
It has to be said that this Government’s combination of actions are sending a clear and regrettable message to those who seek to create wealth: “Don’t bother. Don’t even try.” This socialist Government do not want people to succeed. There could be no better example of that than the vindictive family business and family farm death tax, which will carve up successful businesses as and when they are handed down to the next generation.
Why do we think this vindictive policy exists? One of the more benign interpretations, to be charitable, is simply the dearth of business experience in the Labour Cabinet. It has to be said, though, that the Cabinet members are world-class in their understanding of, and potential avarice in relation to, trade unions. Perhaps that is why the Secretary of State, who has not deigned to be here with us today, is currently undertaking the most expensive work experience placement in history at taxpayers’ expense at British Steel in Scunthorpe.
It is not just that this Government do not understand the mechanics of business; they do not understand and value the principle of business. Running or investing in a business at its core is a profound act of human courage—the triumph of optimism over inertia, and a mindset of someone solving problems themselves rather than waiting for permission from others. It is about embracing risk knowing that there are no guarantees, no bail-outs and that no one is coming to the rescue. When enterprise succeeds, such people create the wealth that funds our public services.
Every time a Minister dispenses money and largesse in Whitehall, as this Government are doing at record velocity, they can do so only because a founder, an entrepreneur, or a businessman or businesswoman, took that leap. It should be the Government’s job to get out of their way and to help the business builders, not the blockers, but this Labour Government understand none of that. Instead of leaving business to get on and flourish, they have erected a blockade of bureaucracy and taxes that they promised would never come. They have declared war on employers across this land from the ramparts of Westminster.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend will know that business confidence has plummeted since Labour came to power. Does he agree that one of the reasons it has plummeted is the loss of faith in this Government? Businesses were promised that their plans were fully costed and fully funded in advance and there would be no increased business taxes, but within 90 days the Government went back on that. How can business ever trust this Government again?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend, who is himself a very distinguished and successful businessman, knows exactly the importance of that intangible quality of confidence that the Government have your back and you will not wake up in the morning and be hit with a £25 billion jobs tax—on which subject there was not one word, not one syllable, in the Labour party manifesto. We toured the studios jousting with Labour Members and issuing warnings, but we were met with a repeated barrage of denials in respect of their £25 billion jobs tax. [Interruption.] The Ministers are chuntering, and there is probably a fair amount of chuntering to do if they have to explain an inability to balance the public finances along with an attempt to do so by means of a set of vindictive and arithmetically incorrect taxes on business.
We can move on from tax. That is just one of the many barrages faced by businesses that are sapping confidence and producing some of the very worrying statistics that we are seeing. We could, for instance, move on to the “Unemployment Rights Bill”, which is an egregious example of red tape and state intervention and overreach. At this point Labour Members are normally uncharacteristically quiet, because they are aided and abetted to the tune of £31 million by the trade unions.
The Bill shackles the hands of employers in pubs, bars, garden centres, grocery stores, butchers, hairdressers —businesses rooted deep in our communities—with little clarity and no lead-in time. Seasonal work could be made impossible by the Bill. It is certain that compliance costs will rocket. There will be long delays for employment tribunal hearings; in some parts of the country, the wait for a hearing is already approaching 18 months. Even according to the Government’s own estimate, on top of every other measure, there will be a headwind cost for business of an unwanted £5 billion a year.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
You have talked about the risk of seasonal jobs being lost as a consequence of the Employment Rights Bill. In my constituency it is a serious risk, as a number of businesses have told me. Would you say that the Minister should withdraw the Bill, or, at the very least, conduct a proper assessment of its impact?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. May I point out, to prevent any further errors, that the term “you” is not used in the Chamber, because it refers to me, in the Chair? Hopefully no one else will make the same mistake.
Andrew Griffith
No one would believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would implement such terrible measures without a proper impact assessment. More significant, however, is the fact that we have heard not just the voice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), representing those important seasonal industries, but the voice of employers across the country, who have pointed out that it will no longer be possible for seasonable and flexible work to deliver the economy that we need.
Dr Evans
The problem with the Employment Rights Bill is not only its implied cost and the red tape it will introduce, but the fact that it is a poor piece of legislation in the first place. The Government’s own regulatory independent commission has said that eight of the 23 criteria are not fit for purpose. Does my hon. Friend not agree that if the Bill is to proceed, it should be reworked?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend is exactly right. If Labour Members were honest enough to do so, they would admit that the Bill is a rushed piece of legislation. It was introduced because of an arbitrary promise to do so within 100 days, and it was introduced at half its current length, which means that 50% of the words that it now contains—the red tape that our businesses will have to implement and wrestle with for years to come—did not even benefit from scrutiny in this place. Many of the powers in the Bill are not fleshed out or clarified. We will wreak great havoc and uncertainty on business if the Government are determined to proceed. It would be far better for them to shelve the Bill, to listen, to learn and then to come back so that we could use the proper mechanisms of this House to do our jobs for all our constituents to avoid the unintended consequences and the damage that I do not believe anyone would want.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
In that spirit of listening and learning, I have been speaking to businesses in my constituency this week, and the chambers of commerce have signalled that the trade deal is a new start for British business because it is reducing red tape, giving certainty to businesses and allowing them to trade and do well, in my constituency and elsewhere. Do you think they are wrong?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. “Do you think they are wrong?” We have a long afternoon ahead of us—even longer for me in the Chair.
Andrew Griffith
One has to celebrate small mercies, and I am delighted by the hon. Gentleman’s conversion to the cause of free trade. Free trade is what has lifted billions of people in the world out of poverty. It has made us the great country that we are today. The business in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency that has formed such a clear view has obviously benefited from considerably more detail than the House, so perhaps he will share its name. We would be very happy to hear about the details of the trade agreement that has been reached.
Perhaps, in having that conversation with his local business, the hon. Gentleman would like to engage in a discussion about its views on the Employment Rights Bill. Despite legion opportunities that I, and others, have given Ministers to name a single business that is in favour of all the measures in the Bill, answer still comes there none.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
May I tell my hon. Friend why I think the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) is wrong? Since the very inception of our negotiations to join what was then the common market—now the European Union—it has attached huge importance to fishing. We have just handed over the enormous leverage of an annual negotiation, and for what? Absolutely nothing.
Andrew Griffith
I hesitate to stray into the matter of fishing, which I suspect we will debate many times in the future, but I note that those on the other Government Benches next to us tabled an amendment, which has not been selected for debate but which seeks to shackle our small businesses further by having us reverse across a much broader range of topics than the pass that the Government already sold earlier this week, so that we become a taker of rules from Brussels, and our small businesses, entrepreneurs and founders are crushed by the red tape that would originate there.
Jerome Mayhew
Fishing is one sector, but there is a clause in the Employment Rights Bill that affects all businesses. At this point I should draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a former entrepreneur who has employed well over 1,000 people in my time. The problem is that if day one employment rights are imposed for any hire, it will be a massive disincentive for businesses to take a chance and take on people who are more vulnerable: the young and the less well qualified. Why would a business take that chance if it risked being hauled up over day one employment rights?
Andrew Griffith
Once again, my hon. Friend has demonstrated his deep and real knowledge of business, having himself, in a past life, employed more than 1,000 people. One rather suspects that taking that risk, having that responsibility and shouldering that burden, moral and financial, is greater than the entire aggregate responsibility of Labour Members for hiring anyone. My hon. Friend has made the right point about who will end up on the receiving end of the higher unemployment. It will be the young, looking for their first opportunities, and it will be excluded and vulnerable groups on whom a benign employer would today take a chance—but not if that chance is likely to lead immediately to being at the back of an 18-month-long queue for an employment tribunal hearing.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The point made by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) was about day one rights, but that right is to stop unfair dismissal from day one. Is it now the policy of the Conservative party to allow for unfair dismissal between the first and second days? If the shadow Minister is unhappy with that being a right from day one, presumably he is unhappy for people to have that right at all.
Andrew Griffith
I am afraid that to make those points is to misconstrue wilfully what is actually in the Bill. We have a very settled and balanced position of employment rights that dates back to before previous Labour Governments as well as the Government in office before the election. It strikes what will always be a difficult balance between offering employees the chance to enter the workforce and the ability of businesses, and of the public sector and others, to hire and to operate in a way that is profitable. It does nobody any favours to think that we can, merely by passing words of statute, change the outcomes in a way that advantages the most vulnerable, who are the youngest employees. The failure to learn from that point will once again lead to exactly the same outcome, which is why every Labour Government have left office with unemployment higher than where it started. In his response, the Minister may wish to confirm that this time will be different and perhaps lay out exactly why it will be different, but he has a job of work to convince us and, more importantly, every employer in the land that that is the case.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The shadow Minister takes a casual swipe at the business acumen of Ministers, and I wonder whether I can encourage him to develop that point. When I speak to businesses in Angus and Perthshire Glens about the changes that have been instituted since July last year, they are incredulous that anybody with even a passing knowledge of business, enterprise or entrepreneurialism of any nature would put such roadblocks in the way of business and wealth creation. Would he like to expand on that?
Andrew Griffith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that very perceptive observation. I hate to say this, but I was not making a casual point; it was a considered point. When we think about how this House continues to legislate and tax in a way that reduces economic growth, that does not celebrate a culture of entrepreneurialism and founders, and that is leading to higher employment, with 100,000 fewer people on payroll than there were a year ago, we should all look deep into our souls. What is the endemic failure in Parliament, and of this Government in particular, that is leading so quickly to precisely those outcomes?
It is sad to say that sometimes there is a lack of voice for business. Although one does not want every single sector to be represented in this place, the compensatory mechanism for that involves consultation and diligent impact assessments. In introducing legislation, this Government have been serially criticised for the way that they have casually discarded such measures, and the Treasury maths simply do not add up.
Dr Evans
I think it goes wider than that across the top of Government, because Members on both sides of this House are grappling with what to do about people who are long-term unemployed. If we make it more likely that companies will not take a risk on getting someone back into work while increasing unemployment at the same time, we will create a toxic concoction at a time that we are trying to get people back into jobs because we know that that is better for the economy and better for them, their health and their family. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Andrew Griffith
I do indeed agree. We ought to confront how we have got here—I acknowledge that it has happened over a period of time—with so many young people unable to work, get an education or be in productive training. That is a headwind on the economy, and a moral failure of us all. The question that we should confront ourselves with is this: what are we doing each and every day in this place to give opportunities to 1 million young people and the 9 million others of working age who remain stubbornly on welfare, while improving our public finances and making the maximum use of the wonderful resources, education and skills of the British people, so that we can grow our economy and be the prosperous nation that we once again deserve to be?
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend talks about the message of this Government, and just last week I spoke to a first-generation immigrant, who talked about the message for entrepreneurs in this country. She said, “If you can’t hand on more to the next generation through your own hard work, what’s the point?” She is right, isn’t she?
Andrew Griffith
She is right, and that is one of the chilling headwinds that anyone who wants to grow the economy, and anyone who serves in the wonderful Department for Business and Trade or our Treasury, should confront. We should be going back to officials and challenging exactly that. How can we achieve a culture vibe shift on growth and entrepreneurship? That is the best contribution that we could all make.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
May I just take my hon. Friend back to what he was saying a moment ago about opportunities for young people? I recently met hair and beauty salons in my constituency. As he knows, they have historically been the most amazing employers of apprentices and have given such wonderful chances to young people. I was worried to hear that the rate at which they are taking on apprentices is dropping off. By 2027, there will be no apprentices left in the sector. It is not just hair and beauty saying that; other sectors in my constituency, such as adult social care and early years education, are saying the same. Is he as worried as I am about the lack of opportunities for our younger generation?
Andrew Griffith
Yes, I am enormously worried. We have to understand and make the connection that it is only the private sector that truly creates sustainable jobs. We need people to work in our wonderful public services, but ultimately growth and opportunities come from the expansion of the private sector, which is most encapsulated by female-led businesses, such as those in the hair and beauty sector. They often survive on small margins, deal with lots of different pieces of regulation, and try to keep our high streets and communities alive—as well as performing, I suspect, rather a better service for my hon. Friend than for me and some other colleagues. It is a valuable and vital industry.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
We ought to ram this point home so that the Minister understands. Before he stands up, he has plenty of time to think this through and provide us with a sensible answer, rather than something that is off the cuff, so here is a note of warning. This morning, I attended an event run by one of the national clearing banks, which is putting a huge amount of effort into trying to create, and helping its customers to create, opportunities for young people. The bank has come up with a raft of good ideas, but every single one of them—this point was made very clearly—will hit the roadblock of the Government’s employment legislation. Where is the sense in that? If my hon. Friend does not have the answer, the Minister no doubt will have.
Andrew Griffith
Let us hope that the Minister does indeed have an answer. I am somebody who always travels optimistically, and though we have sparred on the important subject of the 300-page, 120,000-word Employment Rights Bill, it is never too late. That Bill is undergoing scrutiny in the other House as we speak, and the Opposition would welcome and support the Government’s shelving it until we have dealt with the cacophony of headwinds that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) talked about earlier, including the changes to the tax system and other changes; the damage that has already been inflicted on the economy; the headwinds on costs that we saw this morning, with inflation 75% higher than the Bank of England’s target rate, which will mean that interest rates are higher for longer; and the failure to reform business rates. There is an opportunity to revisit bringing forward specific proposals on employment to enduringly reduce business rates, if the Government feel a burning desire to do so.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) is quite right: would it not be good if the Minister could use the ample time that we have this afternoon to consult, and to bring forward some sensible answers that will give us all confidence that we are going to see a Government who are properly on the side of business?
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the shadow Secretary of State agree that the cumulative effect of all the Government’s measures over the past 12 months—a £25 billion jobs tax, the £5 billion burden of the Employment Rights Bill, the removal of business property relief, which is reducing the incentive to be an entrepreneur—will be to drive unemployment higher?
Andrew Griffith
Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend, but it does not actually matter what I or others think, because the reality is that the data does not lie. As of now, we have 100,000 fewer people on payroll than we did 12 months ago, so the data is already telling us about the cumulative chilling effect of those measures.
That is perhaps unintended. We learn today that the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister are at odds, and perhaps the Business Secretary is the third leg on that stool, with each of them bringing forward measures that are enormously damaging to business. They are perhaps not adding up the sums and seeing eye to eye to understand the lived experience of what it is like to be a business on the receiving end of all of those changes, cumulatively and all at the same time.
Many businesses will, from the start of April this year, not only face a payroll increase of around 10%—in an economy without such a level of topline growth, so that hits margins directly—but, because of the failure of the Government to maintain business rates relief at anything like the same level for our retail, hospitality and leisure, have seen their business rates double. Imagine that all hitting a business on 1 April this year.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I was a little startled to be described as sitting on the “other Government Bench”, but perhaps that is the shape of things to come—who knows? I do not have my crystal ball with me.
There has been a predictably negative barrage from the Opposition, which does not surprise me because that is how we work in this place, but thinking of businesses, there are businesses that from this year will get better in my constituency and, indeed, in that of the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan). I am talking about the seed potato industry. We have been crying out to get the best Scottish seed potatoes into European markets, and I therefore do thank the Government. It means a lot to farmers, and I have had very positive comments about it. I am being absolutely fair-minded about that.
Andrew Griffith
I am enormously glad, and we should be balanced, that we have found something that goes the other way. I am not sure if one can subsist entirely on a seed potato—it may have been tried historically, and not with enormous success—but I congratulate the hon. Member on the success of his seed potato industry.
To be charitable, we have found a rare example of the Government actually having the back of a business and supporting it, but would it not be wonderful if they could extend that to much larger sectors of the economy, such as financial and professional services, retail and hospitality industries and even our manufacturing industries, as they wrestle under the cosh of uncompetitive energy costs, so that a business in Birmingham, west midlands, will face an industrial energy cost four times higher than that of a competitor in Birmingham, Alabama?
Andrew Griffith
My hon. Friend has made so many good points that I will of course give way again.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is being enormously generous in giving way, and I am genuinely grateful. Labour parroted during Prime Minister’s questions that there has been growth of 0.7% in the first quarter of this year. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we look into the figures, we see that a chunk of that is production rising by 1.1%? That is actually due to electricity, gas and water prices being raised, and the Government count that as economic growth.
Andrew Griffith
Most of us would put higher energy costs into the liability rather than the asset column of our economy. We are debating business, unemployment and the economy, and I hope the Minister will devote an ample proportion of his response to the measures this Government will take to remove the yoke of uncompetitively high energy costs, which is simply crushing so many British manufacturing businesses.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
When it comes to business and the economy, we want to ensure that every region in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can benefit. Northern Ireland is the UK’s smallest region by GDP, but it has higher GDP per head of the population than some regions. It is really important that Northern Ireland has the same advantages and opportunities, and to be fair, I think the Minister is committed to that. Would the hon. Gentleman agree that, when it comes to improving business and the economy, my young people in Strangford deserve the same opportunity as those in his constituency or, indeed, in Scotland, Wales or wherever it may be?
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Member is exactly right. When I describe my constituency as “South Downs”, people occasionally assume that it is in Northern Ireland, but all of our young people deserve the best opportunities. We know that the best outcomes for young people are when they can enter the workforce, and that if, when they graduate from school, college or an apprenticeship, those young people cannot immediately find productive work, the scarring impact of that can run through the entirety of their adult life and they never catch up with their peers’ earnings. That is why it is so important that we have a healthy labour market, and a healthy labour market relies on the ability of employers to feel that they can take a chance, give people opportunities and benefit from that.
I want to make some progress, which I suspect may be popular. There are many Members on the Opposition side; sadly, there are disappointingly few on the Government side. Given the paucity of business experience on that side, it is probably appropriate for there to be more listening than talking on the Government Benches.
Let us imagine—and, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know this from your wonderful constituency—that despite all the headwinds this Government have imposed on business, an entrepreneur does well, grows their business into a successful operation and wants to hand it down to the next generation after they are gone. Those people, who have taken risks to create something good for society, are now at a competitive disadvantage as a result of the family business death tax. They will be forced to carve up, slice up, or close up shop forever to meet the demands for business property relief and inheritance tax.
Analysis from CBI Economics for Family Business UK estimates that this measure alone will result in 208,000 job losses and a £2 billion net loss to the Treasury. Again, I hope the Minister will address that directly when he responds. Family Business UK’s chief executive, Neil Davy, says that “far from stimulating economic growth” this policy “will achieve exactly the opposite.” He is right. To illustrate just how ridiculously flawed this policy is, it applies to families here in the United Kingdom, but it does not apply to overseas businesses that operate here, or to those owned by private equity or foreign corporate owners.
Labour has stolen any incentive for success from a generation of home-grown entrepreneurs. We really cannot go on like this. The gulf between those who create wealth and those who govern us has never been larger. Only one Cabinet Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, has any real experience of running a business. Trying to find business experience among those on the Labour Benches is like trying to find a tax the Deputy Prime Minister does not think needs to be raised. It is no surprise that, according to the Institute of Directors, over two thirds of businesses are now pessimistic about the future of the economy.
Dr Luke Evans
I would argue that it is actually worse than that. A study by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has said that business confidence is at the same level it was in the pandemic. In the pandemic, businesses shut up shop and were not sure they would ever open again, and that is the level of business confidence we are dealing with at the moment. A quarter of businesses say they will lay people off, and that is the reality out there. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why the Government need to listen, and change course?
Andrew Griffith
Our business community is ravaged; my hon. Friend is exactly right. We are plummeting to depths last reached only when the entire global economy was shut down due to an unknown pathogenic virus. If that is the bar the Government set themselves, I urge them to have a little bit more ambition and confidence in their ability to grow our economy.
No nation can spend its way to growth, or tax its way to success. I fear that we are about to see a case study showing exactly that this does not work. It has been tried before, and it did not work then. We cannot afford the ignorant short-sightedness of this Government. To achieve growth, we need a country in which everybody’s spark of ambition can find ignition. Not everyone needs to run a business, but for those who do, we want a country that values, cherishes and honours its wealth creators; where transforming a side hustle into a main hustle is straightforward; and where His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is transformed from a predator to a partner, and the tax system goes out of its way to reflect the risk of investing, and of running a business. We want our regulators to think carefully before they intervene, and not to pounce on every perceived failure as another reason to try to eliminate risk.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
May I give the House the news that ex-special forces soldiers, including the Minister for Veterans and People, have reached the top of Everest today? Congratulations to them. We also have a mountain to climb to create growth in this country. My hon. Friend mentioned HMRC; does it not reflect the Government? The Government’s attitude to business is that it is a dripping roast to be devoured and taxed to a standstill.
Andrew Griffith
So many businesses feel like that, even when HMRC is doing its legitimate job of trying to balance the books and raise money for the public purse. That is because of how it goes about that job, its one-sided nature, and the uncertainty that it inflicts on small businesses, whose biggest asset is their time, and whose greatest opportunity cost is the need to comply with myriad regulations and taxes.
We want a Government with a philosophy of trust in business, and a Government who celebrate personal responsibility and clear the path for innovation. That requires the courage to champion risk-takers and elevate enterprise above sectional interests. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is sad that investors and employers clearly do not have faith in this Government to deliver the contract between the state and those who seek to run a business. Instead of this Government opening up investment for wonderful British businesses around the world, top investors are fleeing the country and taking their wealth, creativity and entrepreneurship elsewhere. What could be sadder?
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The industries and business groups that are leaving the country quicker than any others are in the oil and gas sector. Investors in oil and gas—in the North sea, Aberdeenshire, and my Gordon and Buchan constituency—are fleeing the country at an astounding rate, taking investment, skills and jobs with them. We are losing a generation of investors, skills and skilled workers. What does the shadow Minister think we should do to keep those skills, that investment and those jobs in the UK?
Andrew Griffith
One is tempted to say that we should try to remove this wretched Government as quickly as possible. That, of course, is part of the answer. We need a Government who listen to the points my hon. Friend makes so eloquently on behalf of her constituents and the industry; a Government who understand the reality of the energy situation and the high cost of energy for business, rather than pursuing a failed dogma and ideology that is not being pursued by the rest of the world; and a Government who listen to enterprise and businesses, many of which I have met. We could take that approach from a perspective of trying to grow the economy, in order to reduce energy costs to a competitive level, or because one believes in the climate transition but understands that special skills in dealing with the harsh offshore environment need to be nurtured, rather than squandered in a way that results in people with those skills fleeing elsewhere.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The shadow Minister is making a forensic case against the Government. May I ask him to focus on an issue that he will be familiar with from his prior ministerial experience? We had the banks before the Treasury Committee yesterday. The imminent outcome of the advice guidance boundary review will require the Government to work closely with the regulator to ensure absolute clarity, so that investors across the country can invest in the future of this country through equities, rather than just leaving their investments in cash. That will require action and direction from the Government. It is an issue on which there is probably consensus, but the Government need to step up to the mark.
Andrew Griffith
I thank my right hon. Friend and predecessor in the role of City Minister. This is an important point: where we can, we will support the Government in continuing the work, which he and I started, of trying improve the investment outcomes for our economy. We want to increase equity investment to mobilise pension funds and, most importantly, deliver good returns for our investors: the constituents who send us here, and who want the best possible outcome for their pension. It is really important that the Treasury leans into that, and that we have abundant capital markets that are well regulated but not over-regulated. We must create the right culture when it comes to the advice guidance boundary, our tolerance of risk, and our financial literacy and education in our schools. That is a really big point. I hope we continue to work collaboratively and supportively with the Government, along with the excellent Select Committee of which my right hon. Friend is a Member.
None of that helps if wealth creators and global investors have left these shores due to vindictive measures that simply will not raise anything like the money needed. It is perfectly okay to admit when one makes a mistake, and in this case Treasury Ministers have made a mistake. The amount raised will be nothing like the amount expected. The Centre for Economics and Business Research has done important research on that, and found that the cost will be significant. Far from raising money for the Treasury, the country will, I am afraid, lose money.
It is a truism—one that we Conservative Members have to continually teach Labour Members, I regret to say—that we do not make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. Like all socialists, Labour Members are attracted to superficial measures that will ultimately make all of us poorer. Those of us who are left behind will have to pay more, or endure less well-funded public services, as a result of this Government shepherding the golden geese into a pen and then exiling them.
The Deputy Prime Minister was right in her memo, which we saw today: this Government are indeed coming for your job, your business, your pension and your savings. It is all very clear in black and white. Whether Members are Team Rayner or Team Reeves, when it comes to decisions on the economy, it is all bad for business. When the Minister responds, perhaps he will share with us whether he believes that the tax measures advocated by the Deputy Prime Minister, which will have a chilling effect on business, are the right way to proceed.
Whether they are stabbed by employment red tape or shot by higher taxes, the outcome for businesses is the same. The Government duck the difficult questions while the Chancellor fiddles the fiscal rules, making it up as she goes along. Families know that the cost of living is getting higher under Labour. [Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is so animated that I feel I should keep going, rather than disappoint him. He should listen, rather than chunter.
The Conservative party has a clear vision. It understands business from first principles—[Interruption.] Conservative Members could usefully listen and learn. This could be an exercise in understanding what a proper strategy that is on the side of business looks like. We back the millions of entrepreneurs and businesses who create wealth and jobs across this country. We are unafraid to talk about the need for business, and celebrate private capital, international investors and risk taking.
It was the Conservatives who delivered the single biggest tax cut for business in modern history through the move to full expensing, and the Conservatives who slashed business rates when we introduced retail, hospitality and leisure relief, and during that terrible covid pandemic, it was the Conservatives who provided billions in finance to keep business and the economy going. That is what leadership looks like. That is what a party that is truly on the side of business looks like. I urge Government Members to do a little less talking and a little more listening. They should think of every business owner and employee whom they told, during the election campaign, that the Government would have their back, and ask themselves whether their actions, rather than their words, have proved that to be anything like the case. With employment falling, wealth creators leaving this country at a rate never before seen, businesses closing, investment crashing and inflation rising today, the Conservatives certainly do not believe so. I commend this motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
A substantial opening speech there. I call the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
Although that felt like a very long 50 minutes, it is always nice to see the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) taking centre stage for the Conservative party. As one of the authors of the Liz Truss Budget, he is a constant reminder of the fiscal mess the Conservatives very kindly left this Government to confront.
Once again, the Opposition are trying to make us all believe that we are living in an alternate reality where the economy is shrinking, not growing, and investment is low, not high. There is only one problem with that analysis: none of it is true. Figures published last week showed that the economy grew by 0.7% in the first quarter of this year—the fastest growth of any G7 economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast for growth has been revised up for future years, and the latest forecast from the International Monetary Fund predicts that the UK will see the third highest growth in the G7 over the course of this year. This Government have a plan for change, and it is working.
Harriet Cross
I just wanted to clarify whether inflation at 3.5% is higher or lower than inflation at 2%, which is where it was last July.
Gareth Thomas
I say gently to the hon. Lady that the current rate of inflation is an awful lot lower than the 11% it rose to under her party.
I was a bit surprised that there was nothing in the shadow Secretary of State’s lengthy speech on trade until my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) provoked him. We have secured three massive trade deals: with India, the United States and, this week, the European Union. That will slash the cost of doing business abroad, reduce border checks, cut tariffs and axe red tape. Those trade deals will support jobs for British people, and create opportunities for Great British businesses in our biggest current markets, and in one of the world’s biggest future markets.
The Conservatives tried to do a deal with India, but could not; it has taken us just 10 months. They wanted a trade deal with the US—indeed, they had four years to do a trade deal with President Trump—but they could not; we have managed to do one in just four months. The deal they did with the EU was the worst trade deal in history; every opportunity they had to minimise red tape and border checks, they rejected. What was the result? Businesses stopped exporting to Europe in their thousands. Our deal with Europe sticks to our red lines, will save businesses thousands of pounds, will cut the cost of food in our supermarkets, and will help to get great British food products—from sausages to shellfish to seed potatoes—back into European markets.
Once upon a time, the Conservatives were in favour of free trade and trade deals. Now, they are against just about everything. Far be it from me to give advice to the Opposition, but the party in opposition is still allowed to support measures that are obviously in the national interest.
Dr Luke Evans
The key thing is, the Conservatives are in favour of free trade, just not at any cost. That has been the biggest problem with these deals. The Minister says that the previous Government did not sign off on them, and for jolly good reason—that is the point we are trying to get across. There will be people queuing up to come to the UK because they see us as a soft touch now and think they can get anything out of us. That is what we want to stop.
Gareth Thomas
Well, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for confirming once again that he is against the India trade deal, against the deal with the US and against the deal with the European Union.
I turn now to business investment. The Opposition’s motion claims that
“investors and entrepreneurs are being driven overseas”.
I hate to break it to Opposition Members, but the facts tell a rather different story: business investment actually rose by 5.9% in the first quarter of this year, the fastest quarterly growth in two years. In other words, business investment is higher than when the Conservative party left office.
Dave Doogan
Is the Minister a little worried that the unexpected growth in the first quarter of this year was businesses making capital investment to get in ahead of tariffs?
Gareth Thomas
One way that the hon. Gentleman could help businesses in Scotland would be to call for the Scottish Government to do what we are doing in this country and extend business rates relief to hospitality and leisure.
Investors from across the globe are choosing to put their money in the UK. Our international investment summit last year saw £63 billion committed to the UK—double the amount secured by the previous Government, when the Leader of the Opposition was the Secretary of State for Business and Trade—which is set to generate 38,000 new jobs. Crucially, the leaders of companies that committed to invest in our country at our international investment summit have hailed our pro-business approach as a driving factor behind their decision.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I am sure Members across the House agree on the need and desire to promote growth and business investment. However, small and mid-sized businesses in my constituency—especially those in the hospitality sector—have been particularly squeezed, not just through the change of rate of national insurance, but with the threshold lowering, as they employ a lot of younger people on sometimes part-time wages. Will he make representations to the Treasury for those hospitality businesses to be included in future fiscal considerations?
Gareth Thomas
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are always talking to businesses in the hospitality sector and across the economy. I say gently to him, though, that we had to take those difficult decisions in the Budget because of the mess that we inherited from his party. Businesses in the hospitality sector and beyond need to ensure that our schools, hospitals and police are properly funded.
Gareth Thomas
I am happy to give way to the right hon. Gentleman one more time.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Could the Minister set out to the House how much his Government actually raised through additional taxes in the Budget, and how much the Government set out in terms of additional spending?
Gareth Thomas
Those assessments were published in the Red Book at the time of the Budget. The right hon. Gentleman can do his own research and look those figures up.
Turning back to the international investment coming into our country and the support from business leaders for our measures, Iberdrola’s executive chairman said at the time of our international investment summit that
“the clear policy direction, stable regulatory frameworks and overall attractiveness of the UK”
have led the company to double its investments over the next few years, reaching up to £24 billion. We have seen more ringing endorsements of this Government’s approach since the summit. In April, the CEO of BlackRock, Larry Fink, praised our pro-growth agenda and said that investment in Britain is “undervalued”. He said that he has more confidence in the UK economy than he did a year ago. Meanwhile, the chief executive of JP Morgan, Jamie Dimon, has told the Financial Times that he backs this Government’s economic reforms, noting that there is much to like about the new Government’s pro-growth agenda. Our forthcoming industrial and trade strategies are further steps to support businesses and accelerate growth in the sectors of our economy with the most potential.
There has not been a strategy to help small businesses for more than a decade. The Conservatives cut support to small businesses to get into new markets. They cut support to help businesses to adopt new technologies and they failed to tackle the scandal of late payments from big businesses.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister talks about growth and his pro-growth policy. In quarter 1, he had the unexpected growth of 0.7%. The UK Treasury’s April 2025 survey of independent forecasts assesses that the entire growth for the year is 0.8%. Does that mean that he is looking forward to 0.1% growth for the whole of the rest of the year? His policy is not working, is it?
Gareth Thomas
With due respect, the hon. Member is wrong. The OECD says that we will have the second fastest growing economy in the G7.
Let me come back to small businesses. Since taking office, we have sought to hardwire the views of small businesses into everything that we do. Together with the Federation of Small Businesses, we have announced robust measures to tackle late payments. Large companies will soon have to include their payment performance in their annual reports—a massive incentive to pay their suppliers more quickly. We have also launched our new fair payment code, overseen by the Small Business Commissioner. We intend to go even further, developing a strong package on late payments, including stricter maximum payment terms and strengthened powers for the Small Business Commissioner.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister said that I was wrong. And, yes, it was the Treasury’s own survey, so perhaps it was wrong, but is the Bank of England wrong as well? It has a forecast of 0.75% growth for this year, and even the OBR has a forecast of just 1% growth. His growth policies are simply not working, are they?
Gareth Thomas
With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, he needs to track these things over a period of time. The Bank of England has revised the growth numbers up for this year, as a result of the measures that we have been taking.
As I said earlier, we have had to take some difficult decisions in the Budget to fill the £22 billion black hole left to us by the previous Government to tackle record NHS waiting lists, to invest in schools and to invest in our police. But we have been making headway to deliver on our manifesto pledge to reform business rates. One reason the Conservatives lost the confidence of the business community is that, time after time, they promised to reform business rates and never actually did. We are delivering lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27. We are also scrapping the Conservative party’s policy of immunity for low-value shoplifting, and providing additional funding to crack down on the organised gangs who target retailers. We know that this has plagued businesses for years, with both staff and store owners feeling powerless. That changes now.
At the same time, we are reforming the British Business Bank to free up precious capital for businesses to expand. This includes our start-up loans and the growth guarantee scheme, so that, if people want to set up a new shop or business, the support is there to help them. It is why my Department launched a call for evidence on access to finance for SMEs last month, as part of our work on our upcoming small business strategy. All of this work is having a positive, tangible impact: the newest ONS statistics revealed that the number of businesses set up in this first quarter is up 2.8%, compared with quarter 1 last year.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Minister mentioned talking to businesses, but I would urge him to do a little bit more listening to them. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) asked how much in additional taxes and spending commitments was raised in the Budget, but I did not hear an answer. Can he please give the House an answer? If he does not know, will he agree to write to my right hon. Friend and leave a copy in the Library, so that we can all know the answer?
Gareth Thomas
As I understand it, the hon. Lady actually supports the investment that those tax changes are delivering—she supports every penny of that investment coming into our economy. I wish the Conservative party—perhaps the hon. Lady has some influence with the shadow Chancellor—would set out its plans to raise a similar amount of money, if it does not like our spending plans.
I was reflecting on the newest ONS statistics, which show a 2.8% increase in the number of new businesses during this first quarter. Despite what Conservative Members have claimed, business closures are actually down 4.4%. The latest business confidence index of the Institute of Directors showed a significant rise in economic confidence, with their members stepping up recruitment and investment plans for a second month in a row.
Dr Evans
Employment statistics are really important. In the Minister’s constituency, unemployment has risen by a staggering 31% in the past year. In my constituency, it has gone up by about 10%. That will have a real impact. Perhaps he will come on to how he will support people into work, because it looks like unemployment has gone up by 10% across the country. That is a real concern for people, as they need to work and look after their families.
Gareth Thomas
The ONS numbers on employment show an extra 200,000 jobs in the economy since the general election, so I gently encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at a slightly wider range of statistics.
The shadow Secretary of State once again turned to the making work pay and Employment Rights Bill agenda of the Labour party. Let me remind the House that the reforms are about increasing job security for working people. They are about raising both the national minimum wage and the national living wage so that more than 3 million eligible workers receive a pay rise of up to £1,400; ending exploitative zero-hour contracts; and bringing an end to unscrupulous fire and rehire policies.
Alison Griffiths
I hear what the Minister says about job security, but if businesses will not be providing jobs because of day one rights, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) has so eloquently laid out, there will not be more people in work—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend says, that is what the figures already show.
Gareth Thomas
With due respect to the hon. Lady, it is not one or the other: a pro-worker economy is a pro-business economy. That sentiment has been echoed by experts such as Simon Deakin, a professor of law at the University of Cambridge. He says that, on average, strengthening employment laws in this country has had pro-employment effects. He said that the consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity. Right now, it is worth noting that optimism among business leaders is rising, with improved expectations for investment, hiring and costs. Employment has risen by nearly 200,000, as I have said, since we took office. Payroll employment remains near record highs at around 30.3 million, and wage growth has been consistently outpacing inflation. These indicators suggest a labour market that remains robust and responsive, not one being held back, as the Opposition contend.
Let there be no doubt: this Government are delivering on our plan for change with investment and reform to deliver growth, put more money in people’s pockets, rebuild Britain and realise a decade of national renewal. We are the party of entrepreneurs and wealth creation. We are the party of workers, the party for economic growth and the party of social justice. The Conservative party has no ideas, no imagination, just a dismal record that it does not have the courage to face up to. We are delivering for British workers and for British businesses, so I urge the House to reject the motion before us.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I share the bemusement of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) that we on these Benches are being called the “other Government”. I puzzled over that for a little while, but perhaps, based on recent opinion polls, the shadow Minister was reflecting how the Liberal Democrats are now more likely to form the next Government than the Conservatives. The stones being thrown from the very fragile glasshouse of the Conservative party are astonishing, given its appalling mismanagement of the economy and the dismal inheritance that it left behind. Its record is a dispiriting picture of low growth, high interest rates and a record fall in living standards.
For years the Conservative party took people for granted. Our constituents saw this reflected in their mortgage payments, the hike in their energy bills, and the prices they paid for their weekly shop. Under the last Administration, public services were left crumbling, and the Tories’ pitiful Brexit negotiations saw reams of red tape introduced, causing untold damage to businesses across the country.
We know that the Labour Government have inherited a mess, and we know that the cause of that mess is a legacy of reckless economic mismanagement left behind by the previous Government. But that cannot be allowed to serve as cover for measures that damage business or cause suffering for the vulnerable in our society.
Labour’s autumn Budget has not worked. The national insurance jobs tax will damage small businesses and lower people’s living standards, and it undermines the Government’s own ambitions for growth. People endured years of Conservative mismanagement, which is why this new Government should be doing far more to grow our economy, create new jobs and improve living standards.
We know that the Government had tough decisions to make, but instead of hiking national insurance, cutting disability benefits and squeezing departmental budgets even more, they should be showing far more ambition in growing our economy, which is the best way to raise tax revenue and boost living standards. That is exactly why we have been urging Ministers to ignore the naysayers in the Conservative and Reform parties and to urgently negotiate a new, bespoke UK-EU customs union.
When it comes to taxation, the Government should look to raise revenue in much fairer ways, such as asking social media giants and online gambling firms to pay their fair share. That is the right way to repair our public finances and boost public services—not short-sighted cuts that make things worse for people.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
My hon. Friend is right: there is no doubt that the Government have a really difficult job to clear up the mess left by the Conservative Government, but there have been far too many erroneous decisions and policy disasters already. For example, Matthew from North Brewham has run his small business for the last 28 years and is facing difficulties—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. An intervention cannot have examples; it is short and to the point. What is the question?
Sarah Dyke
Excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a fundamental overhaul of the harmful business rates system so that small businesses in rural areas can survive and succeed?
Sarah Olney
My hon. Friend is exactly right; there are so many things currently holding our small businesses back. The Conservatives failed to reform business rates. We are now looking to the Labour Government to bring forward measures that make it easier for people to set up businesses in their local communities.
Let me be clear: stripping support from many of the poorest pensioners while energy bills are still sky high was the wrong thing to do. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have listened to our constituents and have heard from countless pensioners who have been affected by the cut. We have heard warning calls from sector representatives including Age UK and Disability Rights UK, and indeed from many pensioners themselves, regarding the huge damage that the cuts have done. Some pensioners have been put in the position of having to choose between heating and eating.
Back in December last year, the Government admitted that their changes to the winter fuel payments will result in an additional 100,000 pensioners being pushed into poverty.
Dr Caroline Johnson
The hon. Lady is talking about the effect of the Government’s winter fuel payment cuts. Does she agree that the cuts were not just cruel and unpleasant for the elderly people who have suffered, but economically illiterate because of the increased cost to the NHS from individuals becoming sick as a result of being cold?
Sarah Olney
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have engaged the Minister directly on this point and shown him examples of how the cuts have directly impacted on pensioners in my constituency very harshly.
The Liberal Democrats voted against the removal of the winter fuel payment to prevent millions of the most vulnerable in our society from losing out on vital support. Following the Prime Minister’s comments earlier today, we continue to call on the Government to reverse the cut in full, to guarantee that it will not be in place by next winter and to ensure that all pensioners who need support will receive it. I ask the Minister for full details of the proposed changes as soon as he is able to give them.
It is not just in their cuts that we hope to see a change of direction from the Government. After the last Government did so much damage to our high street businesses, the Labour Government’s national insurance jobs tax has made things even harder for businesses and their workers. The changes to employer national insurance contributions announced in the autumn Budget are an unfair jobs tax that will hit small businesses, social care providers and GPs. SMEs are the beating heart of our economy. They are at the centre of our local communities and create the jobs that we all rely on. Raising the employment allowance will shield only the very smallest employers, while thousands of local businesses will still feel the damaging impact of the changes. The Liberal Democrats voted against the changes to employer NICs at every opportunity, and I once again urge the Government to scrap these measures.
Even more damaging for our small businesses is our broken trading relationship with Europe. The Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal has been a complete disaster for our country, especially for small businesses, which are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade, costing our economy billions in lost exports. The dismal picture of the financial impact of their terrible Brexit trade deal is becoming increasingly clear. While the Conservative party’s motion notes that
“over 200,000 businesses have closed since Labour took office”,
it was under its Administration, in the years 2020 to 2024, that the rate of small business closures in this country started to outpace the rate of new businesses starting up. Since 2019, there has been an average business closure rate of over 12%, outstripping the rate of businesses opening.
A recent survey of 10,000 UK businesses found that 33% of currently trading enterprises experienced
“extra costs directly related to changes in export regulations due to the end of the EU transition period”.
Small businesses have been particularly badly affected, with 20,000 small firms stopping all exports to the EU. Another recent study found that goods exports have fallen by 6.4% since the trade deal came into force in 2021.
I welcome the actions taken by the Government at Monday’s UK-EU summit—particularly the impact they will have on our seed potato trade—but I urge the Government to recognise that the deal should only be a first step toward negotiating a new UK-EU customs union, which would ease the pressure felt by so many businesses and boost the economy as a whole.
More broadly, we continue to call on the Government to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. Business rates are harmful for the economy because they directly tax capital investment in structures and equipment rather than profits or the fixed stock of land. Liberal Democrats would abolish the broken business rates system and replace it with a commercial landowner levy. We believe that we need to see a fundamental overhaul—not just tinkering around the edges or sticking-plaster solutions. We are disappointed that, yet again, serious reform of the system has been kicked down the road. We need fundamental reform of business rates if we wish to boost small businesses and high streets and to stop penalising productive investment.
The Liberal Democrats acknowledge that the Government inherited a dire economic landscape, compounded by the challenges posed by an aggressive Russia and an unreliable US Administration, but that cannot be an excuse for the mistakes they are making. People are still struggling with the cost of living crisis, just as small businesses are struggling with the cost of doing business, as energy prices soar, food costs keep going up and mortgage bills remain sky high. The Government must take bold action to boost our economy. We urge Ministers to U-turn on the winter fuel payment cut, scrap the national insurance jobs tax and row back on removing support for disabled people, many of whom need that support to stay in work.
Sarah Dyke
My hon. Friend talks about U-turns. Does she agree that the Government should also reverse the family farm tax?
Sarah Olney
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point—her constituency is more rural than mine, I admit. She is right that we would also like to see the Government urgently U-turn on the family farm tax, because it is creating such difficulty in our rural communities.
We are calling for bolder, more ambitious and fairer measures. We want the Government to replace business rates with a fair new system to boost high streets and town centres, and to negotiate a new customs union with the EU, which would cut red tape for small business and boost our economy as a whole.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now have the pleasure of hearing from Chris Vince.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you are far too kind. Can I start by joining others in congratulating the Veterans Minister on his epic adventure to the peak of Everest? Before I get into the politics, I say anecdotally that I often see him in the gym, and he talks about his gym routine, which is considerably more thorough than mine. It is also a pleasure to speak so early in a debate—I am often compared to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in that regard—so thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is a privilege to speak in the debate. As hon. Members across the House know, I will take any opportunity to talk about my town of Harlow and the greater constituency. As I told the Prime Minister yesterday, Harlow is home to some great businesses. It is ironic for me as a vegetarian that the first business that contacted me following my election was a bacon company called A1 Bacon, which raised legitimate concerns about the increasing costs of import from and export to the EU. From what the Prime Minister said yesterday, I am hopeful that the deal we have negotiated will help A1 Bacon and businesses like it in Harlow to continue to thrive and to trade with our EU neighbours.
Sir Ashley Fox
Could the hon. Member tell us whether A1 Bacon—indeed, any business in Harlow—believes that the Employment Rights Bill will enable it to employ more people?
Chris Vince
In all honesty, A1 Bacon has not contacted me about the Employment Rights Bill. As I said, it is concerned primarily with the increase in tariffs since we left the EU. I do not want to reopen that debate, as some hon. Members across the House seek to do, but I hope that the deal negotiated by the Prime Minister will help deal with that issue while ensuring that we maintain our sovereignty, which so many people who voted leave clearly want.
I want to recognise some other businesses in Harlow. What is brilliant when we are first elected as MPs is that we get to see many hidden treasures in our constituencies that perhaps we could not see before we were elected. One of my early visits was to Harlow Group, which makes components for Boeing aircraft that travel the globe. I understand that it is the only business in the UK that produces the boxes into which all the electrics go on a Boeing 747, which is pretty awesome. I also pay tribute to Wright’s Flour; New Ground café; Stort Valley Gifting, where I do my Christmas shopping, as did my predecessor; O-I Glass; and Ecco, which is a fantastic environmentally friendly charity that I will visit next week. Of course, the Minister would rightly criticise me if I did not mention our wonderful local Co-ops.
Chris Vince
Thank you very much. One thing I will raise with the Minister, which has been fed back from my local Co-op—I am sure it is the same at his as well—is the increase in retail crime. I hope that he will take that seriously. He is nodding appreciably. I look forward to hearing him talk about that in his wind-up.
Harlow is a great town. I have always said that it may not be the oldest new town, it may not be the newest new town, and it may not be the most successful economically, but it is absolutely the new town with the biggest heart. This morning, as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on new towns, I looked at some data produced by Visa on all the towns in the country and the challenges that many of them face. The challenges that Harlow faces, based on the metrics that Visa used, did not come as a big surprise to me. In relation to growth in particular, they were housing and productivity. The solutions that will increase Harlow’s productivity and that of the country as a whole come down to three key areas.
First, I will talk about skills. I pay tribute, as I have a number of times in the Chamber, to the fantastic work of Harlow college, which for many years has supported Harlow’s next generation of young people, giving them the skills they need not only for today, but for the jobs of tomorrow.
Equally, I want to talk about the importance of transport links. I will later do a little pitch for Harlow; I hope that the Minister does not mind. We are ideally located between London and an international airport, so there is lots of potential.
The other thing is transactions, and stimulating the economy through the transactions we make. I welcome the £20 million of Government investment in Harlow town centre, but I do want more for my town. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), who is not in his place—I told him that I would mention this—has today’s Adjournment debate on this issue, but I will continue to lobby for the new site of the UK Health Security Agency to be in Harlow, which would mean 3,000 new high-tech jobs, providing Harlow’s next generation with the opportunity not only to aspire, but to really achieve in those jobs of the future. Economic inactivity rose in Harlow under the previous Government. My big ask of this Government is to invest in my town and my community.
Anyone who knows me will know that I am a pretty positive guy. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you. The Minister set out the reasons why we should be positive. The UK has the fastest growing economy in the G7, we have had four interest rate cuts in a row, and this week and last week we have signed three international deals to boost trade. For the first time in a long time, there is hope on the horizon for the people of Harlow. I know that under this Government, this country will have a great future on the world stage. My only ask of the Minister is to ensure that Harlow is part of that bright future.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). Harlow is quite close to my old stomping ground, so I know some of the areas to which he referred, although I am surprised that he did not mention the enterprise zone, which is a world-class area for business.
I will focus my comments on my constituency—Three Rivers district council is the main council area there—where we have seen business closures outpace new openings since July 2020. My local high streets in Rickmansworth, Chorleywood and South Oxhey are visibly suffering, with shuttered shops, rising costs and dwindling support. Historically, those high streets never had vacancies. As a former retailer, I am increasingly concerned about the volatility in our high streets. Whichever side of the House we are on, if we do not fix this problem, we will leave a poor legacy.
The small businesses that I speak to say that they feel abandoned by the Government. They are facing high energy bills and rent, and poor footfall. Part of that—things like parking charges and on-street parking—is not the Government’s responsibility but down to decisions made by Lib Dem local councils. I continue to have dialogue with those councils to ensure that high streets like Kings Langley’s can survive during these difficult economic times.
On an international basis, we need to recognise that a lot of wealth creators are leaving our country. Many years ago, I read a book called “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand, and I did not think at the time that it would have such an influence on my life. As many hon. Members will know, I was not politically active at school or university, so I never thought or dreamed of being in this place—let alone aimed to be here—at this stage of my life, but all of us come to this place with life experience and a journey, and part of that for me has been that Ayn Rand book. My overriding memory from that book was that, if the Government do not support wealth creators, those people will find a way to leave, to the detriment of the rest of society.
Mr Mohindra
According to a New World Wealth report, 9,500 millionaires left the United Kingdom in 2024: the highest outflow in recent memory. [Interruption.] Is the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) looking to intervene?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Just to help Members, let me say that those looking to intervene have to both stand and make a sound; otherwise, the Member who has the floor may not be aware. If requests for interventions are not taken, those looking to intervene must sit down. They may then stand up and try again.
Yuan Yang
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and apologise for not being louder. I wonder if he has a source of data on the so-called exodus that does not come from a firm that gives advice to the very wealthy to migrate abroad, and which therefore has a great economic interest in propagating such figures.
Mr Mohindra
I am conscious that the hon. Member was a journalist for the Financial Times, so she will know the data source better than I do. I am not an economist and have never claimed to be—I have never claimed to be a lawyer, either. I come from a small business background and have local government experience. When I speak to people in my own limited social circle who are employers—people who I hope will inspire the next generation—I hear that a lot are looking to leave these shores. That causes me massive concern. Although our parliamentary system means that parties come and go, we rely on such businesses to grow, succeed and expand.
I am a second-generation Indian. When my parents came across in the 1970s, they had the aspiration and hope that, by being willing to work hard and being lucky enough to be in the right place and the right industry at the right time, the state would not intervene. I do not see that type of ambition now. I do not wish to get party political; it is an issue that we all need to be concerned about. Governments of all stripes will spend taxpayers’ money, but it is well worth remembering that Governments have no money.
That money comes out of the pockets of people who pay taxes, and we need to acknowledge that wealth creators pay a lot more tax than other parts of society. We live in a global world, and if those people choose to leave, it will mean that the Treasury—I look at the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury in his place—will not have the benefit of income in its coffers to spend on things that are vital to us and to our communities.
Business confidence was mentioned earlier. We need to recognise that there is significant volatility, both around aspiration and potential capital expenditure for small and large businesses. Businesses need certainty about the direction of travel.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
The hon. Member is right that businesses need certainty. Does he agree that the thing that most undermined the certainty of businesses was the chaos that the Conservative party created through Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget?
Mr Mohindra
I will let the new Member make his political point. The only thing I will say in response is that in my first two years in Parliament, we dealt with a global pandemic, in which we spent more than £400 billion of taxpayers’ money. When I was elected in December 2019, as part of an 80-seat majority, we were looking to reform our tax base and the way we financed our Government spending, but we did not have that opportunity. With the Government’s current majority, I hope that they are ambitious.
Other Members have spoken about business rates reform. It is massively outdated to look at businesses based on bricks and mortar, and if I were a furniture retailer today, I would have an online presence only. However, that would mean that the vibrancy of our high streets would be lost, because they would end up with only bookmakers, hairdressers, charity shops and coffee shops. There is nothing wrong with those, but the high streets that I support and am honoured to be the Member of Parliament for offer significant diversity; we have not yet spoken about banking and the move away from on-street branches, but we are trying to deal with that issue locally through places such as post offices becoming banking hubs.
There was a reference earlier to HMRC—and my remarks in this regard are a pitch to the Minister. From my limited experience over the years, HMRC has become increasingly aggressive and not necessarily fair, including in regard to interest rates. If an employer or business makes an overpayment, the interest rate that they receive is different from that which HMRC takes. We should not regard businesses as a cash cow if they have done nothing wrong. I will leave that with the Minister. Further, I would prefer HMRC not to be an arm’s length body; I would be willing at least to investigate whether ministerial control and oversight was practical, on the full understanding that civil servants need to have the freedom to raise and collect revenue.
In Hertfordshire, the median weekly wage is £851, which is higher than the UK average of £728. However, with inflation rising—we heard overnight that it is now at 3.5%—and the rising cost of living, people are feeling poorer, which means that they are spending less on our high streets and are less likely to use capital expenditure on their homes, on a new car or on whatever else they would have spent it on if they felt more flush with cash.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The hon. Member makes a great point. I was contacted by Yoddi, who owns La Fish in my constituency of Chichester. He says that the rise in national insurance contributions will cost him £1,200 a month that he now has to find. He has two choices, one of which is passing on that cost to consumers. We already know that the price of fish and chips has risen exponentially over the years and the cost of living pressures continue to make that worse. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that small businesses like that one are at risk from the Government’s NICs rises?
Mr Mohindra
That is an excellent point. I have a plea to Government. Perversely, reducing tax rates sometimes increases the amount of money received in the coffers. I say that as a retailer. When VAT was reduced to 15%, it allowed me the certainty to expand our furniture business; we secured another outlet, employed more people and paid more business rates. In effect, it was a win-win for both the state and for our small business.
We have spoken about NICs, but the Employment Rights Bill also causes me massive concerns. I would now think twice about the risks that I would have taken hiring a 16 to 18-year-old, because it would cost me the same to employ someone in their 30s or 40s as to employ a first-jobber. There is a ticking time bomb for people leaving university or college in the summer. Where are they going to work? We have spoken about the 100,000 fewer jobs over the last 12 months; that will only get worse when those people finish their degrees, A-levels, BTECs and so on, and cannot get into employment. That is going to affect the Minister’s workings.
We on the Conservative Benches will be fully supportive of the Government if they do the right thing. Our role in this place is to be critical friends because we all want—
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
Are the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues listening?
Mr Mohindra
Well, I have been listening; I spend a lot of time in the Chamber. Yes, there is an element of Punch and Judy, but the reality is that there are 650 of us here who want great legislation to support our communities and make sure that people can get on with their daily lives without the burden of having to think about legislation. They want us to get on with it on their behalf.
On tax rises, we have seen the leak of the Deputy Prime Minister’s letter to the Chancellor. I remain concerned that any ambition to increase taxes is another death by a thousand cuts for our small businesses. We need certainty and support from this Government, saying to people, “Go and be ambitious.” If people are risk-averse, there will be a structural problem for us on our high streets and for our small businesses. That means that we will not create the world’s next unicorn because those ambitious people will already have left our country to generate their income in a better financial climate, typically in the middle east or other parts of Europe.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I was touched by the hon. Gentleman’s story of his father’s role in contributing to the economy. I hope that he will be present in the immigration debate later this afternoon to make the same points about the vital work of immigrants contributing to wealth creation in the UK.
The hon. Gentleman mentions NICs and the other headwinds facing small businesses. One small business in West Dorset has seen its business rates go from £8,000 to £27,000. If we want to help small businesses grow, surely we have to stop taxing them so much.
Mr Mohindra
I have always thought that business rates were totally outdated. They generate a significant amount of money for the Treasury, so it is resistant to reform without knowing for certain how it will fill that significant black hole.
We have not spoken about hospices and the effects of NICs increases on the charity sector. Others have spoken about the winter fuel allowance. All these things affect our most vulnerable individuals, and the community groups and charities that fill a massive void that the state or the private individual do not. My worry, which is increasing, is that we are doing things that will have unintended but significant consequences.
We chose this subject for debate to ensure that the Government heard loud and clear from across the House that where they do the right thing, we will support them, and where they need to adjust their direction of travel—I will not say “U-turn”—we will support them. It benefits no one, and provides no benefit to our communities, if we just chuck political grenades.
I will end my remarks on the loss of business confidence. Small businesses are closing, investors are leaving, inflation is rising and confidence is collapsing. I know that there is a direct lack of business experience on the Treasury Bench, but that is neither here nor there. I know that there are various economists, think-tankers and so on in the Minister’s party, but I urge him to listen to those who run businesses of whatever shape or size, because that life experience brings them value in this place. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) created a business that employs 1,000 people. That is real life experience; he knows how the Government’s decisions would have influenced the projections and ambitions of his business. I know from my continuing conversations with businesses that they are looking to shrink and be secure rather than expand and be ambitious. That is not what the UK is about; we are outward-looking and globally ambitious. I wish the Government success in getting to that point.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
We know that a nation in which every single one of us can earn a decent life is a stronger nation. That is exactly the kind of country that the Government are creating. In this country today, too many people cannot earn a decent life. Our nation is weaker as a result. The task before us is to create a stronger nation, not the weaker and more divided one that some Members would like to see and speak about time and again.
I take the Opposition’s motion in good faith, but each of its points, which I will come to in due course, is mistaken. We live in dangerous times. A third of us cannot earn a decent living, because the Conservatives left us with some of the highest energy, housing and childcare costs in the world. They left us a no-growth economy: wages did not grow for 14 years—the longest squeeze since Napoleon. Their hero Margaret Thatcher destroyed manufacturing in this country—the fastest deindustrialisation in western Europe. Non-graduates cannot get good jobs and are now turning away from democracy itself.
Dr Sandher
I give way first to the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan).
Dave Doogan
I am on dangerous territory here—it ill behoves me to defend the party to my extreme right—but does the hon. Gentleman not remember the note that was left by the Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury in 2010 about all the money being gone?
Dr Sandher
I was a very young man then as it happens; it was rather a long time ago. I believe that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) wanted to intervene too. [Interruption.] Or perhaps not any more—he is busy tweeting away. That is okay.
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Member talks about deindustrialisation. Can he remind me what happened to the manufacturing share of the economy under the previous Labour Government? Did it go up?
Dr Sandher
Manufacturing has been falling in this country since Margaret Thatcher came to this place. The lack of manufacturing jobs, and the inability of graduates to get a decent job in this country, is precisely why they are turning away from democracy itself. More than that, the UK has suffered the fastest deindustrialisation in western Europe.
Dr Sandher
In a moment. On top of that, young people cannot move out: some 40% of 18 to 35-year-olds live at home with mum and dad. Each of them is now turning away from democracy.
Neil O’Brien
I want to continue on the subject of deindustrialisation. Is it not the case that the manufacturing share of the economy dramatically fell under the previous Labour Government and then stayed the same under the last Conservative Government?
Dr Sandher
Luckily, I will come back to reindustrialising the economy and what the Labour Government are doing right now, but let me turn to the motion at hand, which does not really add up, taking each point in turn.
The motion speaks of employment. Employment, including youth employment, is higher than it was at the July election. More people are entering the labour market, and fewer people are off sick. That is because we are getting waiting lists down.
The motion speaks of business closing down. Over 230,000 businesses have been created—a net increase of 10,000. We have made a permanent 40% reduction in business rates for high street shops. Page 4 of the impact assessment of the Employment Rights Bill, of which we Labour Members are incredibly proud, states:
“The package will be significantly positive for society (i.e., the benefits will outweigh the costs)”.
It goes on to mention
“a direct and positive impact on economic growth”.
Pro-worker, pro-business, pro-growth—that is the record and legacy of this Labour Government.
Where we differ entirely and fundamentally from the Conservative party is that we do not believe that it is simply business owners and entrepreneurs who create wealth and growth in this country. Every worker—ever nurse, doctor or teacher—creates wealth in this nation. It is a joint enterprise between capital and labour to produce more. That is where we are. A stronger nation is one where each person does well, and that is the country that we are creating—in stark contrast with what the Conservative party left us.
To get everyone to live a decent life, we need to get costs down. Opposition Members have spoken about inflation. A third of today’s price increases come from energy costs. Why? It is because we depend on natural gas, which sets our price 98% of the time and is 50% to 75% more expensive than wind and solar. That is why we are investing in clean energy—cheaper and secure energy in the long run, not just for the next five or 10 years. We also have some of the highest childcare costs in the world. The Chancellor has put more money into childcare so that everyone can get the care they need and get their bills down.
We are creating good jobs for non-graduates—that goes to the point made by the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra)—as well as building 1.5 million homes, establishing Great British Energy and implementing the warm homes plan. For young people—our generation—we are building homes so that they can move out of mum and dad’s. That is how we create a better and stronger nation in which each of us can do well—stronger because we produce more, stronger because we have a stake in each other’s wellbeing, and stronger because we have a shared sense of purpose.
These are some of the most dangerous times in our country for almost a century. A third of people cannot earn enough to live, and non-graduates and the young see no prospect of being able to earn a decent life and are turning away from democracy. What was despair and despondency is now becoming anger. We are now up against those whose only answer is to tear everything down, to blame someone else for all our problems. They seek to create division, and a divided nation is a weaker one. That division leads to anger and sometimes, as we saw last summer, to violence. We meet this moment with decency and determination. We meet it by creating a stronger nation, in which every single one of us can earn a decent life.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to join this lively debate. Small businesses are the backbone of the economy in my constituency. In fact, 99.9% of businesses in East Hampshire are small or medium-sized enterprises. We over-index in professional services, retail, information and communications, and, of course, agriculture. [Interruption.] I thought there were few Labour Members present before I stood to speak! The biggest sectors for employment are retail, health and care, and manufacturing. [Interruption.] I am starting to get a complex!
I have heard from all those sectors, which are worried about the prospects for their businesses and the economy under this Government. We must always remember two things about business. First, contrary to what the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) said—he is no longer in his place but I know he will return—only business can create the wealth and jobs, make the livelihoods and generate the tax that, in turn, makes the high-quality and brilliant public services that we all so value and on which we rely.
There is a second thing that we should always remember about business, and I encourage Ministers to remember it. Accountants talk about the entity principle and describe a business as an entity that is separate from the people who run it. That might be true in an accounting sense, but in a broader sense, businesses are people. They are collections of people coming together to achieve something. The joint stock company was created to share risk among different people, and the way that organisations work within companies is a way of increasing efficiency and productivity, compared with everybody doing their own thing as a sole trader. So, because businesses are ultimately people, there is ultimately no such thing as a tax on a business. Taxes can only ever fall on people. A so-called business tax falls on one or more of three groups of people: the business’s customers, the business’s employees or the business’s owners.
Sarah Dyke
The hon. Gentleman talks about the impact on people. A small business in Fifehead in my constituency has recently had to reduce its staff by four—small business, real impact. Small businesses create so much for our rural economy. Does he agree that the Government should scrap the national insurance contributions rise and replace the broken business rates with a new, fairer funding system to boost our rural economies and jobs in our rural areas?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady makes a good point about small businesses, particularly rural small businesses, and I will talk about national insurance contributions and business rates, but let me come back to how taxes on businesses are ultimately taxes on people.
Some Labour Members might say that they do not mind a tax on business owners, because they are the capitalists and they can afford it, but we need to remember that the owners of businesses are a mixture of institutional owners—which, by the way, includes your mum’s pension fund—small business owners, who are quite often sole traders, and family businesses. If the owners are not affected, either the customers or the employees will be affected, and I am afraid the effect of the national insurance contributions rise will ultimately be felt by those two groups of people, and particularly by employees, through a mixture of wage suppression over time and possibly some job losses. The bigger effect will not be about job losses; it will be about jobs that are never created in the first place, particularly among the youngest people and those furthest from the labour market.
Jerome Mayhew
My right hon. Friend is making a good point. When the Government brought in the increased national insurance contribution for employers, they used sleight of hand, saying that it was not a tax on working people, but does he agree that the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment of the impact concluded that the overwhelming majority of that cost will be borne by the employees and not by this notional employer?
Damian Hinds
It will, and I repeat that it can only be one of those three groups. There will be some price increases, and those costs will be felt by customers and consumers, but all the indications are that the big effects will be felt in wage suppression and in employment, which will ultimately mean slower economic growth.
In the same way that taxes on business ultimately land on people, taxes that look like they are on people can sometimes have an effect on business. I want to talk briefly about two examples. The first is the family farm tax. This is clearly a desperately ill-conceived measure, although, to be fair to Labour Ministers, they probably did not realise at the time quite what they were doing. However, their Members of Parliament representing rural seats found out very quickly exactly what they were doing and the effect it would have.
There is an alternative proposal on the table, which we know has been put to the Treasury by representatives of the sector. As this brilliant Treasury Minister the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) will be winding up, I am sure—at least I hope—he will find it possible to share with the House the Treasury’s critique of that alternative proposal, the so-called clawback proposal, which would be much fairer, and tell us why the Government are rejecting it.
There has been quite a lot of debate in the House on the family farm tax, but somewhat less on the business property relief situation, which is not quite as acute in some ways, but there are a number of parallels and similarities. Business property relief was put in place to level the playing field for family-owned businesses and others, so that people could invest in their family-owned businesses, confident that they could pass it on, within the family, without incurring a tax that applies to no other business ownership model.
Typically, these businesses will not have large amounts of net cash or liquid assets that will allow them to settle the tax bill upon the demise of the owner, and there are no listed shares, so there is typically no market for those. There has to be a theoretical valuation, because the shares cannot be valued, and that figure is likely to be considerably higher than the amount that could be realised in the event of a sale. The relief was created specifically to stop family firms having to be broken up; however, the net effect of the changes is that a substantial number of firms in this situation will be bought up, either in whole or in part, by foreign owners or private equity. Is that really what a new Labour Government had in mind?
Jerome Mayhew
Labour used to agree with the point that my right hon. Friend makes. Am I right in saying that it was a Labour Government in 1976 that generated the policy of having a relief in the first place?
Damian Hinds
Forgive me, but I do not have the history at my fingertips. The relief has been recognised over the years, and has been looked at in the past by Treasury officials. I have been a Treasury Minister, and I know that they get presented with various things that could be done, but generally speaking, when many Ministers before you have found good reasons to keep a measure, it is a good idea to wonder what those reasons might be.
Overall, this Government’s changes to the business taxation regime will affect many sectors, but particularly those that are labour intensive. We can all name hospitality, retail and care as the three really big-volume employers in the country. In my constituency, I would also mention nurseries, pubs and hair and beauty businesses. Of course, there are sector-specific pressures. For nurseries, for example, the issue is whether the unit rate per child per hour is sufficient. Many of my nurseries say that it is simply not sufficient to cover their costs, at a time when entitlement to nursery care is increasing. In the hair sector, there has long been an issue about those who have created a business that has employees, and their ability to compete with others who are below the VAT threshold.
The confluence of four things that the new Government have done is creating a big headache. First of all, the national living wage going up to £12.21 is a good thing in and of itself. We absolutely support a rise in wages for people on lower wages; it is the fact that it is happening at the same time as all the other things that is causing the problem. I will not talk in detail about the national insurance contributions increase, because others have done so, but that will have an effect, particularly on part-time employees, and the Government ought also to acknowledge the gender differential effect of that, which we have heard little about.
Today I have heard two Labour MPs say that business rates have gone down for retail and hospitality businesses. One was the Minister. Try telling that to those businesses—
Damian Hinds
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is going to tell me that he has told that to his local retailers and pubs.
Dr Sandher
You brought in a temporary reduction of business rates during covid, but as with so much else, you did not fund that beyond those years, so you made a permanent reduction of 40% for the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. It is good etiquette to speak through the Chair, and to not use the word “you”; it just dampens the tone of the debate a little bit.
Damian Hinds
I shall suitably dampen. At a time when the Government are changing the relief from 75% to 40%, try telling those businesses already facing the national insurance contributions increase and all the other cost increases that their bill is being reduced. Clearly, it is going up.
Damian Hinds
I am conscious that I have gone on for quite a while, and I want to wind up.
Fourthly, there is the Employment Rights Bill. On the face of it, who would not like something with that name? It sounds like a positive thing, but the point is the effect that it will have, particularly on seasonal businesses, which might otherwise take somebody on at Christmas or in the summer. Hospitality, travel and events businesses rely on doing that. The Bill will affect the national health service, which will have to deal for the first time with some of those considerations. It turns out that the national health service is a considerable user of zero-hour contracts—by the way, not for someone’s first job, but usually for their second—so that staffing can vary according to the demands of a hospital or clinic. The Minister is a labour—and a Labour—economist, so I would be interested to hear his comments on the shift that we are likely to see from permanent to temporary contracts, and the shift that we are already starting to see in companies that are moving from relying on contracted, salaried employees to relying on agency workers.
Damian Hinds
Forgive me; I will not. Finally, there is the effect that the measures will have on the removal of job opportunities for those further from the labour market—perhaps those who have been out of work for a long time; ex-offenders, who it feels like more of a risk for an employer to take on; and, most of all, young people. That is the concern with this package of measures: the effect on unemployment, especially youth unemployment.
Today we heard the Government make the first of what I hope is a series of U-turns over the winter fuel payment. I ask the Government to look at what is happening, and what will happen to our small businesses and the unemployment statistics, and to please think again.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
The hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) mentioned my work before I came to this place. In my work at the Financial Times, I spoke to business leaders every day. Since my election to this place, I have had the honour of speaking to many businesses in my constituency. In the last month, that has ranged from the small shopkeepers in Whitley in south Reading to the leaders of Sanofi, a pharmaceutical company that is one of the biggest listed companies in the world, also headquartered in my constituency. The topics they want to talk about again and again are threefold: trade and prices; industrial strategy; and infrastructure. Those are the areas that come up time and again when I speak to my local businesses and the Thames Valley chamber of commerce, because businesses—unlike the Conservative party—have to be forward looking. They have to have a vision of the future and where they will fit into it. I will concentrate on those three areas.
First, on trade, many of my constituents have thoroughly welcomed the trade deals that the Government have done over the last two weeks—not just with the EU, but with the US and India. Small businesses in Reading and across the UK have suffered from the previous Government’s bungled Brexit of 2019. They have suffered from increased trade frictions, red tape and bureaucracy. For smaller companies, those are an increasingly large part of their overheads, and they are more difficult for small retailers doing import-export business to handle. I heard that again and again on the doorstep during the general election campaign from the many entrepreneurs in my constituency. I know already from speaking to residents last weekend how deeply the trade deal with the EU is welcomed. It will decrease the inflation of food prices in the UK and give opportunities to those exporting to the EU. That is also true for the deals with the US and India, which will create and save many jobs across the country.
Secondly, on industrial strategy, the Thames Valley is one of the biggest destinations in Europe for life sciences foreign direct investment. I am proud to say that the life sciences companies that I have spoken to are tremendously excited about the opportunities brought by the life sciences White Paper and the industrial strategy, which will be unveiled next month. In an age when countries across the world, from the US to India to Japan, are unveiling their industrial strategies, we cannot afford not to compete on the same stage. We have to decide as a country where we fit into the global supply chain, what our comparative advantages are, and what we will invest in. I am glad that our Government are doing that, and that is what the multinationals headquartered in my constituency want to hear.
Finally, on infrastructure, I am proud that my constituency in the Thames Valley is the fastest growing region in the UK outside of London. That is the case not because there is something in the water—though these days, with Thames Water, you can never tell—but because of the infrastructure. We are close to Heathrow and, via the M4, to many major cities and London. We have the Elizabeth line, and rail links that connect us with so many ports and cities across the UK. That infrastructure is paid for and funded by the Government. There is not just physical infrastructure; there are services, schools and hospitals that mean that families want to move to our area, build their lives there and bring their professional skills there. That is why I continue to press for the investment in the NHS that we sorely need, and for investment in our local hospital, the Royal Berkshire.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I know the hon. Member was about to conclude, but it is notable that she decided not to talk about hospitality, leisure and retail businesses, private schools or all sorts of other industries in her constituency. Businesses talking to me are deeply worried about the policies of this Government. Will she reflect on the impact on smaller businesses in retail and hospitality?
Yuan Yang
The first businesses I mentioned in my speech were the small shopkeepers in Whitley—the retail businesses that want to keep their food prices low, that are dependent on imports, predominately from the EU, and that want to ensure that their customers get a good deal, and I very much support them.
Those are the three areas that businesses speak to me about regularly, and I hope that our Government’s agenda will continue to reflect those interests. I cannot help but touch on one final issue that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), brought up: employment. It is when we talk about employment rights that the Conservatives sadly show whose side they are really on. They talk about the benefits to young people; it is young people in my constituency at the University of Reading who stand to benefit from the increase in the minimum wage, and who are the most glad about that policy, and about the employment rights that they will benefit from, through the Employment Rights Bill.
Yuan Yang
No, thanks; I am about to draw to a close. Young people are the future, and they need a rise in their wages because of the living standards crisis that we face across this country. The University of Reading employs those young people and is a source of education for them. As an employer, it sees that it is better if all employers lift their standards, so that it is not undercut by other employers seeking a race to the bottom.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. It is known that the hon. Lady is not giving way, and is about to conclude.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be speaking up for Scottish constituents on such an important issue. I see that one of my Conservative colleagues, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), will be speaking up for his Scottish constituents. Nobody on the Government Benches has turned up to speak for their Scottish constituents on this issue.
I want to start with the good bits. Now that we have got that done, we will get into the meat of this. As has been said, we see an incredibly wrong-headed brake on investment and enterprise in the jobs tax—the increase to employers’ national insurance. I do not think that measure is a sleight of hand; it goes beyond that. To say that employers’ national insurance is not a tax on working people stretches disingenuousness to its absolute limits. The measure is also counterproductive. The £22 billion or £23 billion—whatever the Government’s target amount was to take in from employers—has already been attrited to well below £10 billion. If they actually did the right thing by hospices, it would go down even further. The measure is a massive burden for a modest gain for the Treasury, and that does not take into account the consequential costs of imposing such a burden on businesses and employers. The impact has already been felt in care homes in Scotland, with five closing ahead of this disaster for enterprise.
The Office for National Statistics has predicted that 25,000 jobs will be lost across the United Kingdom as a result. When the policy was introduced, I ordered a pint at one of my local pubs and jokingly asked the barman if the penny was already off the pint. He said, “Yes it is, and I have stuck on another 20 for your national insurance increase.” Although that is anecdotal, it speaks to the gulf in understanding between UK Treasury Ministers and the real economy that makes things tick. The Scottish Government estimate that, on average, the policy will cost £850 per job per year in Scotland. Except for the Scottish living wage and the slight difference in the income tax regime in Scotland, I see no reason why that figure would not be broadly the same across the whole of the United Kingdom economy. It is utterly unrealistic.
The genesis of the measure is the UK Government’s insistence that they had no idea that there was a £22 billion black hole in public finances—there probably was, although they probably made about a third of that with what they decided to do when they came into government. There is a brazen willingness by the Labour party to reinvent reality—it is bare-faced. Despite being engaged on that repeatedly in debate during the election campaign, the say that they did not know there was a multibillion pound black hole in the UK public finances. What were they debating if they did not think it was real? It is totally disingenuous.
Inflation jumped again in April to 3.5%, up from 2.6% in March. That was not caused by an economy firing on all cylinders or by a rejuvenated consumer sector, high on the output from a new Government, full of ideas and creativity. No, it is driven by electricity and gas prices and by water bills that consumers can do little or nothing about, but which they are still having to fight to pay on top of higher interest rates, as the Bank of England tries to get on top of inflation in a deeply dysfunctional economy.
The Government should seek to address the actual drivers of inflation and take on those energy prices. Let us not forget that not that long ago, at the election, we were promised a £300 reduction in energy bills. It was not “maybe”, “around” or anything of that nature; the message was that if people voted Labour, they would get a £300 reduction in their energy bills. In less than a year, however, energy bills have gone up by £281, so they are now almost £600 higher, emptying consumers’ bank accounts and driving inflation.
What is Labour’s response? Labour Members say, “That is because of our reliance on gas.” Well, we were reliant on gas before the election as well, so there are two possible reasons for that to have happened: Labour was playing fast and loose with the truth; or it did not understand how energy in GB works. I know which one I think it is, but either way it does not reflect well on this Labour party. In under a year, business confidence is falling, job losses and unemployment are rising, borrowing costs are soaring, prices are rising, growth is sluggish and there is rampant inflation. When speaking about growth at the beginning of the year, the Chancellor said that she was pleased but that she had got more to do. Well, God help business if she has got more to do. We have seen quite enough damage in the first nine months of this Labour Government.
I turn to agricultural property relief. In the garden of Scotland that is Angus and Perthshire Glens—I will take no dispute on that fact—we have some of the most productive agricultural land on these islands. As hon. Members would anticipate, with such productive agricultural land, we have extremely high-performing food producers who invest heavily in the latest technology and equipment, and ensure that there is a tremendous return on investment, so that they get the best yields possible so that they can drive down prices and deliver good-value food for tables across these islands and beyond.
What will happen now with agricultural property relief? What signal is being sent out to farms and farm businesses? Is it for those businesses to invest in their farms, so that they have to give it all away when somebody dies? Older farm owners in Angus and Perthshire Glens are now petrified of dying, and it will be the same everywhere else across the United Kingdom: what an ignominious, invidious position for any Government to put the people who produce our food into—it is incorrigible. I say to the Minister, with as much sincerity as I can muster, that quietly with his colleagues in the Treasury, at the spending review or some other opportunity—call it a review or whatever he likes—he should call off the dogs from our farming businesses up and down these islands. They deserve better.
Business property relief is not unrelated, and we have heard some of the testimony from other right hon. and hon. Members on the necrotic effect that has on investor confidence. There is good reason why large-scale family businesses are really good for economies, especially local economies. They employ local people, they headquarter locally, and they try, as much as possible, to establish and stand up their supply chains locally. They sell nationally and internationally. It is a virtuous conveyor of capital from outwith to within. It is excellent for the economy. It is far better than the same economic output from a public limited company, although of course PLCs have their role. But what large-scale businesses in Scotland and elsewhere are speaking to me about is that disincentive to invest.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Family Business UK says that 55% of businesses have paused or even cancelled planned investments due to the Government’s plans to cap business property relief. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should delay the planned BPR changes and conduct a thorough consultation and an impact assessment?
Dave Doogan
I cannot help but agree with the hon. Lady. At the very least, that is what the Government should do, and other hon. Members have suggested that too. To be fair, it cannot be easy to form a new Government—it certainly does not look easy. Any new Government must come in, make decisions and quietly think, “Och, I wish we had not done that.” I am certain that APR was put under the nose of a Minister by a civil servant, in the full expectation that the Minister would have the wit to say, “We are not going there—we are absolutely not doing that.” And blooming heck, they have gone and done it. I am sure that when the civil servants walked away they were saying, “Oh God, we never expected that.” And so it is with business property relief, because of the consequences. The cost-benefit relationship between what they are doing to enterprise and business and what they will accrue to the Treasury is out of all kilter. The damage is way in excess of the potential accrual, and that is before behavioural changes are brought into effect.
I recently spoke to a large-scale potato farmer near Kirriemuir, in my constituency, who has massive cold storage, a vital element of potato production, so that farmers can keep the potatoes in tip-top condition and ensure that the supermarkets are supplied as and when, just in time. I sometimes think that the Government think that farmers are trotting around in their tractors, chewing on a bit of straw, but these are really switched-on businesses that are doing the utmost to keep food prices down. We have some of the lowest food prices in Europe, and that does not happen by not investing seriously massive sums in capital and equipment. At a stroke, the Government have catastrophically disincentivised the very behaviour that helps keep food prices down and is anti-inflationary. Look what is going to happen with that.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief will raise relatively small amounts for the Treasury, but they will have a devastating effect on those businesses, and the reason they are being brought in is that Government Ministers have no idea how small businesses and farmers operate?
Dave Doogan
I do agree; I would rather not agree, but I do agree. That is why I implore the Treasury Minister, who is in his place, to have whatever private conversations Ministers have in their Departments about things that they may have got wrong. They cannot U-turn or row back on everything, but honestly, agricultural property relief and business property relief is an absolute landmine for businesses to be pulled across by this Government. He does not even have to address it in his summing up; he can just go back and quietly look at it again and have a review—kick it into the long grass at least.
I want to speak briefly on quantitative tightening by the Bank of England; I probably will not have too many supporters in the Chamber on this issue, but no change there. I have raised this matter a couple of times with the Chancellor and she talks about all manner of things in response, none of which are quantitative tightening. The over-zealous nature of the Bank of England’s disposing of Government bonds is hugely costly to the Exchequer. There is no need for the rate of quantitative tightening that the central bank of the UK is undertaking. It is not replicated by other central banks. Even if the Bank was to go to a passive model of quantitative tightening that would have substantial, multibillion-pound savings for the Exchequer, at a time when the Chancellor returning from China was getting excited about £600 million for the whole UK economy over five years; £600 million is not even the annual budget of my local health board in Angus and Perthshire Glens. If those types of numbers are important to the Chancellor, the total quantitative tightening cost of £45 billion since 2022 should really be nearer the top of her red box for her attention.
Jerome Mayhew
I was going to point out to the hon. Member the size of the sum involved but he went on to mention it himself. This is translating a theoretical loss into a real one guaranteed by the Treasury with taxpayers’ money, so I think the hon. Member is definitely on to something.
Dave Doogan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reassurance, particularly as I actively did not anticipate any reassurance.
Total costs for quantitative tightening are predicted to be in the region of £130 billion, all borne by the taxpayer of the United Kingdom. The one relevant thing the Chancellor did say to me when I raised this with her during Treasury questions was that she highly values the operational independence of the Bank of England, and so do I, but that does not mean she cannot chat to them about what is patently unnecessary and extremely expensive to the public purse.
Finally, we see a very unsavoury lurch to the right from a Labour Government on immigration. I will not rake over those coals but it is clear that the Prime Minister regrets some of his more florid language on immigration, and the Chancellor has provided no costings and no analysis of this dangerous policy that has been dreamt up on the back of a fag packet. Scotland has a declining birth rate, as do many other parts of the United Kingdom. We actively need immigration. We need it for our care sector, for our hospitality sector, for our agricultural sector and for our energy sector. It is not just low skilled seasonal work that we require, but all manner of people to come and work in our broad and diverse economy. In Scotland we have no idea why we have been dragged down this route—actually we know fine well why we have been dragged down it—but it is hugely damaging, again, for a Government whose stated ambition is growth, and choking off the labour component from the economy is really not consensual.
This relates to the whole debacle on the EU. I heard the Chancellor say the other day that there is no going back on Brexit and there will be no regulatory alignment and no free movement of people and they will honour the vote of the people—not the vote of the Scottish people, let me add—and Brexit is water under the bridge. Well, it is not water under the bridge, or rather in so far as it is water under the bridge it is a pool of stagnant, rancid water that refuses to shift its acrid whiff from across society in Scotland and elsewhere.
I heard a Lib Dem getting all doe-eyed earlier about seed potatoes; and he was right. Seed potatoes are very important in my economy, but I remember when a Lib Dem would give a full-throated endorsement to membership of the European Union, rather than doffing their cap to a Labour Government for frittering around the edges. This is frittering around the edges, and it has come at a tremendous cost to the Scottish fishing industry. Some 70% of the revenue from aquaculture and fishing in the United Kingdom comes from Scotland, and the Scottish aquaculture and fishing industry is 50 times greater a part of the Scottish economy than it is of the UK economy, yet no discussion was had with the Scottish Government or sector ahead of that, just as no discussion was had in 1970 when the Scottish fishing industry was thrown under a bus at that stage as well.
The Minister might say, “Well, you can’t have it both ways, you SNP type: you can’t say you want to be back in the EU and then lament the loss of your fishing rights to EU boats”—the Minister can score that point out now. Although of course we want to be back in the European Union with all our other European nations, and we would have to take some of that pain on fishing, we would get the gain to go with it. What Labour have foisted on Scotland is all the pain of conceding our fishing grounds to European boats and none of the gain of being in the European Union, and nothing they have agreed this week is remotely like being back in the European Union.
There is an ill wind blowing through the political landscape on these islands, and the actions of this Labour Government are simply making matters worse.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, it has been a privilege to traverse this land from Exeter to Belfast and from Glasgow to Cardiff to speak with people on the frontline of business. They are a doughty, resilient lot, doing amazing things; Britain’s got talent, but heads are going down. The barrage of red tape is taking a toll. Costs are up, and I must reference the speech from the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), which probably owed more to the boards of the Globe theatre further along the Thames than to this place. In his highly colourful speech, I was not quite sure whether he was blaming Mrs Thatcher or gas prices for high energy bills, but he should really look towards his own Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, because much of the increase in energy prices, which hammer businesses right across this country, comes from carbon taxes applied by this Government.
Critically, all this leads to expansion plans being shelved, as confidence slides. That means fewer jobs, especially for young people and those chasing that all-important first job. This Government’s boast is that they are putting money into working people’s pockets. Setting aside the questionable veracity of that claim, there is no doubt that if someone loses their job, or if they do not have a job in the first place, there is no extra money in their pocket.
What this Government are creating is a hostile environment for some sectors. Yes, there are millions of pounds—maybe billions—for steel, plenty for unionised train drivers and no-strings pay boosts for NHS staff, but what about agriculture, which is the key driver of the economy in rural Dumfries and Galloway, my constituency? Farmers and many associated businesses might just about survive Labour’s urban-centric indifference, but the active harm it is doing by taking steps such as the upping of inheritance tax and the driving down of agricultural property relief is a disaster.
The consequences of Labour’s avaricious increase in employer national insurance contributions are all too real. The Usual Place is a Dumfries charity that does amazing work helping young people with a host of mental and physical issues move into real jobs in catering. It is cutting back on those jobs because extra national insurance contributions put a bounty on each employee’s head, meaning jobs gone and life chances maimed. I hope the charity will celebrate its 10th anniversary next month, but Labour is doing nothing to help it get there.
At the other end of the spectrum, I spoke this week with a major firm whose payroll supports a five-figure number of employees. It has a strong social conscience and tries to tap into the huge cohort of economically inactive Britons and get them into the world of work, with all that that means for their pay packets but also for the intangibles such as the self-esteem and dignity that work affords. It calls itself a gateway employer, proud to be the first rung on the jobs ladder for thousands, but it is aghast at Labour’s anti-business approach. Its increased bill for extra national insurance contributions is eye-watering, and now it faces the thicket of rules and regulations that is the Employment Rights Bill—the Deputy Prime Minister’s love letter to the unions. The imposition of day one rights means that a taking a chance on employees with poor qualifications and a poor employment history, or perhaps ex-offenders, is much more risky for the firm. It knows—as do myriad other businesses, large and small—that it is less likely to recruit, while elements of the legislation are designed instead to swell the ranks of the increasingly restive trade unions.
We are through the looking-glass with this Government’s unbalanced approach to business. Black is now white.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Has the hon. Member just arrived in the Chamber?
Madam Deputy Speaker
You cannot waft into the Chamber and make an intervention; you have to listen to the contributions. What time did you arrive in the Chamber?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Marvellous—we will check the record. You may continue.
Rosie Wrighting
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) is talking about the feedback that we heard on the Business and Trade Committee. Does he recognise that businesses also fed back about the political uncertainty under the previous Government and how that made it very difficult to create an environment in which they could expand?
John Cooper
The hon. Lady is a doughty campaigner on the Business and Trade Committee. Unquestionably, mistakes were made. We know that and we have been through it before, but this Government have been in charge for 10 months now, and we see inflation rising and jobs slipping away.
As I said, we are through the looking glass: trade deals are bad, except when they are good. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last week criticised the Conservatives’ Australia and New Zealand deals for hitting farmers, while saying that his Government’s US deal protects farmers. The US deal put the welly boot into beef farmers, who face cheap imports here and US quotas over there that they just cannot fulfil.
Dave Doogan
I wonder what the hon. Member thinks about a couple of points. When is a trade deal not a trade deal? It seems that what has been agreed with the United States is a tariff deal and what has been agreed with the European Union is a modification to our pre-existing arrangement. What does he think the US trade deal will mean for beef farmers in his part of Scotland?
John Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is right. These are not free trade agreements in the normal sense of the words: they are frittering around the edges, as he said himself. The difficulty for beef farmers in Dumfries and Galloway is that prices are rising, which is partly down to a drop in stock because of costs and things like that, so they are unable to fulfil this idea of sending beef to America. That is unlikely—it is more likely that we will see cheap American beef coming here.
Again, we go back through the looking glass. Up is down when the Employment Rights Bill makes strikes more likely, yet is touted as a boost to productivity. It is incredible. The minimum wage is up, which is no bad thing, but let us not pretend that that is Government money: hard-pressed businesses have to find that extra cash, again. In short, Labour is not working and, terrifyingly, neither are increasing numbers of our constituents.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
This Government were elected on a promise to go for growth. They said that they had a costed programme and that everything else they wanted to spend money on could be paid for by increasing growth. Despite those promises, almost every single action that Labour has taken since entering office has been to stifle growth, not to improve it.
Before the election, many businesses backed the new Government. They believed their promises on tax, stability and growth. Many of those businesses have now lost confidence in the Government, and who can blame them? The impact of the hikes in national insurance contributions and business rates, combined with the red tape of the Employment Rights Bill and the removal of business property relief, has totally undermined business.
I had the pleasure of serving on the Employment Rights Public Bill Committee for more than 20 sittings to go through the legislation line by line. It is 300 pages of additional regulations and costs on our businesses. It is a pay-off to the trade unions for giving their support to the Labour party before the election. That is why the Bill was introduced within 100 days, basically unfinished, and why so many amendments had to be made to it in Committee and on Report. The Bill was written by the trade unions, which explains why the Government show no willingness to compromise on its most damaging parts.
The Deputy Prime Minister is using the Bill to burnish her credentials with the left of her party, for the same reason that she and her team briefed the press yesterday on why she wants another £4 billion of tax rises: it is all in order to be ready for a tilt at the top job. That is why one part of the Government are not listening to businesses when they say how badly they will be impacted by this legislation. However, there is another significant contingent: those who simply do not understand business at all. Vanishingly few Labour Members have experience in small businesses, and practically nobody in the Cabinet has any experience of business at all.
Who is going to be hit the hardest by the cumulative effect of this Government’s punitive attack on business? It will not be Amazon, Tesco or Shell; it will be the people at the margins—those who are looking for a job in their local family-run business. The real impact will be on those who are looking for work, because everything that this Government have done is an attack on jobs. Members must ask themselves: why would a small business, as an employer, take a risk on taking on an additional member of staff in this environment? It will be taxed more and it will be opened up to litigation from day one if it fails to follow the complicated legal processes in dismissing them.
Day one rights will have a disproportionate effect on those people who we most want to help into work: young people without qualifications, those who have taken long-term sick leave, those with disabilities who need reasonable adjustments, and former criminals. Right now, if a small business gives someone a chance, it can let them go easily if it does not work out for either the employee or the business. Why on earth would it take that risk in future?
It is deeply regrettable that unemployment is already on the rise. We know that every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher than when they started. It is regrettable that business confidence is at an all-time low after this Government have been in office for only 10 months. That is all caused by their disastrous business policies. I urge the Minister that it is not too late to change course, but if the Government do not do so, they will create a whole new generation of people who are locked out of the job market altogether.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
The outlook for business and the economy is really not good, to be brutally honest. We learned today that inflation has gone shooting up to 3.5% in a surprise increase. The Chancellor said she is disappointed by that, but it is entirely the result of her own policies. She was warned by the OBR, among others, that if she increased taxation to record levels and increased borrowing to record levels, it would have an inflationary impact. We are now seeing that, and normal people are literally paying the price through higher inflation. That is more alarming because it is against a backdrop in which unemployment is up by 150,000 people and growth is stagnant, with the IMF downgrading its forecast for growth for both this year and the next.
Business confidence is down at levels last seen during the pandemic, when the entire world economy was brought to a stop. Businesses are clearly very anxious, and that is apparent from talking to businesses in my constituency. When business suffers, ultimately it is living standards that suffer. The brilliant Minister, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), produced loads of good work when he was a think-tanker for the Resolution Foundation. He used to produce lots of wonderful charts—I am a great enjoyer of charts—about real household disposable income, and he was worried about that. Now the Government have come in, and the measures they took in their first Budget reduced the forecast for household disposable income. The post-measures forecast, in technical terms, was lower than the pre-measures forecast. The outlook for living standards in terms of disposable income is one of the worst for many decades, as shown in the OBR’s forecast for living standards; growth is a tiny fraction of what we have considered to be normal since 1945.
The outlook is bad, and it is not difficult to explain how we got here. The Government have taken the tax burden up to an all-time record high, and in lots of different ways. They increased national insurance and they cut agricultural property relief and business property relief. It is interesting to see how that is percolating out across the rural economy. People often think of the family farm tax as something that just hits farmers, but I have been struck by the multiplier effect. When I met local businesses, there was a whole group of people there—farmers, sure, but also suppliers of tractors, insurers, vets and those from the whole wider rural economy. It is all being dragged down. We have already heard from Welsh colleagues about the massive reduction in investment in their rural economies as a result of that unfair tax.
As has been noted by various Members, the family farm tax has been floated many times. It was certainly put in front of us when I was at the Treasury, and we said no. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said the same thing. This terrible idea has been produced many times, and I am afraid that there has been a mugging on Great George Street; naive, totally innocent young Ministers have come in and been mugged by wily civil servants, who have finally been able to have their way. We have all had that piece of paper on the winter fuel payment put in front of us, but we chose not to do it. Civil servants must not have believed their luck when these Ministers agreed to do it. The Government are now hastily trying to do a bit of a U-turn, but let us see what comes forth.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I am enjoying the hon. Member’s peroration on the halcyon days of the last Conservative Government, but he knows, as I do, that had the last Conservative Government seen growth even close to what we had in the mid-2000s, everyone in this country would be £2,400 better off. However, what we saw was stagnation and Liz Truss.
Neil O’Brien
One of the things that happened during our time in government was a massive global pandemic that brought the entire world economy to a complete halt, but memories are short. Perhaps more importantly, every single thing that this Government are doing is bad for growth. That is the bottom line.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Perhaps the hon. Member has not had a chance to see the piece of work produced by a former shadow Chancellor that sets out the relative recovery rates of different world economies in the developed world since the pandemic. It shows that the United Kingdom is right at the bottom of the pile thanks to the mess left to us by Liz Truss crashing the UK economy.
Neil O’Brien
Labour Members who were not in the House at the time—it is before their time—will not remember that the deficit we inherited in 2010 was twice the size of the one that Labour has inherited, and the structural deficit was twice as big. Indeed, we went into the global recession—the financial crisis—with the largest structural deficit in our peacetime history. That is the record of the last Labour Government.
We had had a recession that was the size of the 1980s recession and the 1990s recession put together, and when I say we were cleaning up the mess—I am afraid I am going to use a generation X metaphor—I mean it was like one of those enormous brontosaurus poops in the film “Jurassic Park”. We were cleaning up a big mess, and it took us a long time. We had to make some difficult decisions, particularly during the coalition years, to clean that up. Members have referred to my peroration, but I am afraid I am only getting started. [Interruption.] The House groans at the prospect.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend talks about the mess that the coalition Government, as it then was, inherited in 2010. Does he recall that youth unemployment was running at about 10%? The coalition and then the Conservative Government were successful in rebuilding the nation’s finances. Painful as those decisions were, at the same time that Government created 800 jobs every single day from 2010 to 2024.
Neil O’Brien
We inherited a situation where unemployment had doubled. One of the great achievements of that Government was to halve it again. This is confidential, but the first time I met Nick Clegg, I was accompanied by a gentleman wearing a chicken suit—this is the kind of serious economic analysis I am famed for—but I have to say that Nick Clegg was not a chicken when it came to making difficult decisions to clean up that huge mess; the Liberal Democrats made some difficult decisions along with us to try to do that.
I have talked about the increase to national insurance contributions, and I will return to that in a little more detail. We have also talked about APR and BPR. One of the most striking developments in my constituency, though, has been the effect of the doubling of business rates for the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors through the ending of the relief that we introduced—an effect that is very visible, particularly in the high streets such as the Parade in Oadby, and in Wigston and South Wigston. The situation is also bad in Market Harborough. The problem is compounded by some local decisions—the council has increased parking charges, which was a big mistake—but it is the ending of those reliefs and the huge increase in national insurance contributions that have been especially bad for our local high streets, and for pubs in particular.
When I was talking to a brilliant pub landlady who owns several pubs in my area, she said, “We hoped so much that this new Government would be a morale-lifter and there would be a boost and a feel-good factor, but now we have a feel-bad factor.” I often drive past a number of pubs that have recently closed because of the confluence of the ending of the reliefs, the higher energy costs, and a number of the tax measures that the Government have introduced. It is desperately sad to see all those closed pubs that used to be huge centres of community life. When people lose their local pub, they lose a piece of their social fabric as well. Pubs are important local businesses, especially in rural areas.
We have had the tax increases, and we have also had the increase in energy costs as a result of everything that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is doing. We were promised a £300 reduction in our energy bills but instead we have seen a £281 increase, and that can only rise as the Government do all sorts of ill-advised things to hit their ill-advised target of fully decarbonising electricity by the end of the Parliament—something that will massively increase the costs of going green in comparison with the counterfactual.
At the same time, we have seen a massive increase in employment red tape. One of the bright spots in the UK economy over the last 30 years has been a relatively liberal labour market, but there has now been an extraordinary moment when all the big five business groups in the country came together for the first time—they have never done this before—to criticise the Employment Rights Bill. A Member on the Government Benches said earlier that it was all right because some Cambridge professor had said it was fine; on the other hand, every single business in the UK is saying it is a disaster. The fact that Members are accepting that kind of donnish approach to managing the economy, rather than listening to the views of the people who actually create jobs and drive our economy, really says something about the contemporary Labour party. This is no joking matter, though; it is a serious issue and a major economic detriment.
At a higher level, the wealth creators have been affected: the non-dom changes, some of which have already been rowed back on and more of which may be rowed back on in future, have driven away people who have a great deal to give to our economy. There are plenty of reasons for this picture of economic underperformance and gloom.
I would not mind so much if all the tax increases, leading to a record tax burden, had been imposed against a backdrop where the Government were bringing our debt and deficit under control. Perhaps the Minister will be able to correct me, as his knowledge of fiscal factors may be greater than mine, but I cannot recall any fiscal event when the Government have presented a Budget and at the end of the forecast period, public sector net debt was still rising. There have been plenty of fiscal events when debt has risen, because of events such as the pandemic or the war in Ukraine, but they have all shown a path towards falling debt. This is the first time I have seen a chart—I think it is chart 7.3 in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal outlook—that shows debt still ceaselessly rising even at the end of the forecast period. I cannot remember another Budget like that. We are seeing the confluence of a stalling, stagnating economy, rising unemployment, increasing tax and, as a result of all that, debt rising and storing up major problems for the future.
I want to go into a bit more detail about a couple of matters, the first of which is that national insurance increase. Labour in opposition promised that there would be no tax increase for working people, so I was stunned—jaw on the floor—when the biggest tax increase that they introduced fell squarely not just on working people, but on low-income working people. It is like a laser-guided, heat-seeking precision missile, targeting those low-income workers, particularly women, who graft hard and are not paid a lot. I find it incredible that a Labour Government—a Labour Government!—should have chosen, as their big tax increase, to lower the threshold for national insurance while increasing the rate. It hammers those on the lowest incomes. That is amazing.
Why was that option chosen? It was chosen for all the wrong reasons. It was chosen because the Labour party hoped that it could say, “This isn’t a tax on the workers; this is a tax on businesses.” Of course, everyone can see through that. The problem for the Government is that the Office for Budget Responsibility immediately popped up and said, “No, three quarters of this will be passed through to people’s wages.” The OBR says that people on £13,000 a year will lose £500, which is a lot to lose for someone who is on only £13,000. People earning £9,000 a year are the biggest losers proportionately. According to the OBR, they will lose 5% of their income as a result of the huge tax increase being passed through into their wages. It is amazing that Labour Members are not up in arms about the fact that the Government have just implemented one of the biggest tax increases ever and have targeted it at lower-income workers. That is incredible for the Labour party—absolutely unbelievable.
On the other side of the ledger, what has happened to public services? Of course, they are all hit by the national insurance increase. We were promised in the autumn Budget that they would be looked after, but that is not what has happened in practice. First, we found out that lots of bits of the NHS would not be compensated, including primary care—that GPs, opticians and dentists were all going to have to suck up the increase in tax. We also found out that social care would not be protected and would have to suck it up.
Intriguingly, and as I pointed out at the time, there was a difference between the Budget document and the OBR’s EFO, which I am sure the Minister will remember. The EFO cited a different number for the cost of protection and it mentioned that social care would be included. One of the joys of having the OBR—although it is not a joy for those in the Treasury—is being able to see the Government’s handwriting and the last-minute changes; in this case, we can see that they were thinking very seriously about exempting social care from the big increase in tax, but that they chose not to do so at the last minute. That was the wrong decision.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s conversion to the cause of social care. Could he point me to where in the record, between Dilnot reporting in 2011 and today, he mentioned it while his party was in government?
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Member was probably not here at the time, but I was actually Social Care Minister. He says I have been converted to the cause of social care, but I am quite passionate about it. In addition to the professionalisation of the profession and the investment in skills and technology, one of the things we chose to do—particularly in the wake of the pandemic—was to prioritise money going to the frontline, rather than towards the protection of people’s property income. I am not a social democrat, but occasionally we have to make tough choices; rather than protecting people’s property income, our choice was to protect and put money into the frontline of social care.
Neil O’Brien
In one moment.
I want to talk about some other public services that have been affected by the national insurance increase. There are a lot of examples in education. Nurseries have lost out, and they are screaming right now; they are in real difficulty. Lots will close and lots will fail to deliver the places that parents have been promised. If Ministers meet representatives of nurseries, they will hear a tale of incredible woe, because nurseries are caught by both the large increase in national insurance, which squarely hits their workforce, and the increase in the national living wage. I am not against the national living wage—in fact, I helped to give it its name—and I believe in fair pay for fair work, but we have to be conscious about what we are doing with tax, because we cannot have a big increase in the national living wage and then wallop those exact people with a massive tax increase. That way lies disaster for our public services and for our small businesses.
Nurseries have lost out, and schools are losing out. Schools were promised that they would be fully compensated. It is not us saying this; it is the Association of School and College Leaders, which is a trade union, and the Confederation of School Trusts. They have discovered that schools are losing out by up to 35%—that is how much they have been shortchanged by this Government. The Government have deliberately obfuscated the funding and they are not even attempting to compensate each individual school for however much money they are losing. The result is that schools might sack about 13,000 teachers.
In fact, I have been meeting representatives of schools and school trusts in recent weeks, and they are currently sacking teachers. The Harris Federation—one of the best trusts in the entire country, with an amazing and proud record of turning around London schools—is sacking people. The Synergy multi-academy trust is sacking people. Sir Jon Coles, who runs the largest school trust in the entire country, has said that schools are obviously going to have to sack people, because schools have been shortchanged over national insurance. It is pretty poor that they were promised something that has not been delivered.
It is the same for our universities, and I have to say that this was a masterclass in un-joined-up government. First, the Government broke their promise on fees. They said graduates would pay less, and they increased tuition fees instead. That was the first broken promise. Secondly, the universities did not even get the money; it was entirely wiped out by the increase in the national insurance rate. Thirdly, with industrial action looming across the sector because they had taken away all the money they had put in, the Government made it easier to strike through the Employment Rights Bill. It is now rumoured that the Office for Students are to bring in a new mechanism to make it easier for students to sue universities if there are strikes. This is a case of left hand, right hand—or of arse and elbow, if I am completely honest—and a masterclass in totally chaotic government.
The same is true in lots of other bits of our public services—public transport, culture, housing and local government. According to the Local Government Association, local authorities have been short-changed by £1.8 billion, which is an enormous hit. They were promised they would be compensated, but they have not been compensated.
However, the worst example for me is our charity and voluntary sector. As the Minister knows, at least 7,000 charity and voluntary sector leaders have written to the Chancellor asking her to change her mind and reverse the massive increase in national insurance on these small, vulnerable organisations. When I talk to charities and voluntary groups in my constituency, they tell me some pretty disturbing things about what they are having to do to their staff because of those big increases.
I pay tribute to organisations such as Helping Hands up in South Wigston, Voluntary Action South Leicestershire, Loros and Rainbows. I am afraid we were recently forced to use one of our brilliant local hospices, Loros, to help look after my mother-in-law, and it provided wonderful care. However, its job is not made easier by the fact that it has been hit by this enormous tax increase. If the Minister wants a really good measure for the next Budget, he should reverse that. It would be hugely popular, but more importantly, it would be the right thing to do. Public services have been short-changed, and low-income workers have been the hardest hit, which is a pretty bad combination.
I want to mention something that has not been much explored in recent days, which is a tax increase—a stealth tax increase—that has gone unrecognised. By linking the UK emissions trading scheme with the EU scheme, the Government have increased the tax on energy that firms face, because the ETS is of course a tax, albeit a traded one. Prices in the UK ETS have been driven upwards for the last couple of months not just by the final deal announced the other day, but by the prospect of a deal and the prospect of connecting those two different markets.
Two different things have become a bit muddled in the public discussion—one is about trading electricity and the other is about the actual ETS as a tax. In January, UK allowances were trading at about £36 a tonne for December 2025 delivery, and EU allowances were about £25 a tonne more expensive, so £36 plus £25. As of today, the UK ETS is £54 a tonne and the EU ETS is only £4 a tonne above that. We have seen a tremendous price convergence, with the UK tax rate—the UK carbon price—shooting up to match the EU one. Although the price had been ticking up on the prospect of connection to the EU scheme, it went shooting up on the announcement of the deal: it is up by a further 10% since Monday’s reset announcement. That is increasing the cost to businesses, and it will ultimately pass through to the wider economy and to the rest of us.
Looking at the EU ETS price movement so far, it seems to me that the UK Treasury will accrue about £1.2 billion extra as a result of these increased ETS costs, which would certainly outweigh the supposed benefits from the carbon border adjustment mechanism—not that that tax is necessarily paid by firms in the UK, because it is paid by importers in the EU—so the wider cost of this stealth tax could be more than that. I mentioned that the potential increase to the Exchequer is about £1.2 billion, but the overall cost could be higher at more like £2 billion or so. That is an immediate result of the deal announced on Monday, and it is in effect a stealth tax, because it has given us a higher carbon price immediately.
I thought it was ironic that the Draghi report—the EU’s own report into how it can become more competitive—was quite critical of the EU’s ETS. It said it had given the EU one of the highest carbon prices in the world—a high and volatile price. The Government were telling us what a wonderful benefit it was to be part of it, even as senior people in the EU were saying that it is a problematic scheme. That part of the deal has been a bit underappreciated so far.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has spoken now for, I think, 23 minutes. He has criticised on many fronts the decisions the Labour Government have made to fix the foundations of the economy and clear up the mess that his Government left. Would he mind spending maybe 30 seconds on what decisions his party would take to put police back on our streets, fix our public services and put money in people’s pockets?
Neil O'Brien
I had not realised I had spoken so long. Even I, at 23 minutes, have probably had enough O’Brien at this point, never mind the rest of you poor souls! The hon. Lady talks about police. In the last Parliament, the previous Government added 20,000 extra police officers to our streets. I was not going to raise it, but national insurance hits the police as well. I see TV footage of prisoners released from jail by this Government popping champagne corks. I am not going to widen this out into a debate about criminal justice, but if I did so it would be more enjoyable for Conservative Members than for the current Government.
We have a pretty bleak picture: inflation up, unemployment up, growth stagnant and being revised down by international bodies such as the IMF, business confidence at its lowest level since the global pandemic, and an outlook for living standards that is absolutely miserable. Something has to change, and I hope the Government are having a rethink on the economy, as well as on other subjects such as migration. The Prime Minister used to be madly in favour of it, signing letters saying, “Don’t deport anybody.” I do not really think the policy has changed hugely, but at least the rhetoric has changed. On the winter fuel payment, let us see how far the policy goes. What we really need, above all else, is a change in economic policy to one that is more about getting growth moving. Until we do that, we will not get anywhere.
The Minister, being brilliant, will remember the economist who said:
“Once you start thinking about”—
economic—
“growth, it is difficult to think about anything else.”
I am sure he is thinking about economic growth, but we need to move from the wonking and the thinking to the changing of policy in a more growth-oriented direction if we are to get unemployment down and give people a chance of having better living standards and a better future.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
What a great speech to follow. I have an ambition to reach 25 minutes, so here we go. I should start by making reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I was challenged by a Labour Member—I am not quite sure which one—and I should declare my background in entrepreneurialism. I ran an SME and then created something called an employee ownership trust, having employed well over 1,000 people. I am also a director of a farming company, which will perhaps have some relevance to my later comments.
This has been a very lively, interesting and well-informed debate—I have certainly enjoyed it so far—and it has been interesting in what it has revealed about Labour Members and Opposition Members. We have had no fewer than three academic economists speaking from the Labour Benches and we have had businesspeople with real-life experience of the economy speaking from the Opposition Benches. One might think, “Well, surely economists know lots about the economy.” You would have thought so, Madam Deputy Speaker, but if we look at how the Government have responded since 4 July, with their obvious surprise at business confidence going through the floor, we begin to see how out of touch academic economists can be when faced with the facts of the real economy.
It is undoubtedly the case that business confidence has collapsed. The BDO optimism index has now sunk—this is the latest figure—to 91.36%. What does that mean? What it really means is that it is the lowest since the entire world economy was shut down by covid. Looking at any one of a number of indices, both business confidence and consumer confidence have gone down massively as a result of Labour’s election. That prompts the question why there has been such surprise on the Government Benches that their actions have been so ill received by the people who drive the economy. One of the reasons is that the country as a whole—and businesses in particular—was actively misled by Labour in the run-up to the general election. We were all told that Labour had no plans for tax rises beyond those that had already been announced. We were all told that Labour’s plans were fully funded and fully costed and that they did not require tax rises above those set out in the manifesto.
Rosie Wrighting
As someone with a business background and who worked in a large international business before coming to Parliament, I think the previous Conservative Government misled businesses when they promised them a Brexit that was going to remove red tape, but which actually created barriers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that intervention. I joined this House in 2019, but the original Brexit debate had hyperbole on both sides. We had Project Fear saying we would need an immediate fiscal event as soon as we had the referendum, but that did not take place. Growth has actually continued since the referendum back in 2016. In fact, growth in the United Kingdom has outpaced that of Germany, France and Italy, and, for that matter, Japan. There were a lot of arguments, both one way and the other, over the likely consequences of Brexit. My takeaway is that, overwhelmingly, it has not made that much difference to the world economy or to Britain’s relationship with the world. There have, undoubtedly, been some trade frictions, and those have been particularly acute for SME import/export—I recognise that. But overall, trade has continued, and we have actually outperformed our European big economy neighbours.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman suggests that there was no damage done to businesses, yet I have been chairing business roundtables recently with industry representatives—people who run billion-pound businesses; significant businesses—and every single business recognises the impacts of Brexit as a principal drag on their profitability and growth.
Jerome Mayhew
As I said, we had a huge change to how our country was governed, which was dictated to us by the people, because we are a democracy. One of the reasons I entered Parliament was that, despite voting remain in 2016, I was outraged as a democrat by the failure of Parliament between 2016 and 2019 to effect the will of the people, as clearly expressed in a referendum. That pushed me from being an activist to being a politician in order to effect the will of the people.
Since then, there have been pros and cons. There are a lot of pros, and over the past five years I have seen for myself how important some of our Brexit freedoms have been. If there were a plebiscite today on whether to leave or rejoin the European Union, I would vote without hesitation to leave, because I have seen some of the benefits. In my area, the common agricultural policy was a disaster, both economically and socially, and had a hugely negative impact on the environment, farms and countryside of Broadland and right across the country. With our Brexit freedoms, we replaced that with the environmental land management scheme, a wholly beneficial policy change—imperfect though it was; it was part of an iterative process to learn from our experience with farmers. That would have been impossible without Brexit.
Similarly, some of the trade deals we have done would have been impossible without Brexit, as would myriad regulations that have been improved just a little in all those Delegated Legislation Committees we have all enjoyed so much over the years. Much of that could not have been achieved without Brexit. None of those regulations will reach the front pages of the newspapers, but iteratively, over the years, they have the opportunity to make our economy and our society stronger.
That is one of the main reasons I was so disappointed by the Government’s capitulation to the European Union on dynamic alignment just a couple of days ago. We have taken on the disadvantages of non-membership of the European Union—we become rule takers—without any of the benefits of dynamic divergence of our regulatory system, which would allow us to bend our rules most accurately to reflect the opportunities of our own economy.
That was an interesting divergence, but I will now come back to the main argument of my speech, which is that Labour misled the people in the run-up to the general election. It said that its policies would be fully funded and fully costed. It said that there would be no taxes on working people, and it expressly said in its manifesto that there would be no increased tax on national insurance contributions. What is reality? Labour chose to use a fig leaf, as the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) might have said, which is this fabricated £22 billion black hole in the economy—the black hole, by the way, that the OBR failed to find. The former Financial Times journalist, the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), who is no longer in her place, might recall that the Financial Times also failed to find the £22 billion black hole in the economy.
Labour uses that figure as a fig leaf not to raise £22 billion—no, that would be sufficiently unambitious—but to raise £40 billion of tax and another £32 billion of debt. It has done that by focusing the tax on jobs. National insurance contributions are focused on young people, part-time workers, and women in particular. The Employment Rights Bill put another £5 billion on taxation—on the Government’s own impact assessment. The increase in high street business rates is inexplicable in a period of such strain on our businesses, and that is not to mention the effect of agricultural property relief. What is the result? Some 200,000 businesses have closed, which is a 20-year high—a high only beaten by the previous Labour Government.
In January 2025, corporate insolvencies were up 10.7%. That is the highest since the financial crisis when Labour was last in power. Unemployment was up 10% to 4.5%. The Bank of England forecasts that it will go up further to 5%. Youth unemployment was up 11%. This feeds into the well-worn war narrative that Labour always leaves government with unemployment higher than when it arrived. The Government must stop and think again. I know that they were new to government; they had been out of power for 14 years, and they have made some really profound, rookie mistakes, but we must not let our businesses and those employed pay the price for that. The Government should look again and seek to recover their economic reputation.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I am being closely supervised by the Whips, as I have been told to keep this speech quite short, so there will be no 25 minutes from me.
Hard-working British people are losing their jobs. Is it any wonder when every policy that this Government announce seems designed to make it harder for British people to do the right thing—create jobs and grow our economy. We have a tax on job creation; billions of pounds in extra costs through the Employment Rights Bill; and a family business tax, which pushes entrepreneurs and job creators elsewhere. We cannot grow an economy through sheer force of will alone; we need to give the people who build the businesses that employ the workers who power the economy the best possible environment in which to thrive.
We have seen what happens to hard-working people under this Government in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire. Constituents who were part of a 120-year proud manufacturing history at the Stellantis plant in Luton now find themselves out of work, just a few months after the imposition of this Government’s policies.
Hard-working publicans in my constituency are now, sadly, closing their doors, because higher costs and crippling regulatory burdens are being applied by this Government. I note that not many Members have spoken about pubs, but they are an essential part to many of our communities, and pubs in my community are closing their doors. That means fewer opportunities for younger people to get their first job in our rural areas, which was exactly my experience growing up in north-west Hampshire. There will be less money for our local farmers and producers in the supply chain, damaging our rural economy, and it means the heart of two rural communities in my constituency being ripped out. This is happening up and down the country, with UKHospitality confirming that 70% of hospitality businesses expect to reduce employment and that one in seven are planning to close at least one site.
Worst of all, this Government’s economic policy is hammering our hospices and charities. Conservative Members have spoken passionately not just today but in previous months about the importance of this sector. Hospices and charities have relied on the British public’s unending good will and generosity to keep going through some tough years over the pandemic, but they can no longer rely on the good will of their Government.
The only jobs that seem to be safe from Labour’s tax hikes are in the new quangos being rapidly established to run our energy, railways and the rest of our country—all while the Government announce review after review into who is spending all their money.
I said that I would keep my speech short, so I will wind up. The tax rises that we all know are coming to pay for the expanding state and the debt that the Government are now running up will strangle any meagre growth that they plan to nurture. Their plans for growth are a mirage. Huge Government spending will only supplant private investment.
We have not spoken about it today, but the National Wealth Fund investment will not create any wealth. So far, the average National Wealth Fund investment since July 2024 has cost nearly £1.5 million per job created. It is a sad state of affairs. This Government talk up their plans for growth but fail to back the people who grow the economy. We can see from economic history that the larger the Government, the smaller the economic growth. The Government are putting big government over job creators and entrepreneurs. Confidence is being undermined, and that is resulting in rising unemployment, especially for our young people.
It is time for something to change. The Government need to urgently change course to support the aspiration, hard work and risk taking that is needed to create the jobs and prosperity that working people throughout Britain deserve.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
I am grateful to close this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition. Let me start by thanking all those who contributed and from all sides of the House, but particularly my right hon. and hon. Friends, who have highlighted so clearly the devastating impact that job losses and business closures have on families, communities and our national economy.
I should also thank those on the Opposition Benches—sorry, I mean the Government Benches; it will not be too long. Is it not amazing that just three Labour Members were brave enough to speak? I pay tribute to them: the hon. Members for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), and the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), who is not in her place. So proud are they of their economic performance that only 1% of the parliamentary Labour party actually bothered to show up to a debate on the economy—but then 1% is a pretty high figure for the Labour party.
The truth is that since last July we have all heard a story of someone who is struggling to figure out how they will pay their new tax bills, or struggling to find a new job or pay their energy bills, which just keep on rising, despite people being told that they would go down. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have made very good contributions in interventions and speeches today. I cannot mention them all, but in particular I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who highlighted that businesses are people. That is something I mentioned in my maiden speech. My dad set up a business; he took a risk and made it work. He made it happen, despite it being very difficult. My right hon. Friend is right; when we in this place tax businesses, we are taxing people. It is something that we understand and the Government do not.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) speaks with great authority, not least because he has employed so many people and driven so much growth. He is a proud colleague of mine. He highlighted right at the beginning the potent combination of taxation on businesses; it is not just one tax but a combination of taxes that are hitting retail businesses in particular, and there is also red tape being implemented.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) spoke about his farmers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) highlighted the impact of the NICs threshold increase, which is not always talked about—there was a two-pronged attack on businesses and people in that the rate changed and the threshold changed—as well as hospitality businesses in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) also did that—he talked about his pubs—and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) spoke about his personal experience from his previous career and his experience from his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) pointed out that if Ministers spent a bit more time listening and a little less time talking, perhaps the economy would not be in as bad a state as it is.
This time last year, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were talking at people, telling anyone who would listen that the “growth lever” would be very first lever they would reach for in government, but the only economic lever they did manage to pull was the handbrake, otherwise known as the tax lever. Labour’s first Budget was the second-biggest tax raising fiscal event in the last 50 years, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien) pointed out in an excellent speech, took the tax burden to the highest level on record. On growth, forecasts have been downgraded across the board by the OBR, the BOE, the OECD and the IMF—by this point, Labour’s economic performance has been panned by just about every letter in the alphabet.
Labour Members can crow all they want about growth data from the first quarter of this year, but it does not change the fact that growth was higher under the Conservatives during the same quarter of 2024. Debates about growth figures are not purely academic, as the Labour academics would have us believe; they have real-world consequences for workers and businesses up and down the country, most obviously when it comes to employment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) pointed out, no Labour Government have ever left office with lower unemployment than they inherited. That is perhaps because in the last 60 years every Labour Government have left office with a higher tax burden than when they started.
As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), highlighted at the beginning of the debate, the ONS says that there are 150,000 fewer payrolled employees in our country than there were last July when Labour entered office. We have had significant falls in employment by that measure in seven of the last nine months. Let us put that into context: that follows 42 months of near unbroken payroll growth under the Conservatives as we exited the pandemic. In that time, we saw 2.2 million workers added to payrolls, leaving payroll employment 1.4 million higher than it was pre-pandemic.
That is the difference that a Labour Government make: they send job recovery into reverse. Hiring expectations for the next three months are at a record low. Unemployment is going up and up, with the Bank of England now forecasting 5% unemployment by 2027. Of course, it is in the most heavily taxed sectors that we see the greatest damage. Earlier this month, 250 jobs were cut by Harbour Energy in the North sea after Labour raised the tax on the sector to some 78%. In retail and hospitality, it is small businesses who are hardest hit by the national insurance increases and the business rates relief cut. Labour Ministers talk about difficult decisions, but they are not the ones who are having to reduce opening hours, close on weekends, freeze pay and make redundancies of family members—mums and dads who just want to get up and go to work—just to survive.
In too many cases, we are seeing local businesses close down for good. The country is witnessing the fastest growth of corporate closure since Labour was last in office. The great irony of the Chancellor’s much lauded securonomics is that it has created insecurity and business uncertainty. Entrepreneurship is being suppressed and jobs are being sacrificed on the altar of Labour’s sanctimony. They have the brass neck to go about claiming that this is all in order to restore stability and the public finances, when the independent National Institute of Economic and Social Research has predicted that the true size of the Chancellor’s black hole is £60 billion.
Let us talk about black holes. The stable geniuses on the Government Front Bench took pensioners’ winter fuel payment away for the winter, but now that summer is appearing they talk about restoring it. They are taking pensioners for fools. What’s next—lower fuel duty for cyclists? The damage is already done. Who is to say that Labour will not be back in the winter to cut fuel payments again, just in time for Christmas, especially as Downing Street cannot guarantee today that the proposed changes will be ready by then? We shall see.
In Labour’s fiscal funfair, the only ride is a merry-go-round. Round and round the vicious cycle goes, to the point where we no longer ask whether Labour’s next Budget will bring in more tax rises, but which taxes it will hike. We do not ask whether the next Budget will downgrade growth forecasts, but by how much. We do not ask whether the next Budget will support jobs, but how much higher unemployment can really go under Labour.
As we found out this morning, the Deputy Prime Minister has put in her first draft, briefed to the press, for the Chancellor’s next Budget. Raising taxes on pensioners—that will hurt growth. Raising taxes on retail investment—that is anti-growth. Raising taxes on incomes—that is definitely anti-growth. When in a hole, stop digging. Labour simply cannot tax its way to jobs and growth, but it seems utterly determined to learn that the hard way. Our motion calls on the Government to learn from their mistakes and urgently change course. On behalf of millions of British workers and businesses across this country, I commend this motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
This is hopefully one thing on which all Members and definitely those on both Front Benches agree: “It’s the economy, stupid.” It is a growing economy that raises living standards and that sustains public services and eases public finances. Perhaps most importantly, it is a growing economy that proves to people that tomorrow can be better than today.
I welcome it that the Conservative party has called this debate. It is an important topic, it is deserving of our time and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, even if I cannot thank them all for the duration of those contributions. Fifty minutes to deliver one speech is Britain’s productivity crisis right there. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) is still talking. The productivity crisis rolls on.
Given how important this topic is, it will be a surprise to hon. Members, probably those on both sides of the House, that this is the one and only time that the Conservative party has wanted to talk about the economy in the year since the election. It is the first Opposition day on the economy. I initially thought that that could not be true. I am a new Minister and I have a lot to learn, so I said to my office, “Go and check. They can’t have got through a whole year with no Opposition day on the economy.” My office checked and it found that it has been 10 months with not one debate on the economy. Private schools? Oh yes, the Conservatives want a debate on that. But investment, growth, jobs and the economy? Not one debate. It is no surprise that they do not want to talk about the economy, because their economic legacy was one of entirely unprecedented failure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) set out.
Torsten Bell
I will in a second.
It is a legacy of stagnation not seen in living memory, with the lowest business investment in the G7; wages, which used to grow at a consistent 2% a year, flatlining for their entire period in office; the worst Parliament on record for living standards; and the public finances trashed as debt soared. It is no surprise that the Conservatives have nothing to say about the past—the Leader of the Opposition said that it was true that they had no plan for growth—and it is staggering that they still have nothing to say about the future.
Torsten Bell
I said that I would give way first to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), but I will come to my hon. Friend.
That is not just my view, but the view of George Osborne. He says that the Tory party has no “credible economic plan”. I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), so I listened extra carefully just now, and there is still no plan, credible or otherwise.
Neil O’Brien
I was just observing and enjoying the way in which the Minister was lecturing us about not wanting to talk about the economy, when at one point during the debate, literally only three Labour Members were in the Chamber—it is extraordinary. If they are so wonderfully proud of their record of higher unemployment, higher inflation and slower growth, why are none of them here?
Torsten Bell
Because Labour Back Benchers support and have total trust in their Front Benchers. All they would have said is everything that I am about to say about the record of this Government, of which we are very proud.
I will come on to the labour market, which the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston raised. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) asked about employment and changes to national insurance, and several Members claimed that there is a direct relationship between changes to national insurance and changes in vacancies in the labour market. Let us introduce some facts to the debate—[Interruption.] While the shadow Secretary of State chunters, here are some facts: vacancies in Britain have been falling for 34 months, there has been a Labour Government for 10 months, and there has been a national insurance change for one month. Those are the facts. We cannot let the Conservative party escape from their disastrous record by reinventing history.
Dr Luke Evans
One fact is that the claimant count and unemployment rate in Swansea West have gone up by 4% on the previous year. What does the Minister say to his constituents when they confront him because they are losing their jobs and the unemployment rate has gone up?
Torsten Bell
The most important fact for my Swansea West constituents is that wages at the end of the Conservatives’ period in office were stuck at the same level as when they came into office in 2010—14 wasted years for my constituents. To respond to the hon. Gentleman’s question about unemployment, I would not use the claimant count at that level because the data is not as robust as it should be. Several hon. Members have, over the course of the debate, talked about increases in the unemployment rate in recent months. Why has the unemployment rate gone up? It is not because employment has come down, but because the inactivity that shot up on the Conservatives’ watch has started to decline. That is what is going on beneath the numbers.
Why do Conservative Members not want to talk about their disastrous record on the labour market? It is because they left us as the only G7 economy whose employment rate still had not returned to pre-pandemic levels. They left us with 2.8 million people out of work through long-term sickness, and 1 million young people not in education, employment or training—more than one in eight young people were left on the scrapheap by the Conservatives.
Let me turn to the labour market today, which hon. Members have mentioned. Some 200,000 jobs have been created since the Government took office. Pay has outstripped prices, with the strongest real pay growth for years. Let me pause on the question of wages, because for many people, what they get paid is the economy. Here is a fact so staggering that it tells us all we need to know about the failure of the previous Government and the progress made under this one: wages have grown faster in the first 10 months of this Government than they did in the first 10 years of Tory Governments from 2010. That is what a country turning a corner looks like.
Torsten Bell
It is not boom and bust. Wages for workers need to rise in Britain once again. We also need to turn the corner on an economy that is far too unequal. That is what our Employment Rights Bill will do.
Neil O’Brien
The Minister is being incredibly generous with his time. He is saying what a wonderful outlook there is for wages. Why, then, is the OBR’s forecast for real household disposable income to be lower than in the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s, the noughties and the 2010s?
Torsten Bell
Real household disposable income per capita is growing quite fast, according to the latest measure at the end of the fourth quarter of 2024. The OBR says that the legacy of the previous Government has shown it that productivity and growth in this economy have been too slow. Our job is to turn around their record, so that the forecasts and real wages start to rise.
Matt Rodda
I thank the Minister for giving way on that point. He is making an excellent speech, contrasting the 14 years of utter failure by the Conservatives with the quick start by Labour. He has been quoting statistics for the period since Labour was elected, but will he say more about the potential benefits of the three trade deals for growth and investment?
Torsten Bell
What is great about my hon. Friend is that he has a forecasting ability that is significantly above that of many economic forecasters. He has predicted exactly where I shall be turning shortly.
I want to dwell on a few points about the unequal economy. Three million workers have benefited from the introduction of a higher minimum wage last month. That is worth £1,400 to a full-time worker. Just today, the Trussell Trust provided an update on the painful symbol of modern Britain that is food banks. Far too many food parcels were provided over the last 12 months: 2.9 million. That is up by nearly a half over five years, which is an absolute disgrace, but it is down 8% on the past year and we need to keep it falling.
Several hon. Members have raised the question of tax. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the shadow Minister sounded as if they were opposed to all taxes and made it the core of their argument that a higher tax level is a problem that this Government have put in place. Neither of them mentioned that the increase in taxes under the Tories in the last Parliament was significantly higher than any change in taxes under this Government—[Interruption.] It is true.
The hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) raised the question of non-doms, but also asked whether HMRC was behaving more aggressively. He favoured direct control of HMRC by Government Ministers. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury now chairs HMRC, and I am sure he will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s points. On the idea that HMRC has become more aggressive, one of my first jobs in government was being involved in merging what was then the Inland Revenue and the Customs department, and I promise Members that nobody is as aggressive as the Customs department was in the olden days. There were guns involved.
This Government had to take difficult but fair choices on tax in the autumn Budget—
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. A moment ago he told the House that real household disposable incomes were rising as a result of this Government, but does he not accept that the OBR, when critiquing the Budget last October, found that during the forecast period real household disposable incomes would fall as a result of the Budget proposals?
Torsten Bell
What the Office for Budget Responsibility has said is that disposable incomes will grow during this Parliament at twice the rate that they grew during the last Parliament. The hon. Gentleman has just given me another excuse to repeat my favourite fact, which is this: forget what anybody is forecasting, because in the real world, wages have risen more in the first 10 months of this Government than in an entire 10 years under the Conservatives.
We are going to stick to our promise not to raise working people’s rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT, and we are maintaining an internationally competitive tax system with the lowest rate of corporation tax in the G7. Nobody on this side of the House is pretending that these were easy decisions, but they were the right ones and the responsible ones, yet each and every decision has been opposed by the Opposition parties. It is no surprise to hear SNP Members joining with the Conservatives, as they do on almost everything these days.
Dave Doogan
The Minister is making great play of the way in which his new Government have increased wages across the United Kingdom since the election, but will he concede that 91% of earners and workers in Scotland were already earning more than the living wage level that his Government have recently set?
Torsten Bell
I will, and that is why I am celebrating the fact that average wage rises are happening. If the hon. Member does not want to be in favour of wage rises in Scotland, that says everything about today’s SNP.
We are all used to the Liberal Democrats’ fantasy economics, but the Conservatives used to believe in sound public finances. They used to understand that it is only on that basis that the Bank of England can sustainably cut interest rates, as it has done on four occasions since the general election. The shadow Secretary of State, in his very long speech, claimed that these choices were not pro-business choices. I tell him that these are pro-business choices because it is pro-business to deliver functioning public services. Was it pro-business when the Conservatives left shops up and down the country paying a retail tax, forced to employ their own security guards because the Tories took the police off the beat? Was it pro-business when employers everywhere faced a health tax under the Conservatives because the NHS was not functioning and their staff were off sick? As I said earlier, growth is key. Of course, the shadow Secretary of State is such a champion of the British economy that he predicted there would not be any. Back in December, he claimed with glee that Britain would start 2025 in recession—
Torsten Bell
I will quote the hon. Member. He said,
“‘could we be in recession’? Yes we could.”
He talked the economy down—he knows exactly what he did—and British business has proved him wrong: no recession and the fastest growth in the G7.
Although the economy is beginning to turn a corner, the Government recognise that there are big challenges ahead. There is no shortcut if we want to get the economy growing again; we have to start investing once again. That is why we have raised public investment by £113 billion over this Parliament. Compare that with the deep cuts planned by the Conservatives. It is why Britain’s pension funds—my day job is as Pensions Minister—are looking to invest more in productive assets and more in the UK. It is also why we are approving infrastructure projects from wind farms to reservoirs that were previously blocked for years. When firms decide to invest, they have to actually be able to build something. That is why Labour is the party of the builders, not the blockers.
Let me turn to trade. The Prime Minister has in quick succession secured three significant trade deals. Every single one has been opposed by the Conservatives—opposing our whisky industry exporting and opposing lower food prices in the shops. It is increasingly clear that they say they support free trade in principle, but there is no actual existing trade deal that they would ever support. They used to be the party of Robert Peel, and now they are just the party of plonkers.
We are under no illusions as to the challenges ahead. We all know, on both sides of the House, the deep cost of living squeeze that has left far too many British families suffering, but we are getting on with the job: stability in the public finances, investing at home, trade agreements abroad, interest rates down and wages up. After a long decade and a half of stagnation, Britain is growing at the fastest rate in the G7.
We have heard a lot from Conservative Members, but not a single word of apology has crossed their lips for the mess they left—no humility for the unprecedented economic damage they inflicted, no apology to businesses or workers, and not even a sign of an alternative plan to drive growth and investment in our economy. The British public learned a very long time ago: when Tories govern, Britain loses.
Question put.
Immigration
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 83 / Noes: 267 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected amendment (b) in the name of the Prime Minister.
I call the shadow Home Secretary.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets that there have been a record-breaking number of small boat crossings, amounting to over 12,000 this year alone and a lack of action from the Government to tackle this; further regrets that the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill scraps the Government’s ability to remove illegal immigrants to a safe third country, designed as an effective deterrent; and calls on the Government to support the Immigration and Visas Bill introduced by the Shadow Home Secretary, which will prevent foreign nationals, including rape gang perpetrators, from exploiting the courts with spurious human rights claims to avoid deportation, double the residency requirement for Indefinite Leave to Remain and ensure that those who have become a burden can be removed, introduce tighter visa rules for civil partners, allow deportation of all foreign national offenders, and introduce a binding cap on migration, to be set by a vote in Parliament.
For decades, the British people have demanded and politicians have promised dramatically lower immigration. For decades, successive Governments, including the last one, have failed to deliver that. That failure over decades has undermined faith and trust in democracy itself, and it is now time to end that failure and deliver what the public want. That is why we have tabled the Immigration and Visas Bill, which presents a serious, credible plan to fix immigration issues.
According to Ipsos last week, 67% of the British public think that immigration is too high. The British public are right. There are around 11 million foreign-born people in the UK, and for too long immigration numbers have been far too high. Immigration at that level has serious consequences. Some 48% of social housing in London has a head of household who was not born in the UK. In the last 10 years, migration has absorbed around 50% of new housing supply, and some nationalities are exceptionally dependent on social housing—for example, 72% of Somalis live in social housing compared with only 16% of the population more generally.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I think the right hon. Gentleman may have revealed something early on in his speech. He has told us that now is the time for “a serious, credible plan”. Is he therefore admitting that in the 14 years when his party was in government, there was not one serious or credible plan?
Chris Philp
I will talk a bit in a moment about the record of the last Government, but I have already said that for decades, under successive Governments—including the last one, but previous ones, too—immigration has been far too high. That is a failure by Governments over a period of decades, and it is now time to listen to the British people and put that right.
High levels of immigration, especially when there is not proper integration, undermine social cohesion. A nation state and a society cannot function properly when there are fractures in social cohesion.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?
Chris Philp
I will give way in a minute. In advancing the case that we have a problem with social cohesion and a lack of integration, I will present some evidence—it is not an assertion—in support of that. The most recent census revealed that a million of our fellow citizens do not speak English at all or properly. In one part of east London, 73% of children do not speak English as their first language. Some nationalities have extremely low rates of economic activity or very high rates of economic inactivity. For example, among people born in the middle east and north Africa, economic inactivity rates are 40%. That is double the rate for people born in the UK. Among people born in south and east Asia, the economic inactivity rate is 50% higher than it is for people born in the UK. By contrast, the economic inactivity rate for those born in Australia or New Zealand is only half the level of the UK-born population.
I am afraid to say that when it comes to crime and offending, there are some immigrant groups where levels of criminality are very high. For example, Afghans are 20 times more likely to commit sex offences than average. People of Congolese origin are 12 times more likely to commit violence, and Algerians are 18 times more likely to commit theft.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Will the shadow Home Secretary give way?
Chris Philp
I will give way in just a moment. These figures illustrate that we have a problem with integration, and that is why we need to get these numbers dramatically down, until such time as we can address these issues.
Let me turn to the economy, because it has long been thought that net migration is an unalloyed economic good. Indeed, that is one reason why successive Governments of both colours over some decades allowed immigration to get so high and to stay too high. [Interruption.] Both Governments, over many decades. Recent analysis, however, has shown that that belief is simply not true. Office for Budget Responsibility analysis last year showed for the first time that low-wage migration costs the Exchequer money. It is not a net contributor, but a net draw on the Exchequer. It costs other taxpayers money at low-wage levels, particularly where there are large numbers of dependants. It has reduced per capita GDP, which affects the level of affluence enjoyed by the population, and it is one reason that productivity in our economy has flatlined for so long. Businesses have reached for mass low-skill migration instead of investing in technology or automation, or simply becoming more productive.
That has all happened while 9 million of our fellow citizens of working age remain economically inactive. Many of those have caring responsibilities, some genuinely cannot work and others are studying, but many of those 9 million—likely more than half—could and in my view should be in the workforce, instead of large numbers of low-wage, low-skilled migrants being imported.
It is time for a different approach. We need to end the era of mass low-skilled migration and instead focus on small numbers of very high-skilled workers who should be welcomed. We need to invest more in technology and we need to get more UK residents of working age into work, including by investing in training and by reforming the welfare system. I think somebody wanted to intervene, so I will give way.
Jeremy Corbyn
When the right hon. Member has finished denigrating every community that has made its home in this country, will he reflect for a moment on the massive contribution made in education, in health, in transport and in many other industries by people who have come to this country? When he goes into a hospital, does he criticise those people who have come from another country and are working in our hospitals, looking after us and the health service, or is he interested only in denigrating people because they were born speaking a different language and they look different from him?
Chris Philp
I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was listening very carefully. I expressly said that highly skilled migrants do make a contribution and should be welcomed, and when I referred to issues involving social housing, economic inactivity and criminality, I was reading out facts. I was reading out census data published by the Office for National Statistics. Those are facts. The right hon. Gentleman may not like the facts, but they are facts none the less. [Interruption.]
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The hon. Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) has just said, from a sedentary position, that my right hon. Friend was “race-baiting”. My right hon. Friend was simply reading out official statistics in contributing to an important debate about the future of our country. Does my right hon. Friend think that the hon. Gentleman should stand up and put his views on the record, and tell his constituents what he thinks about their legitimate concerns?
Chris Philp
I think he should do that, because the British public have expressed very clear views on this issue, and if we cannot, in this House of all places, lay out the facts—published data—as a way of having an honest debate about it, I do not know where we have got to. That kind of shouting down, saying that it is somehow beyond the pale to discuss these facts, is precisely why we ended up in this mess in the first place.
Let me come on to some of the steps taken late in the time of the last Government—[Hon. Members: “Too late!”] Yes, they were too late: that is right. Those steps took effect in April 2023 and April 2024, and they included preventing social care workers and students from bringing dependants, and raising various salary thresholds. The official forecasts published by bodies such as the Office for National Statistics and the Office for Budget Responsibility show that, thanks to those measures, net migration is likely to fall by 500,000 compared to the peak—and those measures are already having an effect. If Members compare the number of visas issued in the second half of last year with the number in the second half of 2022, they will see a 76% reduction in the number of social care visas, a 21% reduction in the number of student visas, an 89% reduction in the number of student dependant visas, and a 45% reduction in the number of skilled worker visas; many of those people were not, in fact, skilled.
The truth is, however, that we need to go further, and the White Paper published last Monday does not go far enough. On the Laura Kuenssberg programme, on the Sunday before last, the Home Secretary said that the Government’s measures would have an impact of only 50,000 on net migration, whereas the number accompanying the White Paper was 100,000. Whichever number we take, however, it represents only between one tenth and one fifth of the impact of the measures taken by the last Government. That simply does not go far enough.
Chris Philp
I am going to make some progress.
I have a question for the Immigration Minister. She is welcome to intervene if she wishes to do so, or else respond in her speech. The last Government set out a plan to increase the salary threshold for family visas to £38,000, which was due to take effect on 1 April this year, just seven or eight weeks ago. The new Government suspended that measure, which will obviously have the effect of increasing immigration. Will the Government implement the increase in the threshold, as set out by the last Government? As I have said, the measures in the White Paper go nowhere near far enough, whereas we have delivered a detailed plan.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that not only are the measures inadequate, but they potentially open a big new route for inward migration? At the weekend, the Paymaster General suggested that the youth mobility experience scheme that we have with the EU was comparable to the scheme that we had with Uruguay. That involved 500 visas a year. We read in the papers today that the EU is asking for hundreds of thousands of youth visas. Is my right hon. Friend as concerned as I am about the possibility of this being a back door to very substantial migration?
Chris Philp
Yes, I am. It could create an enormous new loophole. There are potentially around 60 million people eligible for that visa route, and we have no idea at all of the cap. A couple of days ago, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister what a numerical cap might be. Characteristically, he did not answer the question. There is no answer to the question of whether people coming over on the scheme could claim benefits, and no answer to whether they could bring dependants. Some European countries grant citizenship to illegal immigrants just three years after they get asylum, and they would be eligible to come as well. It seems to me that this route could create an enormous loophole in our asylum system.
Mr Brash
It is really important that the right hon. Gentleman clarifies something to aid this debate. I have read his motion carefully, and the vast majority of it is about illegal migration. It repeatedly feels like illegal migration and legal migration are being conflated as the same issue, which does not help the debate. Could he clarify whether that is his intention?
Chris Philp
I intend to talk about both. I have been talking about legal migration, and I will come to illegal migration in a moment. The hon. Gentleman raises our Immigration and Visas Bill, and one of its measures speaks directly to the question of legal migration. The numbers have been far too high for decades, and the only way that this democratically elected House can get a handle on this issue is by having an annual binding vote in Parliament to set a cap on the level of legal migration. When the cap has been reached and the agreed number of visas has been issued, the Government would simply stop issuing any new visas. Never again would we see a situation where migration numbers end up being far higher than expected, because this democratically elected House would decide. The system would be transparent and open, and the level could be set at a number that is far, far lower than anything we have seen in recent history. But when we put that in an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill last Monday, the Labour party voted against the measure, which would at last give Parliament powers to limit inward migration. I call on the Government to think again and to support our Immigration and Visas Bill, which would provide Parliament with those powers.
Let me turn to the question of illegal migration, because the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) has invited me to do so, and it would be churlish not to respond to an invitation of that kind. The main mode of illegal immigration into this country—it is not the only one—is in small boats crossing the channel. First, there is no reason at all for anyone, no matter their circumstances, to cross into the UK by small boat from France, because France is a safe country. France has a well-functioning asylum system, and there is no war going on there. No one is being persecuted in France, and people do not need to get into a rubber dinghy to flee from Calais. Not a single one of the people coming across need to do so for reasons of fleeing persecution, and they should claim asylum in France.
The Government’s record in this area is lamentable. When they came into office last July, they cancelled the Rwanda scheme before it even started. Amendment (b), in the name of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, is grossly misleading. It describes the Rwanda scheme as being “in force”, but the scheme was never in force. It was not due to start until 24 July, so the amendment is deeply misleading. Last July, the new Government set out their alternative plan, which was to “smash the gangs”. How is that going? Well, since the election, about 37,000 people have illegally crossed the channel—a 30% increase on the figure for the same period 12 months prior.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister give way?
Chris Philp
Let me just make this point.
This year has been the worst in history for illegal channel crossings. Today, an observer has counted 820 illegal immigrants arriving in Dover, which will make this the worst day of the year so far. The plan to smash the gangs is in tatters and is not working. Far from closing down asylum hotels, as the Government promised to do, they are opening them up. As of 31 December, there were 8,000 more asylum hotels than there were a year before.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
Would the right hon. Member take a moment just to reflect on and remember the woman and small child who lost their lives today in an incident in French territorial waters?
Chris Philp
Yes, of course I would. A number of people have tragically lost their lives crossing the channel, and that is precisely why we need to stop these crossings entirely, as Australia did about 10 years ago. If we can stop the crossings entirely, lives will not be put needlessly at risk and we can avoid tragedy.
Carla Denyer
I have to say that I am disgusted by the narrative coming from Conservative Members, who are continuing, even in opposition and in using this Opposition day debate, to scapegoat migrants for their own 14 years of failure to deliver proper public services, tackle inequality and tackle poverty in this country, which led to many of the problems the right hon. Member has listed. Now that he has moved on to tackling small boats, will he not acknowledge that, without providing safe and regulated routes for people to claim asylum, they are pushed into the hands of people smugglers, and that the most rational as well as the most compassionate thing to do would be to provide those safe and managed routes?
Chris Philp
No, I do not accept that. First, every single person getting on one of those boats is able to claim asylum in France, and they do not need to get into one of those boats to claim asylum in the UK. Secondly, unless every single person that wants to come to the UK is given a safe and legal route, those people who are not given a place on what would presumably be a capped scheme would none the less try to cross by small boat. So the idea that that is a solution to small boat crossings is manifestly absurd.
There are of course safe and legal routes. Some were set up for specific purposes, such as the Ukrainian scheme, the British national overseas scheme, the UK resettlement scheme that saw 25,000 people from Syria resettled here, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and the Afghan relocations and assistance policy for Afghanistan, and the refugee family reunion route. There are plenty of safe and legal routes, and as I say, unless every single person who wants to come here is given a safe and legal route, there will still be illegal crossings, which are anyway unnecessary because France is safe and people are able to claim asylum there.
Chris Philp
I will make some progress.
The Government’s amendment makes reference to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, and the obvious truth is that their Bill will not make a great deal of difference. It creates a Border Security Commander. I know Martin Hewitt and I have every respect for him, but the Border Security Commander has no powers. All the Bill provides are functions, and those functions include preparing an annual report and publishing a strategic priority document. With all due respect to the immigration Minister, I do not think the people smugglers will be very concerned by an annual report or a strategic priority document. The so-called counter-terror-style powers in the Bill amount to confiscating mobile phones and using slightly enhanced surveillance tactics on the criminal gangs. This is a tiny step in the right direction, but the truth is that it will make no difference. As the National Crime Agency has said, law enforcement alone will not fix this problem, because if we dismantle one gang, another will simply pop up in its place. That is what the National Crime Agency assessed a year or two ago.
We do know what worked in Australia, which had an even bigger problem than us about 10 years ago, with about 50,000 people crossing to Australia. It set up Operation Sovereign Borders, which entailed a removals deterrent, and they used Nauru rather than Rwanda. In a few months, after only a few thousand people had been removed there, the illegal maritime crossings to Australia stopped entirely. The number went down to zero because the deterrent effect meant that people in Indonesia did not even attempt the crossing in the first place, and because those crossings were stopped, hundreds and hundreds of lives were saved. So it is clear to me that we need a removals deterrent, like Rwanda, to prevent these crossings.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I visited Rwanda, and I was impressed by the facilities being built for the migrants due to go there. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had the Rwanda scheme not been cancelled by the current Government, the people due to go there would be being cared for and would be setting up new and successful lives, and we would not have people dying in the channel?
Chris Philp
Yes, I completely agree, and I commend my hon. Friend for going to look at the facilities there. Had that scheme been started as intended, on 24 July, the deterrent effect would by now have stopped these crossings. In fact, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees sends people to Rwanda, so it is clearly good enough for them. Other countries, including Germany, are now looking at removals deterrents. It is clear that the Government should restart a proper removals deterrent, and I urge them to do so urgently.
We have presented a Bill to this House which contains serious and credible measures to limit legal migration, to take action against illegal migration and to ensure people with no right to be here are removed, including foreign national offenders. One of the most important measures is to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration matters, because over the years UK judges in the immigration tribunal have adopted evermore expansive definitions of ECHR articles to allow dangerous foreign criminals to remain in this country. There are thousands of examples of the definitions of the articles—not just article 8, but article 3 as well—being stretched and stretched over the years beyond any definition of common sense, and certainly beyond anything contemplated by the framers of the ECHR 70 or so years ago.
That is why the Human Rights Act must be repealed so that Parliament decides the rules, not judges applying expansive interpretations. I will give just one example. There was a Zimbabwean paedophile who failed to be deported back to Zimbabwe. A judge—I think using article 3, not article 8—said no, the paedophile could not be sent back to Zimbabwe in case he faced some hostility back in Zimbabwe. What about the rights of children in the United Kingdom to be protected from paedophiles? What about the rights of British citizens to be protected from foreign national offenders? That is why we need to repeal the Human Rights Act in relation to immigration matters. That is why it is in our Bill, and I call on the Government to support it.
It is time to deliver what the British public want. The Opposition have developed a credible and detailed Bill to do that. I call on the Government, if they are serious, to support it.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Dame Angela Eagle)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to en and insert
“notes that 127,896 people crossed the Channel while the previous Government was in office, as a criminal smuggling industry took hold on the French coast; further notes that 84,151 of those people arrived while the previous Government’s £700 million Rwanda scheme was in force, with only four volunteers travelling to Kigali during that time; welcomes the fact that the current Government deployed the 1,000 staff working on that scheme to process asylum decisions and deportations instead, resulting in 24,000 people with no right to be in the UK being removed in just nine months; further welcome the progress made since July 2024 in establishing the Border Security Command, cracking down on illegal working, and increasing the resources allocated to identifying, disrupting and dismantling smuggling gangs; and looks forward to the crucial agreements reached with France, Germany, Italy, and Iraq to increase enforcement cooperation taking full effect, and the counter-terror powers introduced in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill becoming law.”
I note that the motion begins by regretting the fact that we are 20 weeks into this year and more than 12,000 people have crossed the channel by small boat. Let me start on a note of consensus: I agree with the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) that numbers are too high and I agree that they must come down. I will come on to the action we are taking to achieve that aim.
But first, I must address what we on Merseyside would call the shadow Home Secretary’s brass neck. What he did not say in his speech was that in the last 20 weeks when he was immigration Minister, it was not 12,000 people who crossed the channel, but 13,000. It was not 230 small boats that made the crossing, as we have had so far this year; during his last 20 weeks in charge, it was almost 500. Where was his motion of regret then? Where were his expressions of outrage then? In fact, let me tell the House just how bad it was in his last 20 weeks in charge, from the end of April to the middle of September 2021. More people crossed the channel by small boats in those 20 weeks than in the previous 40 months put together, all the way back to the start of the crossings in 2018: 173 weeks-worth of crossings and he managed to get them to exceed that total in his last 20 weeks in charge.
That was not the right hon. Gentleman’s only claim to fame during his period in office, because he was the Minister in charge when net migration started to run completely out of control. In the 19 months he was in charge, net migration rose from 170,000 to 470,000, a 300,000 increase in less than two years.
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady should correct the record. I never had ministerial responsibility for legal migration, so I would be grateful if she withdrew that.
Dame Angela Eagle
Collective responsibility apparently never used to matter to the Conservative party, but if we remember some of the history we will know that that was actually true.
I want Members to cast their minds back to the summer of 2022, and the 20-week period from Chris Pincher having his night at the Carlton Club all the way through to when the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) had to write an emergency Budget. The Conservative Government descended into utter chaos, with three different Prime Ministers and four different Home Secretaries taking turns in office. What was happening with small boats in the channel during those particular 20 weeks? We had not 12,000 or 13,000 arrivals, but 30,000 arrivals.
Dame Angela Eagle
No.
There were 30,000 arrivals in the space of 20 weeks— not 220 or even 500 boats, but 670 boats. How did that happen? The Conservatives were all too busy fighting among themselves and crashing the economy to bother about protecting our borders.
Let us not forget the role that the shadow Home Secretary played in that little bit of Conservative party history. In the space of 20 weeks, he went from tech Minister to no ministerial role, to Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to Paymaster General, to police Minister, but none of that was his most important role. We should remember—
Dame Angela Eagle
I am talking about 20-week periods, which feature in the Opposition’s motion. I am talking about what happened in a 20-week period, when—just to go back over it—the shadow Home Secretary went from tech Minister to not having a job, to being Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Paymaster General, and then police Minister. The Conservatives brought the same chaos to government as they did to their immigration policy, over which they had control for 14 years.
Dame Angela Eagle
No; I am going to make some of these points. We should all remember that the shadow Home Secretary was once credited as being the economic guru behind Liz Truss’s premiership. This is the man who helped Liz Truss to write her catastrophic mini-Budget, drive the country off a cliff and scupper her own premiership.
Dr Caroline Johnson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The history lesson of who was which Minister in which Government when is obviously all available on the internet, if people want to look. How does it relate to the matter we are discussing today, which is what the current Government are doing to tackle migration?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order, and I look forward to hearing her views in the debate later.
Dame Angela Eagle
I think it is perfectly reasonable to point out the chaos that there was in 14 years of Conservative government and the shadow Home Secretary’s record in these areas—
Dame Angela Eagle
Let me finish the sentence. No, I will not give way.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to point out what the Conservatives’ record is, when they have come to the Chamber to try to lecture the Government about what to do with our immigration and migration policies, even though we are clearing up their mess.
This Government inherited a system in total chaos from the Conservatives, which was partially because of the chaos I have just mentioned—those 20 weeks between the Pincher visit to the Carlton Club and the Budget that was needed to clear up Liz Truss’s mess, when we had three Prime Ministers and four Home Secretaries. Can the Conservatives seriously pretend to the British people that while they were busy doing all that, they had a coherent migration policy that they can lecture us about? I do not think so.
Dame Angela Eagle
I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman now, because he stood up when I got to the end of a sentence.
Dr Evans
I am very grateful to the Minister; now that I know that formally, I look forward to being able to intervene in future.
I would be grateful for clarity on the Prime Minister’s policy. In 2020, he wrote a letter in which he defended migrants’ rights and made a positive case for immigration, yet in his recent speech he talked about crafting an “island of strangers”. Will the Minister provide clarity on which of the two the Prime Minister believes when it comes to immigration policy?
Dame Angela Eagle
When we discuss migration policy, net migration and legal or illegal immigration, it is really important to remember that we are talking about human beings, that we should treat them as human beings and that all human beings have human rights. We should not perpetuate narratives that dehumanise people. Too often—
Dame Angela Eagle
Let me finish the sentence. Too often, the Opposition parties—some of the Opposition parties; not all of them—perpetuate a narrative that is increasingly dangerous. Let us not dehumanise fellow human beings.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I recognise how important it is to use temperate language, but all my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) did was to factually set out two statements the Prime Minister made, with an interval between them. The Minister must acknowledge that the public mood has changed significantly in very recent times. The purpose of this debate is to scrutinise the Government’s record in their 10 months in office and to see how effective those interventions have been. It is perfectly legitimate to ask about the characterisation that her Prime Minister has made very recently about this matter.
Dame Angela Eagle
I do not think that the two quotes are incompatible with each other. Our White Paper sets out the route forward. Net migration is coming down. The legacy that we inherited from the Conservative party was the quadrupling of it in four short years. It is also important to remember that when we are talking about legal migration and net migration, we must have integration and the capacity to absorb the people we allow into our country. Crucially, when it comes to small boats, we have to have the capacity to decide who comes into our country. I do not see that those two statements from the Prime Minister, which were years apart, are incompatible.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
May I commend the Minister for saying that we are talking about people? In a recent debate in this place, I mentioned that Lord Alf Dubs had used the “outrageous” to describe what the Prime Minister had said. He did not. He said that the Prime Minister’s words were “regrettable”. I was wrong about that. Does the Minister realise that words matter when we are talking about people? We can have different views on migration policy, but we are talking about people. I commend those words that she used just now, and I encourage other members of the Government to do likewise.
Dame Angela Eagle
I thank the hon. Gentleman. It is very important to remember that we thrive—as we always have in our history—with a tolerant, multicultural society in which we strive to understand each other and get on with each other, rather than to divide and seek to cause resentments, which some people with their own political narratives do, and that is regrettable.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Clearly, this is a very emotive debate for Members from all parts of the House. It is probably a good time to acknowledge that in the NHS, we are more likely to be treated by an immigrant working for the NHS than we are to be waiting behind an immigrant for treatment. Despite the rhetoric that has been promoted by many politicians over the past few years, especially those who championed Brexit, we should acknowledge that the NHS was not being crippled by immigration, but being sustained by it.
Dame Angela Eagle
It is important that all of us acknowledge the humanity of people who come to our country to work, and the contribution that they make. But we also have to have rules: we have to decide who comes to our country and why, and we have to explain those rules to the electorate. That is what I shall go on to try and do.
We inherited a system in total chaos. The Conservatives allowed criminal gangs to take hold across the channel, which saw the numbers arriving rocket from 300 in 2018 to more 30,000 in a few years. They crashed the asylum system, with a 70% drop in monthly decision making and an 80% drop in asylum interviews in the run-up to the election. There was a 34% drop in returns compared with the last Labour Government, and they spent £700 million sending four volunteers to Rwanda. Their handling of legal immigration was no better. Net migration quadrupled in the space of just four years to nearly a million—that is their record.
Those numbers tell a wretched story of a system spiralling out of control; an entire criminal industry building up along our borders with terrible consequences; ruthless smugglers sending desperate people on dangerous, sometimes deadly, journeys and making a fortune in the process; basic rules not being enforced; and a collapse of trust and confidence in the state’s ability to perform one of its most fundamental functions: keeping our borders safe and secure.
So bad was the Conservatives’ record that the public simply stopped believing anything they said—and who can blame them? For all the talk about stopping the boats and stopping this crisis, the crisis carried on. Unsurprisingly, strong words and grotesquely expensive gimmicks make little impact against sophisticated smuggling networks. The task of ending this chaos falls to this Government.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The Minister knows that I have long believed that this Government are harbouring their own ambitions for a Rwanda scheme. It started with the idea of a returns hub in Albania, but that seems to have been rejected by the Albanian Government. Does the Minister have any further plans to introduce some sort of son of Rwanda on behalf of her Government?
Dame Angela Eagle
When we came into office, we ended the Rwanda scheme. The scheme was about deporting people, processing their asylum in another country and never letting them back here. [Interruption.] But it did not work—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I want to hear what the Minister has to say, as do my constituents and, I am sure, all Members’ constituents.
Dame Angela Eagle
The Conservatives—who conveniently called an early election so that the Rwanda scheme would never start, after spending years saying that even perpetrating the idea of a Rwanda scheme would stop the boats—know as well as I do that over 84,000 people crossed the channel in small boats in the years from the Rwanda scheme being put into law to its being abolished. They can sit there and say that—
Dame Angela Eagle
No. They can sit there after all this effort and all these gimmicks and pretend to the British people and Members of this House that the Rwanda scheme was ready to go and would have worked perfectly if only their Government had staggered on until 24 June, but nobody believes them, because it was a flawed scheme from the start. It was not a deterrent, it did not work, and it was massively expensive.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Angela Eagle
No, I have given way enough. I will carry on and make my points, because we do not have much time.
Since the general election, we have established the Border Security Command to draw together the work of all relevant agencies, supported by at least an extra £150 million this financial year. We have backed UK law enforcement to play a leading role in major international operations to take out the gangs and their supply chains further up the smuggling route. We have deepened co-operation with key allies, including France. We have struck new agreements with Germany, Iraq, Italy, the Calais Group and the G7. We have hosted a major international summit on border security—the first of its kind, with over 40 countries in attendance.
We have also transferred the staff and resources from the failed Rwanda scheme and used them to return more than 24,000 individuals with no right to be in the UK. We increased asylum decision making by 52% in the last three months of 2024, and we have ramped up illegal working enforcement visits and arrests by 40%.
Dame Angela Eagle
No. As this Government have made clear consistently, this is just the start. We need to go further, and we will.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On the topic of going further, will the Minister give way?
Dame Angela Eagle
No.
There are two main factors that make today’s challenges different from the past. The first is technology. The physical distances between nations and continents may not have changed, but the near universality of smartphones and internet access has made the world feel a lot smaller. The gangs can organise journeys more quickly and easily than ever before. For the people they prey on, the promise of a different future is right there on the screen of a mobile device.
The second factor is the emergence of a ruthless criminal industry worth billions of pounds, stretching across borders and continents. On illegal migration and border security, we are acting to get a grip on issues that have gone unchecked for far too long. For years, the ringleaders and facilitators of this trade have been able to evade justice by ensuring that they are not present when money changes hands or the boats set off. To shift the dial, we need action to be taken earlier and faster. We need a response that fits the scale and urgency of the threat, and to mount such a response we need to legislate.
Having intensified activity across policy, operational and international arenas since the general election, we have moved to strengthen the law by bringing forward the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. The House is well acquainted with the Bill, but its core aims and measures bear repeating. The Bill puts an end to the failed gimmicks of the past. It furnishes law enforcement with counter-terrorism-style tactics to strike against smuggling gangs earlier and faster—long before they get within striking distance of our shores. The National Crime Agency and its associates who help us with this work asked us to change the law to provide them with those tactics.
The Bill introduces new powers to seize electronic devices, and new offences covering the sale and handling of small boat parts for use in illegal activities. It upgrades serious crime prevention orders to target individuals involved in organised immigration crime. It creates a new offence of endangering life at sea to act as a deterrent against small boat overcrowding. It also sends an unambiguous message that we are ready to take action against those who are complicit in fatalities in the channel. [Interruption.] I talk about fatalities in the channel; Opposition Members laugh and joke among themselves.
Mark Ferguson
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way—that roar from Opposition Members is no doubt enthusiasm for what I am about to ask.
This week, the Government signed a deal with the European Union that includes, among other things, the ability to find out if someone has been arrested in another European country for people smuggling and the ability to use facial recognition technology. Does she agree that those are exactly the tactics one would need if one wanted to smash the gangs, and yet the Conservative party opposed the deal?
Dame Angela Eagle
I agree. Of course, the Conservative party also oppose all of the Bill, despite—[Interruption.] Well, Conservative Members say it is not true, but they voted against it. I do not know why the Opposition should have voted against a Bill that provides more powers to deal with organised immigration crime internationally.
Dr Murrison
I am, as always, listening carefully to what the Minister has to say. Has she been listening to the National Crime Agency? It has said clearly that although many of the things she has outlined are important, her list is nevertheless missing one thing: deterrence. Will she explain where deterrence features in her measures?
Dame Angela Eagle
The National Crime Agency has not said that about the Bill. In fact, if the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the evidence sessions at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill, he would have heard good evidence from the NCA supporting the parts of the Bill that provide counter-terrorism and prevention powers, and being enthusiastic about the increased opportunities that the Bill will give for successful enforcement.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Dame Angela Eagle
No.
Turning to legal migration, through the plans in our immigration White Paper, we will deliver a system that supports our efforts to reduce net migration and backs British talent. As the Home Secretary set out in the House last week, our approach is founded on five core principles: first, that net migration must come down; secondly, that the migration system should be linked to skills and training domestically, so that no industry or sector can rely solely on overseas recruitment—a major failure of the last Government’s 14 years in office; thirdly, that the system must be fair and effective, with clearer rules in areas such as respect for family life and stronger safeguards against perverse outcomes that undermine public confidence; fourthly, that this country’s laws must be respected and enforced, from cracking down on illegal working to deporting foreign criminals; and fifthly, that the system must support integration and community cohesion.
This is not a task that can be completed overnight. Clearing up the Opposition’s legacy will not be easy because of the chaos that we inherited from the Conservative party. We saw record net migration, record small boat arrivals and record numbers of asylum hotels, criminal smugglers left to run amok for years, and public confidence shaken by past failures, expensive gimmicks and broken promises. It has been left to this Government to clear up the mess and turn the page on the chaos and failures of the past. That work has begun.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, I wish to make it clear that there will be a five-minute time limit for Back-Bench speeches.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The Conservatives want to talk about immigration today. I am delighted to start by talking about their record in government, though I should warn the House that calling it a record may be overly generous. A record, after all, implies coherence, consistency and competence. What we have witnessed instead is a decade of headline-chasing gimmicks, theatrical tough talk, performative cruelty and policy U-turns so dizzying they could give a weathervane whiplash.
Let us start with the basics. As the shadow Home Secretary has already confessed, the Conservatives promised again and again to bring immigration down. That was in 2015, in 2017 and in 2019. Then they promised the same thing in 2024, when the British public in their infinite wisdom told the Conservatives to go back to their constituencies and prepare for a period of quiet reflection. Spoiler alert: they did not just miss those targets—they incinerated them.
At the time of the last election, when the Conservatives wanted to stand on their record, net migration was the highest in British history. It was not just high, not just elevated, but record-breaking. What was their grand response? Rwanda. Yes, Rwanda: a deportation scheme that cost half a billion pounds and moved precisely zero people; a stunt so hollow that it made the policy vacuum look crowded; a triumph of symbolism over substance, if ever there was one. Throughout it all, we heard the same tired refrain from the Home Office lectern from which the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), who opened today’s debate, used to speak: that immigration somehow threatens our identity. That came from a Government who relied utterly and shamelessly on migrant workers to prop up every sector that they spent a decade undermining—from the NHS to social care, higher education to farming. If hypocrisy were an export, the Tories would have been running a trade surplus.
Dr Pinkerton
No, thank you. The hon. Gentleman’s party had nine years; I have less than nine minutes.
Meanwhile, the legal migration rules became so convoluted that even seasoned immigration lawyers needed to phone a friend. Skilled workers were welcomed one week and penalised the next. International students were encouraged to come and then punished for having families. The only thing consistent in Conservative policy was chaos.
All that was wrapped in a layer of chest-beating, slogan-touting nationalism. “Take back control,” they cried, as if chanting it loudly enough might somehow make it true. Yet control is not about standing on the shoreline like King Canute, barking orders at the tide. It is about building a system that actually works—one that treats people with dignity, balances compassion with pragmatism and delivers results instead of rhetoric. Instead, what did we get? An asylum system on its knees, trafficking gangs operating with near total impunity and, most tragically, lives lost in the channel. Just this Monday, 62 people were rescued after a small boat sank in the early hours. One person died; others were injured. That, of course, is not an anomaly. According to the BBC, over 12,500 have crossed the channel in small boats this year, and it is only May.
The Labour response so far has, I would argue, been muted ambition, vague promises and nervous tiptoeing around the institutional wreckage, as if managerial competence alone might magic away a decade of Conservative failures. The Liberal Democrats are clear that these crossings must stop, but unlike the Conservatives we do not confuse cruelty with competence.
Dr Pinkerton
No, I will not.
We believe in expanding safe and legal routes for refugees, including humanitarian travel permits offering vulnerable people a viable alternative to risking their life at sea.
Dr Pinkerton
No.
We also believe that the real way to tackle the channel crisis is through stronger co-operation. That means working through Europol to dismantle trafficking networks, share intelligence, deliver joint enforcement and report progress back to Parliament every six months, as well as a statutory duty for the UK Border Security Commander to meet their Europol counterparts at least once every three months.
Dr Pinkerton
I give way to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans).
Dr Pinkerton
We need safe and legal routes in order to allow people an alternative to putting their life at risk to cross the channel. That work needs to be done on a continental basis with our European partners.
Dr Pinkerton
No, thank you—I will make progress.
We believe that European co-operation is, as I have just indicated, the answer to the small boats crisis. Even the shadow Home Secretary agrees. We all heard him say that the UK’s withdrawal from the Dublin agreement, as part of Boris Johnson’s botched Brexit deal, meant that the UK
“can’t any longer rely on sending people back to the place where they first claimed asylum”.
Straight from the horse’s mouth!
Let us talk about the backlog. At the end of 2024, about 91,000 asylum seekers were stuck in limbo; most had been waiting over six months just for an initial decision. And while they wait, they are banned from working, banned from rebuilding their lives and forced to depend entirely on the state. That becomes a source of resentment for local communities, whose discontent can be weaponised by the darker fringes of our political spectrum.
Dr Pinkerton
No.
That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) tabled an amendment to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill to allow asylum seekers waiting more than three months to work. That is humane, it is pragmatic, and it would help to grow the economy. The Conservatives failed to address that injustice for a decade, and Labour has also failed to grasp the nettle since. It is disappointing that both parties voted against that sensible policy, which would have ensured that those seeking asylum paid their own way.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is making an interesting speech, for giving way. He talks about the importance of safe and legal routes, of which there are several, but does he accept that if those safe and legal routes are capped to some extent, there will still be people for whom there is not a safe and legal route, who may then risk their life in the channel?
Dr Pinkerton
We must also recognise that safe and legal routes are one mechanism that needs to be pursued —so too is international aid, which allows people to stay broadly in the regions from which they may otherwise be displaced. We often forget that Jordan has the highest number of refugees of any country in the world.
We welcome this Government’s attempt to address the wreckage left by the previous Government, but let us be clear: any new immigration policy must come with a credible action plan for filling vital jobs without harming the economy. Let us start with a higher carer’s minimum wage. Right now, our social care sector is in crisis: there are simply not enough workers and millions of people are missing out on essential care. Instead of properly investing in the British workforce, the Conservatives chose the short-term fix: underpaid overseas workers propping up an underfunded system. With those workers being squeezed from all sides, many care homes are at breaking point, and families are being left to pick up the pieces.
It is disappointing that Labour’s national insurance increases are only adding to the pressures in that sector. The Government’s recent immigration announcements look set to disproportionately hit the care sector. Let me be absolutely clear: the people who come to Britain to care for our elderly and disabled are not the problem. They are vital to this country and to the wellbeing of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and they deserve our thanks and respect, not to be demonised by those who failed to pay British workers properly in the first place.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an interesting point about those who help us. Following a complicated pregnancy, my wonderful daughter was birthed at the John Radcliffe hospital in Oxford by a team comprising English, Spanish, Indian, Italian and South African experts. Will he join me in thanking those immigrants who bring so much to our country and help us when we need it?
Dr Pinkerton
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was recently also in my local hospital where I had an extraordinary care experience from a multinational care team. I celebrate all those NHS workers who have come from overseas to serve us all.
Finally, let me turn to one of our greatest national assets: our universities. As a recovering academic who spent more than 20 years in higher education, I have seen at first hand how international students enrich our campuses, strengthen our soft power and boost our economy.
Dr Chambers
My hon. Friend and I have both spent part of our careers teaching at universities. Would he acknowledge, given the university funding troubles at the moment, that our universities are very much propped up by foreign students paying tuition fees, which helps subsidise the cost for British students?
Dr Pinkerton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comment, and I will come on to make a point about the state of the finances of UK universities.
Universities are magnets for global talent and they are the envy of the world, so why are this Government so determined to undermine that? The new immigration White Paper limits international graduates to spending just 18 months in the UK after their studies. This is a short-sighted, self-defeating policy that has already caused alarm in the sector. I have heard from university vice-chancellors who are warning of financial catastrophe and a collapse in international recruitment. The Russell Group has also been clear that international students drive local economies, fund research and help make Britain a science superpower. Higher education is the No. 1 export for 26 parliamentary constituencies and among the top three in 102 of them. We jeopardise that at our peril.
As if that were not enough, there is now talk of a levy on international student fees, because apparently what our universities really need in the middle of a funding crisis and a challenging international recruitment environment is a brand new tax. This feels reckless, and we strongly encourage the Government to think again and to work with the university sector to flesh out those proposals in a way that works for both the country and the university sector.
The Liberal Democrats will always stand for an immigration system that is fair, firm and forward looking, one that supports the economy, reflects our values and honours Britain’s proud tradition of offering sanctuary to those in need. The Conservatives today want to shine a light on immigration, but when we look at their record, we see a decade of chaos, cruelty and catastrophic incompetence. I congratulate them on their courageous decision.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I want to start by being very clear about what I believe and what I know my constituents in Hartlepool believe. Immigration, whether legal or illegal, is far too high. There is nothing right wing or indeed racist about being worried about immigration and its effect on our communities. We as a party and as a Government will absolutely be judged on our ability to solve this problem over the coming years. I know that the Minister agrees with this wholeheartedly, and we will stand by it. We will be judged on our ability to solve this problem.
The Conservative motion before us feels rather like the arsonist turning up and complaining that we have not yet put out the fire. It is a motion that I am sure the Reform party will support, if any of its Members can be bothered to turn up, given its entirely vacuous nature and total absence of any policy solutions.
I want to talk briefly about legal migration, because that hugely exercises me and many of my constituents.
Mr Brash
I will give way in a moment. The last Conservative Government put construction workers on their points-based immigration system. They wanted to import construction workers—the people we need to rebuild this country—while my further education college that trains local Hartlepudlians in construction skills had its funding cut by 10%. That is nothing short of economic vandalism—vandalism that for far too long threw my constituents on the scrap heap. That is the Conservatives’ legacy.
Mr Snowden
The hon. Member just referred to the Government as equivalent to the fire brigade turning up to put out a fire. Given the Government’s track record since coming into office, does he agree that it would be fair to say that they brought petroleum to put out the fire, not water?
Mr Brash
Again, after 14 years, the Conservatives turn up demanding to know why nobody has done anything about the issue in 10 months. Frankly, it is hypocrisy of the highest level.
I turn to the comments made about the Conservatives’ much-touted Rwanda scheme and illegal migration. Time and again we hear the same tired lines—“It was just about to work”, “If only we’d had a little longer, it would have solved all the problems of the small boats.” Well, they had the time. They chose to call the early general election; they could have waited. If they had truly believed in the scheme—this totemic flagship of theirs—they would have backed themselves, but they did not, because they knew it was a busted flush. They knew it was going to fail, and they rushed to the country before that failure could be fully exposed.
How did we get to this point in the small boats crisis, which is central to a lot of what we are talking about? There were no small boat arrivals recorded before 2018. Why? It was because at that time the UK had a returns agreement with the EU—anyone making that dangerous crossing could be returned—but the Conservative Brexit deal did not have a returns agreement in it. The same Brexit deal championed by Reform is the reason for the numbers we are seeing. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not in his place, championed that deal and now uses the numbers it caused as a weaponised political choice.
Mr Brash
The reality is that before 2018 we had that agreement. We have had it before. This Prime Minister has shown time and again his ability to negotiate on the world stage, and I have total confidence that he will do that.
Indeed, the only surrender that has taken place this week is the hon. Member for Clacton surrendering to his sun lounger. As a direct result of the failure of the Conservative party to get a returns agreement in its Brexit deal, we have seen the numbers explode. However, progress is being made. The asylum backlog is now down 32% from its record high under the last Government. In Hartlepool—a town unfairly targeted with disproportionate dispersal accommodation—we now have a freeze on any new asylum accommodation and a clear target set to reduce numbers. But let us be clear: the numbers are still too high. That is why the passage of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill is absolutely essential. It gives us the ability to use counter-terrorism powers to pursue and dismantle the criminal gangs that facilitate those crossings—powers that the Opposition parties voted against.
We have to go further. We must tighten the use of article 8 of the European convention on human rights to ensure that it cannot be misused, so that it is this House, not the courts, that decides who stays and who is deported. I place on the record that any foreign criminal in this country should be deported. We must strike agreements with international partners, so that those people coming on boats can be swiftly returned, because that is the true deterrent. That will be achieved not with Tory gimmicks or by Reform slogans, but with detailed policy, focused diplomacy and the hard graft that this Labour Government have already begun.
It is about time that Conservative Members stopped playing politics with this issue. That is what the people of Hartlepool expect and it is what the Government must do. As long as I am in this place, I will hold them to account to do that.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
There has been too much immigration to this country for far too long. I have great regard for the Minister for Border Security and Asylum, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), as she knows, but regard allows for sharp disagreements, and if she did not know that we disagree, she will after this speech. That level of immigration has damaged our economy, our shared sense of belonging on which social cohesion depends and our public services, by increasing population to an unsustainable level.
Let me first turn to the economy. The effect of mass migration on the economy has been to displace investment in domestic skills and in recruitment and retention of labour. It has displaced investment in the modernisation of our economy and it has therefore damaged productivity by inhibiting it. It has essentially created an economy that is low-skilled and dependent on the provision of relatively cheap labour, and is therefore unfit to compete in a high-tech, high-skilled world. That is what mass migration has done to our economy.
For evidence, one has only to look at the House of Lords Committee on Economic Affairs report, which says:
“we have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population.”
The reason for that is that 70% of migrants are in low and medium-skilled roles. They are not the brightest and the best; they are not the people who we need to fill the vacancies that cannot be filled otherwise. Essentially, vacancies are being filled rather than providing opportunities for the vast majority of those Britons who cannot get a place in the labour market.
Mass migration has certainly damaged social cohesion by undermining our shared sense of belonging. We simply cannot import that number of people—many of whom do not speak English as their first language—without significant investment in integration; yet even if we were integrating at pace, the sheer volume would make it impossible to hold many communities together. We have seen social fracture, with a risk of complete fragmentation, in many communities.
Hon. Members from across the House will have visited schools where the headteacher has said proudly, “Of course, the children here speak 15 different languages,” as though that were a cause for celebration. Without a common language, there can be no currency for learning about one another and there can be no means by which we can share what makes us British. We have to promote the English language and we should abolish any attempt by any authority to translate things into foreign languages: let us make that a rallying cry from today.
Finally, the population of this country is growing at an unsustainable rate. We have heard already that successive Governments, beginning with the Blair Government, then the coalition Government, Tory Governments and now this Government, I am sorry to say, have failed to recognise that if we increase net population by 700,000 to 900,000 people a year, a number that equates to the combined populations of the five cities of Cambridge, Norwich, Hull, Lincoln—
Sir John Hayes
I did say that it was under successive Governments. The reason for that is that the liberal elite of this country—I do not count the hon. Gentleman among its number—that controls far too much of the Establishment and wields too much power is at odds with the understanding which prevails in his constituency and mine of ordinary, everyday working people, who recognised what I have just said long ago but were told by people who should have known better that net migration at that level was not only tolerable but desirable. It is a complete nonsense to pretend so, and every piece of analysis justifies that.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. Does he agree that this concern about the high levels of immigration is also an issue of democracy and the sense of people not being heard? I noted the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) expressing support for deportations of foreign-born criminals, but unless the Government use levers—restrictions on visas for those countries not taking people back—we will again see too many foreign-born criminals in our prisons instead of being deported back to their native country.
Sir John Hayes
I of course agree with my right hon. Friend, who as usual has brought a particular insight based on his long experience to our considerations, and let us just take one example of that. Some 647,000 migrants received health and care visas from 2021 to June 2024; 270,000 of them were workers and an extraordinary, outrageous 377,000 were dependants. Even—[Interruption.] Even, I say to those on the Liberal Democrats Benches, those remaining members of the liberal elite who still perpetuate the conspiracy of silence about these matters must understand that everyone who comes to the country brings an economic value and an economic cost, and many of those dependants will not have brought economic value. That is not to disparage them in any way—they are perfectly nice people, I am sure—but they are not adding to the economy and certainly not adding to the per capita productivity or growth in the economy. In fact, they are detracting from it.
Cameron Thomas
The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the liberal elite but he is being generous there to me, a guy who was state-educated; I am very much just a bloke, but I thank him. One thing the Liberals were elite at was pointing out the fact that Brexit was not going to work. The promise of Brexit was of course to take back control of our borders; what does the right hon. Gentleman make of the fact that immigration is now four times higher than in 2019, following his own party being in government?
Sir John Hayes
Of course Brexit and particularly free movement led to a massive influx of people. When David Blunkett, now Lord Blunkett in the other place, was Home Secretary, he estimated that as a result of free movement 13,000 people would arrive in this country. In fact, the figure was in the hundreds of thousands and when settled status was granted it turned out to be millions. So the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about the effects of Brexit.
Sir John Hayes
I will not because I know others want to get in and I am already testing the Deputy Speaker’s patience.
The truth of the matter is that we need to address migration not only for the reasons I have given about population growth and the damage to social cohesion and the economy, but because unless we do so the British people will assume, and rightly so, that people here just do not get it. Well, I do, and I hope those on my Front Bench now do, and the Government need to wake up and smell the coffee pretty soon.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Immigration is a part of Britain’s history and we have a proud record of supporting those seeking refuge from across the world. British life has been enriched by people who have come from across the globe and made their lives here contributing to the NHS, the business sector, local communities and our economy. However, the immigration and asylum system we have inherited is, after years of neglect, not fit for purpose.
Today, due to time constraints I will particularly focus on border security and asylum, because it goes without saying that border security is national security and our asylum system can only work if it is well managed and well regulated. Indeed, over the last six years criminal smuggling gangs have been allowed to take hold along all our borders, making millions of pounds out of small boat crossings and exploiting some of the most vulnerable people while going virtually unchallenged. We have had expensive rhetoric from the Tories, and I am sorry to say that they practically collapsed the asylum decision-making system and relied on the Rwanda scheme, which was simply a gimmick. They haemorrhaged an eye-watering £700 million of taxpayers’ money on a system that we all knew would not work and, indeed, did not.
It is important to shine a light on what this Government are doing with the legislation they have introduced—the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill—which will put national security back at the heart of our border system. It will give law enforcement agencies counter-terror-style powers and actually deal with the criminal smuggling gangs, and Opposition parties voted against it.
Sally Jameson
I am not taking interventions—you had 14 years to intervene.
We will have tougher border security measures for foreign national sex offenders, who will be excluded from refugee protections. We will have new powers on seizing electronic devices, new offences against gangs selling and handling small boat parts and new and modernised biometric checks overseas to build a clear picture of individuals coming to the UK and to prevent those with a criminal history from entering. We have new agreements with France, Germany, Italy and Iraq on tackling those gangs, and our agreement with France will mean that policing units will have the authority to intercept boats in shallow waters. We have announced a £150 million funding package for the Border Security Command, unlocking new surveillance technology and new additional funding for the National Crime Agency.
Whether it is through the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill or the workings of the immigration White Paper we announced recently, we are finally getting to grips with the system after many years, making it fair and humane but also putting in the graft to ensure that laws and safeguards are in place, so that we do not find ourselves in this mess ever again and that our national security is not put at risk. There is no more rhetoric or gimmicks, but meaningful action and a Government who are actually governing, facing up to the problem and getting it sorted. That is what my constituents and people across the country expect.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Nobody ever voted for mass immigration. The country has repeatedly said that it wants border security, very little immigration and deportations for those who break the law, yet successive Governments have imposed mass immigration on our country. Human rights laws that render border security and immigration control almost impossible are treated like untouchable and unchangeable holy scripture.
The justifications for mass immigration have changed over the years. First, people were told that the numbers were small and that nothing much would change. Next, people were told that immigrants would integrate and that there was nothing for them to worry about. People were then told that multiculturalism was a gift and that things such as foreign foods made it all worthwhile. More recently, as the numbers became unimaginable and communal intimidation, violence and sectarian politics, and even terrorism, became, in the words of Labour’s London Mayor,
“part and parcel of living in a big city”,
people have been told to keep their views to themselves and parrot the official line instead.
However, diversity is not our strength: it is a very serious and difficult challenge that we have to manage, thanks to policies imposed on the public by politicians who chose—arrogantly and callously—to ignore what the people of their country wanted. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) wants to intervene, he can do so. Britain’s true strengths are our long stability, our legal inheritance, our institutions, our language, our shared identity forged through the triumphs and tragedies of history, the places we have in common, our literature, our culture and even our food. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is entitled to intervene, but he has continued to abuse from a sedentary position—as, indeed, have various Members on the Government Benches. This is supposed to be a debate.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman served as the chief of staff to Baroness May, who was the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister at different points. Is he honestly saying that he does not bear a single piece of responsibility for the situation that we find ourselves in today, given that he was at the heart of policymaking when this all went terribly?
Nick Timothy
When I worked in the Home Office, for the first couple of years net migration fell—after that, it rose. The Conservatives, like the Labour party, have failed the public on immigration. I am happy to accept that, but Members on the Government Benches show no sign of any contrition or of learning anything from experience.
While politicians have talked vague nonsense for years about British values, sometimes values that could equally be said to be French or Dutch or whatever, and sometimes values not even shared by many British people, the constituent pieces that add up to our shared identity and culture are precious. Without our shared identity, there is less social trust, little solidarity and less willingness to compromise and make sacrifices for one another. It is undeniable that mass immigration and the radical diversity it has brought have undermined that shared national identity.
What of the justifications for this massive social change? We have been told for years that it is vital for our economy, but mass immigration has displaced British workers from their jobs and undercut wages. The zealots who still support mass immigration will no doubt scoff that I am guilty of the lump of labour fallacy. If I am, so is the Migration Advisory Committee and various immigration experts. The only fallacy is believing that importing millions of fiscally negative immigrants will make us richer.
Nick Timothy
I will in a moment. That fallacy is now enshrined in Whitehall policy through the Office for Budget Responsibility, which insists that immigration creates fiscal headroom without calculating, as the Danish Ministry of Finance does, the true long-term fiscal cost of immigration by national background of migrants. I will now give way, unlike the Immigration Minister when she was going on.
Dr Caroline Johnson
My hon. Friend is making an important speech. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) talked earlier about the five cities-worth of people being brought into the country. What that essentially means is that we have to build five more cities to accommodate them. Has that not increased house prices and, in fact, made many young people poorer and meant they find it more difficult to get on the housing ladder?
Nick Timothy
Indeed. I remember when Dominic Raab was the Housing Minister and he made that point. The response from the Labour party was one of sheer hysteria, with accusations of bigotry. My hon. Friend is completely right.
Mass immigration has also killed labour market pressures for employers to invest in skills and training, labour-saving technology and the pay and conditions of their workers. Then there is the capital stock of the country. When our population increases at the kind of speed we have experienced, what do we expect to happen? There are fewer hospitals and surgeries, less space on trains and the road, and fewer flats and houses and police officers and prison spaces per person than before.
Let us dwell for a moment on the social problems that we have created for ourselves. According to the census, there were six London boroughs where a majority of people were born abroad. In towns and cities across the country, the census shows that we can draw a line where on one side the white British population lives and on the other lives an Asian Muslim population. The reasons that should alarm us ought not to need spelling out.
We are importing many of the world’s hatreds. Just look at the Saturday marches against Israel and the intimidation of Jewish communities, or the riots we saw in Leicester three years ago. When the Prime Minister referred to an island of strangers, he was not wrong, even if the Immigration Minister did not back him up in using that language in her speech.
The pity is that the policy response is risible. From Tony Blair to Boris Johnson, we have seen successive Governments talk things up, only to deliver ultra-liberal immigration policies. [Interruption.] Yes, this is the point, and Labour still will not learn. This Government are pursuing the same cynical path. Their policies are pathetic. They cannot even tell us if indefinite leave to remain changes will apply to immigrants already in the country. We know that Labour lacks what it takes to drastically cut the number of people coming into the country or to remove all the people who are here who break the law, claim benefits or take out more than they put in. I hope, and I believe that my party has rediscovered the necessary steel. The future of our country will depend on it.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
There was a court case yesterday where a people smuggler, known as “Captain Ahmed”, was jailed for his part in co-ordinating and managing the small boat crossings of more than 3,000 people. He is a ruthless man who treated human life as rubbish, ordering the murder of migrants and happily bribing officials to pursue his financial objectives. This man was smuggling across the Mediterranean, but his methods mirror that of the criminal gangs bringing people across the English channel. My question to the Opposition is: why was he here living in asylum accommodation when he was arrested in 2023? He had previously served a prison sentence in Italy for drug smuggling, and yet he was never deported. That is why I welcome the borders Bill.
Dame Angela Eagle
Does my hon. Friend agree that when we came into government, there were more than 18,000 foreign national offenders living in our communities who should have been deported and had not been? When we left office in 2010, that number was 4,000.
Jo White
I thank the Minister for making that key point. The British people were let down by the Opposition when they were in government. I welcome the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which gives us the powers to pursue those people not only here in our country, but across borders to their origins. In government, we will never allow people with criminal records to be considered for asylum.
The last Government allowed the backlog of asylum seekers to rise to over 80,000, housing them in hotels across the country and, when that became too embarrassing, trying to hide them away by putting them on a disease-ridden barge, buying disused Army bases at huge expense, and setting up a dispersal process with houses being purchased across the country.
It is only this Government who have tackled the problem head-on. More than 24,000 people have now been returned, and 23 hotels have been closed down—but I want more, my constituents demand more, and I will keep coming to the House to ensure that we get more. We must get the borders Bill into law, and smashing the gangs is critical. Reform and the Tories keep voting against the Bill, while repeatedly offering no viable alternatives. There is only one party that can be trusted to secure our border, and I will back the Government.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I have to say that I was amazed to see a Conservative motion on immigration on today’s Order Paper. I think all that most of us in the House require from the Conservatives is a full and sincere apology for the mess and chaos that they left behind, and then for them to go away for a long period of self-ordained silence. They thought that they were reducing immigration, but what they did was quadruple it. They did not even understand their own immigration policy. They were letting hundreds of thousands of people come into this country. So please, do not get to your feet and have the temerity to lecture this House about immigration after the mess that you made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Gentleman did rather incite me to get to my feet, and I am somewhat stunned at his allegation that I have played any part in this.
Pete Wishart
That was not like me, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was very lax, and I apologise.
The Conservatives are currently languishing in fourth place in the opinion polls, and it is a well-deserved position.
Cameron Thomas
I am making this intervention from the Reform Bench, in the absence, apparently, of their own interest in immigration.
Another thing that I think the Conservative party might answer for is the fact that Vladimir Putin weaponised immigration in 2015 through his terrorist tactics in Syria. I wonder whether the Conservatives have given much thought to how the Conservative Friends of Russia group continued to operate for nearly a decade thereafter.
Pete Wishart
I do not think the Conservatives give much thought to anything in this particular field, so I would not even venture to give an opinion on that.
As I was saying, the Conservatives are in fourth place in the polls, and their entire vote has practically gone wholesale to Reform. This scrappy, desperate motion represents a vain attempt to stop that leakage and get some of their vote back. Let me also say to the hon. Gentleman that it does not matter how hard they try—and they are trying—because they will never outperform Reform, who are the masters of nasty rhetoric. The Conservatives are mere amateurs compared with the hon. Gentlemen of Reform who just so happen not to be in their places again.
The whole debate about immigration is descending into an ugly place which seems to fire the obnoxious and the unpleasant. I am talking not only about those two parties but about the Government too, and I am now going to direct my blame at some of the things they are doing. A new consensus is emerging in the House. For all the faux arguments and fabricated disagreements, the three parties are now more or less united in a new anti-immigrant landscape in the House. The only thing that seems to separate them is the question of who can be the hardest and the toughest in this grotesque race to the bottom on asylum, refugees and immigration.
The fear of Reform percolates through every sinew in this House. It dominates every single debate, and everything that is going on. Reform is killing the Conservatives, but Labour seems to want a bit of the self-destruction action too. Everything the Government do on immigration is now looked at through the prism of Reform, and they have even started to get the Prime Minister to use Reform’s language. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) could not have been more generous in his tribute to the Prime Minister for his contribution to nasty rhetoric. The thing is, the “island of strangers” speech could have been made by any one of these three parties.
Sir John Hayes
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have not changed my mind about this; I have believed it forever. I only change my mind about anything about once a decade. The truth of the matter is that he must know that, according to the ONS, the scale of population growth will be equivalent to the population of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Newcastle, Peterborough, Belfast, Cardiff, Manchester, Ipswich, Norwich, Luton and Bradford added together. That cannot be reconciled with the quality of life and standard of living that his constituents and mine expect.
Pete Wishart
I know the right hon. Gentleman does not change his mind, and it is something that we all love him for in this place. Maybe we should look forward to what is on its way in a couple of decades. I think he knows that a spectacular population decline will start to kick in around the mid-part of this century. Spain and Italy are already doing something about it. All we are doing in this place is stifling population growth through the two-child benefit cap—something that works contrary to what we require.
All Labour is doing is climbing on the anti-immigrant bandwagon, and that is alienating its supporters. I am sure that everybody saw the Sky News report this morning on the intention of former Labour voters. Sky News found that only 6% of lost Labour voters have gone to Reform. Labour has mainly lost votes to the Liberal Democrats and the parties of the left. In fact, Labour has lost three times as many voters to the Liberal Democrats and the left as it has to Reform, and 70% of Labour voters are considering abandoning the Labour party to support the parties of the left.
Pete Wishart
I cannot give way any more.
In chasing Reform voters by using its language and appeasing Reform, Labour is only further alienating its supporters. One can only wonder at the political genius that is Morgan McSweeney, who has managed to chase voters away in a search for voters who do not exist.
Pete Wishart
I cannot give way—I have no time.
Ordinary Labour voters have good, liberal values, but just now they have a party that is not representing their views. That is why they are moving on.
In Scotland, we take on Reform. We are one of the few parties across the United Kingdom that has steadied its own position, and we have even improved it slightly. There is a big gap between us and Reform. That is because we take on Reform’s arguments and we do not appease the party or go on to its agenda. I encourage Labour colleagues to think about that.
We now have an immigration policy that is the exact opposite of what we need in Scotland, and it is contrary to our national interest. Scotland is in the early stages of the population and demography crisis, and it will only get worse because of what this Government are going to impose on us. We will soon have too few working-age people available to look after an ever-increasing older population.
For all three parties—Labour, the Conservatives and Reform—immigration is a burden and is out of control. For us in Scotland, it is essential to the health of our workforce and our economy. That is why we will never stop calling for a separate Scottish visa. We need the tools in our country to face up to our crisis. I will leave the Government to get on with their grotesque race to the bottom and to pander to Reform in a vain attempt to get some votes, but Scotland does not need their new “island of strangers” policy. It is contrary to what we want, so please leave us right out of it.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Conservatives have the brass neck to come to this place and get Member after Member to stand up and talk as if they are commentators. They are completely ignoring their role over the previous 14 years, when their record on immigration was appalling. It started with David Cameron, who promised to get migration down to the tens of thousands. That was followed by a conveyor belt of Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries who ratcheted up the rhetoric almost as high as the number of people coming into the country. Finally, we had the Boris wave, which saw net migration hit almost 1 million. I have to say that, when I was listening to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) talk about the liberal elite, I wondered if he was referring to Boris Johnson, because it happened on his watch. Boris’s betrayal was perhaps the worst, given that he led a Brexit campaign that famously centred on control of our borders. The Conservatives’ 14 years in power prompts the question: if they want a binding cap on migration, who on earth would trust them to keep to it?
There is a strong case for control over legal migration, and I wholeheartedly welcome the steps outlined in last week’s immigration White Paper, which I believe will contribute to that aim. My constituents do not object to people from around the world coming to this country to contribute to our economy and enrich our culture. We have a proud history of that. However, it must be carefully balanced with preventing exploitative labour market practices that create a race to the bottom on pay and conditions in crucial sectors such as health and social care, as well as the need to build strong, united and integrated communities.
Sir John Hayes
I take the hon. Member’s point. As I did say, successive Governments are to blame for this, beginning with the Blair Government or perhaps even earlier. Would he, however, acknowledge that we cannot increase the population on the scale we have been doing without putting unbearable pressure on demand for housing, access to GPs and health services, and other public services?
Connor Naismith
This Government are committed to bringing the numbers down. Regretfully, the right hon. Gentleman forgets the role of austerity in putting pressure on public services, housing and the other things he mentioned.
Turning to the issue of small boats, I first want to acknowledge that this country has a proud history of providing refuge to people fleeing persecution, and I think most people believe in those traditions, but this should not be determined by one’s ability to cross a continent or pay huge sums of money to people smugglers. What we need, quite simply, is fairness and control. That is why I welcome the steps the Government have taken to speed up processing, disrupt the smuggling gangs and work alongside our international allies, whom the previous Government unfortunately spent a lot of their time alienating.
Connor Naismith
No, I will not give way. I want to make some progress.
The Rwanda plan was, quite simply, a joke, and I think the Tories take my constituents for fools. It cost them £700 million, and they sent only four volunteers. Shockingly, they still think it just needed more time. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), the former Prime Minister, staked his entire reputation and electoral fortunes on stopping the boats. If the Rwanda plan was going to work, why did he call a premature election in the rain outside 10 Downing Street rather than in an airport hangar? It was because he knew the plan was not going to work. Why else would he do it?
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member, who is my neighbour in Cheshire, for giving way. I note his views on the last Government’s record, but can he explain how Labour’s decision, just 20 days after the election, to suspend the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which would rightly have prevented illegal migrants from claiming asylum or gaining British citizenship, sends anything other than completely the wrong message and undermines public confidence in the immigration system?
Connor Naismith
Quite simply, my experience from talking to voters—we are talking about public confidence —is that the public had no confidence in the Rwanda plan. Everybody could see that it was not going to work, so the Government were absolutely right to cancel it. The answer is that, just like my Labour colleagues and millions of voters, the previous Government knew that it was going to fail. These issues are of crucial importance to my constituents and I will continue to push the Government to do more to control our borders, but that will not happen by slogans or press releases. It will happen through the hard yards of good policymaking, and I am pleased to see that that work is well under way.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
It does not matter how many times the Prime Minister repeats and repeats his vacuous election slogan of “smash the gangs”, there is no plan to do it, it is not happening and nobody out there believes him. The Government had an opportunity when they came to office. The Rwanda scheme was on the brink of becoming operational, which would have given them one of the most robust deterrents in Europe. As we saw in Australia, when a scheme similar to Rwanda was set up in the Pacific, it only had to deport the first few thousand and it had the impact of largely stopping the boats arriving—but in a callous, irresponsible and purely political move, Labour cancelled the Rwanda scheme. It is a political calculation that the Government have got entirely wrong, as without a deterrent everything else they announce or say is just words.
The Government have had nearly a year to show us they had more up their sleeve on immigration than buzzwords and crocodile-tear outrage about the scheme—so, how is that going? Since the election, almost 36,000 illegal immigrants crossed the channel, a 30% increase on the same period 12 months prior. To date, 2025 has been the worst ever year for small boat crossings, with around 12,000 arrivals. That surge in numbers has led to Labour already breaking its manifesto promise to end the use of asylum hotels. Figures show that on 31 December 2024, there were 8,000 more people in asylum hotels than when the Conservatives left office.
The Government have been clutching at straws for good news. They started off by holding a press conference to celebrate the arrest of one member of just one gang—out of the thousands of criminals involved in the illegal immigration trade—to show they were smashing the gangs. If that was not enough of a laughable spectacle in its own right, the investigation had mainly been undertaken before they came to office and such arrests are a matter of course anyway. More recently, they have switched to triumphantly claiming 24,000 deportations. Time and again, even at Prime Minister’s questions today, the Prime Minister has refused to outline how many of those are just routine and voluntary removals, rather than enforced deportations of people who have illegally crossed the channel.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Oliver Ryan
I thank the hon. Member. Speaking of voluntary removals and laughable schemes, does he accept that the four people his Government sent to Rwanda were in fact volunteers, and that the whole scheme was laughable and hideously expensive?
Mr Snowden
It did not start. The scheme was not even operational. That is like buying a car, waiting until it gets to the showroom and then claiming that only the showroom manager is driving it, so it is not worth the money. It is a ridiculous thing to say.
We hear vacuous slogans, empty words—quite apt—cooked up stats and a Prime Minister unable to answer the most basic of questions; he is now not only reduced to begging other countries to give him options to provide a safe country to deport to, but he is publicly getting slapped down by the leaders he is asking. The return hubs he is now so desperately trying to set up are only a watered-down version of the Rwanda scheme. Even more worryingly, not only have they shot themselves in the foot by cancelling Rwanda; in launching their new border security Bill, they have not realised that without a deterrent it is all just words.
Mr Brash
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can address the point I made in my speech. Repeatedly, Conservative Members, including him, have said, “If we had only waited a little bit longer, Rwanda would have worked.” Why do you think the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) called the general election—
Mr Snowden
The hon. Member would have to ask my right hon. Friend.
The only tangible elements of the Bill are: a Border Security Commander with no powers other than writing a report and setting some objectives; and new powers to confiscate phones from people who arrive illegally, missing the fact that most of the them discard their phones to hide their identity anyway. Notably, the Bill repeals lots of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, lifting the requirement for the Government to remove people who arrive here illegally and allowing illegal migrants a path to citizenship.
Let us be clear: there should be no route to citizenship for anyone who arrives in this country illegally. France is a safe country, and to get to France—let alone the UK—people will have had to pass through many other safe countries. Everyone who arrives in small boats across the channel or in lorries from the continent is arriving from a safe country and should therefore qualify for immediate deportation. These are not asylum claims; it is illegal immigration.
As much as I would like to take up all the time in this debate—and more—talking about the ludicrously weak and counterproductive policies of this Government, by the time I finished, many more small boats would have crossed the channel. I would rather spare the Minister the time, and hope the Government spend it instead correcting some of their mistakes.
We have outlined some provisions in our Bill that would help, including: disapplying the Human Rights Act from immigration matters; a requirement to deport all foreign criminals regardless of human rights claims; the introduction of a scientific age assessment technique when an illegal immigrant is trying to pretend they are over 18; a requirement to impose visa sanctions on countries that do not take back their own citizens; and increasing the period to qualify for indefinite leave to remain from five years to 10.
I live in hope, though—for the sake of our national security, the confidence of the British public in our immigration system, and to reduce the strain on our public services—that the Prime Minister picks up the phone to his opposite number in Rwanda, apologises for the disrespectful way he treated their country and begs to get the deal back on the table. However, I think it will take a few more years of repeating empty slogans, dodging difficult questions, and holding press conferences every time there is an arrest of a single person out of the thousands involved in the illegal immigration trade, before the Prime Minister realises that instead of smashing the gangs, he is making everything worse, and that it is time to pick up the phone to Rwanda again.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Ind)
The Opposition motion, which I will not be supporting, uses the word “regret” an awful lot, but it omits any regret on their part for their complete failure to properly secure our borders during 14 years in government. The Conservatives ran an experiment in this country, and they will never be forgiven for it—especially for facing both ways on the immigration question for such a long time.
In 2010, the Tories pledged to get immigration down to the tens of thousands, and over the next five years they failed. In 2015, the Tories said they would get net migration down to the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands, and they failed. In 2017, they said they would get migration to the tens of thousands, not the hundreds of thousands, and they failed. In 2019, they said the “numbers will come down”—at that point, they had panicked slightly about the whole affair.
At the time the Tories were leaving office, net migration was nearly 1 million. Time after time, over 14 years, they told the British people they would tackle net migration and bring the numbers down, but they did not—and now, after 10 months, they have the bottle to stand in front of this Government and ask, “Why are the numbers not down yet?”. We are taking action to bring the numbers closer to the approximately 200,000 that they were when Labour left office in 2010. There is this rhetoric that immigration has been an issue for 30 or 40 years, but the numbers have been sky high over the past 10—since Brexit, really. And the Tories wonder why people think they are irrelevant.
There is mention in the motion of a cap, but—as always with this Opposition—there is a history lesson here. I am old enough to remember 2013 to 2015, and the cap that was announced by the coalition Government. [Hon. Members: “Surely not!”] I was a very junior councillor. A cap was mentioned by the coalition then—a complete chocolate fireguard. They got the headlines when they announced it, but it failed to do the job, so they ditched it. In the end, it was not worth the press release it was written on. It was game playing of the highest order.
We are seeing the same thing again now; history is repeating itself. In the past four years, net migration quadrupled and our asylum system was completely destroyed. The processing of asylum claims took so long and numbers increased by so much that the previous Government were spending £9 million a day on hotel stays across more than 400 hotels. Hotel stays for my constituents are a treat, and not something to be doled out to people coming off boats in the channel—but unfortunately that is what the Conservatives did for the best part of five years. My constituents do not begrudge genuine asylum seekers, but that system was broken and they have told me that that is just not on.
Boats over the channel were basically invented by the previous Government. Indeed, 13,500 people crossed the channel in small boats in the shadow Home Secretary’s last five months as Minister for Immigration, and 260 boats crossed in his last two. The same number of boats have crossed the channel in the last six months of this Government. I would say that that is progress.
If a person is here in this country illegally—and illegal is illegal—they will be removed. That is not in contention; I do not see how it can be. In contrast to those years of open borders, this Government have secured agreements with France, Germany, Italy, Iraq and more. The arrangements with France and Germany in particular are game-changing, and I want to see French boats in the water stopping those asylum seekers in the months to come. I will finish there, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am very short on time, but thank you very much for calling me to speak.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend, the shadow Home Secretary, rightly said earlier, migration has been too high for decades and remains so. In every year since 1997, with the unsurprising exception of 2020, net migration was over 100,000 people. Every election-winning manifesto since 1974 has promised to reduce migration. Successive Governments of both parties have promised to end the era of mass migration and control the borders, and successive Governments have failed. In the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), the previous Government, like the Governments before them, also promised to do exactly this, but, again, like the Governments before them, they did not deliver. I am afraid that this Government are just the latest addition to this rogues’ gallery of broken promises.
Worse than disregarding the public’s wishes, public servants have told the British people to ignore what they can see and feel around them. The public was told that migration would deliver growth. It has not. Instead, people can feel their wages stagnating because they are being undercut. They can see the pressure of mass migration in their soaring rents, in how hard it is for their children to get on the housing ladder, in the lack of cohesion in their communities, and in the pressure on their GPs, dentists and schools. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), immigration is the biggest broken promise in British politics, and probably the biggest single reason that British politics is so broken.
Katie Lam
I wish to make a little progress.
Fixing this broken system is the single biggest thing that we can do to restore trust in our politics. That means control of the borders and an end to mass migration; we need a system that works in the interests of this country and its people. Those who have come here legally and not contributed enough should be made to leave. Those who are here illegally, either by crossing the channel or from overstaying their visas, must be removed. The era of taxpayers funding accommodation, education, healthcare and legal challenges against their own Government for those who have no right to be here must end forever.
Sir John Hayes
We should deport the approximately 1 million people who are here illegally. We also need, as I hope my hon. Friend will acknowledge, to look at the indefinite right to remain. All kinds of people—with extremely dubious pasts, presents and possibly futures—have been granted that status. Will she commit the Opposition to relook at that, because indefinite does not mean permanent?
Katie Lam
We already have committed to that and will continue to do so. It is a clear amendment both to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill and to the deportation Bill in the name of my right hon. Friend, the shadow Home Secretary.
Unless and until politicians of all stripes can deliver the migration system that the British people have voted for time and again, there will be no reason for them to trust in our political system, and they will be right not to. We have seen no indication from this Government since they came to power last year that they are willing to do what needs to be done to give the British people the immigration system that they want and deserve. The debate today, I am afraid, has been no different.
The Minister clearly wished only to speak about the record of the previous Government. But they are in charge now—and what do we see? My right hon. Friend, the shadow Home Secretary, points out the facts. He says that Afghans are 20 times more likely to be sex offenders, and Government Members say, “Outrageous!”. Well, it is outrageous; saying so is not. He points out that over 70% of Somalis live in social housing, and they call it race-baiting. That is exactly the attitude that has allowed our political class to ignore the reality of the world that we live in. No party and no Government who continue to treat the British public’s very legitimate concerns with such scorn will ever rise to meet the challenge of securing our border.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) called for more safe and legal routes, but demand to come to Britain will always dramatically outstrip our supply. There is no number of safe and legal routes that will ever stop people making the dangerous channel crossing. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) called for this House—not foreign courts—to decide who can stay in this country. I admire his stance, and I look forward to the launch of his campaign to leave the ECHR.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) made a characteristically insightful speech about the substantial challenges of integration, and rightly connected that to the volume of immigration. No country of our size could ever hope to integrate that many people each year, and he is right to say so.
Mr Brash
It is possibly in order for me to correct the shadow Minister. I was very clear that I believe that the application of article 8 should be tightened so that courts in this country are not sovereign over this place regarding deportations. It should be this place that ensures deportations—not our courts.
Katie Lam
I thank the hon. Member for his clarification. I hate to break it to him, but article 8 will not do what he thinks it will, and tightening it will not solve the problem. The article that presents the biggest problems, actually, is article 3, which does not have caveats and cannot be tightened in the way that he suggests.
The hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) spoke of border security as national security. She was correct to do so, but just last week when told in this Chamber that terrorists come across the channel in small boats, her colleagues on the Government Benches laughed and jeered.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk made, as ever, a compelling economic and cultural case for control. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), who is not in her place, set out some of the worst problems with the current immigration system, but she was perhaps not entirely forthcoming in the way she shared the statistics. Far from Labour closing asylum hotels, there are 8,000 more people in asylum hotels than when Labour came to power.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and I have aired our differing views on this topic over many weeks in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee. I am not sure either of us has done much to persuade the other, but I always enjoy his company.
Dr Evans
In 2020 the Prime Minister—then Leader of the Opposition—pledged as point 6 of his “Another future is possible” plan that the Yarl’s Wood detention centre would close. To my knowledge, as of today it is still open. Given my hon. Friend’s experience, is she aware that Yarl’s Wood will be closing? Has she heard the Government commit to closing it, and if so, when will that be?
Katie Lam
I can only recommend that my hon. Friend does not hold his breath.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for mentioning what needs to be done on age assessments. The amendments we have tabled to the border security Bill would make much progress on that.
Last week the Prime Minister said that mass migration risked turning us into an “island of strangers”. He was absolutely right. He recognised, as we do, that fixing migration is the single most important thing that his Government could do to restore public trust in our politics, yet the plan that he presented—the Government’s migration White Paper—is not a plan to end mass migration or control our borders. It is a plan for more of the same.
Instead of a detailed programme, the Government’s White Paper offers more delays, more reviews, more consultations and more half-measures. Their plan to deport foreign criminals is subject to a consultation later this year. Their plan to reform the rules on settlement is subject to another consultation. When given the chance, they have voted against a hard cap on visas, against our plan to disapply the Human Rights Act 1998 from immigration cases, and against our plan to restrict long-term settlement to those who contribute enough to cover their costs. They are just not serious.
The Home Secretary estimates that their plan will cut migration by 50,000 people. In the context of hundreds of thousands a year, that is just not enough. The Government have no plan to remove the 1.2 million people here illegally and no real plan to restrict study or family visas, which made up 40% of all migration last year.
If we thought that the Government’s plans would genuinely end mass migration and control our borders, we would support them in a heartbeat. The need to do what is right for our country is bigger than any single party, politician or Prime Minister. Unfortunately, this Government have no plan, and they will go down as the latest Government who failed to fix mass migration. This is the most shameful betrayal of public trust in British politics, and it must end, but the Labour Government show no sign that they will do what needs to be done.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate, which I welcome, because it is time to restore control over the UK’s immigration system. Coincidently, that is the title of our 76-page White Paper, which is a serious plan, and one that the Conservatives should have thought more about bringing forward when they were in government.
Let me reassert the fundamental point made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Border Security and Asylum in her opening speech: the Government are picking up the pieces after years of chaos and dysfunction. The Conservatives can talk all they want, but they cannot rewrite history. When it comes to small boats, the worst day, the worst week, the worst month and the worst year all took place on their watch in 2022—after the Rwanda deal had been signed. They gave us record net migration, they gave us record small boat arrivals and they gave us record numbers of asylum hotels, so we will take no lectures from them.
It bears repeating that what we inherited was, by every possible measure, a failing system. Net migration had risen to record levels, driven in large part by overseas recruitment, despite the public being assured that it would come down. Order and control utterly vanished from the legal immigration system as net migration has quadrupled in recent years to record highs. That was at the same time as investment in training went down: total investment in training per employee fell by 19% in the decade to 2022. It is this Government, in the spring statement, who announced £625 million to go towards skills training. Those important points were made by hon. Members across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash).
I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for talking about this issue. There is a debate to be had about cause and consequence, but we cannot deny that apprenticeships in engineering halved while visas doubled on the Conservatives’ watch. That is a serious issue, which the White Paper is tackling. I urge the Conservative party to engage with the substance of that White Paper and the serious reforms we need to make.
The dramatic increase in net migration has had serious and far-reaching implications across a range of areas, from public services and community cohesion to housing stock, the economy and our domestic labour market. Perhaps most damagingly of all, it has badly dented the confidence of our constituents, who want an immigration system that is fair, controlled and managed. They want to see opportunity for themselves and for their families.
Migration is an important part of our national story—none of us should deny that—because for generations people from all over the world have come to Britain to live, to study and to work, from members of the Windrush generation who helped rebuild our country following the second world war, to the doctors and nurses working in our NHS. Indeed, they enrich our society and culture, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) outlined, but recognising the value and contribution of legal migration is not the same as having no controls. For far too long, a persistent and abject failure to exert control has undermined the system, with grave consequences. That is the situation we inherited on legal migration, and we must now have the important debate about why that has been the case and what we must do to bring it down.
The picture on illegal migration and border security was no better. Under the Conservatives, small boat crossings grew in number from a few hundred in 2018 to tens of thousands. Hotel use peaked with 56,000 asylum seekers in 400 hotels in the autumn of 2023 when the shadow Home Secretary was at the Home Office.
Luke Akehurst
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. This has not been touched upon in the debate, but there is an issue of asylum seekers not just in hotels but in houses in multiple occupancy. That is causing a lot of community cohesion problems, with unscrupulous landlords buying up HMOs in cheap terraced housing in the towns and villages of County Durham. Does the Minister accept that that is also a problem that rose and rose under the previous Government?
Seema Malhotra
That is indeed an issue that the Minister for Border Security and Asylum is working on with local authorities, so that there are caps and we have a well-managed process.
Seema Malhotra
I will make some progress first.
There is also the issue that the UK has come to be seen as an easy target by criminal smuggling gangs, who relentlessly undermine our border security and put lives at risk in the channel and elsewhere, the consequences of which, tragically, we have seen again today. That cannot go on, and under this Government it will not.
We have restarted asylum decision making on the horrendous backlog that was left by the previous Government. Returns are up by 21% to more than 24,000. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) raised the question of those who have been subject to enforced returns. The number is up significantly on the previous year. He may want to engage with those figures and his Government’s record on that.
We have taken action through the new Border Security Command, the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill and the immigration White Paper.
Seema Malhotra
I want to make some more progress. We are acting to restore order and control to the immigration system and to give law enforcement the powers they need—powers the parties on the Opposition Benches voted against.
We have laid out a set of robust measures in the immigration White Paper, including reversing the long-term trend of increasing international recruitment at the expense of skills and training. We want to see net migration come down by investing in training. Also, for the first time, a labour market evidence group will be established, drawing on the best data available to make informed decisions about the state of the labour market and the role that different policies should play, rather than always relying on migration. Immigration must also work for the whole of the UK. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) and I have been in a number of debates on the needs of Scotland. Departments across Government, along with the devolved Governments and sector bodies, will engage in the new labour market evidence group as part of the new approach.
We will tackle the overly complex family and private life immigration arrangements, where too many cases are treated as exceptional in the absence of a clear framework. That is why legislation will be brought forward to make clear that Government and Parliament decide who should have the right to remain in the UK. That will address cases where legal arguments based on article 8 and the right to family life are being used to frustrate deportation when removal is clearly in the national interest.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Petitions
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Please could Members leaving the Chamber do so silently and quickly.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I rise on behalf of petitioners in North Shropshire. Oswestry post office is one of 115 larger Crown, or directly managed, branches that have been listed at risk of closure by the Post Office. Its closure would leave many residents without easy access to essential postal and banking services, which are particularly important for elderly residents, small businesses and those without access to reliable public transport. An online petition with similar wording to the petition that I present today has been signed by 2,668 people.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to guarantee the future of Oswestry Crown post office.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of North Shropshire,
Declares that Oswestry Crown Post Office has been earmarked for potential closure, removing vital mail, money, travel, identity and driving services from the town centre; further declares Oswestry Crown Post Office’s role as an essential community service at the heart of Oswestry; notes that high streets in towns are already facing huge challenges, including business rate hikes and loss of bank branches; further that North Shropshire is one of the worst served constituency in the England for public transport, and this poses a significant challenge to accessing vital services that crown post offices provide; and further notes that 2,668 people have signed an online petition on this matter.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to guarantee the future of Oswestry Crown post office.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of the Garretts Green ward in Birmingham, calling for traffic-calming measures around the Oval school in Garretts Green. It was suggested by Miss Thomas, pastoral lead at the Oval school. It has the full support of the school’s children and parents, following recent terrible incidents when two of the school’s pupils were hit by a speeding car and a vehicle crashed into the school gates just before home time. My constituent, Katalya Moxham-Atkin, whose 10-year-old son was knocked over by a car on the adjacent road and had to take time off school to recover, said that traffic calming and a crossing would make “all the difference” to ensuring that her son’s accident is “the last” around the school.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Birmingham Council to take immediate action to ensure that traffic calming measures, in the form of zebra crossings are installed on Deepmoor Road and Wheatcroft Road around The Oval School in Garretts Green, Birmingham.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the Garretts Green Ward, Birmingham.
Declares that traffic calming measures need to be put in place in the vicinity of The Oval School in the Garretts Green Ward to ensure the safety of children; further that Birmingham City Council needs to act on the concerns of parents after accidents on the road surrounding the school.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Birmingham Council to take immediate action to ensure that traffic calming measures, in the form of zebra crossings are installed on Deepmoor Road and Wheatcroft Road around The Oval School in Garretts Green, Birmingham.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003073]
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
I rise on behalf of petitioners in Cheltenham. Cheltenham is a thriving and growing town, which has many old buildings. That combination of factors provides challenges in the provision of medical services. Some of our existing GP surgeries are searching for improved premises, and with more homes planned in our area, it will be vital to provide new premises to meet additional demand.
I present this petition, a replica of which has been signed by 3,412 Cheltenham residents. It states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the needs of a new GP surgery in Cheltenham when allocating resources for health services.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom
Declares that a new GP surgery is needed in Cheltenham, as local surgeries have warned that GPs are under strain, working long hours with no breaks, and some residents struggle to secure timely appointments, and to accommodate the growth of the town.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the needs of a new GP surgery in Cheltenham when allocating resources for health services.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003074]
UK Health Security Agency: Porton Down
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to bring the future of the UK Health Security Agency campus at Porton Down, in my Salisbury constituency, before the House again this evening. I say “again” because 15 years ago, on 22 June 2010, as an eager, newly elected, young MP, I raised the uncertain future of the institution in my first ever Adjournment debate. I did so again on 11 September 2013 and again on 24 June 2015, at the start of my second term as Salisbury’s MP.
In one sense, a lot has happened in the past 15 years, but sadly, in another sense, nothing has happened. The project to relocate to Harlow, in Essex, is apparently no closer to completion, but neither have the highly skilled workers at Porton Down been given any assurances that they can stay put. I know that this matter will concern you, Madam Deputy Speaker, given that a number of residents in your constituency of Romsey and Southampton North, which is adjacent to my constituency, will be working at Porton.
As the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said in response to my oral question on 13 March, two months ago, this
“has been running around the system so long that is now used in a case study for senior civil servant recruitment.”—[Official Report, 13 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1295.]
As the House of Commons Library said in a note to me on 22 January this year,
“neither UKHSA nor the Department for Health and Social Care have published an account of this programme to date, nor published any formal reports setting out the current state of the programme.”
The National Audit Office published its report, “Investigation into the UK Health Security Agency’s health security campus programme”, in February last year. That report sets out the key facts on and decision points in UKHSA’s programme, including its history, the causes of the delays and the issues so far at the Harlow site. I will not rehearse all those this evening, but reading the report may be instructive for the Minister.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. I remember him bringing the matter before the House before; we have been in the House for the same amount of time, although he is much younger than me. Does he agree that replacing and modernising the UKHSA’s facilities through the programme is crucial to ensuring that the UK has the capabilities to identify, study and respond to the most dangerous pathogens in the world? Perhaps the way forward is to secure changes and to ask the Government to step in to assist the UKHSA to continue the crucial and excellent work that it already does.
John Glen
I am grateful, as ever, to the hon. Gentleman for his support this evening, and he anticipates some of the points I will make later on.
I want also to refer to the Public Accounts Committee, which opened an inquiry into the UKHSA health security campus last year. The Committee heard evidence from the outgoing chief executive Professor Dame Jenny Harries and Shona Dunn, the second permanent secretary, but it was unable to publish a full report owing to the Dissolution of Parliament and instead published its conclusions and recommendations in a letter in May last year. There is a lack of clarity over where we are with these plans, and my simple purpose today is to secure the Government’s assessment of where we are now, 10 months into the new Administration.
Since that Adjournment debate in 2010, four general elections have been fought and I have had five years as a Parliamentary Private Secretary and seven as a Minister in four roles, but since 2015 I have never been offered any briefing on the future of the facility at Porton and on whether that initial decision, given the events of recent years and a sixfold increase in the costs—rather more than inflation—will be followed through on. As the constituency MP, I am eager to get to the bottom of the matter, and in seeking an update from the Minister this evening—and I certainly do not hold her individually responsible, given that she has only been in post for just over 14 weeks—I do want to seek an understanding about the financial obligations of the programme.
Chris Vince
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who will know why I am here. Obviously I will sing the merits of relocation to Harlow, but I think we would both agree that we really want a decision on this and to know whether there will be a move or not, because the constituents both of us represent are currently in limbo.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
In addition to the HSA, the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is home to the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, and both do vital work on antimicrobial resistance. Does he know of any work that has been done by the Government to consider the implications for the UK’s AMR research of moving the two institutions apart?
John Glen
I am extremely grateful for that very helpful intervention, because the hon. Gentleman points out the co-location of DSTL and the UKHSA at Porton, and that is a really important fact. The possibility of sharing category 4 facilities—something that has been resisted sometimes by one party or the other—is a material consideration when trying to mitigate excessive costs.
Last year’s NAO report set out that in February 2022, the programme had a staff team of 92 full-time equivalents based across multiple sites including Porton Down, London and other regional UKHSA centres, working across programme operations, management, delivery and capability, in addition to construction, finance and commercial and leadership teams. In November 2023, there were 69 FTE staff on the programme. The programme team is made up of civil servants and service providers, and has input from colleagues from other parts of the UKHSA.
It is very ironic to me that as I read over about 13 mentions of Porton Down that I have made in this Chamber over the last 15 years, so many of the Ministers who responded are now either retired, deposed or in the other place. I am concerned that the civil service people, for whom I have great respect having worked closely with lots of civil servants, have been blissfully unaccountable to any enduring authority or direction on this, while all of this work has been going on in the background. That just cannot be right.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
As one of the ex-Ministers who is still here, perhaps I can contribute in a spirit of helpfulness to the current Minister. My right hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue many times. I was so concerned by this proposal as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that I visited Porton Down and gave a very clear steer—not least when I found, to my huge surprise, that the nursery was being closed, which I thought was the wrong decision. He, like me, was Chief Secretary to the Treasury. As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I gave a very clear steer that I was concerned that this move did not represent value for money, that times had changed and that the proposal was in error. I wonder whether the case study that is being presented to officials and the information that comes to Ministers properly reflects known concerns raised by Ministers, which appear to have been routinely ignored.
John Glen
I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend; I recall the many conversations that we had on this matter.
How can we be in a situation where £530 million—Public Health England’s initial estimated cost for the whole programme in 2015—became an estimated £3.2 billion in 2023? I am not sure if that is the very latest figure. Of even greater concern to me is the fact that it was estimated in 2015 that the project would be completed by 2021, yet the best estimate now is that it will not be fully operational until 2036 at the earliest, which is 11 years away. That is if the programme remains at Harlow.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I had the great fortune to visit Porton Down with the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and the Defence Committee. As a research scientist who has worked in category 3 suites, seeing category 4 suites at first hand was quite an eye-opener. I saw the incredible dedication of our scientists, who have served this country incredibly well despite the many attacks that have happened. We definitely need to renovate the labs and have a facility that is secure and that helps to support the jobs of scientists across the country.
John Glen
I am extremely grateful to be made aware of the hon. Lady’s visit and of her support for the capabilities that we undoubtedly need in this country.
I will go back to give some context. As I mentioned in the 2010 debate, the Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, as it was known and as many—certainly my retired constituents—still refer to it locally, plays a crucial role in the life of this country and has done for more than 100 years. I suspect that one reason why it is a massive challenge to deliver this project is that a lot has happened during the considerable time that has elapsed since 2015, much of it unexpected. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, Porton’s sister establishment, DSTL, was instrumental in dealing with the Novichok attack in 2018 in Salisbury. During covid, the established expertise at Porton was critical in the support of our nation during the vaccine development and testing process.
My hypothesis is that while peacetime, desk-based studies in Whitehall may have favoured Harlow as a hub back in 2015—it may also have been a function of the former Chancellor George Osborne’s PPS being the MP for Harlow—the reality of how the actual needs of the country played out in practice has shown beyond doubt that Porton has remained instrumental in delivering translational health research for our nation in the interim. Instead of that group of civil servants challenging themselves in the light of events, it was more convenient, in an environment where political sponsorship had moved on, for them to keep driving forward the Harlow vision, even when the labs needed conversion, the planning process was delayed and the lifespan of Porton proved to underline the resilience of the Wiltshire site.
That was reinforced to me just three years ago in 2022, when the Health and Social Care Secretary, Sir Sajid Javid, came to visit Porton Down alongside Professor Dame Jenny Harries, the chief executive, to open a new groundbreaking facility. The two-storey, 22,000 square foot building was one of two that made up a new £65 million vaccine development and evaluation centre, which was built to help to develop and licence new vaccines and cement the UK as a global leader in testing against future variants of the virus. At the time, the Department’s press release said:
“Technologies like those at Porton Down are vital to tackling both COVID-19 and a broad range of emerging health security threats, and this has been recognised by the government’s…funding to progress research into vaccines to help future-proof the world from diseases.”
At that point, Jenny Harries said:
“It was a pleasure to be able to tour these…world-class facilities, with the Health and Social Care Secretary…which will help further establish the UKHSA and its Porton Down site as a global leader of vaccine testing and variant research in the fight against COVID-19. The work undertaken…will define the UK’s future pandemic response.”
I was left pondering—while obviously bound by the strictures of ministerial collective responsibility not to ask the question—why, if Harlow was the answer, such significant additional, separate, parallel capital investment was being made at Porton. Porton remains a world leader in examining diseases that spread rapidly, including insect-borne diseases such as West Nile fever and malaria. It is a world-class centre for translational research that helps to ensure new discoveries are developed and translated from the mind of the scientist into real benefits in tested medicines for patients.
Porton routinely works with partners to develop tuberculosis vaccines and vaccines for whooping cough, meningitis and anthrax. Porton has the biggest TB group in Europe. It has an aerosol delivery function using specialist equipment and a settled, secure setting established after many generations of proven delivery for our nation. Porton is routinely used to do work for the US Government. It is one of very few centres in the world with the capability and experienced staff to carry out that work.
The conclusions of the Public Accounts Committee last May raised the most serious potential consequence of continued indecision. It said:
“As more time passes with no decision on this critical programme the risk of a gap in service for the UK’s high containment public health laboratories grows, with concerning implications for our health security.”
Given the significant interim capital investment, there needs to be a serious review of what is going on here. We know about the risk to the 2036 Harlow completion date because of this indecision and the runaway costs. We also know that the best option must be defined swiftly. I think that is delivering a phased refurbishment on existing sites at Porton Down and Colindale, as set out by the UKHSA chief executive to the Public Accounts Committee in March, allowing Porton to continue its proven record of delivering world-class research and ensuring no such gap in our health capabilities.
I respectfully ask the Minister, recognising her limited experience of this issue, but respecting very much the office that she carries, whether she can explain to the House this evening how the country can go from an identified need to upgrade the Porton facilities by the then Health Protection Agency at Porton in 2006, to a situation 19 years later where three business cases have been produced by the Public Health England and the UKHSA project team—by up to 92 people—and the programme still has not received full approval. What about the wishes of some 900 world-class scientists working in south Wiltshire, over 90% of whom, when asked previously by their trade union, did not want to move? When will this decision be made? Given their unique skillsets, how will replacements be found for the large proportion who will not want to be relocated?
I urge the Minister to challenge the documents put in front of her and to actively consider what my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) has said, given his experience as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and as Secretary of State. Will she consider that, given the investment announced by Sajid Javid three years ago, Porton Down has been equipped to continue to serve the nation far into the future?
Is continuing to pursue the vision of a Harlow hub, with its £3.2 billion price tag and 11-year delivery horizon, throwing good money after bad? We have spent £400 million, and we have £2.8 billion left to find. Effectively, we are clinging to a redundant plan that briefly made sense—just about, although I was never shown or able to see the outline business case 10 years ago—but that no longer truly reflects what we can afford and the realities of this country’s public health and security needs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for securing this important debate and for his passionate advocacy on behalf of his constituents for the vital work conducted by the UK Health Security Agency at its Porton Down site. I also take the opportunity to recognise the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) and his passionate advocacy on behalf of his constituents.
Before I come to the decision-making process, I want to use this opportunity to reference some of the incredible work that takes place on the site. Whether it is advancing vaccine development to address global health threats, such as Mpox, or leading the world in evaluating vaccines to ensure that we have effective programmes that save countless lives, Porton Down stands as a pillar of excellence in our national health security infrastructure.
Through the UKHSA science strategy, we are committed to securing health and prosperity with partners in industry and academia. That is why we established the vaccine development and evaluation centre on the Porton Down site, securing learning from the pandemic and advancing our critical research on vaccines. Porton Down’s diagnostics capabilities are equally vital, providing the UK’s only 24/7 service for detecting rare and imported pathogens, including life-threatening diseases such as Marburg virus, Ebola and Lassa fever. The site also plays a unique role in environmental microbiology and biosafety, helping us to understand better how infections spread in real-world settings.
Porton Down’s role does not stop at healthcare. It reaches into our ecosystems, our food chain and our environment. Porton Down is a national leader in medical entomology, including the surveillance of invasive mosquitoes and ticks. Its work ensures that the UK can rapidly detect and respond to vector-borne diseases, protecting the public from threats before they gain a foothold. The site’s food, water and environmental microbiology teams provide additional expertise that is critical to national resilience and the Government’s work on climate change; but, crucially, the work of those globally leading teams requires the best facilities.
As the right hon. Member will know, many facilities on the site are ageing, and I appreciate that the people who work there need clarity on its future as quickly as possible. The Government are thoroughly assessing options for securing the facilities that are required for these highly specialist functions and services in the future.
Chris Vince
I could talk about the benefits of the Harlow site for a long time, and I often do, but on this occasion I will be brief. May I ask the Minister, when the Government are making those decisions, to take account of the fact that the Harlow site is very much shovel-ready and is ideally located, given its strong infrastructure and travel links and its proximity to existing health clusters? The site would very much future-proof this important work.
Ashley Dalton
I can assure my hon. Friend that the benefits of all options will be considered.
Dr Sullivan
Will my hon. Friend also take into account the multidisciplinary roles and spaces involved in the jobs that she has outlined, and the fact that the existence of a hub, with most of those elements together in one place, will stimulate innovation and great healthcare outcomes?
Ashley Dalton
I can assure my hon. Friend, and the House, that all considerations will be taken into account when this decision is made. As I have said, the Government are thoroughly assessing options, including all those that have been raised. Two main options are under consideration: to rebuild and refurbish some facilities at Porton Down and its sister site at Colindale in north London, or to build an entirely new facility in Harlow, Essex. In either event, the staff working in the defence, science and technology laboratory at Porton Down will remain there, and even when a decision is made on those options, nothing will happen overnight. Complexity and rigorous scientific requirements mean that completion will take more than a decade, which is why we continue to invest in maintaining our current site and facilities at Porton Down, with £38.1 million allocated for capital investment in the recent spending review.
The Government are committed to ensuring that we retain the ability to carry out the vital functions of UKHSA Porton Down. Members, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have all advocated for an urgent decision, but identifying the right site that delivers on this mission, while ensuring best value for money, is a complex decision and one that we must get right. I can assure the House that extensive discussions are taking place between UKHSA, the Department of Health and Social Care and His Majesty’s Treasury to inform a decision, and I can confirm that this decision will be taken as part of the spending review, which will conclude next month.
Steve Barclay
Having had the opportunity to be involved in spending reviews, I would be interested to know the current provision for this scheme in the budget over the next three years, because alongside assessing the benefits, there will be the simple question of what is affordable. The NAO has set out an estimate of over £3 billion for the overall cost, but what has the Department provisioned for the spending review period?
Ashley Dalton
I do not currently have the detail on that, but I will write to the right hon. Gentleman following this debate. I can confirm that he knows as much as I do about what might be in the spending review, because those decisions have yet to be made, but more information will be made available as soon as possible.
As the Secretary of State said earlier this year,
“The worst decision is indecision”,—[Official Report, 13 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1295.]
and this Government are committed to sorting out this issue once and for all. A decision will be made in a matter of weeks. In anticipation of that decision, UKHSA is taking steps to prepare to remobilise the programme at pace. It recently invited the Government Internal Audit Agency to conduct a short review of its remobilisation plans as part of its commitment to ensure that there is maximum transparency and rigorous assessment of the programme. The agency has also obtained advice from the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority.
I am sure that colleagues from across the House share my view that the work conducted at Porton Down is critical to protect the country. The recent pandemic put into sharp focus how this work is fundamental to keeping us all safe. Although there is still the outstanding question of how we can best preserve the facilities for the country, whatever decision we take will be made in full consultation with the staff at Porton Down, whose critical skills are highly valued by us all.
I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury again for raising this vital issue, and all Members who have intervened in the debate. I commit to updating him on progress once a decision is made.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2025
Martin McCluskey (Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. This draft order was laid before the House on 23 April 2025, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate it today. As with all Scotland Act orders that have appeared before Committees in this Session, it is the result of collaborative working between Scotland’s two Governments and upholds the 2023 fiscal framework agreement.
The 2023 agreement, made by the Scottish Government and the last UK Government, builds on the agreements made by the Smith Commission in 2014, which devolved significant powers to the Scottish Government, including those over welfare, tax and borrowing. The Scottish Government’s borrowing powers apply to both resource and capital and, as agreed between the Governments, are limited. In resource borrowing, the Scottish Government may pursue borrowing within the limits for in-year cash management and for forecast error in relation to devolved and assigned taxes and demand-led welfare expenditure that arise in specific circumstances. Capital borrowing is again set by the limits in legislation, and they are in addition to the Scottish Government’s block grant.
The draft order deals with the cumulative borrowing limits for the Scottish Government. As with the increase in borrowing limits introduced by the Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2024—introduced by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk in May 2024—this order, if made, will increase the Scottish Government’s cumulative capital and resource borrowing limits to reflect inflation. The draft order would be made under sections 67 and 67A of the Scotland Act 1998, which set out the amounts available to borrow under section 66. As specified in these sections, we are bringing forward this order with the consent of the Treasury.
Turning briefly to the detail of the order, in the 2023 agreement, the UK Government agreed to amend the Scotland Act 1998 to increase these limits as necessary. The 2023 agreement sets out the cumulative limits for capital and resource borrowing. This order will increase these limits based on the Office for Budget Responsibility’s GDP deflator forecast at the time of the Scottish Government’s draft budget. This order amends section 67(2) of the Scotland Act 1998 and, if made, would increase the cumulative resource borrowing limit from £1,779.351 million to £1,834.303 million. It would also increase the cumulative capital borrowing limit from £3,050.316 million to £3,144.519 million.
Martin McCluskey
I am looking at the hon. Gentleman because he clearly struggled with these figures last year as well.
The order provides the Scottish Government with certainty over the cumulative borrowing limits for this financial year. It is for the Scottish Government to decide how they use these borrowing powers and the increased limits, and they are accountable to the Scottish Parliament for these decisions.
In making this order, the UK Government uphold our commitment to the 2023 agreement and deliver for the people of Scotland. As ever, Scotland Act orders are possible only with the joint working of officials in both Governments, and I thank officials in the Scotland Office, the Treasury and the Scottish Government for their work on this order. This positive way of working delivers for the people of Scotland. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the official Opposition as we consider the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Increase of Borrowing Limits) Order 2025. As Members will be aware, the instrument proposes an increase to the Government’s resource borrowing limit from £1,779.351 million to £1,834.303 million, and the capital borrowing limit from £3,050.316 million to £3,144.519 million. This represents an uplift of around 3.1% for both limits, which is in line with the annual inflation adjustments in previous years.
This is not the first time that this House or its Committees have considered such an order. These annual increases have become a routine feature of the fiscal framework between the UK Government and the devolved Administration in Scotland. This is process is familiar, but that does not mean that we should treat it as a routine exercise. What we are considering today is the capacity for the Scottish Government to borrow funds and, as in this place, that comes with significant responsibility, not just to the Treasury but to the people of Scotland—our constituents.
To be clear, the UK Government, under successive Conservative Administrations between 2010 and 2024, consistently recognised the importance of providing the Scottish Government with the appropriate tools to manage their finances. These borrowing limits are not arbitrary figures; they are designed to strike a balance between providing flexibility for the Scottish Government and maintaining fiscal discipline across the UK. The annual uplift ensures that the real value of these borrowing powers is preserved in the face of inflation.
However, greater borrowing levels must come with significantly greater scrutiny and far more robust accountability. It is simply not sufficient to approve increases year on year without requiring clear, transparent accounts of how the borrowed sums are being spent. It is the role of this House, and particularly of those of us representing Scottish constituencies, to ensure that every penny borrowed on behalf of the Scottish people is spent wisely and for the benefit of our communities.
Currently, there are mechanisms in place for this oversight—the UK Treasury and the Scotland Office provide some level of monitoring—but, frankly, given the sums involved and the track record of the Scottish National party Administration at Holyrood, we must ask whether those are enough. There is a pressing need for improved transparency and much more detailed public reporting on how the Scottish Government allocate and spend these funds. Regular independent audits and clear public reporting are essential steps towards rebuilding public confidence, which has been sorely tested in recent years.
This is not a theoretical concern. Questions have been raised about the efficiency of capital projects overseen by the Scottish Government, with serious doubts about the value delivered for the substantial sums invested. From the delays in ferry services, to millions spent on a climate review to excuse the SNP failing to deliver the dualling of the A96, to ongoing issues with the NHS, the public have witnessed too many examples of funds being allocated to projects without clear, demonstrable outcomes. The Scottish people expect to see real, tangible improvements in infrastructure, public services and their local economies, and they deserve transparency about how these funds are being spent.
While we acknowledge that the SNP Government have significant devolved powers, they have too often fallen short of the standard of fiscal transparency that the people of Scotland have the right to expect. This Government, therefore, should consider what specific checks and balances they will institute to ensure that the increased borrowing is used efficiently and effectively. It is one thing to increase the borrowing capacity, but it is another to demonstrate that those funds are being used to create tangible improvements in communities across Scotland.
The previous Conservative Government consistently sought to improve transparency and accountability in Scotland’s financial dealings, and we should expect the same from the Labour Government. It is crucial that this House remains an active participant in scrutinising the Scottish Government’s financial decisions.
While we do not oppose this order, recognising its routine and necessary nature, I urge the Government to use this moment to strengthen the systems of oversight and reporting that accompany these powers. The people of Scotland—those in our constituencies and beyond—deserve nothing less than the highest standards of accountability. They deserve to know that their money is being used in the best way possible, and that the Scottish Government are prioritising projects that bring real benefits for our communities.
John Lamont
I just want to make a few remarks, Mr Efford; I will not detain colleagues for long. I commend the Minister for his remarks, and I associate myself with the remarks from the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan. Just over a year ago that I was moving a similar draft order on behalf of the previous Government, so I congratulate the Minister on reading out those numbers so accurately.
It is important to record, as the Minister and my hon. Friend did, that this additional funding will potentially be used by the Scottish Government to fund vital public services that many of our constituents depend on, whether that is schools, roads or other infrastructure projects that are vital to many of our constituents. But it is a great shame that the Scottish SNP Government perhaps do not use all of the resources available to them to fund those types of policy areas, and instead obsess repeatedly about independence referendums. Indeed, just this week, the First Minister spoke about how next year’s Scottish parliamentary election will be about independence referendums—again.
From the SNP Government’s record, it is not hard to see how they have failed to deliver for the people of Scotland: one in six Scots is stuck on NHS waiting lists, drug deaths remain the highest in Europe, there are more than 900 fewer police officers today than prior to the pandemic, there are 1,500 fewer teachers, and the Government have failed to close the attainment gap. We also all know how much money was wasted on their reckless gender reform Bill.
It is a shame that no SNP Members are present to welcome this additional funding from the UK Government or to defend their record in government in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan said, the SNP Government are accountable to Members of the Scottish Parliament, but is the Minister confident that the SNP Government will use this additional funding for the public services that our constituents use every day?
Martin McCluskey
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, which I will address in turn. For the record, this year’s increase is 2.37%, and that is based on the OBR’s GDP deflator at the time of the Scottish Government Budget.
I am slightly surprised by Opposition Members’ comments about the devolution settlement. These are issues for the Scottish Parliament, and it is for the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the Scottish Government. Opposition Members may not have confidence in Conservative Members of the Scottish Parliament to appropriately scrutinise the Scottish Government, but I have confidence in Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament to appropriately scrutinise the decisions of the Scottish Government.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk will be familiar with the 2023 fiscal framework from his time as a Minister. It contains provision for the Scottish Government to notify the Treasury monthly on any planned capital borrowing, outstanding debt and the repayment profile. Obviously, that all has to be set within limits.
As I said earlier, resource borrowing can take place only in very specific circumstances. It is not unconstrained, but is specific to two categories, which I laid out in my speech a moment ago.
I agree with the hon. Member that the Scottish Government could do a lot more with their powers, and if there were any SNP Members on the Committee, we might hear about some of their plans. Whether or not we were MPs at the time, I think we all remember that extensive powers were devolved to the Scottish Parliament through the 2014 Smith Commission, and many of those are gathering dust on the Scottish Government’s desk. I am thinking specifically about welfare powers, but others could be taken up by the Scottish Government and have not been. I would have liked to have heard from some SNP Members about how they planned to use those powers.
In conclusion, the draft order is an expression of joint work between the Scottish and UK Governments. I thank officials on both sides for their work on it. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. First, please remember to switch off any electronic devices. No food or drink is permitted, other than the bottled water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if you could provide any speaking notes to them via their email or the Doorkeeper. I remind Members to speak through the Chair. You may use “you” to me—if I, say, had a dangerous dog—but otherwise, “you” should not be used to address other Members.
My selection and grouping for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. One amendment has been tabled. We will have a single debate on the amendment and all the clauses in the Bill.
Clause 1
Livestock worrying: scope and consequences of offence
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
Clauses 2 to 5 stand part.
Amendment 1, in the schedule, page 5, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) In subsection (2), omit “(that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control)”.
(3B) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2ZA) For the purposes of subsection (2), a dog is “at large” unless—
(a) it is on a lead of a length of 1.8 metres or less, or
(b) it is within sight of a person and the person—
(i) remains aware of the dog’s actions, and
(ii) has reason to be confident that the dog will return to the person reliably and promptly on the person’s command.””
This amendment would change the definition of the term “at large” for the purposes of the offence under section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953.
The schedule.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. Before I start, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a director of a veterinary business.
I thank hon. Members for joining the Committee to consider this important Bill, which will do so much for animal welfare and supporting our farming communities. The Bill was initially introduced in the last Parliament. I am grateful to those who have worked so hard to see it progress, and I welcome the new Government’s continuing the support for the legislation.
I have spoken to farmers in Chester South and Eddisbury who have seen their livestock brutally attacked. I have heard at first hand the very real impacts, both emotionally and financially, so I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today. I will set out why the Bill is vital to help better protect livestock, support farmers and enable more effective enforcement and efficient use of police time.
The financial impacts of livestock attacks are substantial. The National Farmers Union estimates that UK farm animals worth approximately £1.8 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2024. But it is not just the financial cost to which I wish to draw attention; there is also an animal welfare cost to livestock worrying.
I represent a largely rural constituency, where the predominant mode of farming is beef and dairy. I met a farmer from Kelsall, a rural village in my constituency, who showed me pictures of his cattle following a livestock attack. A dog had broken into a barn where calves were resting and had attacked them in their pens. I am sure the Committee does not need me to go into detail about the extent to which the calves were injured. Needless to say, it was a horrific attack. That is just one example, but there can be other horrific consequences. If attacked, pregnant livestock often miscarry, and there are instances of mothers being separated from their young, leading to hypothermia and starvation.
Let us also not forget the human toll of a livestock attack. I have only seen pictures of the aftermath—thankfully, I have never seen an attack unfold before my eyes—but for farmers witnessing it, it can be extremely emotionally distressing. Of course, we want and need to see dog owners behaving responsibly in the countryside, but we must recognise that there is a gap in existing legislation to support a more effective and efficient collection of evidence following an attack, and to implement the necessary deterrents to better encourage responsible ownership and handling of dogs around livestock. It is for those reasons that I have introduced the Bill, and why we must pass it. I will now set out the Bill’s clauses and explain why they are necessary.
Clause 1 gives effect to the schedule, which sets out amendments to the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, relating to scope and the consequences of an offence. Times have changed since the 1953 Act came into force. The number of livestock farmed in England and Wales has doubled, bringing agriculture closer to those of us who use the countryside recreationally. The Bill is intended to tackle the issue of livestock worrying in a way that constructively strengthens existing legislation to decrease incidents of livestock worrying and attacks.
In doing so, the Bill focuses on three key areas. First, it will modernise the definitions and scope of the 1953 Act and extend the locations and species in scope—to include roads and paths, and to cover species such as camelids. Secondly, important changes will be made to strengthen police powers, including powers of entry, the seizure and detention of dogs and the collection of evidence where samples and impressions can be taken from dogs and injured livestock. Finally, the Bill will increase the maximum penalty from a fine of £1,000 to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent.
Clause 2 will amend existing powers available to the police to seize and detain dogs suspected of having attacked or worried livestock. Existing legislation allows the police to seize an unaccompanied dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock, to identify the owner of the dog and to detain it until the owner has claimed it and paid any associated expenses.
The Bill will go further, providing greater clarity and confidence to farmers. The proposed reforms extend the powers so that the police can seize and detain a dog that they have reasonable grounds to believe has attacked or worried livestock and may attack or worry livestock again, for the purpose of preventing repeat incidents. Extending the police powers is crucial, and it is appropriate that the deterrent properly reflects the significant consequences of an attack. Clause 2 addresses the limited scope of current powers at the disposal of the police and strengthens deterrence, helping to address the issue of reoffending.
Subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act explain that a police constable may seize and detain a dog that they believe to have
“attacked or worried livestock on agricultural land or on a road or path, and nobody present…admits to being the dog’s owner or in charge of it.”
Building on the current power in section 2(2) of the 1953 Act, proposed new subsection (2) sets out for how long a dog seized under subsection (1) may be detained, namely
“until the owner has claimed it and paid all expenses incurred by reason of its seizure and detention.”
To give greater clarity, subsections (3) and (4) are necessary to explain that seized dogs may be disposed of if the owner does not claim the dog and pay the associated expenses of seizure and detention within seven days. They clarify that if the police gift or sell the unclaimed dog to someone, that person becomes the dog’s owner.
Subsections (5) and (6) explain what kind of register is to be kept of seized dogs. The register must include a brief description of the dog, the date of seizure and, if the dog is disposed of, how. The register must be available for inspection by the public and free of charge.
Subsection (7) explains that the disposing of a dog under proposed new section 2 of the 1953 Act includes:
“causing it to be disposed of, and destroying it or causing it to be destroyed, but does not include disposing of it for the purposes of vivisection.”
Subsections (8) and (9) explain that a dog may be seized and detained until the end of court proceedings if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the dog may otherwise pose a risk of attacking or worrying livestock again. Quite often, the dog owner has shown no signs of taking preventive measures against attacks or worrying following previous incidents, such as by putting their dog on a lead near livestock when the dog has previously shown signs of being dangerously out of control or has attacked or worried livestock. Both those factors could be considered relevant to a constable’s assessment of whether they believe that a dog suspected of attacking or worrying livestock could do so again.
Finally, section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906—so far as still in force by virtue of section 68(2) of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005—will be repealed, as it is no longer needed in consequence of the provision made by clause 2.
Clause 3 will introduce new powers to improve the police’s ability to investigate incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock by enabling the collection of samples and impressions. This concern was raised directly with me by farmers in my constituency. Farms are businesses, so when a livestock attack takes place, it is understandable that farmers should seek justice. If there was an arson attack on a shop, for instance, I am sure we would all agree that the perpetrator should be held to account for their actions. Attacks on livestock too often go unprosecuted because collecting evidence takes too long and the powers afforded to the police to do so are limited.
Subsections (1) to (4) of proposed new section 2ZA of the 1953 Act will enable a police constable to take samples or impressions from a dog believed to have attacked or worried livestock, or from livestock, where this might provide evidence of an offence having been committed under section 1 of that Act. Crucially, subsection (5) explains:
“If taking a sample or impression…would amount to veterinary surgery, it must be done by a veterinary surgeon.”
Subsection (6) explains how long samples or impressions may be retained:
“A sample or impression taken…may be retained until an investigation has been carried out into whether an offence under section 1 has been committed…or if proceedings are brought…until those proceedings have been determined or withdrawn.”
Veterinary bodies, forensic specialists and the police have been consulted on this new provision, affording them the opportunity to feed into its development.
Lastly, subsection (7) defines the meaning of the words “sample”, “veterinary surgeon” and “veterinary surgery” for the purpose of clause 3. These are all important steps to increase the effective collection of evidence following an attack.
Clause 4 will enable a justice of the peace, also known as a magistrate, to authorise the police to enter and search premises where they believe there is a dog that has attacked or worried livestock. Currently, the police can enter and search premises with a warrant from a justice of the peace to identify a dog that is believed to have worried livestock. It is proposed to extend this to allow the police also to obtain a warrant to enter premises to seize and detain the dog, as outlined in clause 2; to take a sample or impression, as outlined in clause 3; or to search for and seize evidence of an offence.
Specifically, subsections (1) and (2) of proposed new section 2A of the 1953 Act will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to identify, seize and detain, or to take samples or impressions from, a dog that is believed to have attacked or worried livestock. Subsections (3) and (4) will allow the police to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises to seize any evidence of an offence under section 1 of the 1953 Act. Examples of such evidence could include a bloody collar or towel. Subsection (5) sets out that the warrant may authorise the police to use reasonable force, if necessary.
These new powers are needed to allow the police to gather evidence to investigate these crimes effectively. I have already touched on the frustration that farmers feel when an attack goes unprosecuted, and this Bill will help to increase the chances of a just outcome.
Clause 5 includes a standard provision on the extent, commencement and short title of the Act, once it receives Royal Assent. The Act will extend to England and Wales. I felt it was important to speak to people on both sides of the border to better understand the situation in Wales; I put on record my thanks to Rob Taylor, the Welsh wildlife and rural police and crime co-ordinator, for his work in this field over many years, and for taking the time to meet me to talk through livestock worrying in Wales and offer his support for the Bill.
The Bill will come into force three months after it is passed. Clause 5 also includes transitional provision to clarify the availability of the new powers in clauses 2 to 4 in relation to any, or any alleged, incident of livestock worrying or attack that takes place before the Bill comes into force. The Act’s short title will be the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025.
The schedule to the Bill will make several amendments to the 1953 Act to extend its scope. It also provides clarity on offences, the applicable penalty and court powers. Specifically, paragraph 1 brings incidents of dogs attacking or worrying livestock on roads or paths within the scope of the offence in section 1 of the Act. This will provide greater protection for livestock in instances where they are moved along a road or path to another field or a milking parlour, for example.
For clarity, paragraph 1 also updates the terminology used in relation to attacks. “Attacking” livestock is dealt with separately from “worrying” livestock. The term “worrying” may dismiss the severity of some offences. Adding the word “attacking” better highlights the violent nature of incidents involving attacks on livestock. The provision will not create a new offence, but will clarify the language throughout the 1953 Act. Both attacking and worrying are already covered in that Act; however, that is not clear throughout.
Paragraph 1 also sets out the penalty for the offence in section 1 of the 1953 Act. It is currently set at a maximum fine of £1,000. The maximum penalty will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. It is worth noting that the level of fines will not affect the level of compensation a farmer may receive, and farmers can still seek compensation through civil claims. Paragraph 1 will amend the 1953 Act to exempt a dog owner from liability for an offence under section 1 where they can prove that the dog was in the charge of another person at the time without the owner’s consent, such as if the dog had been stolen.
Paragraph 1 will also empower a court to order a convicted offender to pay expenses associated with the seizure and detention of a dog, irrespective of whether the court imposes a fine for the offence. Any sum that a person is ordered to pay will be treated for the purposes of enforcement as if it were compensation payable under a compensation order. Paragraph 2 expands the definition of “livestock” in the 1953 Act to include camelids, such as llamas and alpacas, as they are commonly farmed.
I will take a moment to address the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin. She is very knowledgeable on these matters, and I thank her for agreeing to sit on this Committee and for her support. We are often in rural affairs debates in the Chamber or Westminster Hall together, and her contributions are always well informed. As a farmer herself, I am sure she will agree that the Bill is necessary and welcome.
The hon. Lady’s amendment would require that a dog be kept on a lead of 1.8 metres or less in a field or enclosure containing sheep, or in sight of the person in charge, who should be confident that the dog will recall on command. Although I understand why she tabled the amendment, it is worth noting that the 1953 Act already makes it clear that a dog is “at large” if it is
“not on a lead or otherwise under close control”.
That approach places certain requirements on dog walkers to behave responsibly, and it provides sufficient flexibility for a court to assess whether, on the facts before it, there is evidence that the dog was under close control. Such evidence does not need to be limited to proving specific elements.
Setting out the meaning of “close control” also risks inadvertently narrowing the circumstances in which a court would naturally conclude that a dog was not under close control. Furthermore, the countryside code highlights that it is best practice
“to keep your dog on a lead around livestock”,
including sheep. Because there are existing provisions and guidance, and because there is flexibility for judgment in the courts, I urge the hon. Lady not to press her amendment.
I hope I have laid out clearly why the Bill is necessary to support our farmers, reduce livestock attacks and better equip the police with the powers they need to investigate, prosecute and deter livestock attacks. I hope the Committee will support the progress of this important Bill.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. It is a Wednesday, so this must be another private Member’s Bill on animal welfare; I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing us this important Bill. It is not often that we get such clear and wholehearted support from farmers and animal welfare groups, so I congratulate her. It is good to see animals such as alpacas and llamas mentioned specifically. It gives me flashbacks to meetings of the shadow Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs team, at which we discussed at great length how llamas and alpacas are an increasing part of farm life in the UK these days. I am pleased to see that they are included.
We know that the law around livestock worrying is outdate, and needs updating to reflect current challenges. As the hon. Member outlined, the animal welfare impacts of livestock worrying can be devastating for the animals concerned; those that are not killed are left in agony, with serious injuries, and often have to be euthanised. I am pleased to support the clarification provided by the Bill she has introduced.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Western. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a pleasure to serve on this Bill Committee, the first in my parliamentary career—that is a tick in the box. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for this opportunity and I look forward to discussing her important private Member’s Bill.
It is fitting, both as a representative of a rural constituency, Caerfyrddin, and as a dairy farmer, that my first Bill Committee concerns a matter that impacts us too much in the countryside. The Bill aims to do what it says on the tin: to protect livestock from the very real threat of worrying and attacks by dogs at large on farmed land, by increasing and improving evidential and enforcement powers. I fully welcome those aims and it is clear that all farmers do as well.
NFU Mutual figures revealed that farm animals worth around £2.4 million were severely injured or killed by dogs in 2023, up 30% on the previous year. The figure for Wales alone was over £880,000. Although those figures decreased slightly in 2024, the problem persists. More than 80 dog attacks on livestock were reported by North Wales police alone in 2024. People want that to change. Last year, over 20,000 people signed an NFU petition calling on police and crime commissioners to implement changes to legislation to prevent dog attacks in farmed animals.
It is clear that legislation, as it stands, is not sufficient to protect livestock from such attacks. The 1953 Act, which this Bill amends, is more than 70 years old and generally regarded as unfit for purpose. The Farmers’ Union of Wales finds that it does not reflect the significant welfare, emotional and financial impacts of dog attacks on livestock. Change is long overdue, and indeed has been in the pipeline for many years. Prior to this Bill, a private Member’s Bill with the same text was introduced by the former Member for Suffolk Coastal, Thérèse Coffey, in 2023 and considered by a Committee. That was before my time, but that Bill might have passed then, if the then Prime Minister had not called a general election in May 2024.
Farming organisations have highlighted clause 37 of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill as an example of strengthening definitions within current legislation to provide necessary clarity—and here comes my amendment, which seeks to do just that: to fill the gap to define when a dog is “at large” for the purpose of livestock worrying offences, in exactly the same way as the Conservatives’ Bill, but by amending the 1953 Act. The definition informs the Bill’s provision and would give dog owners—and for that matter farmers—clarity on what constitutes keeping their dog under control when livestock is present, and on what is expected of them. The Bill sets out consequences for when a dog owner does not meet those expectations.
This is not a perfect amendment and it would not fix everything, but it calls for all dogs to be kept on a lead in fields near or adjacent to livestock, which is something that the Minister himself wanted to add to the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill when it was in Committee. My amendment would provide some extra definition to help to tackle the issue of dog attacks on livestock. It does not reinvent the wheel, but rather tries again to put into legislation what was already in motion and had been supported in the past.
I want to give a few figures. In a survey last month, 87% of farmers said they had experienced dog attacks on their sheep flocks in the last 12 months, and 78% said that dogs had not been put on a lead during those incidents. Some 80% of farmers reported negative experiences from the dog owners, and 43% had to euthanise the sheep after a worrying attack. These are just statistics, but they are important—they represent people’s lives and their livelihoods.
A lack of awareness and responsibility among dog owners will likely remain an issue in the tackling of livestock worrying by dogs, but my amendment would provide some of the clarity that we need on owners’ responsibility when controlling their own dogs or dogs in their charge, and what that means. I hope that the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is open to supporting the amendment, as it was first proposed by her own Government.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. Farming plays an important role in the local economy of North Somerset. Since being elected last year, I have met scores of hard-working farmers beset by a wide range of issues, not least rural crime and the inadequate protections currently provided to their livestock—their livelihoods. I pass on my thanks to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing the Bill, and to the Minister for supporting it.
Farming is not just an industry. It is a way of life that shapes our landscapes, sustains our rural economy and preserves the ancient character of our communities, yet farmers I have spoken with have too often told me harrowing tales of losses sustained during dog attacks. According to data provided by the NFU, last year alone an estimated £1.8 million-worth of animals were killed or severely injured across the UK due to dog attacks. Behind every one of those incidents is a farmer who has had to deal with the financial and emotional toll of such attacks.
Farmers in my constituency will be grateful for the certainty and security that the Bill will provide. It is not about punishing dogs or pet owners. As an animal lover myself, I could never support any such legislation. We all value our countryside and our right to walk and explore the land, but with those rights come responsibilities. The right to roam must never mean the right to cause harm. By making clear the consequences for irresponsible behaviour, we encourage responsible dog ownership, which is good for both farmers and dog owners.
The Bill will give police the power to collect evidence and seize dogs when needed. It equips law enforcement to act swiftly and effectively. When people know that the law has teeth, they think twice about conducting themselves irresponsibly. Farmers have waited long enough for such measures. This is practical, balanced legislation that will finally give farmers the peace of mind they deserve.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for introducing this important legislation.
Farming plays an important role in my constituency. Livestock worrying can cause serious injury, immense suffering and, in the worst cases, death to farm animals. These incidents are not only traumatic for farmers but result in significant financial losses. According to data from NFU Mutual, insurance claims for dog attacks on farm animals exceeded £1.8 million in 2023.
This Bill makes several improvements to the existing law. First, it creates a distinction between worrying and attacking livestock. That is important, because it allows the strengthening of police powers to respond more effectively to actual attacks. Currently, it is difficult for the police to collect evidence following an alleged attack. It is too easy for an owner to prevent police from collecting evidence, such as by taking samples of blood on fur. The Bill fixes that, ensuring that officers can act to collect evidence so long as they have reasonable grounds to believe an attack has happened.
The Bill will also allow officers to seize and detain a dog that is believed to have caused an attack. Unfortunately, too many dogs that worry livestock are what we might refer to as repeat offenders. This measure makes it easier to prevent the most dangerous dogs from causing further harm to livestock.
Perhaps the most important element of the Bill is the inclusion of roads and public paths within the scope of the existing legislation. As anyone who has ever tried to drive down a country lane will know, it is not uncommon for livestock to cross the lanes between fields. At the moment, if an animal is attacked when it is not in one of the farm fields, the responsibility falls on the farmer, rather than the owner of the dog, to prevent the worrying. Including roads and paths in this legislation is a simple measure to close this loophole and ensure that dog owners have to control their dogs around livestock at all times.
Lastly, I support the move to include camelids within the definition of livestock, which will protect the llamas and alpacas at the Animal Farm Adventure Park in Berrow in my constituency. I am delighted to support the Bill and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for bringing it forward.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury is my colleague and friend on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I congratulate her on reintroducing this important Bill. I know that she is personally and professionally dedicated to this matter.
Like many colleagues, I receive hundreds of emails from my constituents about animal welfare, and particularly the wellbeing and protection of farmed animals—we may not have a farm, but we care greatly about this issue. As a Londoner born and bred, I had not heard the phrase “livestock worrying” before the hon. Member asked me to serve on this Committee. I did know about incidents of animals being attacked on farms, but I was shocked to learn how widespread these incidents of dogs chasing, attacking or causing distress to livestock are, and about the financial and emotional impact of livestock worrying. I think we all agree that no animal should be made to suffer unnecessary pain, alarm or distress, and hearing the stories from Members on the Committee today has been moving and powerful.
This Bill is an important step to protect farm animals from dog attacks, strengthening police powers and promoting responsible dog ownership. As someone who was once the proud owner of a boisterous German shepherd called Prince, I know the importance of being a responsible dog owner, particularly with large dogs. For so many of us, treating animals, nature and our planet with care and respect is a mark of the type of society we want to be. That is why animal welfare and the protection of livestock is an issue that so often unites Members from across the House. I am therefore not surprised and am very pleased that this important Bill enjoys cross-party support and that the Labour Government are supporting it, to better protect the welfare of our livestock.
We should always strive for the highest possible animal welfare standards, so I welcome the Bill and congratulate the NFU on its hard work in lobbying on this important issue. I thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for reintroducing the Bill, for her efforts to bring it to this stage, securing cross-party support for these measures, and for saying the word “llama” to me more times this month than it has perhaps ever been said in the House before.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak briefly in this debate. I bumped into my neighbour, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury, the other day and said, “Can I say a few words on Wednesday morning?” She said, “Well, no one else is going to be speaking, and they will want to get out as quickly as possible.”—but when I saw everybody stand up to speak this morning, I scribbled some notes, which I will happily put to the Committee.
I want to start by congratulating the hon. Member on her excellent speech and on appointing the most excellent Committee I have served on—I have served on three since my election to the House last July. Before my election to Parliament, I spent several years working on animal welfare, particularly with my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn and the Minister. This is a little bit like the old days—but the view from the Government Benches is much better than the view from the Public Gallery at the back.
As the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury knows, my Newcastle-under-Lyme constituency borders hers, and many of my fields roll into hers across the county border. Both constituencies are home to wonderful, hard-working farmers, and this important Bill will help to make their lives easier and better. As the impact assessment points out, livestock worrying has negative economic and animal welfare implications, and is a matter of serious concern for farmers such as those in Newcastle-under-Lyme, rural police forces and our rural communities.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow pointed out, concern about the issue is not restricted to rural communities; it extends to inner-city areas, where there is care and compassion for animal welfare and a desire to strengthen it. The Bill is about supporting our farmers, not attacking dog owners. That is important to point out. I do not have a dog, despite my wife desperately wanting one, but the Bill helps our farmers and the dogs that are owned by those we are trying to hold accountable. We need to keep them doing the right thing.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I declare my professional and personal interest in this subject as a veterinary surgeon.
I am delighted that there is clear consensus across the House on the need to tackle livestock worrying and attacks. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury on securing the passage of this vital and important Bill. I cannot continue without congratulating and paying tribute to the many groups in this space that have championed reform, such as the National Sheep Association, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers’ Union, and the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare, which I now co-chair with Lord Trees, who is also a vet.
Sadly, as a veterinary surgeon, I have seen at first hand the tragic effects of dog attacks. I have met with farmers right across the country who have impressed upon me the importance of protecting our livestock. This Bill unfortunately did not quite succeed in completing the parliamentary process in the previous Parliament. It was first introduced under the previous Conservative Government as part of the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill—this is like groundhog day for the Minister and me, as we sat on that Bill Committee together—and then sponsored by our friend the former Member for Suffolk Coastal, Thérèse Coffey, who now has been rightly elevated to a seat in the House of Lords for her services to the House and to DEFRA.
Baroness Coffey contributed to the Conservative Government’s great efforts to improve animal welfare in this area and others, cementing this country’s world-leading status. Our achievements included introducing pet abduction as a specific criminal offence, increasing penalties for animal cruelty, banning livestock being exported for slaughter or fattening, and—not in a private Member’s Bill, but in Government legislation—enshrining animal sentience into law under the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022. The Animal Sentience Committee was created so that any legislation passed by this House has to pay due regard to the concept of animal sentience. That is a clear achievement on which I am sure we can agree across the House.
Sadly, statistics from the National Sheep Association make stark reading on the real issue that livestock worrying presents for our livestock and for the farmers whose livelihoods depend on them. In a 2025 survey by the association, 87% of respondents said that they had experienced a dog attack on one of their sheep in the past 12 months, and 4% of those said that they had experienced between 10 and 30 such incidents in the past 12 months. Those are shocking figures.
The impact of worrying on livestock is a huge welfare concern for the animals affected. Physically, livestock that face worrying can be hurt. Sadly, if an attack results, they may die or have to be euthanised because of their wounds. The National Sheep Association survey found that only 20% of farmers were alerted directly of an incident that affected their livestock. Many incidents are not dealt with straightaway, which can delay lifesaving treatment of the animals.
Physical injuries can come not only from the attack itself, but from the sheer distress that the threat of a dangerous uncontrolled dog can cause. Trauma can often cause the injury of livestock that over-exert themselves fleeing the danger. In areas with a boundary or wall, where livestock are often kept, fleeing can cause stampedes in which livestock are crushed in an attempt to escape. The trauma can cause pregnant livestock, such as sheep, to miscarry; born young can be lost and separated from the dam in attempts to escape the attack, which puts those young livestock at risk.
Emotional trauma is not something that farmers of affected livestock are immune to. The sight of a livestock attack can be emotionally distressing, and the memory can stay with farmers way beyond the end of the attack. Likewise, the financial cost resulting from the injuries caused to livestock, or from the loss of livestock, can create long-term emotional distress for our farmers. The financial cost of farm animals being killed or injured by dogs is estimated to have totalled £1.8 million last year, according to NFU Mutual. One can only imagine the significant financial and emotional consequences spread across the farming population.
Only last week, I had the privilege of attending a roundtable led by the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, which highlighted that the health of our farming communities is interlinked with their emotional and financial wellbeing. It is crucial that we tackle the shock factors that can have a knock-on impact. Livestock worrying and attacks are among the shocks, and the Bill is a vital place to start tackling the wider issue. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury cares very deeply about rural mental health; the Bill will help to mitigate the mental health effects on our rural communities.
As 98% of respondents to the National Sheep Association survey believe that additional police powers are needed, I highly welcome the fact that clauses 2, 3 and 4 will give them exactly that. Under clause 2, the police’s power to seize dogs that they have good reason to believe have been involved in an offence under the 1953 Act will be expanded to cover dogs found on roads or paths that may have been or could be involved in offences. That is an important addition to the legislation that will help to close some of the loopholes. It is a crucial measure that will enable police to act swiftly to begin the process of investigation and prevent any further harm to animals or human beings.
Another important step that will strengthen police powers to tackle the issue is the permission granted under clause 3 for police and veterinary surgeons to take samples or impressions, where appropriate, from animals wounded by livestock worrying, or indeed from the animals involved, to support law enforcement in finding the supporting evidence for a criminal offence and bringing the necessary charges. The NFU has championed the measure, which, if used in the right way, could be vital to ensuring that those who commit these offences are brought to justice. The value of that cannot be overstated. As the NFU has pointed out in its campaigning, livestock worrying incidents are too often under-reported.
What support will the Government provide to ensure that DNA testing systems can be a consistent and reliable method of identification and a consistent and reliable evidence-gathering tool? The NFU highlights research into the issue by Liverpool John Moores University, but are the Government prepared to support such research and translate it into practice? If advances are made, what steps will they take to support police forces across the country in implementing the methods effectively as soon as possible? The possibilities of DNA testing could change the game when it comes to prosecuting reckless dog owners. That, in turn, could increase farmers’ confidence that if they report offences, they will get the action that they need from the police.
Clause 4 will introduce an important extension of the police’s ability to investigate livestock worrying and attacks, and will make the system effective in prosecuting offences under the 1953 Act. It will permit police with a warrant to search properties in which there are suspected to be dogs that were involved in such offences. That is important, because it will end the feeling, which far too many people have, that once an attack or worrying event has taken place, nothing will be done to bring justice for victims or prosecute perpetrators.
That approach is to be welcomed, but a core focus on the criminal justice lens must be only one pillar of our strategy for tackling the issue. Criminal justice can intervene only after the fact, once the incident has taken place and the damage of worrying or attacks has been done. Prevention is much better than cure, so another pillar of the strategy must be responsible dog ownership.
The previous Conservative Government set up a responsible dog ownership working group, in which police, stakeholders and animal welfare groups came together to encourage better education and guidance on how people can keep pets safe, as well as keeping other animals and humans around their pets safe. That includes ensuring that owners understand the necessity of keeping dogs on leads around livestock, and that they know how to control their pets to prevent them from becoming a threat. The significant reduction in the cost of livestock worrying, injury or death in Wales between 2023 and 2024—from £883,000 to £314,000, a decrease of 64%—has been attributed to factors such as education campaigns, Blue Cross training courses for dog owners, effective rural crime teams and social media outreach. I also highlight the importance of the countryside code, which gives good guidance on being with a dog in a rural area. It is important that we amplify that educational message; it is therefore expedient that responsible dog ownership be worked on in parallel with excellent legislation such as this Bill.
It is unfortunate that the present Government have not addressed the working group or its future, although they have said that they will work with police, local authorities, animal welfare groups and veterinary groups on the concept of dog ownership. I am a good friend of the Minister, for whom I have deep respect, but I gently ask him what the Government mean when they say that they are working with police, local authorities and animal welfare groups to tackle the problem. Are those involved in the responsible dog ownership working group involved in discussions with the Government? Will they be able to make recommendations to the Government, as the working group could? How often are the Government talking to those they say they are working with? Will the Government confirm that they understand that responsible dog ownership is a vital component of tackling livestock worrying and attacks?
Much of the discussion today has focused on sheep and cattle, but it is important to note that livestock worrying and attacks also affect horses, ponies and donkeys. I also welcome paragraph 2 of the schedule, because we know the impact that livestock worrying can have on camelids such as alpacas and llamas. I have met alpaca farmers who have impressed on me how important it is that the legislation cover camelids.
Despite my constructive questions to the Minister, I reiterate my wholehearted support for the Bill and urge colleagues across the political divide to support it, as I am sure they will.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury not just on introducing the Bill, but on her calm and thorough presentation of the issues, which served as an excellent introduction to our discussions.
I associate myself with the shadow Minister’s comments about the range of organisations that have engaged constructively on the long path to this point. He eloquently outlined the history, including the work of Baroness Coffey, to whom I pay tribute for strengthening the legislation in her version of the Bill. I have a sense of déjà vu from previous debates and from last week’s discussions—we are still working on measures that could have been put in place through the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill—but here we are, and we can all celebrate the fact that this is finally going to happen.
Let me reiterate how seriously the Government take the issue. As we have heard, livestock worrying and attacks on livestock have devastating impacts on animals and people. The behaviour of dogs that chase, attack or cause distress to livestock can result in injury or even death to the livestock and has a seriously detrimental effect on farmers and on those who work in the countryside.
I am very grateful for the contributions from Members across the Committee. We all know that the issue is important, but there are some wider implications that are perhaps not so immediately obvious, such as lambs being aborted and flocks of birds sometimes smothered.
Let me repeat some statistics. In 2025, a National Sheep Association survey found that 96% of farmers experienced between one and 10 sheep worrying incidents in the past 12 months. The remaining 4% experienced between 10 and 30 incidents, and one respondent reported 44 sheep killed in a single attack; one of our colleagues conveyed that powerfully in a previous discussion. Those tragic statistics show that it is worth our time ensuring that the Bill is passed.
The Bill takes forward important measures that will extend the locations and species in scope of the 1953 Act, strengthen police powers and increase the penalty from the current £1,000 fine. I am well aware of the strength of feeling among Members across the House, stakeholders and people who live and work across our country.
The main purpose of the Bill is to improve police powers and enable them to respond to livestock worrying incidents more effectively. It extends powers of seizure and modifies entry powers; it also introduces a new power to take samples and impressions from livestock and suspected dogs if there are reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed. Obviously, the world has changed a lot since the 1953 Act was passed; the Bill should give the police the tools they need to investigate, collect evidence and, most important, increase the number of prosecutions. It is striking how difficult it is to do that.
The shadow Minister asked about the DNA systems for evidence gathering. DEFRA has part-funded phase 1 of the canine DNA recovery project, which as he said is led by Liverpool John Moores University. The project will support measures in the Bill, and, we hope, facilitate investigations by making it easier for the police to collect the data. We are working with the project team, and I have asked them about how we can ensure the new DNA powers are rolled out effectively with the police.
As we have heard, the Bill extends the scope of the 1953 Act by broadening the locations where an offence may take place to include roads and paths, as the hon. Member for Bridgwater outlined so eloquently. That will help to protect livestock when farmers need to move them from place to place.
The changed wording of the offence and the creation of separate offences for attacks on livestock and worrying is really important; the shadow Minister made that point strongly. The term “worrying” can downplay the severity of some of these offences; the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury made that point very effectively. Reframing the Act so that “attacking” is distinct from “worrying” better highlights the violent nature of the incidents. My hon. Friends the Members for North Somerset and for Stratford and Bow showed that there is widespread understanding of just how serious these issues are. The welcome extension, referenced by a number of hon. Members, of the 1953 Act to include camelids such as llamas and alpacas will allow much greater protection.
The maximum penalty, which is currently a fine of £1,000, will be increased to an unlimited fine to act as a deterrent. The courts will be able to determine an appropriate fine in line with sentencing guidelines that takes account of the seriousness of the offence and the financial circumstances of the offender.
The amendment was so eloquently spoken to that I was surprised to hear that this is the first time the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin has served on a Bill Committee; I hope she is enjoying it. The procedures are sometimes quite complicated. The 1953 Act makes it an offence to allow a dog to be “at large” around sheep in fields or enclosures, and makes it clear that a dog is at large if it is not on a lead or otherwise under close control. She is absolutely right to say that I have raised similar questions in the past about how to further strengthen the Bill’s provisions on that. However, I have been advised that the current approach is sensible, as it places strong requirements on dog walkers to behave responsibly, but does not unduly restrict the circumstances in which a court could conclude that a dog was not under close control.
It is important to get the balance right between responsible dog ownership, which I will come back to in a moment, and livestock protection. We know that many responsible dog walkers enjoy the countryside without incident. The countryside code, which I strongly believe we should strengthen and promote, already provides comprehensive guidance for dog walkers and highlights that it is best practice to keep dogs on a lead around livestock. I pay tribute to organisations such as the National Trust that are doing good work to promote and educate on responsible dog ownership. It is important that people understand what it is sensible to do when walking in the countryside.
The amendment would specify in more detail when a dog should be treated as being under close control, but I have been advised that that that is not expected to change behaviour among responsible dog walkers. The advice that persuaded me to change my mind is that setting out the meaning of “close control” risks inadvertently narrowing the circumstances in which a court would naturally conclude that a dog was not under close control. The benefit of the current approach is that it provides sufficient flexibility for a court to assess whether, on the facts before it, there is evidence that the dog was not under close control, and that evidence need not be limited to proving specific elements such as whether the owner had reason to be confident that the dog would respond promptly to recall. On balance, therefore, I think it preferable not to introduce the more stringent requirement. Although I have sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin, I gently ask her not to press her amendment.
Turning to the wider animal welfare issues, I was delighted to hear the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West and Islwyn and for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who quite rightly did exactly what one would expect of one’s colleagues and urged the Government to move more quickly. I will relay that message to my colleagues. I assure my hon. Friends that the Government are consulting widely. This is the important point: we were elected on a strong commitment to strengthen animal welfare. We are engaged in detailed conversations with all the stakeholders at the moment and will come forward with proposals that will, I am sure, satisfy my most engaged colleagues. I look forward to having that discussion with them as we go forward.
Daniel Zeichner
I will certainly give way. I am sure that my hon. Friend is going to press me.
Adam Jogee
Old habits die hard, Minister. I am grateful to him for acknowledging my comments and those of our hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn. When he speaks to his colleagues at the Department, will he get us a date for the publication of this strategy?
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s helpful contribution. I assure him that a date will emerge in due course. I am very happy to offer the Government’s support for the Bill.
Dr Hudson
Before the Minister finishes his remarks, I want to ask him one question. He said he would talk about what the Government are doing on responsible dog ownership. This discrete, and welcome, piece of legislation will do a lot to protect animal health and welfare, but it is part of a package of measures. We need to ensure that people who own dogs source them responsibly, train them responsibly, socialise them responsibly and manage them responsibly. How will this Government continue the work of the Conservative Government, who set up the responsible dog ownership working group? How will they ensure that the medium and longer-term piece of work, which will not be easy, is done in parallel? Legislation has been passed about XL bully dogs in the last couple of years—another discrete piece of legislation —but there must be work in parallel on responsible dog ownership. I would be grateful if the Minister said what his Government will do in that space.
Daniel Zeichner
The shadow Minister is right; I meant to fold that into my previous answer. As he would expect, this new Government are taking stock. By supporting these private Members’ Bills, we are effectively finishing the work of the previous Parliament before we move on to our exciting new measures, and our approach to responsible dog ownership will form part of that.
Aphra Brandreth
Thank you for chairing this Committee, Mr Western; it has been a pleasure to serve under you. I thank the Minister for his support for the Bill and those who have worked incredibly hard on it behind the scenes. I am extremely grateful to all Members who have served on the Committee for taking the time to listen to why I and others feel the Bill is necessary, and for all their thoughtful contributions.
At the heart of this Bill are farmers and livestock. The Bill will give farmers greater confidence that livestock attacks will be dealt with in a timely, effective and appropriate manner, reflective of the damage an attack can do. It is our hope that deterrence in the form of greater penalties and powers for the police to investigate livestock attacks will reduce the number of those attacks. The fewer farmers who witness an attack, deal with severely injured animals in the aftermath and face the economic costs as a result, the better. They deserve this Bill, and I am sure that they, like me, are incredibly grateful to all who have given their support today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 1, schedule, page 5, line 8, at end insert—
“(3A) In subsection (2), omit ‘(that is to say not on a lead or otherwise under close control)’.
(3B) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(2ZA) For the purposes of subsection (2), a dog is “at large” unless—
(a) it is on a lead of a length of 1.8 metres or less, or
(b) it is within sight of a person and the person—
(i) remains aware of the dog’s actions, and
(ii) has reason to be confident that the dog will return to the person reliably and promptly on the person’s command.’”—(Ann Davies.)
This amendment would change the definition of the term “at large” for the purposes of the offence under section 1 of the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Schedule agreed to.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Daniel Zeichner
May I endorse that and thank the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury for the way she has conducted this process? We wish the Bill well, because it is very important to tackle attacks on and worrying of livestock. The Bill will strengthen the 1953 Act, so let us get it on the statute book as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
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
Chronic Urinary Tract Infections
(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
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered chronic urinary tract infections.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I rise to speak about a horrific condition that has been ignored for much too long. For thousands of Britons chronic urinary tract infections turn ordinary lives into living nightmares. The pain and permanence of the illness has left thousands suffering on a daily basis. Having heard many of their stories it is clear to me that what they are living through is nothing short of torture. This speech is not just about a medical condition; it is about a scandal that highlights the systemic failure to take women’s pain seriously in this country.
Over the last few months a brave community of patients have shared their stories with me—stories of trauma, suffering and desperation. I have been utterly heartbroken by what I have been told. The cruelty of the condition is matched only by the cold indifference that its sufferers have faced from our healthcare system. It is a national disgrace that thousands of chronic UTI sufferers have been so profoundly let down by modern medicine.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. As a physiotherapist I meet patients with chronic UTIs who tell me about the increasing urgency leading to incontinence. The stigma behind incontinence is disgraceful. Does he agree that we need a wider strategy? When it comes to UTIs we need to look at the other effects, such as people falling and the number of fractures that happen because people are rushing to go to the toilet. It is important to look at a wider strategy instead of just thinking of this as a single issue.
Luke Taylor
Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for raising those related issues, which are so important to consider. I will come on to talk about the wider challenge of women’s health being treated without the importance that it requires. I understand that she is attempting to secure a debate on a similar subject, so I wish her the best of luck in that endeavour.
Many of us have already heard of this illness and have heard people’s stories. I first learned about it from my constituent Phoebe, who has lived with a chronic UTI since she was three years old. Now in her mid-20s, she has become a tireless advocate for others suffering in silence. She shows remarkable perseverance and strength, even when the pain she lives with is beyond anything I can describe. Phoebe is here with us today, along with a number of other sufferers. It is my absolute privilege to stand in this place and speak for them and every other individual enduring such an awful condition. Will the Minister meet me, Phoebe and representatives of other campaign groups to hear how they have been let down by the system?
A chronic UTI is not just a diagnosis; it is at present a life sentence of torture that eats away at every part of a person’s existence. The condition first develops when bacteria from an acute UTI become permanently embedded in the lining of the bladder. Left untreated, the infection becomes entrenched, wreaking long-term havoc on the rest of the body.
I want to be absolutely clear: a chronic UTI should not be confused with the recurrent version of the condition. A patient diagnosed with a recurrent UTI might experience one or two infections over a six-month period. Although it is still serious, patients suffering from a recurrent UTI experience distinct intervals of relief from their symptoms. Chronic UTI sufferers live in constant and excruciating pain, with the infection never relenting. They are in agony every single day and every single night. Many sufferers have lived with the condition for decades, with the illness at present incurable.
Chronic urinary tract infections can affect anyone at any age, but they disproportionately affect women. At the UK’s only NHS specialist clinic, which I will come on to later, 95% of patients are women; only 5% are men. Individuals living with a chronic UTI are often forced to urinate more than 20 times an hour. I have been told that each time they use the toilet, it feels like they are passing razor blades through their urethra. Their urine is bloody. Their bladders are so tender they struggle to walk, and their bodies are consumed by fever. In many cases, the prolonged infection spreads from the bladder to the kidneys and the bloodstream, causing sepsis, with complications for other organs.
I have been told harrowing accounts of the agony caused by this illness. The pain has been likened to corrosive acid burning through the abdomen, glass shards lodged in the bladder and the feeling of mice eating away at the sufferer’s insides. Some liken it to scorching knives slashing forever at their stomach, or a hot cauldron constantly bubbling in their groin. The most common comparison I hear is that people’s bodies are perpetually on fire. To reiterate, the torment never stops—for the majority of patients, it is 24/7.
These symptoms destroy lives overnight. The illness renders individuals severely disabled, often forced to live a life of bedbound isolation. The pain is so overwhelming that patients can lose their ability to sleep and become trapped in a cycle of exhaustion. Household chores become impossible, and individuals can lose the ability to care for their children. Sufferers often lose their dream careers, as they cannot function with their symptoms in the workplace. They are unable to work or afford costly bills for private medicine.
Young adults living with the condition often have to forgo university studies, with the severity of their agony making their education unbearable. Romantic relationships break down, with at least one case of a marriage of over 40 years ending due to the illness. Sexual intercourse is virtually impossible due to the immense pain. Many people with the condition fear they will never be able to start a family. Patients face an utter loss of independence and, unsurprisingly, depression and suicidal ideation are daily struggles for the chronic UTI patient community.
This brings me on to my second ask for the Minister: every healthcare professional in the UK must be properly briefed to recognise and treat a chronic UTI. Since 2022, the NHS website has formally recognised the existence of chronic UTIs, yet I have heard that many GPs and urologists still deny the existence of the illness. Patients suffering from chronic UTIs are left to fight for recognition and are misdiagnosed with conditions such as internal cystitis or recurrent UTIs.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the hon. Member agree that part of the issue is the use of antibiotics, to which UTIs are becoming immune? The medical profession cannot keep up with treatments, and there is a case for better education of the general public in terms of sanitisation. I know it is possible to get UTIs in different ways, but it would be helpful to educate and remind the population about sanitation.
Luke Taylor
The hon. Member is absolutely right. Many of our modern medicine practices are designed around avoiding the build-up of antibiotic resistance. The intention is to allow high-dose, effective antibiotics to be available when required, yet so many sufferers tell us that when they go to the doctor because they require those antibiotics, they are denied them. If this is not a case where those effective antibiotics must be used, even though resistance must be avoided, there cannot be a better example of the mismatch between intention and practice. I will come on to that in more detail, but I thank the hon. Member for making that point.
The misdiagnosis of chronic UTIs does not lead to effective treatment and compounds sufferers’ agonising pain with awful frustration. At their most vulnerable and weak, they are being forced to prove that what is happening to them is real. That is Kafkaesque, and it is totally wrong. The key problem appears to be that specific National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines do not exist for chronic UTIs in England, and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network guidelines do not exist for the condition in Scotland. NICE guidelines for acute and recurrent UTIs exist, but as I have outlined, they are not fit for purpose for this chronic condition. How can GPs and urologists provide and recommend proper care, as the first point of contact with the patient, when there are no clear clinical guidelines?
Without guidelines, many medical professionals are practically blind to the condition. They cannot prescribe the right antibiotics to relive patients’ pain because chronic UTIs are not even on their radar. Chronic UTI specialists do exist, and they recognise the condition and can help treat symptoms, but without proper guidance GPs and urologists, unintentionally or not, block patients from reaching them and refuse their requests for referral. Many chronic UTI sufferers have post-traumatic stress disorder from their interactions with medical professionals, never mind the suffering from the condition itself. I have heard stories of patients being essentially gaslit by medical professionals, told that the concern is all in their heads, denied antibiotics and given antidepressants instead. It seems that some GPs and urologists have dismissed the illness as a women’s problem and have told patients just to deal with the pain. That is not medicine; it is misogyny.
I urge the Minister to push for the creation by NICE and SIGN of guidelines on chronic UTIs that are distinct from those on recurrent UTIs. That is long overdue and will hopefully bring to an end those kinds of interactions between suffering patients and GPs, but that alone will not be enough. There have to be better treatment offers for chronic UTI patients further down the pipeline. Right now, there is just one NHS specialist clinic in the entire country: the lower urinary tract symptoms clinic at Whittington hospital in London—one clinic for a nationwide illness. It offers fantastic support for patients, but waiting times are too long. We all know that waiting lists are far too high across the NHS— I commend the Government for their approach to bringing waiting lists down generally—but for chronic UTI sufferers forced to compete for the time of a solitary clinic, the effect is even more pronounced. Sufferers wait months, even years, for help if they are lucky enough to secure a referral in the first place.
Even once patients get to the clinic, relief is still not guaranteed. The LUTS clinic offers long-term, high-dose antibiotics that can treat the symptoms, but they bring only partial relief, leaving many dragging themselves through life exhausted, drowsy and still in pain. That is not really living; it is enduring. Worse, the antibiotics do not work for everyone: about 30% of patients cannot tolerate them at all. Imagine the despair of being in that 30%.
The situation would be scandalous enough if it were simply the case that, in desperation, many chronic UTI patients turned to private healthcare, spending thousands of pounds that they do not have just to access the bare minimum of care, but it is more awful than that. Some are forced to go to even more extreme lengths and choose risky, experimental procedures just to lessen their suffering. They fly abroad and pay unlicensed doctors more than £30,000 to have their bladders surgically removed. Let me say that again: people are choosing to have their organs ripped out in foreign countries because mainstream healthcare in the UK offers them nothing.
For some, those risky surgeries offer relief, but for many the infection is already in their kidneys, and they return from the operation bladderless and with multiple complications. Some suffers, with few options left, make a choice that should haunt us in this House. Rather than live another day like that, they take the most extreme choice of all: to take their own life. That is not how people should be living in modern Britian, and that is why we should spare no expense in researching better treatments and, of course—as so many dream—a cure.
I argue that the Government have an obligation, no matter the prevailing economic circumstances, to expedite the day that that becomes a reality. Promising medical trials already under way in the UK show real potential to transform how we treat chronic UTIs. Those treatments are ready to progress to human trials; the only thing standing in the way is funding. I urge the Minister to look into the roadblocks to getting more funding to the trials, and to come forward at the earliest opportunity with a plan to put conditions that are under-diagnosed and under-prioritised, such as chronic UTIs, at the front of their research agenda for this country’s biomedical research industry. I would be happy to put the Minister in touch with some of those working at the cutting edge of treatment in this field.
I have told the story of chronic UTI sufferers and their longing for relief—a relief the Government can help them seek if they back their cause—but I remind the House that the condition exists in a much wider context: health issues that mainly impact women are consistently neglected and routinely dismissed. We know that women wait longer in accident and emergency departments. We also know that just 5% of global health research goes towards conditions that exclusively or disproportionately affect women. Even though 15% to 20% consult doctors for chronic pain, it was only this year that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists introduced an optional training module on chronic pain for trainee doctors.
Inquiries such as Paterson and Cumberlege laid bare the systemic failures in how women’s health is treated in this country, but implementation and cultural change have lagged far behind the words. I have wondered many things since I first heard stories of chronic UTI sufferers, but nothing has unsettled me more than the lingering thought that if more men were affected by the disease, we would have had better treatments decades ago. That is an oft-used cliché but it comes up time and again.
The Minister has heard today about the scale of unimaginable pain that those with chronic UTIs experience. She has heard about the broken diagnostic system that stops too many sufferers getting the help they need. She has heard about the roadblocks to developing better treatments that are standing in the way of relief. I simply reiterate my asks. Will she and her officials meet me and these brave sufferers to hear more about the specific actions that the Government need to take to clear the roadblocks? Will they commit to pushing for the NICE guidelines to be brought up to date to reflect the latest understanding of this disease? Will they outline what steps they are taking to combat the wider problem of the neglect of women’s health issues? Chronic UTI sufferers deserve so much more.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I am not well today for the very reason that we are here. I may need to sit down during my speech if that is okay. I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this incredibly important debate. [Interruption.]
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This is a difficult subject for those who suffer from this condition. I will give an example in my speech, as one of my staff members suffers from it. We are deeply indebted to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for bringing this forward. It is important to hear personal stories from sufferers, such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), and that they are given the opportunity to express themselves on the importance of this issue to them personally and to all our constituents.
Dr Gardner
As hon. Members may have guessed, this debate is not only important to thousands of women across the country—according to the Chronic Urinary Tract Infection Campaign, about 1.7 million women suffer from chronic UTIs—but incredibly personal to me. I have suffered from UTIs as a result of menopause for more than 10 years, and received a diagnosis of chronic UTI in 2023.
I do not think many people realise how debilitating and excruciating chronic UTI can be. At my worst, I wondered how I could go on. I even changed from a beloved lecturing job to one at NICE because I wanted to change things from within, and it is why I am an MP now. I have tried almost everything; I was even considering—as a final step before the final, final step—having my bladder removed.
Although my NHS consultant gave me Hiprex—methenamine hippurate—thank God, which is life-changing for me, he finally shrugged his shoulders and said that I would just have to live with this condition. In desperation, I tracked down a specialist who worked in private practice. How lucky I was to have the money. I can confidently claim that Dr Catriona Anderson saved my life, which I do not say lightly.
Chronic UTIs can lead to hospitalisation—I have been twice—and sepsis and death. I have a long list of all the drugs that I am on, but I will not read it out. I believe this is another case of how women’s medical conditions continue to be misunderstood, under-researched and underfunded. To illustrate that point, there is a belief that UTIs are more serious in men than in women. I acknowledge that men’s physiology—men have a longer urethra than women—means that they are less likely to develop a UTI, although the possible presence of an enlarged prostate means that they may experience restrictive urine flows and develop a UTI. That is certainly the case in older men. Consequently, all men are recommended seven-day courses of antibiotics compared with the three-day courses that women are recommended. By the way, there are three antibiotics to treat UTIs. Trimethoprim and nitrofurantoin are the top ones, but I am allergic to them, so I am on cephalexin when I need it.
There is a lack of acknowledgement that poorly treated UTIs can lead to bacteria becoming embedded in bladders. Incidentally, a much shorter journey in women means that the diligence afforded to men is not afforded to women. In addition, women’s immune response to pathogenic bacteria in the bladder is oestrogen-dependent, and so it is also age-related. Lack of official recognition of chronic UTIs means that women do not receive treatment equal to what men. I am a molecular biologist, but I will not bore Members by setting out the different types of receptors in the urethral lining of the bladder.
I will further illustrate this point in simpler terms. A campaigner told me how her doctor, who repeatedly prescribed her three-day antibiotic courses for her chronic UTI, prescribed her husband, when he presented with a UTI for the first time, a month-long course, which would entirely clear the infection, of course, and minimise risk of recurrence. That says it all. Incidentally, chronic prostatitis is recognised by NICE.
As has been mentioned, for many women—approximately 70%—three-day courses will be sufficient, but for rest of women, three-day courses clear only some bacteria. Those that remain are relatively resistant; they then increase in population and there is recurrence. Essentially, repeated short courses establish a system of natural selection for resistant bacteria. It also means that the remaining bacteria then have time to invade the bladder and become embedded, finally leading to chronic UTIs. So, patients are stuck in a loop.
The use of the useless urine dipstick test, which is no more accurate than the toss of a coin, and of the midstream urine test, which is even worse, means that infections go undetected. As a result, no antibiotics are prescribed until the infection gets worse and, finally, a short course of antibiotics is prescribed. However, the infection is still not fully cleared, so the loop starts again. The infection then becomes embedded in the bladder wall and chronic UTI develops.
Short-term antibiotic courses often do not treat chronic UTIs, because dormant populations of bacteria exist within the bladder wall. Your life revolves around desperately trying to convince doctors to prescribe a course that you know will work for you. I am due to move house soon and I am petrified of having to move GPs, which would mean again starting this battle of trying to convince a GP to take me seriously. I understand concerns around antibiotic resistance and the medical hesitancy in prescribing longer courses of antibiotics. However, the solution is not to minimise antibiotic use; it is to get the diagnosis right, treat thoroughly, recognise the existence of chronic UTIs and prevent their development.
I am concerned by the lack of research and guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of chronic UTIs. We could prevent them all together if we get things right. I am particularly excited by the UTI vaccine, which is not currently available in the UK. Prevention of UTIs would not only save the NHS countless hours and money, but save people from living miserable lives.
In April, the Minister for Care said in a response to a written question:
“there are no current plans to train GPs and urologists on recognising the symptoms of chronic UTIs”.
Also, current NICE guidelines do not contain guidance for chronic UTIs. This situation must change. Too many women are being left in unbearable pain without a proper diagnosis or appropriate medication.
I will be very quick now, Sir Desmond; you have been very patient with me. About 50% of all antibiotics are prescribed for UTIs. However, each year there are thousands of deaths from UTIs and approximately 200,000 A&E admissions are due to UTI-related illnesses. The cost of UTIs to the NHS, as well as to people’s lives, is huge.
This issue is personal for me. It is also personal for the millions living with the pain, frustration and isolation of chronic UTIs. Will the Minister meet me and others, including campaigners, to discuss how we can improve diagnostic tools, develop guidance and ensure that people suffering from this condition receive the care that they deserve?
Thank you for your indulgence, Sir Desmond.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) on his presentation of this debate on subject matter that some, such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), have personal experience of. Others, including me, have staff members who have had this condition, and some have family members who have had it—I understand that my friend the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) has experienced that.
This is an opportunity to speak on behalf of sufferers in my constituency of Strangford and across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The NHS estimates that some 14 million people in the UK experience some form of urinary incontinence. That figure is expected to rise because of an ageing population with often very complex health issues. That is a fact of life. Those of a certain age—I am one of them—find that their health issues are multiple. That is the nature of age; it takes its toll.
Inadequate continence care can lead to serious complications, with urinary tract infections among the most common and concerning outcomes. NHS data showed that there were more than 1.8 million hospital admissions involving UTIs between 2018-19 and 2022-23. The majority involved patients aged 65 or older. The admissions include both those directly caused by UTIs and those for other reasons but where a UTI was also present. As a leading cause of emergency admissions, UTIs place substantial strain on NHS resources, while diminishing patients’ dignity, experiences and outcomes.
I wish to highlight that this issue affects both men and women, as well as children. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to a three-year-old girl, so children are affected by chronic UTIs. A member of my office staff, one of our young girls, came to work with me when she was 16. She has been there for a long time, so I must be doing something right; she has not left me to go elsewhere where the money is better. Perhaps the conditions and the time off are better as well.
I understood the chronic pain that my staff member had, but also the need to be flexible at times—whenever she was not well, she obviously needed time off. She attended a fair few hospital appointments for a chronic UTI, and it was a very difficult time. She was on antibiotics for six months. I wondered, “Is that possible?” But in this case it was, because the infection was so chronic. Ultimately it cleared. Also, on 1 January this year she got married, so her life is going in the right direction now—thank goodness for that. The issue was exacerbated at the time by the difficulty of getting GP appointments and specialist referrals. The chronic pain just seemed to exist forever, even with the help of antibiotics. Eventually she got to the end of that six-month period and she is now in much better health.
I want to mention what we are doing in Northern Ireland, because obviously that will be part of any debate in which I speak. In Northern Ireland we have something, and perhaps the Minister will say to me in a few minutes, once I tell her what it is about, “Well, we’re already doing that.” If they are, that is good. I was very relieved when Northern Ireland rolled out the Pharmacy First scheme, especially as the scheme covers advice and treatment for uncomplicated urinary tract infections in the local pharmacy, so without having to wait for a GP appointment. If the Minister tells me that the Government have not done that yet, can I say that it is another Northern Ireland first? And if the Minister is not aware of it, may I say, to be helpful in this debate, that perhaps it should be done here as well?
The pharmacist may test the patient’s urine to help to determine whether a UTI is present. How does the scheme work? What happens when a person goes to their local pharmacy in Northern Ireland? In some cases, self-care advice may be all that is necessary. In other words, they will get a bit of advice. The pharmacist will find out what the symptoms are and explain the situation to the person, and perhaps will be able to respond fairly quickly. As I said, in some cases self-care advice may be all that is necessary, but the community pharmacist is also able to supply the patient with medicines to relieve pain—in some cases there can be chronic pain—and, if applicable, antibiotics. In all cases, women will be advised on what to do if their symptoms worsen or do not resolve.
The Pharmacy First UTI service means that women can be assessed and treated much sooner, without having to wait for a GP appointment—like the young girl in my office—for a month, two months, six weeks or whatever the case may be. Not only will patients not need an appointment, but community pharmacies are more likely to be open after normal working hours, at weekends and on bank holidays. Newtownards, my major town, has a number of pharmacies, which take turns staying open at the weekend; there is always access to a pharmacy in Newtownards and, indeed, other major towns in the Province.
The UTI management service expanded to more than 400 community pharmacies in 2024-25, following positive evaluation of the pilot, which involved 60 pharmacies and started in July 2021. That success convinced the Northern Ireland Department of Health to make the pilot bigger and showed that we could do more. Between March 2022 and April 2023, 3,500 women in Northern Ireland used the pilot service. Following assessment, more than 85% were diagnosed with a UTI and received appropriate advice and treatment from a pharmacist.
That is positive, but for those with chronic UTIs, like the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, the pharmacy does not cut it and the GP can only do so much. There are different levels of response: community pharmacies in Northern Ireland provide an automatic response to those who have a urinary infection, rather than a chronic UTI, but sometimes things are much more complicated.
The waiting list to be seen for a UTI in Northern Ireland is long, and the average waiting time for urology appointments varies significantly, depending on the health and social care trust and the urgency of the case. For example, in the Belfast health and social care trust, the wait in a red flag case—the most urgent—might be nine weeks, which is more than two months and far too long; a non-urgent case could wait 76 weeks, and a routine case could wait 180 weeks. Those are horrendous and completely unacceptable waiting times.
Throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there needs to be access to specialised care, innovation, new and modern technology, and new ideas, rather than a six-month course of antibiotics and a hope for the best. Men, women and children need more, and it must be provided.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. She responded positively to last week’s debate, and I am sure that today she will again indicate her wish to make lives better. This debate gives her the opportunity to do so, and to help those who have been waiting so long for an end to their health issue. We can do better—and we must.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this important and emotional debate. I also thank other hon. Members who have made contributions on this deeply upsetting subject, as well as the members of the public who have travelled to be in the Gallery. Having heard about this condition, I know that some of them must have had incredibly difficult journeys to get here, so I thank them for their efforts.
Research from 2019 showed that 83.3% of cases of reported UTIs in primary care involved women, and that UTIs were most common in women over the age of 65, as we have heard. In 2023-24, there were 679,399 hospital admissions involving a UTI diagnosis. Hon. Members have touched on suicidal ideation, and it is important to note that suicides have happened as a result of the suffering caused by this condition. It is therefore imperative that it is taken seriously and that we act on it.
Suffers are bedbound, unable to work, unable to sleep and unable to leave the house or socialise, all while they experience debilitating pain. A Watford constituent of mine has had to give up her job at a school, where she worked for more than two decades. Imagine what that feels like when our lives are so defined by the careers we undertake. It is nothing short of tragic. The condition has impacted her personal life as well, and she had to take remedial action even to attend her own daughter’s wedding.
What sufferers want is, first, the development of effective pain relief, which goes without saying, given the contributions that have been made already; secondly, research and funding for new and speedy treatment options; thirdly, the introduction of accurate testing at primary care level; and finally, as has been touched on, a meeting with the relevant Minister so that she can fully understand the nature of living with this condition. Overall, what they want can be defined as a cure.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing today’s debate and for being a champion for both his constituents and the wider population suffering with UTIs. Although I will not mention all the contributions this morning, I must mention that of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), whose speech was not only passionate, but well informed and very personal. It is the hardest thing to share a personal story, and I commend her for her bravery this morning.
Urinary tract infections are far more common than many realise and far more serious than many assume, and women are 30 times more likely to suffer from a UTI than men. They are agonising and can, in some cases, even be fatal. Between 2018 and 2023, 1.8 million hospital admissions in England involved UTIs, not to mention the no doubt countless GP appointments.
Chronic urinary tract infections, where symptoms do not go away, are a particularly distressing form of this condition. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam spoke about sufferers being in bedbound isolation and unbearable pain, preventing them from living their lives and often from attending important family events and moments that should be celebrated, because this condition can be so debilitating.
Short courses of antibiotics often fail, and urine tests can come back negative, even when the patient is in clear discomfort. That is because chronic UTIs can be caused by bacteria entering the lining of the bladder, which makes them much harder to detect and treat. The diagnostic tools available to us are simply not good enough. Midstream urine cultures are still considered the gold standard for diagnosing acute UTIs, but recent research shows that MSUs miss a wide range of bacteria, which leaves many sufferers undiagnosed, untreated and often feeling disbelieved.
Like most women, I am grateful that I do not suffer from regular UTIs, although I do remember the panic as a child when I was in absolute agony. I do not know whether this is oversharing, but I remember my mum running in with a milk bottle of cold water to pour on me while I went to the toilet, just to take an element of that pain away for me, as a young child experiencing something I did not understand.
I have seen how a UTI can be particularly debilitating for those living with dementia. I experienced that with my nana during her final years. She could not identify that she was experiencing pain, so it fell to us, as her family, to recognise the symptoms. Her carer would test her urine most days, as she became so prone to infections. Those can cause sudden and alarming changes in behaviour, known as delirium, which is often exhibited as confusion, agitation, hallucinations or sudden withdrawal.
My nana ended up being hospitalised for some severe UTIs in her final months. Her hallucinations were quite often enjoyed by the family, and I particularly remember one where she was very cross at me for coming to her hospital late at night with an entire choir, singing to her and waking up the whole ward. That obviously did not happen, but in her delirium she was absolutely convinced that I had not respected her sleep. Such symptoms are often mistaken for the progression of dementia, leading to the underlying UTI going uncured.
Social care has a key role to play in UTIs, but only 45% of care workers receive any sort of dementia-specific training. We were incredibly lucky that the carer we had for my nana was dementia-trained and recognised the signs of UTIs before they got too bad. Families are also vital in this process, especially when someone cannot advocate for themselves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam mentioned, when patients are so exhausted from having to fight a system that does not believe them, families often have to step in and be their advocates. People cannot do this alone.
Too often, UTIs are dismissed as short term or minor, but for many people, particularly those with underlying conditions, they are anything but. We welcome the NHS’s recognition of chronic UTIs as a legitimate condition since 2022, but too many people still suffer in silence or are dismissed, misdiagnosed and left without adequate support. That is why we urge the Government to explore ways to improve diagnosis, particularly for chronic UTIs. Further research is desperately needed.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for a significant expansion in the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and for a comprehensive agreement with the European Medicines Agency. We must ensure that new treatments can reach UK patients without delay, especially as we currently rely on three different strands of antibiotics to treat UTIs, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South said. Those who suffer regularly are at risk of developing antimicrobial resistance, which then makes treatments less effective. If they are also allergic to certain strands, they are incredibly limited in the antibiotics they can receive. The hon. Member also mentioned that there is a UTI vaccine in other countries, which I am very interested in.
Continuity of care is equally important. Everyone with a long-term condition such as a chronic UTI should have access to a named GP. That would help to build understanding, avoid delays and improve outcomes, especially for those whose symptoms may be dismissed or misunderstood.
Lastly, I want to touch on the role of community pharmacies, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned. The Pharmacy First scheme, which was introduced in England in January last year, has the potential to relieve pressure on GPs and to provide quicker treatment for uncomplicated UTIs, but many pharmacies are struggling to meet the consultation targets required to access funding. Ongoing financial and operational pressures are undermining the very service that we need to provide, and in the year to date we have lost the equivalent of four community pharmacies a week.
My questions to the Minister are as follows. What steps is her Department taking to support community pharmacies in delivering the Pharmacy First service, especially those struggling to meet the increase in consultation targets, and to ensure that patients with UTIs can access timely, local and effective care? Pharmacy First is currently available only for those with UTIs between the ages of 16 and 64. Is there a plan to widen that age range? Given the known limitations of current testing methods, will the Minister also outline what steps are being taken to ensure that better diagnostic tools are made available? Is there any plan to introduce a UTI vaccine? Finally, will chronic UTIs be included in the 10-year health plan, and is that still on track to be published in June?
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) on an excellent speech that graphically explained how this condition has a horrific impact on those who suffer with it. I also congratulate him on securing this important debate to raise awareness.
As we have heard, urinary tract infections are common infections affecting the bladder and kidneys, and the tubes connected to them. Anyone can get them, but they are particularly common in women. The NHS estimates that 14 million people in the UK experience some kind of urinary incontinence, too, a figure that is expected to rise due to an ageing population. Most urinary tract infections, although painful, clear up in a few days and can be treated with antibiotics.
The earlier a urinary tract infection is identified, and the earlier a patient can receive appropriate treatment, the more they will be able to manage their condition, maximise their quality of life and reduce the risk of chronic infection. For many, UTIs are not a fleeting inconvenience but a chronic, recurrent, life-limiting illness. Short-term antibiotic treatments fail, standard urine tests might not detect infections, and persistent symptoms can severely diminish a patient’s quality of life. I hope this debate will raise awareness of the issue of chronic UTIs, which some patients have said have shaped their whole lives.
We know that women are 30 times more likely to get a urinary tract infection than men, and that UTIs are agonising and occasionally fatal. NHS data shows that there were over 1.8 million hospital admissions involving UTIs between 2018-19 and 2022-23. UTI rates increase when women reach 45 and are in the perimenopause. Studies suggest that over half of all women will experience a UTI at some point in their lives, with many enduring recurrent infections. There are several physiological and hormonal factors that make women more susceptible to UTIs, including that they have a shorter urethra than men. Hormonal fluctuations during menopause lead to a decrease in protective vaginal flora, making older women more prone to infections. Pregnancy’s shifts in hormones and pressure on the bladder also exacerbate vulnerability.
The Chronic Urinary Tract Infection Campaign estimates that up to 1.7 million women suffer from chronic UTIs, yet as we heard, this is a neglected area of research—indeed, women’s conditions in general are not as researched and treated as they ought to be. The last Government recognised the need to target women’s health conditions specifically and launched the women’s health strategy in 2022, which was successful in tackling issues that disproportionately affect women. Will the Minister commit to the continuation of that programme?
I want to briefly discuss children—I should declare that I am a children’s doctor in the NHS. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam talked about his constituent, who was three when symptoms first occurred. Urinary tract infections are common in children; symptoms vary in severity and treatment requires different approaches depending on age, sex, and each individual patient’s condition. There are NICE guidelines on this issue, which also recommend imaging for children with UTIs, including a DMSA scan and an ultrasound depending on their condition. Can the Minister say what she has done to assess the number of children being treated for UTIs, the waiting times for scans, and whether there are sufficient radiology staff to both perform and report these procedures within the timeframes recommended by NICE?
The Government have recently pointed to research being carried out by NHS England, along with the industry, to horizon-scan for new innovations in point-of-care tests for diagnosing UTIs, in order to guide better treatment options. With the impending abolition of NHS England, will that research continue, and if so, who will now be responsible for leading it? In 2023, the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and the UK Health Security Agency launched a campaign to raise awareness of UTI symptoms and available NHS treatments. Will the Government continue that initiative, to ensure ongoing public awareness of UTIs and prevent hospital admissions? Has the Minister evaluated that campaign’s success in improving early detection, reducing hospital admissions and reducing the incidence of chronic UTIs?
For those suffering from UTIs, their first point of contact with the healthcare system is often their local pharmacy. Those services are conveniently located in the heart of many communities and are staffed by highly skilled professionals with years of experience under their belts. As we have already heard, the previous Government launched the Pharmacy First initiative, through which community pharmacists can treat women aged 16 to 64 with uncomplicated UTIs, offering rapid treatment and advice. A report from the Company Chemists’ Association in January 2025 found that nearly a third of all Pharmacy First consultations each week are for urinary tract infections.
What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of Pharmacy First on people affected by UTIs and other common conditions? My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) has called on the Government to provide financial incentives for GPs to work with community pharmacies to support referrals into Pharmacy First. As the spending review draws near, will the Government consider that proposal, so that more people affected by UTIs can access support from Pharmacy First?
At the time of its inception, concerns were raised about the Pharmacy First initiative, relating to an increased risk of antimicrobial resistance to standard antibiotics. Now that it has been running for a year, does the Minister have any assessment of whether that is a risk that we should continue to be concerned about? The Chronic Urinary Tract Infection Campaign estimates that 20% to 30% of patients do not improve with initial antibiotic treatment. What research are the Government planning to carry out to see what further treatment can be offered to those patients?
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam raised the issue of NICE and SIGN guidance. I can say as a clinician that both are very useful to doctors and other clinicians in guiding their practice, and they are written by experts in the field. Does the Minister plan to speak to those running NICE about whether specialists in this field could come up with some consensus-based, evidence-based guidance on chronic UTIs? As we have heard today, that could support patients who are suffering terribly.
I want to touch on continence care. Adopting a personal, clinician-led approach to product provision can allow users to manage their conditions and lead to improved outcomes for both patients and the wider healthcare system. What steps are the Government taking to prioritise patient dignity and outcomes in continence care? The Government have also stated that support for those affected by UTIs is currently commissioned by integrated care boards. However, we know that ICBs are facing budget reductions of 50%, and many are planning to merge over the next two years. Can the Minister confirm whether the responsibility for supporting those affected by UTIs will remain with ICBs, or whether she intends for this function be transferred elsewhere?
To close, UTIs can be managed with increased public awareness of symptoms and treatment, early diagnosis, preventive measures, research and improvements in NHS care. We have heard how life-changing that could be for many, particularly women. All those factors could reduce the burden of chronic and recurrent infections and ensure that every patient receives the care they deserve. I hope the Minister will take all this into account, because she could help to alleviate the suffering of many women and other people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
It is an honour, as ever, to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for securing this debate. I would like to welcome and acknowledge Phoebe and all others in the Gallery. Of course, I put on record straightaway that I will ensure that a meeting takes place with the relevant Minister—we are just working out whether that will be me or somebody else, but I will ensure that it takes place.
I also recognise the contributions from other hon. Members here today. My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), who is no longer in her place, always brings her expertise as a clinician to this discussion and does much to raise awareness. The hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), who is also no longer in his place, talked about antibiotics and AMR, which I will come to later. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), spoke about Pharmacy First. Just to confirm, it does operate in England and is designed to ensure that women aged 16 to 64 can access treatment for uncomplicated UTIs. It is worth saying that the Government currently have no plans to extend that age group, as pre-16 or post-64 cases are not necessarily considered uncomplicated and would, we would argue, require a little more focus. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) recognised the desperation of many sufferers and highlighted the links to suicide.
Before I come to my speech and refer to some of the issues raised by the Front-Bench spokespeople, may I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and I have been very good friends for some years? I know how she suffers, and I recognise her courage. She is such a powerful voice on this issue, and I am delighted that she has done what was necessary and worked so hard to get to this place and to be that voice here. I congratulate her on that.
UTIs are very common, especially for women, but chronic UTIs are much rarer. However, the charity Chronic Urinary Tract Infection Campaign, CUTIC, estimates that up to 1.7 million women in the UK may suffer from a chronic UTI. That is a very large number of people living in discomfort. I commend CUTIC for its work bringing attention to the plight of chronic UTI sufferers.
It is important to make clear the distinction between a UTI, a recurrent UTI and a chronic or persistent UTI. A recurrent urinary tract infection is defined as having two or more UTIs within six months, or three or more UTIs within a year, with symptoms sometimes reappearing after a course of treatment, but regular treatment can eventually cure these. For a chronic UTI, the symptoms never go away, despite treatment. At most, they might slightly abate. A UTI can impact significantly on someone’s quality of life, making it hard to concentrate, sleep or exercise.
For someone with a chronic UTI, the pain and discomfort does not end. The physical and mental struggle is relentless. The contemplation of suicide is, as we have discussed, not uncommon among people suffering with chronic UTIs. They can have a negative impact on both intimate and social relationships, as well as self-esteem. That can be incredibly isolating. A population-based survey in England of women over 16 in 2015 found that 37% reported at least one episode of UTI in their lifetimes. Meanwhile, 29% of women reported more than one episode of UTI and 3% of women reported a history of recurrent UTIs in the past year.
Misogyny in health services is an issue that has been discussed in this Chamber before, and women’s health remains a priority for the Government. We have been let down for too long, but we are determined to change that, and women’s health will continue to be a major focus as we fundamentally reform the health service and get it delivering for patients once again. We are working with NHS England to take forward our women’s health strategy, and we have set out plans to use the independent sector to cut gynaecological waiting lists through our investment and reforms. We will make sure that the NHS can be there for all women when they need it. We are bringing through those commitments as part of our 10-year health plan.
It is vital that people with chronic UTIs receive support and compassion from the NHS in diagnosis and treatment. No one suffering with a chronic UTI should be made to feel ashamed or in any way at fault for their condition. Living with the condition is a struggle enough without having to bear the insensitivity of others. Chronic UTI sufferers merit the same understanding as anyone else with a non-communicable disease.
As stated previously, the reasons why some people develop a chronic UTI are not well understood, and neither is how to cure one once it develops. A long-term dose of antibiotics has been shown to work in some cases, but it is not consistently replicable, and it is not a risk-free approach. There are also the added complications of antibiotic resistance to consider when adopting such a treatment regimen. I will return to that point.
Management of the condition is at the discretion of the responsible clinician, based on their specialist training and experience. Patients who remain symptomatic despite investigations and treatment by specialist urological services can be referred onwards to tertiary services. Again, I emphasise that all patients with chronic UTIs should be afforded compassion and support as part of their care. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, who secured this debate, said, there is no NICE guidance specifically on chronic UTIs. The existing guidance provides advice on pain management and hydration. The local NHS is expected to have regard to NICE guidance in providing care and advice to patients.
The UK Health Security Agency has begun work in this area, alongside NHS England, primary care and patients, to develop resources to support clinicians in managing UTI conditions. At the moment, that is for recurrent UTIs, and we agree that more research is needed. To address the uncertainty, research is being undertaken. Through our National Institute for Health and Care Research, we are supporting work to understand the research gaps on UTIs. This happens through a James Lind Alliance priority-setting partnership, led by Antibiotic Research UK, Bladder Health UK and the Urology Foundation. The partnership will publish its findings in spring 2026.
The Department, through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, is funding research to improve the diagnosis and treatment of urinary tract infections, including chronic UTIs. The research includes the development of antimicrobial-impregnated catheters to reduce episodes of catheter-associated UTIs, as well as something called the TOUCAN study to evaluate the rapid point-of-care UTI diagnostic tests in GP surgeries. Recently the NIHR invested £3.1 million into improving primary care antibiotic prescribing programmes.
I want to return to antimicrobial resistance and why it is an important consideration. The first five-year national action plan for AMR in 2019 set out a comprehensive “One Health” approach to address AMR, acting across humans, animals, food and the environment. A further five-year plan was published in March 2024. The UK Health Security Agency has also been working with colleagues from NHSE, primary care settings and patients to develop resources to support clinicians through the TARGET antibiotics toolkit. This toolkit training is currently being rolled out in multiple NHSE regions as part of an intervention to improve the management of common infections, including UTIs, in primary care. We need to build on these successes and ensure that antibiotics use is supported by evidence. AMR is a significant health threat, and an estimated 7,600 deaths were attributable to AMR in the UK in 2019.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chichester, spoke about dementia and the added complications that that can lead to. Diagnosing UTI can be especially difficult in older people who often present with atypical or non-specific presentations, and it can be difficult to assess lower urinary tract symptoms in older patients with dementia. In care home settings the resident might not initially present as acutely unwell. They might present with increased lethargy, diminished appetite, reluctance to drink or just not be their usual self. Tools such as RESTORE2 can support care homes to alert a primary care clinician that the resident might be unwell and would benefit from an early clinical review. Care home staff encourage residents to keep hydrated, although that can be challenging in residents with dementia, as we know.
The Department is funding research into dementia and chronic urinary tract infections via the National Institute for Health and Care Research. The StOP UTI project at the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration in Wessex sought to identify effective strategies for preventing and recognising UTIs in care homes and has done some work to embed activities into care routines. It concluded that a systems-wide approach was necessary. In July 2024 the NIHR published a call for research applications to improve diagnosis of UTIs in older adults. Stage 2 applications are being considered by the funding committee this month.
The Lib Dem spokesperson also talked about community pharmacy and the 10-year plan, which will cover all conditions and is a strategic overview of how we will improve the NHS for everybody. I can confirm that the 10-year health plan is on track to be published next month.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), talked about research programmes and guidance. I think I have referred to most of those things in my speech. If I have not, I am more than happy to write to her after this debate. She also touched on prevention. The UKHSA is working with NHS England to run a targeted campaign around UTI prevention in older adults. The campaign will include messages and materials that can be used to support older adults to adapt behaviours, which should reduce the risk of developing a UTI, including messages that suggest they talk to clinicians about treatment options if they have recurring UTIs.
In conclusion, I want to highlight our work to make a health service that is fit for the future. We hope that our focus on the three shifts to develop a modern NHS will help to address many of the challenges in navigating the health service faced by those with long-term conditions, including chronic UTIs. Our shift from hospital to community will help to drive more joint working between neighbourhoods in primary care, pharmacies, community health and social care, in order to help people to manage their conditions. As I have said, shortly we will publish our 10-year plan for health, which will set out how we will make our NHS fit for the future. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam once again for securing this debate to raise awareness of this important but often overlooked issue.
Luke Taylor
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) for her contribution to the debate on the broader health inequalities for women, and I wish her the best of luck in securing the debate that she seeks.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He talked particularly about the strain on NHS resources that is caused by the lack of attention on this condition, which further compounds the challenges and backlogs in the system.
I thank the hon. Member for Watford (Matt Turmaine) for his account of the impact of this condition on his constituent, who had to give up her job; that shows the terrible impact it has on people’s lives.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for talking about the challenges around the antibiotic regime, including antibiotic resistance, and the complexity of that issue.
I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) for her contribution. Her focus on the treatment of children was particularly instructive, because, as we have heard, the challenge is stopping a UTI becoming a recurrent UTI, which then becomes a chronic UTI. That is a real focus on that in the treatment of children. There is also a focus on Pharmacy First to help by stopping UTIs in children from becoming an issue in the first place. That was a particularly insightful point. I also thank her for bringing her knowledge as a doctor to the debate.
I thank the Minister for confirming that she will meet me and campaigners to further discuss the issues. However, I do not think that she gave a specific answer on how NICE and SIGN guidance would be updated to incorporate guidance on UTIs, but we can discuss that later, and I apologise if I missed it.
However, I will really focus on the contribution from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). She spoke heartbreakingly about her experience of this condition and about how it has driven her into politics. I look forward to working with her to try and raise awareness of this issue and keep it current, and to try to understand how we can help her and the incredibly brave campaigners who brought the condition to my attention, so that we can really see some action on all the various streams of work that we can propose in this place.
Once again, I thank the Minister for being here to listen to the stories of sufferers and for responding to my points. I thank all hon. Members who took part in this debate, particularly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South for her bravery. I also thank campaigners, including Phoebe, who is in the Public Gallery today. Their strength and resilience have given us a chance in this place to try to take clear action to give them their hope back.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered chronic urinary tract infections.
Roadworks: Cheshire
(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
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of roadworks on communities in Cheshire.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to you and to the House for granting me this opportunity at short notice. I particularly thank the Minister for being here as well; I know that she has an incredibly busy schedule as well as a terrible inheritance from the previous Government, which she is trying to fix.
In my constituency of Macclesfield and elsewhere in Cheshire, we rely on our road network day in, day out, and it should be stable, dependable and free flowing. Over the past year, that network has become a source of constant frustration: what should be routine journeys have turned into a daily ordeal and a monotonous misery. Week in and week out, I find myself fighting to get basic roadworks resolved. I cannot quite believe that one year on in one place and six months on in another, the works are still unresolved—one year of disruption, one year of misery. That is what brings me here today. The two specific cases I want to highlight are the closure of the B5470 in Rainow and the traffic lights at the A523 Mill House bridge in Adlington.
The Mill House bridge sits on the A523, which is the main road in and out of Macclesfield. It is regularly used by people heading to Manchester, Poynton, Adlington and the north—or pretty much anywhere, including Leek and Stoke to the south. The importance of that road simply cannot be overstated to residents across swathes of Cheshire. A full year ago, part of the bridge collapsed, meaning that two-way traffic was unsafe. The council acted properly, putting in place temporary traffic lights to restrict the flow of traffic to one lane at a time.
Since then, to be frank, insufficient progress has been made by Ringway Jacobs, the main contractor for the council. When it comes to the delays, it has talked about the complexity of a nearby gas main and confusion over who is responsible for part of the repair. But the delays are simply unacceptable. In January, works beneath the bridge finally began, after much urging from me, but that was eight months after the traffic lights had been installed. Those works are scheduled to be completed in early summer, which basically begins next week.
I probably do not need to tell you, Sir Desmond, that confidence among my constituents that the issue will be resolved in a few weeks’ time is very low because too little has happened too slowly and with insufficient communication. Expected completion dates keep getting pushed back and back with no accountability, sincere apology or explanation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Back home, we have had the very problems that the hon. Gentleman refers to, but those doing the roadworks have found a different way of responding to exceptional circumstances. The Sydenham bypass in east Belfast in Northern Ireland is a main thoroughfare for traffic. It was closed down for the Saturday and Sunday and contractors worked solidly for those 48 hours to get the work done. It was then reopened on the Monday morning so that the commuter traffic could continue. In my constituency of Strangford, the Portaferry road was closed from 7 pm to 7 am so that all the work could be done at night; the next morning, the traffic was able to go about its business. I mention that by way of being helpful to the hon. Gentleman. Is that something that the road service in his constituency has considered?
Tim Roca
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point. Constituents mention the issue of night time works to me, but perhaps I will let the Minister comment on that in a little more detail. In Cheshire, we are really lucky to be on the fast track for devolution, which is opposed by local Conservatives. Hopefully, when we get more powers and more money from central Government, we will be able to consider such things in Cheshire ourselves.
There has been too little regard for how these roadworks are impacting the public. I have a work experience student in my constituency office from my old school in Poynton, and she says that her mum describes the traffic lights on the bridge as the “bane of her life.” Traffic routinely backs up all the way to Poynton during rush hour, impacting travel in the north of the constituency. One Poynton resident complained to me that trips to Macclesfield, usually a 10-minute drive, can sometimes take up to an hour. An employee of AstraZeneca who commutes in says that every day they see large tailbacks of traffic with frustrated motorists, and all the while nobody is seen to be working on the bridge.
Another Poynton resident who works in Macc has had to add 20 minutes on to his journey both ways. He says that the queues start from 7.30 in the morning and are not gone until 9.30, so they are not even possible to avoid with flexible working. Forty minutes a day, 200 minutes a week, equals over 10,000 minutes of him sitting in a traffic jam this year. That is 166 hours away from his family before he can relax—or, heaven forbid, go out for the evening. That is 10,000 minutes per person every day—and it is going up—until the bridge is safe and the traffic lights are removed.
Although work sometimes takes place under the bridge out of sight from passers-by, the reality is that no matter how much progress is being made and however earnest the attempts to fix the bridge, this saga has lasted a year. Very little, if anything, took place prior to January and I have had to get increasingly involved with Ringway Jacobs and the highways team at the council. All that is simply not on. Everyone involved owes the residents across Macclesfield’s communities an apology. United Utilities gives compensation to residents if they lose their gas, electricity or internet, even for short periods. Would Ringway Jacobs even be solvent if it had to pay compensation to every driver who has experienced delays?
The disruption caused by the traffic lights at Mill House Bridge pales in comparison with the horror that is the B5470. This saga started with temporary traffic lights due to the embankment structure falling away on part of the road; they were in place, causing disruption, for a few months. In January, the difficult and necessary decision was taken to close the road between Rainow and Kettleshulme after it suffered a much larger collapse of both the carriageway and the supporting embankment following heavy rainfall. The road has been fully closed since January, and I have met with the council multiple times since the closure. I have spoken to the leader and conveyed my absolute demand, on behalf of my constituents, that the road is reopened as soon as possible, because the disruption and the impact on them is profound.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The issue is having a huge impact on my constituency of High Peak. The closure of the B5470 in my hon. Friend’s constituency has made the morning drive for many of my constituents living in Whaley Bridge and Furness Vale a nightmare, with some estimating that it has added an hour on to their daily commute. Does my hon. Friend agree that enough is enough, and that Cheshire East council need to resolve this issue? We have been waiting for far too long and it is having a huge impact on our constituents’ lives. It is affecting jobs, and we really need a resolution sooner rather than later.
Tim Roca
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This needs to be resolved as quickly as possible. It is affecting my constituents and his. He has also been working tirelessly to get that road reopened; I thank him for working with me on that.
The road closure is impacting real people’s lives. The chair of governors at Kettleshulme primary school told me months ago that the June completion date was totally unacceptable. They said:
“We have families who utilise this route who will struggle with timely drop off and pick up of their children. Delivery of our curriculum is now compromised. The bus journey to Bollington for swimming lessons will take over an hour.”
As a result, the school has had to cancel swimming lessons. It has also had to cancel its parents and tots sessions, as the facilitator lives in Macclesfield and can no longer get to the school on time. It has pulled out of sporting events. Any collaboration with schools, which used to be easy to organise, now requires a minimum 40-minute trip and a whole host of planning. More seriously, the school has had to stop advertising places to families in Macclesfield because it knows that no parent will sign up for an 80-minute round trip to drop off their children, even at a really good school.
A company in Rainow has staff who cannot get to work because of bus cancellations. Not everyone has a car, or the time, to work their way around the road closure. One constituent said to me:
“To get to Macclesfield we have to make a huge detour via Bakestonedale Road to Pott Shrigley, then through Bollington to join the A523. We cannot use our bus passes to get to Macclesfield as the bus route is basically severed in two.”
Another, who has commuted to Sheffield every day for six years, said:
“This road closure is significantly extending what’s already a complex drive.”
They also noted that heavy goods vehicles are being forced on to narrow and unsuitable roads.
The diversion is not a suitable long-term plan. Bakestonedale Road is a single lane in places, with a steep and narrow track. It is really not suitable, especially in the winter months. It has already deteriorated, with huge potholes forming. Alicia—the head at Kettleshulme—hit one of those potholes recently and, having no phone signal, was forced to walk the rest of the way to school.
The diversion is also having an impact on those who live on the roads that are now seeing above-normal use. Keith Nixon, a resident on Shrigley Road, told me that as a direct result of the closure, commuters become frustrated and attempt to make up for lost time. Residents see cars travelling at well over the speed limit; he has suffered near misses twice, with vans passing within inches of him on the pavement outside his house; and of course, there are issues with noise as well.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I do not live in Cheshire, but in Staffordshire—a neighbouring county—we have been plagued by roadworks in a similar vein. The Parkside roadworks have been taking place for over 18 months now, with repeated extensions to deadlines. On the point of road safety, we have parents who are not able to get their children to school safely because the roadworks are not putting in proper crossings for those children. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is imperative that when these essential roadworks are taking place, communication from local authorities and county councils is improved, and that residents’ experiences are prioritised when we think about safety?
Tim Roca
I agree with my hon. Friend. She is more than welcome to move to Cheshire, but I suspect her residents will not let her, because I know she is a really good champion for these issues in her constituency.
The impact of the closure is widespread. The consequences of the disruption are wear and tear on roads that are not meant to be main arterial routes; the increased emissions from sitting traffic; and the loss of time in school and with family, of time in town with friends, of productivity through decreased trading, or of time spent caring for loved ones. I could go on and on—certainly, my inbox is full of stories like these.
Before I wrap up, I want to spare a thought for one constituent who represents many others who have to navigate both of these disruptions every day. She lives in Disley and works in Tytherington—both in my constituency—which means she has to go around this closure and over the Mill House bridge, which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. Like others, she is being hit by a double whammy of roadworks. Her 20-minute commute has doubled, and given that she drops her child off in Macclesfield three days a week at set times, she has had to remove the first appointment of her day from her diary. She is a physio, so she is losing money.
When the things we rely on every day go wrong, the impact is huge. That is why I have been working closely with the council, feeding back these stories. I am grateful for the new sense of urgency that the highways team has—particularly since last week, when I called this debate—and I appreciate that things have to be made safe. In fairness to the council, it inherited a £100 million backlog of highway maintenance from the previous Conservative council, and we know that the austerity of the past 14 years has really impacted councils. I also appreciate that the contractor, Ringway Jacobs, used to get away with marking its own homework under a 15-year contract that was given to it recklessly by the Conservatives. However, these roadworks need to close. We need real progress for my constituents, and I am grateful that the Minister is present and will take the time to respond to the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) on securing this important debate regarding the impact of roadworks on communities in Cheshire, and indeed in Derbyshire and Staffordshire. I commend him on his assiduous efforts to raise the profile of the extremely difficult situation that his constituents face. Their lives are clearly being significantly impacted, as he described so vividly, with everyone from children to pensioners forced to change the way in which they live their lives, and suffering real pain and inconvenience as a result of diversions and traffic delays. As he and my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) said, daily journeys should not be a source of misery, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) highlighted, road safety must not be compromised in these circumstances.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield pointed out, the traffic lights on Mill House bridge have been in place for over a year, and it is absolutely right that a solution to these problems is found quickly. I know that the patience of residents is growing very thin indeed, and I understand why. I also understand that the roads have become even more of a hot topic recently, because the council has been forced to extend the permit until the end of the year to secure the road space, as several utility companies also need to carry out urgent works in the area.
Although it is welcome that some co-ordinated work is going on, that of course brings a risk of further disruption to local road users over the months ahead. It is essential that the council works with the utility companies to keep that disruption to an absolute minimum, and that it considers how to expedite the works, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) described.
I understand that the permitting extension is largely a precaution, as the council hopes that the remedial work will be done in the summer and autumn. I understand that the complexity of the work means that that cannot be guaranteed, but the council must do its utmost in consultation with local people and keep them apprised of what is going on. People’s frustration only rises when they do not understand or they are not communicated with in an adequate and timely way.
As my hon. Friends have said, the appalling state of local roads in Cheshire is an indictment of the previous Government’s failure to invest in the vital national infrastructure that all our constituents rely on. It is frankly unforgiveable to allow our local road network to crumble and fail. By contrast, this Government are firmly on the side of all road users in this country. We are already delivering by providing £500 million of extra funding for highway maintenance this year, with a huge increase in funding for every local authority in England.
That takes highway maintenance funding this year to nearly £1.6 billion, which is the largest ever funding amount for local highway maintenance in England in one year. We are investing those amounts precisely because we want to deliver a transformation in the condition of our highways. That means authorities have been able to make an immediate start on resurfacing roads and fixing other more significant structural problems. I want communities everywhere to start seeing the benefits.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield will also note the new incentive requirements announced by the Secretary of State in March this year. We are ensuring that local people can hold their local authority to account and see for themselves how the investment will be spent to maintain and improve their local highway network. We are requiring every local authority that receives funding, including Cheshire East, to publish its plans by 30 June for how it will use that extra money.
That means that everyone, including the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield and for High Peak, will be able to log on to their council website and see the difference the funding is making, and challenge the authority if it is not delivering. For Cheshire East council, the additional £5.54 million in highway maintenance funding that it has received this year comes on top of nearly £15.485 million in baseline funding. I am sure that funding will go a long way to help to improve roads in and around Macclesfield very soon.
In addition, Cheshire East will receive more than £2 million from the integrated transport block and more than £7.7 million through the local transport grant. That is only the start. My hon. Friends will be more than aware that we are awaiting the outcome of the forthcoming spending review in the next few weeks, to agree funding beyond 2025-26.
Turning back to the here and now, the more pertinent matter is how we resolve the difficult situation that is causing such distress for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. It is absolutely crucial that highways officials in Cheshire East council continue their efforts to resolve it as promptly as possible, and that they keep local MPs and residents up to date.
Officials have told my Department that they have been carrying out extensive drainage surveys, an ecology survey and a topographical survey to give the council a better picture of what is happening above and below ground. I note from my officials that the next stage of geotechnical surveys is due to be undertaken immediately; I believe that is on the B5470.
Further actions may need to be taken in that regard. I firmly encourage Cheshire East council to keep my officials fully sighted on this matter in case further support from the Government can be provided. I know that both departmental and council officials appreciate the tight timeframe for this issue—and if they did not appreciate it before, they will appreciate it when they read the Hansard report of our debate. We are all keen to see rapid progress, so I hope those officials are listening to the debate and the representations of my hon. Friend, and they will act accordingly.
I have been told that data from the surveys will be shared to allow an evidence-based decision to be taken. It is so important that local people understand the work that is being undertaken. Sometimes things take longer than expected, and sometimes there are unexpected discoveries when the council does survey work, but it needs to explain to local people what it is doing and how it will expedite the repairs.
That community engagement is critical, and the highways team in my hon. Friend’s authority must work closely with the community. I understand that they have explored alternative options, such as the reopening of the old road to the south of the B5470, but from what I have been told, they do not believe that is a viable option because doing it safely would require extensive work. Those are the sort of things that they need to explain so that people are confident that they have looked at every option to reduce the disruption that my hon. Friend described.
As the council is fully aware, our maintenance budgets are already allocated to all highway authorities, specifically so that they can fund repairs of this sort. There is no additional Department for Transport funding available now, but as my hon. Friend has heard, the authorities have received a substantial uplift in funding this year, which should enable them to tackle such problems.
To conclude, my Department will continue to work with all parties to establish what help can be provided by the Government, both now and in the future, when we will have the evidence from the surveys being undertaken. I am more than happy to be kept up to date by my hon. Friend with how things are progressing. If I can do more to ensure that his constituents see an improvement in the position they are facing on those local roads, I would be happy to discuss that with him too.
I also look forward to the conclusion of the spending review in helping to secure multi-year funding settlements for all authorities up and down England, so that councils—including Cheshire East in the constituency of my hon. Friend—have the funding they need to make long-term plans for the repair and maintenance of their road networks, including those that he mentioned today. We want everyone to have the local roads that they deserve, rather than those that they inherited from the previous Government and previous local administrations, which were simply not adequate. I am committed to doing all I can to ensure that my hon. Friend’s constituents see that improvement in the months and years ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Ukraine: Forcibly Deported Children
(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
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of returning forcibly deported children to Ukraine.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.
I start by welcoming a distinguished guest to the Chamber: Olena Kondratiuk, the Deputy Chair of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, who is here with her colleagues from the Ukrainian embassy to the UK. Her welcome presence shows that our two nations’ great democratic institutions stand united alongside the families of the thousands of stolen children of Ukraine. Today, we commit ourselves to ensuring that our work will continue until every single Ukrainian child is returned home.
Earlier this year, I joined the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine and UK Friends of Ukraine on a delegation of British parliamentarians to mark the third anniversary of Putin’s illegal and bloody war. It was unquestionably one of the most humbling experiences of my life to meet the brave men and women, unbroken in spirit, who are fighting courageously for their freedom and their homeland. It is an experience that will stay with me forever.
On that visit, I met the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights, Dmytro Lubinets. What we discussed was devastating: the systematic abduction of Ukrainian children by Russian forces—a grave crime that continues unabated to this day. When Dmytro told me that at least 19,546 Ukrainian children had been stolen, I had to ask him to repeat the number, because I simply could not believe that a crime of this magnitude was taking place before our very eyes and no one was talking about it. The official estimates are horrendous enough, but some other organisations estimate that the total number of children stolen could be much higher. The Russian Federation’s children’s ombudsman has stated that it has “accepted” 700,000 Ukrainian children since the start of its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
When I returned from Ukraine, I made it my purpose to ensure that the scale of this crime receives the attention that it demands in this place. That is why in April, alongside UK Friends of Ukraine, I co-authored a report titled “Returning the Stolen Children of Ukraine”. The report lays out, in no uncertain terms, a detailed timeline of the systematic abduction and forcible deportation of Ukrainian children from Russian-occupied territories. It highlights that President Putin has personally directed Russia’s children’s commissioner to identify and streamline bureaucratic barriers, not to protect children, but to fast-track their placement into Russian families.
The report highlights that Putin’s presidential aircraft is complicit in flying Ukrainian children from occupied Donetsk to Moscow. It highlights the role of federal and regional officials across Russia, occupied Ukraine and Belarus in the deportation of those children and the deliberate erasure of their Ukrainian identity. It highlights that military-style camps have been set up to indoctrinate the children, teaching them basic combat skills and loyalty to the Russian state. It highlights that parents in occupied territories are being coerced into sending their children to so-called summer camps across Russia—camps designed to distance them permanently from their homeland.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on obtaining the debate. I had the honour of joining her on that visit to Ukraine earlier this year, and it was life-changing. The experience of being stolen by Putin’s thugs is also life-changing for these children. Childhood is a very short period of our lives, so I hope the Minister will demonstrate that there is a sense of urgency about getting these children home again.
Johanna Baxter
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Indeed, I will come later in my speech to what I hope the Minister will be able to set out.
The report also highlights that Ukrainian children in occupied areas are now being used to support Russia’s drone development and production efforts. Children are being made to assist a war machine.
Since the publication of our report, the situation has only worsened. Russia’s First Deputy Minister of Education recently announced that approximately 53,000 Ukrainian children from occupied territories will spend their summer holidays in camps—not in their homes or with their families, but scattered throughout occupied territories. These are not just numbers; they are children—sons and daughters—taken from their families, their culture and their country. Today’s debate is not just about numbers; it is about the stories of children such as Kira and Margarita.
Margarita was 10 months old—a baby—when she was taken from a children’s home in Kherson. She could not walk or talk, but she was already a target of the Russian regime. She was taken to Moscow on the excuse that she needed medical care, but she did not. She ended up in the arms of a senior Russian politician and close ally of President Putin. He adopted her, changed her name to Marina, changed her birthplace to a Russian city and registered her as his daughter. That baby girl, just months old, had her whole identity rewritten—erased. She is now legally Russian, and the truth is buried. That is not care; it is abduction in the uniform of bureaucracy.
Kira was an 11-year-old girl from Mariupol. At 10, she lost her mother. Then, during the invasion, she watched her father die—shot by Russian forces on their balcony as he tried to save what little they had left. She fled with her father’s partner, walking for a full day to reach her grandmother. Along the way, a landmine exploded, Russian soldiers came and Kira was taken, separated from her loved ones and told she would be sent to a remote orphanage in Russia if no one came to collect her. Weeks later, terrified and alone, she remembered she had a telephone. She called her grandfather. He found her, traumatised but alive, and brought her home. She is 11 years old. She said:
“The Russians took my childhood, my city, and my dad”.
Kira was one of the first children rescued by the Bring Kids Back initiative, supported by the United Kingdom, which to date has helped return 1,307 children, including two brought home over the weekend.
We now have clear and credible evidence, including from the Yale University humanitarian research lab, that approximately 8,400 Ukrainian children have been forcibly transferred to at least 57 so-called re-education camps. They span eight time zones, from occupied Crimea all the way to Magadan in Russia’s far east. Inside those camps, Ukrainian children are indoctrinated. They are told that Russia’s brutal invasion is justified. Ukrainian history is erased from textbooks and mentions of Ukraine as a sovereign nation are removed. This is not just the rewriting of the story, but its deletion. It is a chilling, systematic attempt to dismantle Ukrainian identity, starting with the youngest and most vulnerable.
Russia is not stopping at cultural erasure. In occupied territories, there is mounting evidence that more than 10,000 children are being trained in drone warfare. The training is gamified, turning it into some twisted kind of play, and taught through special engineering classes in which students are instructed in how to build and deploy drones for the Russian military. To make matters worse, occupation authorities in Donetsk and Luhansk have signed co-operation agreements with the Russian Young Army Cadets National Movement, with the goal of scaling up the recruitment of Ukrainian children into pro-Kremlin military patriotic youth organisations. According to the Institute for the Study of War, as many as 11,500 Ukrainian children may already be involved.
The Russian adoption system operates as a tool of administrative erasure; Ukrainian children are absorbed into a bureaucratic structure deliberately designed to erase their cultural and national identity. For those taken in infancy, this practice all but guarantees that an entire generation grow up on Russian soil, utterly unaware of their Ukrainian roots. This is not just occupation. It is indoctrination. It is militarisation. It is a deliberate, state-led campaign to steal Ukraine’s future one child at a time, and it is a war crime playing out before our eyes.
As the House will already know, the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for President Vladimir Putin and the so-called children’s rights commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, for the war crime of unlawful deportation of children. As our report sets out, I believe there is sufficient evidence and scope to consider whether charges of crimes against humanity and genocide could also be considered under international criminal law. It is certainly clear that Russia’s actions are flagrant violations of international humanitarian law and international conventions and treaties to which Russia is a party.
To conclude, I am calling for the Government to work with our international partners to take all necessary measures to secure the immediate return of these children.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Since her visit to Ukraine, she has worked tirelessly to raise the profile of this issue with her report, “Returning the Stolen Children of Ukraine”, on the Floor of the House and again today. She should be congratulated on all her work. On the practical measures that can be taken to help return the stolen children to their families, does she agree that the Minister should consider establishing a UK national day of action to continue her great work and help raise public awareness of this cause?
Johanna Baxter
I completely agree, and I have already called for the Government to recognise a UK day of action, to highlight the profile of this issue to the wider public.
Our report calls for Russia to publish a full register of all Ukrainian children in its custody, as required under the Geneva convention. We are calling for Russia to provide a framework, jointly agreed upon by both parties, for the return of every Ukrainian child who has been forcibly deported. We should also expand our intelligence sharing and support for child trafficking efforts. We need to know where the children are, who has taken them and who is hiding them, because with every day that passes, it is getting harder to bring them home.
I am calling for sanctions to be targeted, biting and relentless on every official, agency and person complicit in these crimes, from the senior politicians to the Russian organisations running re-education camps. I previously called for a special tribunal for the crime of aggression, and I am pleased to see that the UK, alongside 40 partners, has agreed to a framework for that. Can the Minister share more detail on the scope of that tribunal?
This debate is about turning up the volume on this issue. It is about making sure that no one can say, “We did not know.” We need help to amplify this. We need more pressure, more action and more urgency, because with every day that we delay, another child forgets their name.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I suggest an informal four-minute limit to allow all those who wish to speak to do so.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for securing this debate on such an important topic, and for speaking so powerfully.
Last month, I visited Ukraine alongside colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I pay tribute to the officials from our Government and the Ukrainian parliamentarians and officials we met on the ground who are working tirelessly on this issue. We met representatives of Save Ukraine, an organisation committed to helping rescue and return children. At the time of our visit, it had successfully returned more than 612 children—a heroic effort—yet, as we have heard today, an unacceptably high number remain missing. At least 19,000 have been identified, and there are almost certainly many, many thousands more.
I want to share one account that I heard in Ukraine. Just outside Kyiv I visited a children’s centre, where I spoke to two young people who had been taken by Russia. Although both had thankfully been safely returned home to Ukraine, I cannot overstate how clearly traumatising the experience had been for them, and the impact of hearing their stories. The young man was separated from his mother and five siblings and taken to Russia to be re-educated. In reality, he was sent to a military camp where Ukrainian children are taught to forget their culture and home. Through indoctrination, they are trained to forget all they once knew of a peaceful life in Ukraine and are taught to be fighters, potentially one day against their own families. That is a truly horrific and often unreported consequence of Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine.
Yesterday, those of us on the Foreign Affairs Committee met our counterparts from the Rada’s Committee on Foreign Policy and Inter-Parliamentary Co-operation. We heard how Russia is targeting orphanages to take children. Those vulnerable children have suffered a great deal of trauma already, and are now being subjected to even more. We also heard of the difficulty of getting those children back. Their locations are often unknown to Ukrainian authorities, and their surnames are changed. It is clear that we must do more to support Ukraine in its efforts to identify, find and return those young people.
Both the previous Government and the current one have stood by Ukraine with regard to military support, and I know our Ukrainian friends are incredibly grateful for our unity. I urge the Minister to continue to provide humanitarian assistance through official development assistance. Earlier this year, I agreed with the Prime Minister’s decision to reallocate a portion of the ODA budget to bolster the defence budget, given the challenges and security problems that we currently face. When the Minister has discussions with officials and his colleagues at the Treasury ahead of publication of the out-turn data and future planned allocations annual report and accounts, will he reiterate the need of the Ukrainian people, and particularly those kidnapped children and their families? Will he support efforts, organisations and schemes that seek to see them returned? We need the ODA budget to be spent on vital causes, not vanity projects, and I am sure all here agree that this issue is of the utmost importance.
Since the start of the war, more than 600 children have been killed, 1,900 have been injured and at least 19 have been sexually abused. In this conflict, sexual violence is being used systematically as a grotesque weapon of war. Russia’s actions violate the Geneva conventions, international humanitarian law and United Nations Security Council resolution 1261. We must not stand by. Russia is waging war not just on Ukraine’s borders but on its future. It is trying to erase an entire generation. It is not just abducting children but trying to annihilate a national identity. I have heard two stories at first hand, but there are thousands more. We must see Ukraine’s stolen children returned.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing this vital debate, and particularly on her excellent work with the UK Friends of Ukraine on authoring this important but distressing report. I want to focus my remarks on the report’s findings in relation to disabled children. Almost unbelievably, it is disabled children in particular who have been targeted by Russian forces for forcible deportation.
Through my last role with the disability charity Enable I was privileged to meet Raisa Kravchenko, the founder of the VGO Coalition and the mother of a young man with a learning disability in Kyiv, who even in the midst of the invasion has formed an amazing support network for people with learning disabilities and their families. Anyone would find the experience of being in a bomb shelter terrifying, but how much more so for an autistic young person who already struggles with their environment? Of course, for many of the families of disabled children, leaving Ukraine is simply not an option.
I was in contact with Raisa again this week. She told me how the impacts of the invasion are frustrating the work in Ukraine, as they are across Europe, to move disabled children out of institutional care. The issue here is this: Russian forces have targeted care institutions. A disabled child will often be in a care institution and therefore they have been victims of kidnapping. I thought that powerful report brought out the tragic consequences of that.
The consequences were laid bare in the report’s distressing story of Mykola and Anastasiya, two children with autism and cerebral palsy, among 46 children taken by Russian forces from Kherson children’s home and relocated 180 miles away in Simferopol, Crimea. Their parents found the location that their children were in six months later only as a result of an investigation by The New York Times. One can only imagine the trauma they went through. The children were issued with Russian birth certificates, their names were changed, and they were put up for adoption in Russia. Those children must have been under unimaginable stress over that period. Although they were finally reunited with their mother in 2024, Anastasiya, tragically, died from an epileptic seizure shortly after her sixth birthday. Such are the human consequences. These are the horrendous cases that lie behind the grim statistics that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South shared with us so eloquently. It is important to recognise not only the level of trauma caused to disabled children by such terrifying ordeals, but that they will be affected by them for many years to come.
I will close my remarks by stressing two points. First, there must be accountability. I was privileged to be a member of our delegation to the Council of Europe, which passed resolution 2529 in support of the ICC arrest warrants and calling for parties to the Council of Europe to acknowledge the deportations and transfers of children by Russia as genocide. Secondly, as an international community we need to stand by Ukraine and the children and their families to help them with rehabilitation support. That will not be an easy task, and for disabled children it will require particularly intensive and specialised support. I very much support the recommendation made by my hon. Friend in her vital report. Support from the UK, from our international partners, and indeed the resources from the Trust Fund for Victims, should be utilised for that vital work.
I again congratulate my hon. Friend on all she is doing with the Friends of Ukraine in making a call for action on this horrific crime against Ukraine and its children. Yes, we look to the future for accountability and rehabilitation, but we must do all we can now as a nation, with international partners, to stop the horrendous action by the Russian Government and their forces.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter). Normally we would congratulate somebody on securing a debate, but on this occasion it is such an absolutely miserable subject that all I can say is that I am as sorry as she is about what is going on. It is ironic that yesterday at 2.30 pm in this Chamber we were debating kinship care and adoption in the UK and British Government support for that. When I first heard about Russia’s “adoption” of Ukrainian children, I wondered whether it was an exaggeration on the part of the people speaking about it, but then we look at the evidence provided and it is absolutely going on.
Independent investigators at the Yale humanitarian research lab identified in March this year 314 individuals from Ukraine who had been placed in Russia’s programme of coerced fostering or adoption. It describes in great detail the circumstances of those 314 children, but the scale is much greater than that. Russia’s children’s commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, has boasted that 700,000 Ukrainian children have been “accepted” into Russia since the war began. Those children are being re-educated in an effort to assimilate them into Russian society. There are at least 57 re-education camps spread across Russian-occupied Ukraine, Belarus and Russia proper.
This is an attempt to eradicate the national identity of Ukrainian children. Videos show children riding around on Belarusian tanks, in body armour and holding rifles. Reports suggest that the children are subjected to psychological coercion, denied their language and indoctrinated with Russian nationalist propaganda. Belarusian President Lukashenko has personally endorsed this so-called “humanitarian project”. Of the nearly 20,000 children recorded as having been taken, little more than 1,000—just 7%—have been recovered. Maria Lvova-Belova is subject to an international arrest warrant, as is President Putin, in relation to this alleged war crime, yet she can be seen on state television describing how proud she is to have adopted a Ukrainian boy from Mariupol.
While the Kremlin has been escalating these abductions, the international response has fallen somewhat short and in some cases has regressed. Just a few weeks ago, the United States Government pulled funding from the conflict observatory based at Yale University. The observatory, which was compiling evidence, had forensically identified satellite imagery and biometric data. It has tracked the identities of 30,000 Ukrainian children taken and their locations. The decision by Trump’s State Department to pull funding has rightly drawn widespread criticism.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I was in Helsinki last week as part of my role in the Council of Europe, attending a conference on the deported Ukrainian children, which was incredibly powerful. One of the most powerful things I heard was a gentleman from Yale University speaking of how the removal of funding would impact their vital work. Frankly, they were already doing it on a shoestring. Does the hon. Member agree that as a country we need to prioritise working with other nations to ensure that that work can continue, because it could end next month?
Richard Foord
Absolutely. The hon. Member is right that pulling support from the programme is not an act of impartiality; it is an act of complicity. I am sure the State Department of the United States must have done it very reluctantly, given the professionals who work there on the programme.
To summarise, a short reprieve for the programme is not enough. It must be preserved and fully funded, so that we have the evidence needed in the fullness of time to prosecute these potential war crimes.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for securing the debate and for all the work she has been doing on such an important issue.
In August last year, I was delighted to attend what has become a regular event in Victoria park in my constituency to celebrate Ukrainian independence day. It was hosted by the Friends of Victoria Park, in partnership with the Glasgow branch of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain. We celebrated Ukrainian culture, freedom and sovereignty, and created a sense of community by bringing together Ukrainians and Glaswegians who took part in various sporting activities, enjoyed Ukrainian art workshops—best to gloss over my efforts—and listened to beautiful Ukrainian music. People across all generations were brought together in a celebration of Ukraine’s cultural heritage.
But many Ukrainian children are denied the opportunity to engage with their heritage. Russia’s forced deportation of children has torn Ukrainian families apart, and the weaponisation of citizenship by the Russian Government is making it increasingly difficult for stolen Ukrainian children to be identified and returned to their families and homes. The naturalisation of these children as Russian citizens has a further devastating consequence, because it robs Ukraine of its future citizens. By denying those children their right to be Ukrainian, Russia is systematically working to remove their identity. As we have heard, this ideological strategy comes directly from the top of the Russian Government, with President Putin repeatedly denying the legitimacy of Ukraine’s sovereignty and describing Ukrainians as Russians.
Beyond the horrific removal of children from Ukraine, the Russian Government are using a deliberate tactic of cultural suppression and re-education to further erase the children’s Ukrainian identity. The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has described the Russian Government’s actions as the targeted destruction of Ukraine’s culture, noting that the Russian authorities have removed cultural symbols, dismantled Ukrainian language education and rewritten national history in the occupied territories.
Sadly, this is not a new tactic. The Russian Government also used the forced displacement of children and the erasure of their culture during the annexation of Crimea. According to a 2017 review of court records, this meant that less than 10% of children born in occupied Crimea were able to get a Ukrainian birth certificate. This deliberate war strategy will have long-term implications for the future of Ukraine. By targeting the youngest members of society, Russia is purposefully raising a future generation whose ties to their country and heritage have been weakened and, in some cases, completely erased.
The Government have taken welcome action to implement targeted sanctions on Russia to disrupt the military supply chain and revenue funding for the war; hopefully, the same urgency can be applied to identifying and sanctioning those involved in the illegal transfer and mass deportation of children. I am very taken with the idea of a day of action to highlight this issue—perhaps we should do that on Ukrainian Independence Day in August.
Without imminent action, more Ukrainian children will lose touch with their family, their home and their culture. Russia’s actions will have far-reaching and damaging effects for the families and for Ukraine, but most of all for the children.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.
First, I want to thank—genuinely, from the bottom of my heart—the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for her leadership on this deeply distressing issue. Her introductory speech was emotional, powerful and passionate; there were not many dry eyes in this Chamber when she was speaking. I was on the Ukraine trip with her and other colleagues for the three-year anniversary, and it was very moving to see for myself what has happened and is happening in Ukraine. The thing that stuck out for her and for me was the appalling actions of the Russian Government in removing a generation of children from Ukraine, which is what this debate is about.
Each story of a child being removed from their Ukrainian family, where they belong, to be taken to Russia, is moving and appalling, but let me give an example to illustrate the scale of what is happening. There are around 20,000 children in my Woking constituency; imagine if every child in my constituency, or in most of the constituencies of other Members present, was taken overnight. Imagine if they vanished—they just went. That is the scale of what we are dealing with. It is the theft of a generation, and standing up to that will define us.
According to research by Queen Mary University of London, it is estimated that clinically significant psychological trauma is present among 35% of adolescents in Ukraine. Research in the same report shows high levels of post-traumatic stress disorder among displaced children, with trauma linked not only to conflict exposure but to family separation, loss, property damage, economic hardship and disrupted education. The findings emphasise the psychological toll that the war is taking. It extends beyond the battlefield and will be particularly profound for the children abducted by the Russian state. For them, the risk of PTSD will rise significantly.
Back in March, I tabled a written question asking the Foreign Secretary what steps the UK Government were taking to provide funding to track and return the kidnapped children, particularly following the appalling decision of President Donald Trump to withdraw funding from the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab. In response, the Government said:
“The UK has supported ‘Save Ukraine’…and ‘Bring Kids Back UA’ through The Partnership Fund for a Resilient Ukraine.”
They noted the return of children through Qatari mediation last September and expressed gratitude to Qatar for that.
But let us be honest. Our Government’s support was lacking in detail, lacking in scale and particularly lacking in urgency. It made no mention of the United States or a broader international agreement and broader international pressure to bring these children home. It is clear that the current UK efforts just have not been enough. They have not met the significant challenge. We need to support the work of the Bring Kids Back initiative and the Yale Humanitarian Research Lab, but we also need to go beyond that.
Applying more pressure on the United States, via our special relationship, is key. It is time for the UK to take a stronger line. Our Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary should not be afraid to challenge President Donald Trump, to ensure the release of the thousands of children stolen from Ukraine. Trump’s appalling bromance with Putin is disgusting, but if we have that special relationship with the United States, we should be asking and demanding that the US do something. Will the Minister confirm whether either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Office has raised this issue with the United States, how many times they have done so and what the United States has said in return?
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for securing this debate. It is on a harrowing subject—the systematic abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children—but it is absolutely one that we should be discussing in the House, so I thank her for her work.
As has been outlined, by day 1,000 of the conflict, according to UK Government figures, at least 19,500 Ukrainian children had been unlawfully deported to Russia, and independent estimates put the figure much higher. Behind each number is a name, a family, a severed childhood. Children have been taken from foster care homes, boarding schools and hospitals, and even directly from their families. Many have been placed with Russian families, sent to so-called re-education camps or absorbed into military patriotic training programmes aimed at erasing their Ukrainian identity.
The individual stories already outlined by Members are heartbreaking. They involve children being renamed, issued with Russian passports, told that their homeland no longer exists, separated from their siblings and told that their parents have never tried to find them. Some children have even been issued with military draft papers. These actions are not merely incidental violations of the rules of war; they are part of a co-ordinated state policy to erase Ukrainian culture. In my view, they represent war crimes and constitute crimes against humanity.
It is important that we recognise and pay tribute to the resilience and courage of the many people working to bring the children home: the Ukrainian officials, non-governmental organisations, lawyers and, of course, families, who have refused to give up even in the face of enormous obstacles. The UK must support those efforts, not only with words but with practical assistance, by funding legal support, supporting reunification logistics and ensuring that international pressure remains focused and sustained.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that we should support not only the return of the abducted Ukrainian children, but their reintegration into their families and communities through rehabilitation programmes that address the psychological and developmental trauma that has been inflicted by their forced deportation?
James Naish
I wholeheartedly agree. Prior to coming to this place, I led a council, and one of the motions we passed twinned us with part of Ukraine, because we recognised that the long-term reintegration of Ukrainian people and rebuilding of Ukrainian society would take a long time. It will require a huge global effort to make that work.
This is not only a question of justice for Ukraine, but a test of our commitment to international law and the protection of children in conflict. If we allow the forced deportation and indoctrination of children to go unanswered, we risk setting a devastating precedent for future conflicts. I serve on the International Development Committee. International law and international humanitarian law are being broken in many conflicts across different zones around the world, and it is important that the UK stands up for the established order, which has protected billions of people over several generations but is under huge attack on many fronts.
I note that the Government have worked closely with the US on this issue—a couple of organisations have been mentioned. What further steps does the Minister think can be taken? I believe there are already three sanctions packages that target those attempting to forcibly deport and indoctrinate Ukrainian children, but what else is being considered or will be considered in the future? Will the Minister outline what the next steps of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children are likely to be? The UK is part of that organisation, so what role will the UK Government continue to play?
We in this Chamber today may not be able to return these children ourselves, but we can send a clear message that their abduction will not be ignored, their identities will not be erased and their safe return will remain a priority for as long as it takes. Justice demands nothing less.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Like others, I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing the debate. We say that at the start of every debate, but this is different—it really matters. She has done a fantastic job since our visit to Ukraine, on which I joined her, not just by bringing the issue to national attention—we now see it in the national news—but by ensuring that it gains international traction.
Until my visit, I knew nothing about this issue, and of all the things I saw this was the most shocking. I learned many things on the trip. The first thing, of course, was the hospitality. Wherever we went, there were fantastic people and such warmth—it was unforgettable. I learned also that life goes on; it is incredible how people can continue. There have now been three years of war, with drones dropping from the sky. We all downloaded an app that warned us about drone attacks and, believe me, it was going off all the time. Yet people went about their everyday lives: they went to work or to restaurants as if it was not happening. It was incredible.
I was impressed by the ingenuity of the Ukrainian people, particularly at a secret drone factory that we visited. Ukraine has become the world leader in drone design and manufacture. It is the future of warfare, so we have a lot to learn from them, and we should be grateful to them for their work. We would not necessarily have expected that level of entrepreneurship in an ex-Soviet bloc state, which shows me that Ukraine belongs in the west and in Europe.
I was struck by the commitment to cause. President Putin and others put about unpleasant stories that this was Zelensky’s war, that the people of Ukraine were not behind him and that he was forcing them into war. That is untrue. In every single community there are flags, memorial centres and graves. It is not hidden. It is in full and present view everywhere, and it is all the more impactful because, in the habit of the Orthodox church, they show pictures of the fallen. We also visited two hospitals where we saw young men in rehabilitation with very difficult injuries.
I also took from the visit something more practical, which relates to international security. We have talked about the need for a European army, because of the pressure we are under, but that is our army: it is larger than all the western European armies put together already. Given the time it will take us to get an army together, we need to support Ukraine’s army, because that is our defence.
There were lighter moments on the trip. I will never forget a night we had in Kyiv. We were in a lovely hotel, but unfortunately we spent half the night in a bomb shelter because of warnings. One of the MPs managed to get his laptop out, and we watched “Darkest Hour”. The parallels between 1940 and where we were in Ukraine were very striking.
At the start of the war, I did not believe that it could get like this. Putin was putting out the story that Ukrainians and Russians were brothers—that they were the same people. I never imagined that things could get as violent, destructive and vicious as they have, but they did straightaway, as we discovered. The Bucha massacre, near Kyiv, was in the first days of the war. It is not as if it grew to that moment; it began with that moment.
The worst crime of all, as we have heard today, is the systematic theft and abduction of all these children, clearly with the knowledge and instruction of President Putin. He brings shame on Russia, which is a great nation. I cannot imagine what it is like to know that your child is alive but with another family. I will say one last thing: besides all the other requests that have been made today, it has to be a precondition that there is no peace without the return of these children.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I commend the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for setting the scene. She might be small in stature, but she has the biggest heart in the Chamber—well done. The opportunity to urge our Government to continue to do the right thing and act for the innocent people of Ukraine is the reason why we are all here.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The strength of feeling in the room is shown by the raw emotion of the hon. Gentleman and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne). Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the most important thing we can do today is take the opportunity to come together, across the parties, and recognise the need to continue to support these Ukrainian families?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is much appreciated.
The forced deportation of Ukrainian children without their parents by Russian forces is a grave violation of international humanitarian law. Indeed, I will go as far as to say that these actions constitute a war crime under article 8 of the Rome statute, which explicitly forbids the unlawful deportation or transfer of protected persons. These acts, targeting the most vulnerable, have torn families apart and have eroded the culture and national identity of Ukraine’s future generations.
Article 6 of the Rome statute is also relevant. The systematic and calculated manner of these abductions is evidenced by reports that refer to some 20,000 Ukrainian children. The figures are unknown, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South pointed out. Who knows what they really are? The crimes demand urgent scrutiny to determine whether they meet the threshold for genocide.
These children, torn from their families and homeland, are victims of a deliberate campaign by Russian and Belarusian authorities not only to erase their identity and culture, but to erase their memories of their families. This is not just a humanitarian crisis; it is a moral outrage. Forced deportation by Russian authorities during the ongoing conflict has created a stolen generation—a term that is reminiscent of other historical cases, such as that of Australian’s stolen generation, when Government policy saw indigenous children removed from their families and communities to assimilate them into a different cultural identity. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. To steal a nation’s children is to steal its future.
The United Kingdom must lead with moral and legal clarity on agreeing a course of action to hold Russia’s feet to the fire over these crimes against humanity. I believe that we must intensify our sanctions on Russian and Belarusian officials, military and other state actors who are complicit in these abductions. We must demand justice through international legal bodies, including the International Criminal Court, to hold perpetrators accountable. The UK must support investigations and advocate for expedited arrest warrants. Justice delayed is justice denied. These children and their grieving families cannot wait.
The scale of the tragedy remains unreported by the mainstream media, but I believe that today’s debate amplifies the voices of Ukrainian families, places pressure on policymakers and signals to Russia that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland stands firmly against this greatest act of sheer inhumanity. The forced transfer of children is explicitly defined as genocide under article II of the 1948 genocide convention.
The abduction of Ukrainian children is yet another stain on humanity’s already overburdened conscience. By intensifying sanctions, pursuing justice and acknowledging the genocidal nature of Russia’s actions, the UK can be a leader in demanding the return of these children to their families. We cannot stand idly by while their futures are stolen. I therefore look to the Minister, who I believe is of the same mind. We must act with the urgency and the conviction that this crisis demands and remind Russia that good people will not stand idly by.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. May I join all colleagues in thanking the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter)? She has led on the issue with determination and relentlessness, and she is an example to all of us.
The people of Ukraine are fighting for their country and their continued existence, but they are also fighting for us. There is no way Putin will stop in Ukraine if he gets what he wants. It is right that the UK is supporting Ukraine, and we should continue to do so until a just and lasting peace—on Ukraine’s terms—is found.
I was most recently in Kyiv three weeks ago as part of a delegation of Liberal MPs from across Europe. I was fortunate enough to meet Ukrainian MPs in the Rada and to meet the Ukrainian Parliament Commissioner for Human Rights—the ombudsman—who is undertaking incredible work in documenting the extent of the various international crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine and in working with international partners to bring these children home.
One of the most moving moments of my recent visit came when we met two of the children who had experienced for themselves the brutal policy of forced deportation and assimilation. One had had to work relentlessly to have his younger brother returned, and the other had escaped Russian re-education by walking for days to get to safety. Their stories are not isolated tragedies; they are part of a wider state-sponsored strategy to destroy the nation of Ukraine.
Last year, the UK rightly helped to launch the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, which was designed to co-ordinate joint efforts. I commend this Government for their commitment to that, but it is clear that much more is needed. We must demand the full implementation of the 2024 recommendations to Russia from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. We must push for humanitarian and monitoring access to any facilities that are holding these children. We must facilitate communications with authorities to ensure safe returns.
The Ukrainian ombudsman himself told me that the international community needs a special tribunal to take full account of these crimes and to properly hold Putin and his flunkies to account. Each day that these children remain outside their homes and outside their homeland is a day that justice is denied. Our role is clear: we must help to bring them home. The stealing of thousands of Ukrainian children is a particularly heinous crime, but there are also millions more Ukrainian children who have lost their childhoods because of Putin’s actions.
On my recent visit, I also visited Chernihiv to see the extent of the damage caused by constant attacks. I saw for myself the basement in Yahidne where, in the early days of Russia’s full-scale invasion, dozens of nearby inhabitants, including babies and children, were rounded up by Russian soldiers and tortured for weeks before being liberated by the Ukrainian army.
We know that one of the weapons of war used by the Russian Government is mis and disinformation. In their programme of trying to dehumanise the Ukrainian people, they also try to paint them as not telling the truth. I saw for myself, and the look in the eyes of the people who told me of their experience will stay with me for a very, very long time.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on her speech and on her incredible work across the country to try to make people aware of the awful things happening over in Europe.
I am very lucky to have a large Ukrainian population in Redditch. These are people who have fled from the Donbas and other areas over the past few years, including children who have had 20 homes in their few years on this planet. Now they are here, separated from their homeland and their friends and family members who have been forcibly removed and taken to Russia. The hon. Lady made a powerful point about disinformation. In Redditch, we see and hear every day the impact that it is having on those who may never see their family members again.
Lisa Smart
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for talking about the Ukrainian communities who are contributing so much in our country. I have asked the Government to give further clarity and more than an 18-month visa extension, to continue to show support for the Ukrainians living in all our constituencies. We know that far too many Ukrainians are being rejected from tenancies, jobs and studying opportunities because they do not have that length of visa ahead of them. The point about mis and disinformation is absolutely right. It is not a new tool, but it is being used in many more sophisticated ways. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need to work across Government and internationally to combat it.
In closing, I repeat the calls that I and others have previously made for the Government to move from freezing to actively seizing Russian assets—both the principal and the interest—because we need to support Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction. The Government are taking the right approach in co-ordinating these efforts multilaterally, but the UK should be in a position to lead on this and, should progress stall, we must be willing to act unilaterally. These children must be returned, and Putin and his flunkies must pay for their crimes.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. Like everyone else, I thank the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for securing this important debate and for the commitment and tenacity that she has shown in raising this topic, about which she cares so deeply.
It is so important that we are discussing this shocking topic today. Of all the crimes that the Russian leadership has committed in its invasion of Ukraine, this is the most distressing. No Ukrainian deserves to be caught up in this horrendous war, but we are all touched by the vulnerability of babies and children, so it is heartbreaking to consider what has been done to them and to family members who see their child ripped from their care. The emotion we have seen here is testament to how deeply that is felt by Members of this House.
Members have spoken with compassion and concern about this subject, and I welcome the consensus across all parties and the shared commitment to work together to challenge Russia’s crimes. Many, including my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Steve Darling), for Woking (Mr Forster), for Horsham (John Milne) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), have referred to the impact of their visits to Ukraine and the experiences they had there. I am grateful for their testimony.
Members have underscored the depth of friendship between the UK and Ukraine. The hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) recalled celebrating Ukraine’s independence day in the beautiful Victoria Park. Others have highlighted specific cases. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for referring to the experience of disabled children, and to the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove for drawing our attention to the experience of the Ukrainian children and young people here in the UK. We have also heard practical suggestions from Members, including the day of action proposed by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) and the seizure of Russian assets that my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove called for.
This gruesome project is the product of the twisted will and inhumanity of one man: Vladimir Putin. Driven by his imperial ambitions and archaic vision of a Russian empire, he aims not only to destroy Ukraine’s independence, but to erase its future. His systematic programme for the abduction and forced assimilation into Russia of at least 20,000 Ukrainian children will go down as one of the vilest acts not only of this war, but of this century.
As other Members have said, the Yale University humanitarian research lab has indicated that the real figures are likely to be much, much higher, and sadly, we can only expect them to continue to rise, so long as Putin’s invasion and control of occupied territory continues. The Yale lab has identified at least 43 children’s camps throughout Russia that house deported children, of which at least 32 are explicitly labelled as “re-education facilities”. The former Ukrainian children’s rights commissioner Mykola Kuleba puts it chillingly: he said that these re-education programmes constitute
“death camps for Ukrainian identity.”
As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) highlighted, in March President Trump and Elon Musk took the callous decision to slash funding for the Yale lab, an organisation that has been helping to lead the search for the tens of thousands of Ukrainian children abducted by Russia. Gathering evidence of these war crimes is critical. It matters because it will allow prosecutors to go after the architects of this atrocity. It also matters because it increases the chances that when the conflict ends, these children might be returned to their Ukrainian homes.
On 1 April, I asked the Foreign Secretary whether the UK would step in to fill the funding gap left by the US Administration. He said:
“It is not our assessment that we can meet the shortfall left by the withdrawal of USAID”.—[Official Report, 1 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 149.]
I know that the Minister is committed to this issue, so may I take this opportunity to ask him what sum would be required for the Yale lab to continue its critical work and what the Government have done, working with partners, to secure the future of this project? Reports suggest that the lab’s data repository could soon be transferred to Europol so that its vital work can be taken forward. Can the Minister state whether those reports are accurate and what support the UK is offering?
James Naish
This morning, I met the International Foundation for Electoral Systems, which does great work around good governance, electoral integrity, democratic rights and citizen engagement. It has lost 70% of its funding as a result of USAID cuts, but it recognises that it will play a fundamental role in how Ukraine is rebuilt by dealing with the disinformation that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) talked about earlier. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to look at how such organisations are protected so that, when Ukraine rebuilds, it rebuilds in the right way and deals with the challenges that its neighbour will present?
Calum Miller
I wholeheartedly agree. This country, as well as the USA, should take responsibility for its hard power and its soft power. Just as the UK and its US ally have historically been willing to support Ukraine’s defence in the face of Russia’s aggression, we must make sure that we invest in peace by supporting those kinds of democratic institutions. I believe it is the shame of this Government that they have cut so significantly the UK’s aid budget.
I welcome the steps taken and the agreement that was struck on Monday to restore elements of judicial co-operation with our European partners. I hope that the Government will now take the opportunity to strengthen co-operation with Europol ahead of the transfer of any data relating to these crimes so that it can support the work of tracking and bringing home Ukraine’s stolen children.
Although there are no signs of a change in Russia’s policy now, we must also plan for a future when the children are returned, and we must support those already rescued by organisations such as Bring Kids Back. They will undoubtedly be traumatised and deeply affected by their experiences, as my hon. Friends the Members for Woking and for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury have highlighted. What steps can the UK Government take now to support the Ukrainian Government and civil society in developing programmes of psychological support for children and their families?
The previous Conservative Government agreed to the sale of Chelsea football club and that the proceeds would be forfeited by Roman Abramovich and used to benefit civilians in Ukraine, yet those funds—£2.5 billion—have still not been deployed. I asked the Foreign Secretary on 24 February what progress was being made. I asked again on 17 March, and he said that he was frustrated by the lack of progress and that he would consider
“all the tools available to Government.”—[Official Report, 17 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 41.]
Can the Minister update us on what is holding up the release of those funds and say which tools the Government are now using to secure their release?
As other Members have mentioned, the ICC has issued arrest warrants for President Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova in recognition of their crimes. It is a foul irony that she is Russia’s children’s rights commissioner. All those involved must be held responsible and accountable for their complicity. The Government need to be laser-focused in identifying the individuals and entities against whom sanctions should be applied so that they can be held accountable today for their actions. The Government should do that in concert with our international allies, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) highlighted.
By strengthening Ukraine and undermining Putin’s ability to prosecute his war, particularly through the use of sanctions, we can give President Zelensky the maximum leverage he needs in any future peace negotiations. A core aspect of any just peace must be the return of the Ukrainian children stolen by the Kremlin. Anything less will only embolden Putin and other authoritarian leaders like him, who would otherwise hope to continue acting with complete impunity and relentless cruelty.
As Ukraine continues to fight not only for its freedom today but for future generations, I am glad that this House is recommitting itself to that cause. Ukraine’s security is our security. We have a categorical moral imperative to help to secure its future by supporting every effort to return Ukraine’s stolen children.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) on securing this debate. She has spoken with passion and sincerity in this place, not just today but on a number of occasions. I join her in welcoming the delegation from Ukraine, who will surely, after listening to this debate, be totally convinced of the cross-party support for their country and its people. The passionate and emotional contributions today have made that very clear. Many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), have reflected on their personal visits to the country and its people.
Few crimes are as harrowing or telling as the theft of a child, but that is what we are debating today: the forced abduction, deportation and ideological reprogramming of Ukrainian children by the Russian state. We need to call it out for what it is. It is not a relocation or an evacuation, which the Kremlin may dress it up as, but a systemic, state-sponsored assault on identity, sovereignty and humanity itself.
Since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, more than 19,500 Ukrainian children are known to have been forcibly removed from their home and transferred across Russian-occupied territory into Russia itself. Independent estimates suggest that the true figure could be more than double that. As we have heard today, with each child taken, we see families torn apart, culture erased and the future of a nation under threat. Behind every number or statistic is a child, a family, friends and loved ones.
I want to make three points. First, Russia’s actions are not just indefensible, but calculated, deliberate and disgraceful. Secondly, during our time in government, the Conservatives led the way not just with weapons and sanctions but with unwavering moral clarity and practical action in support of Ukraine. Thirdly, I urge the Government to be clear-eyed and bold. They should build on what we started and not flinch in the face of Putin’s cruelty.
I have had the privilege of visiting Ukraine twice: once as a Foreign Minister in 2021, and again in 2023 as a Back Bencher with the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. On my first visit, I stood alongside Ukrainian leaders at the launch of the Crimea Platform, which was a powerful signal of international solidarity. Even then, Russia’s creeping aggression in Donbas and Crimea cast a long shadow, but the spirit of the Ukrainian people shone through.
When I returned two years later, though, Ukraine was in the grip of war as a result of Putin’s illegal invasion. Towns were scarred by missile strikes, civilians were forced underground and families were scattered across borders, but what struck me most was the resilience of the people I met: parliamentarians who had lost colleagues, mothers who had sent their sons to the frontline, children who were being educated in bunkers at school, and civil society leaders who were rebuilding community life amid chaos. They were resisting not just an illegal military invasion, but an assault on their identity, their history and, as we have heard clearly today, their children.
That is why the forced deportation of Ukrainian children is such a grotesque element of this war—it is wrong. These are not isolated incidents; they are part of a strategy to wipe out the next generation of Ukrainians by forcibly assimilating them into Russia—renaming them, placing them with Russian families and indoctrinating them in so-called re-education camps. That is not just child abduction; it is cultural erasure. That is why the International Criminal Court has, rightly, issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and his commissioner for children’s rights, Maria Lvova-Belova.
Let me turn to what we as Conservatives did in government in response. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the UK did not hesitate. We were among the first to send advanced weapons to Ukraine, including anti-tank missiles, long-range precision arms and air defence systems. We trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops under Operation Interflex, co-ordinated international aid and introduced the largest, most severe package of sanctions in UK history, targeting around 2,000 Russian individuals and entities. We also sanctioned Maria Lvova-Belova over the forced transfer and adoption of Ukrainian children.
Under our watch, we did not stand with Ukraine just in principle; we stood with it in practice. We understood, and we understand, that helping Ukraine to defend itself was about not just charity—it was about national security, and we treated it as such. We also understood, however, that Russia’s war crimes required a broader response. That is why we supported the gathering of evidence for war crimes prosecutions, championed media freedom and democratic resilience in Ukraine, and supported Ukrainian civil society, which is the lifeblood of any free nation.
I was proud, in and out of government, to advocate for Ukraine, from sanctioning oligarchs and calling out disinformation to welcoming Ukrainian families into British homes through the Homes for Ukraine scheme, including some in my own constituency. What are the Government doing to build on that legacy? I am sure the Minister will set that out.
The moral imperative could not be clearer. Returning these children must be a top diplomatic priority, not just for Ukraine, but for the entire international community. If we do not act now, we normalise the weaponisation of children in conflict and we send the message that the forced erasure of national identity can go unpunished. What are the Government doing to press international bodies, including the UN and the OSCE, to intensify efforts to track and return these children?
What support is the UK providing to Ukrainian and international NGOs that are engaged in tracing, documenting and litigating these cases? What diplomatic pressure is the Government applying to countries that are complicit in circumventing sanctions or turning a blind eye to Russia’s war crimes, including Belarus, which has been directly implicated? I welcome the commitment to £3 billion in annual military aid to Ukraine, but how much funding is earmarked for protecting civilians, documenting atrocities and countering the ideological indoctrination of abducted children? Ukraine does not need just tanks; it needs truth and justice.
I end with this: in every Ukrainian family torn apart by abduction, there is a mother waiting, a father grieving and a sibling left behind. Each stolen child is not just a tragedy, but a test of whether the democratic world will match words with action. We on this side of the House say that we must. We led the way in government, and we will continue to hold the line in opposition. We owe it to Ukraine and the families, and we owe it to every principle that this place is meant to defend.
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
I call the Minister, with a reminder to finish by 3.58 pm at the latest.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) for securing this debate. I also thank hon. Members for their extraordinarily powerful and united contributions that send a strong message of support to Ukraine and Ukrainians from this House, and a strong message to Vladimir Putin, who is ultimately responsible for these wicked and heinous crimes.
I also welcome the delegation of Ukrainian officials who have been with us today—I do not think they are all still here—including Olena Kondratiuk, the Deputy Chair of the Verkhovna Rada. I hope that the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members have reassured our Ukrainian friends that this whole House stands with them, and will remain with them until Ukraine prevails. The raw emotion we have heard demonstrates that, when it comes to children, this House is united. Whether it is seeing the scenes in Gaza, Sudan or Ukraine—seeing the reality of what, in that case, Vladimir Putin has done—the plight of children unites us all, and should unite parliamentarians and legislatures around the world.
The forcible deportation of Ukrainian children is one of the most appalling aspects of Russia’s brutal invasion. As we have heard, approaching 20,000 children have been torn from their homes. Families and communities have been torn apart in this barbaric conflict, and the forcible removal of children to Russian areas along with the indoctrination and attempts to wipe out Ukrainian identity have shocked the world.
We believe that 6,000 children have been sent to so-called “re-education camps” to indoctrinate them with pro-Russian sentiment. It is very clear that this is an attempt not only to hurt Ukraine and its people now, but to hurt its future, as has rightly been reflected on. Let me be clear: Russia must end the deportation, exploitation and manipulation of Ukrainian children. They must be reunited with their families. We will do everything in our power as a Government to make that happen, and to ensure that those responsible for these crimes face justice.
Let me say again, as I have in a number of these debates, that this is personal for me. I have visited Ukraine three times since the start of Russia’s illegal invasion, including just a few months ago, and I also grew up studying alongside Ukrainians as a teenager in Canada and taught young Ukrainians in Lviv when I was younger. To think of those fellow schoolmates or the young people I taught being torn away from their families, culture, identity and language fills me with absolute horror. Going to places such as Bucha and not only seeing the reality of the atrocities faced at the start of the war, but the fact that children and other people are still missing, with no idea where they are, should be brought to all of our attention.
I have also heard at first hand from the different delegations that have come here of the trauma inflicted on Ukrainian children. In March, I met Deputy Foreign Minister Betsa, alongside Bring Kids Back Ukraine and Save Ukraine, and made it clear to them—I do so again now—that our support for returning children is unwavering. We discussed many ways we could expand and deepen our work together. Bring Kids Back gave me a painting by a child who was forcibly deported but, thankfully, has now returned. However, he is going through that trauma and is in art therapy. His painting hangs in my office and is a daily reminder of why this work matters.
Children must never be used as pawns of war, and those who do so must be held accountable. That is why we have given £11.3 million to help Ukraine document, investigate and prosecute war crimes. We have contributed £2 million to the International Criminal Court to gather evidence and support survivors more effectively. Going back to 2022, the UK led the way in bringing together allies to speed up an ICC investigation into alleged Russian war crimes in Ukraine. With 41 other countries now backing the UK, it is the largest referral in the ICC’s history. We welcome the progress the ICC is making with its independent investigations, which includes the arrest warrants issued for President Putin and the so-called children’s rights commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, for the illegal deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
The Minister is giving a typically humane account of what we are debating and of what I have been able to see today. It shows real strength of feeling to see the House so united on such an appalling issue. I have one question for the Minister. Can he confirm whether, as we saw yesterday with the change in the muscularity of our engagement on the Israel-Gaza issue, the UK will formally recognise those mass abductions as a violation of international law? Will he also confirm that the return of those children must be a precondition to any final lifting of sanctions and the completion of a peace process?
Stephen Doughty
I have been very clear, as the Foreign Secretary was yesterday, that we respect the independence of international courts and judicial processes, including the ICC, as I mentioned. However, I am also happy to be clear that this must be resolved: Russia must return those children. We are clear that we will not lift our sanctions, and we reserve the right to take further measures, as we have done in the last 24 hours—and we will continue to do so.
I was asked many times about the UK’s specific efforts. We are working closely as a member of the International Coalition for the Return of Ukrainian Children, and with the Ukrainian Government. That includes initiatives to identify, locate and return children to their families, as well as collaboration on diplomatic efforts and the provision of financial and logistical support. Our overseas missions are hosting events to raise the issue locally in capitals around the world. To support the work to get the children returned, we are bringing together experts from a range of backgrounds, including from academia and industry, and from other countries that have also suffered from conflict. I discussed that with the Deputy Minister when she was here.
I have already mentioned Save Ukraine and the Bring Kids Back initiative. We are providing practical and political support to both. The Foreign Secretary has also been working with Mrs Zelensky to support Ukraine’s children. He met her in Kyiv in February to discuss her campaign to end the Soviet legacy of institutionalised care and instead promote family-based care and provide support to foster families.
I was asked by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), about our wider diplomatic efforts. We are continuing to work at the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, where we are calling out Russia’s unacceptable actions and challenging their lies. We are also supporting the OSCE’s support programme for Ukraine and its fact-finding missions to expose human rights abuses, including deportation.
In December, our permanent representative was absolutely clear at the United Nations Security Council that Russia must stop these deportations and return Ukrainian children to their homes. We welcome the renewal of the UN’s independent international commission of inquiry on Ukraine, and we also note the significant role that Qatar is playing in mediating the return of Ukrainian children. We are grateful for its engagement. Those efforts are part of wider diplomatic initiatives involving others, including the Holy See and NGOs such as Save Ukraine. Around 900 children have returned thanks to those efforts.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I do not for one moment doubt the Minister’s sincerity or his determination to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion, but we all know that one of the keys to that is President Trump. Very little has been said, even in this debate, about the pressure that can and should be brought to bear on Trump and Putin together. The Minister does not have a magic wand, but will he make sure as far as he can that this issue does not come off the agenda and that it forms part of any settlement?
Stephen Doughty
The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that we raise a series of matters in our engagement with the United States, and we are working closely with President Trump and his Administration to find a just, lasting and sustainable ceasefire. We are working together with our European partners and the United States on that, as well as with President Zelensky and the Ukrainian Government. There have been many meetings in the last few days that the right hon. Gentleman and others will have seen. I can assure him that I raise the issue regularly. I met congressional delegations in the last few weeks, and I specifically raised this issue. There was broad bipartisan concern on it, and I will continue to raise it.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South for her powerful and passionate exposé of this wicked and heinous action by Putin’s regime. I fully endorse her fantastic work on the issue. It should unite us all in this House. Like many Members, my hon. Friend spoke powerfully of her visit to Ukraine, and she also asked about the Yale research. I wrote to her on that, and I want to add a correction to that. The data has now been sent to Europol, and we will endeavour to ensure that it gets to the Ukrainian Government Office of the Prosecutor General as soon as possible. We will be following up on that and I will update my hon. Friend as soon as we have further information.
The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) spoke about the importance of retaining our ODA support and humanitarian assistance. She will note that Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan have been all highlighted as areas to which we will continue to pay special attention, despite the cuts that we have to make. I have been looking at our programmes to see what more we can do over the weeks and months ahead.
I return to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) about disabled children. I want to make clear that we have particularly focused on disability inclusion and rehabilitation services in the £5 million of support that we have provided. Indeed, we also supported that through the partnership fund for a resilient Ukraine. My hon. Friend made some important points and I will write to him just in case I have not got the figures exactly right to ensure that he has the exact numbers. I would not want inadvertently to mislead the House.
I know the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) well, as we travelled to Ukraine together not long after the illegal invasion and saw the reality. He also spoke about the Yale research and raised the situation regarding Belarus, as other Members did. We are deeply concerned by the attendance of Ukrainian children at so-called “recreation camps” in Belarus, and we are following closely the investigations into those transfers. We call on Belarus to ensure that no Ukrainian children are forcibly transferred to, or via, its territory. I will continue to follow that very closely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) spoke passionately about the local support in her constituency, which is similar to that in my Cardiff South and Penarth constituency.
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) asked how we are engaging with the United States, and I hope that I have answered that question. He spoke about important research into trauma and the work that needs to be done on that. We are providing a lot of mental health and psychosocial support. That is a crucial issue, and it is important that he raised it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South mentioned the national day of action. I note her and other hon. Members’ request, and I have asked officials to consider the merits of supporting it. I hope to be able to update her soon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) asked important questions about our own programmes. I can assure him that our concern for children will remain at the heart of those.
Hon. Members asked many questions about sanctions. As well as our wider Russia sanctions regime, we have already issued a number of rounds of sanctions in relation to this issue specifically. I will not comment on future designations, but I assure the House that we keep all such matters under close review.
The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) spoke passionately about his experience of the resilience and ingenuity of Ukrainians, which I have seen again and again. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) always speaks passionately about these issues. We must not stand idly by, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) also made clear.
I have updated the House many times on seized assets, Chelsea and so on, and I will continue to keep the House closely informed. I hope to be able to update the House in due course on those matters, on which we are working at pace with international and other partners.
I reiterate that the UK will not let up until Ukraine’s stolen children are returned. This is a heinous, wicked and unforgivable crime, and I want to see action taken on it. We will continue to work with our allies, the brilliant campaign organisations I have mentioned and, of course, the Government of Ukraine to trace and return those children and to hold Russia to account.
Johanna Baxter
I thank every hon. Member who has participated in the debate. I cannot do justice to all the contributions in the time that I have, but the strength and depth of feeling expressed by colleagues across the House should send a strong message to President Putin that this is a heinous crime to which we all object.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminds us of the urgency of the issue. As he said, justice delayed is justice denied. As I mentioned earlier, this summer 53,000 children are expected to attend summer camps in Russia. We need to ensure that those children return home.
To reiterate the point, there can be no lasting peace in Ukraine without the return of these children. I ask the Minister to again consider sanctions, in particular aligning our sanctions on individuals involved in the forced and illegal deportation of these children with those that have been applied by the US and EU. I also ask for a little clarity—he may be able to write to me afterwards—on the terms of reference for the special tribunal for the crime of aggression and whether those will cover this issue. Also, will the Government continue to investigate whether these crimes meet the definition of genocide under international law?
I thank the Minister for his commitment to get back to me on the national day of action, which would certainly help to raise awareness of the issue. I also plead with the Government to look again at the issue of rehabilitation for these children, who will have gone through severe trauma. If we are able to return them home, they will need a lot of support.
I thank every hon. Member who contributed so powerfully to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of returning forcibly deported children to Ukraine.
Broadband and Mobile Connectivity: Rural Areas
(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
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
I will call Anna Sabine to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. If anyone does not have that twin permission, they should not and may not speak. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered broadband and mobile connectivity in rural areas.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I represent the fairly rural constituency of Frome and East Somerset. In February this year, I conducted a survey asking residents in villages such as Lamyatt, Doulting, Alhampton, West Pennard and Witham Friary about their experiences with mobile and broadband signal. The number of responses was overwhelming, and there was a striking consistency to what they told me. The current arrangements for getting a mobile or broadband signal are mismatched, too expensive, frequently slow and, in many cases, simply not fit for purpose.
Access to a reliable internet and mobile signal is now a basic necessity of our lives. Whether for work, education, healthcare or simply staying connected, people rely on broadband and mobile coverage every single day. I heard from a number of brilliant rural businesses—wedding venues, farms, ironmongers—who battle with poor connectivity daily. For many, broadband remains one of the biggest obstacles they face as a business, in terms of both the quality and speed of the connection available and the frustrating experience that creates for their customers. One local farm, for example, was quoted more than £250,000 by Openreach just to connect a wire across a relatively short distance to secure full-fibre broadband.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We are all here for the same purpose: our constituencies do not have the 3G broadband that we all wish to see. Does the hon. Lady agree that Westminster and all the other regions of the United Kingdom—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—should collectively have a programme that delivers 3G broadband for everybody in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Anna Sabine
I have met the Minister before, which I will come on to. I know there is a plan, about which I have some specific questions. I totally agree that this is a nationwide challenge. On mobile reception, I am particularly concerned about the elderly and vulnerable in the Government’s digital switchover. Many of those individuals still rely on landlines, not by choice but because mobile signal in their area is unreliable.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
My constituency of Wolverhampton West is residential, densely populated and urban. The area of Tettenhall has lots of elderly constituents, many of whom do not have a mobile signal, creating a dead zone. A recent investigation by The Observer said that, nationally, mobile coverage is more than 1,000 times worse than reported by Ofcom. Does the hon. Member agree that this is not solely a rural problem, but a national problem that affects everyone and to which the Government need to give urgent priority?
Anna Sabine
I have not seen that research by The Observer, but it is interesting. I live in a town in my constituency and I have poor mobile coverage. I am sure it is not uncommon to find that it is worse than it is reported.
Many older people in my constituency still rely on landlines, not by choice but because the mobile signal in their area is unreliable. Although good internet and 4G can enable voice calls, that is not always the case in rural areas. Crucial services such as two-factor authentication for medical appointments or online banking still rely on SMS, which in turn relies on having basic mobile coverage. A constituent in Alhampton tells me that every time she needs a one-time passcode, she has to run out of her house and up the road to try to get a signal.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Half the areas in my constituency are considered to be among the worst 10% in the UK for broadband coverage. My community council raised the same issue as my hon. Friend in relation to updates, which are a problem for those who are home working and want to make payments online. I hope the Minister will reassure me, but does my hon. Friend agree—a bit like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—that we need to work on a nationwide basis to resolve these issues?
Anna Sabine
I thank my hon. Friend; there are a couple of interesting points there. The number of people affected may be relatively low, but they can be concentrated in one area, and it is quite often a rural area. On the question of one-time passcodes, I notice that many companies now offer alternatives, but the process seems to be quite slow.
We often talk about 5G-ready smartphones and fibre-optic broadband, but not all communities start from the same point. Urban areas have a considerable head start, and rural areas should not be punished for being harder to reach.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The connectivity challenge is a huge issue in rural areas, especially for businesses. I recently visited a local tourism business in Bacton that relies on multiple copper landlines—a very vulnerable set-up, given the upcoming switch-off of the public switched telephone network. That business has had outages and engineers unintentionally disconnecting those landlines during maintenance work, and there is clearly no plan yet from Openreach for full-fibre in the village. Does my hon. Friend agree that such connectivity issues are holding back our rural economy, and that Openreach needs to help villages like Bacton to thrive?
Anna Sabine
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that those issues hold back rural economies. I am sure there are some interesting statistics on how much more growth—which is the Government’s agenda—we could get out of rural areas if they could connect at speed and at the times they needed to, without having to pay for often expensive satellite alternatives.
I welcome the Minister’s continued engagement on this issue, particularly his meeting with me and Somerset MPs to discuss the next steps in the roll-out of Project Gigabit, but I have three specific asks of him today. First, I would be grateful if he could confirm when we will receive the promised map identifying which households are included in the scheme. For any that are not included, what mechanism, obligation or incentive will exist to ensure that broadband providers still serve them?
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is unacceptable for homes and businesses that were originally put in scope for local Gigabit projects to be de-scoped partway through, like the homes and farms on the National Trust’s Cowgrove estate, and then told that the Gigabit voucher scheme has been paused, so that they cannot even buy in to other projects in the area?
Anna Sabine
That does sound very unfortunate. I know of villages in my constituency where vouchers have been applied for and received, but it is taking so long to get internet coverage that the vouchers are expiring. Clearly, there are a few voucher-related issues.
My second ask relates to concerning reports from the telecoms industry that the remaining Project Gigabit fund, some £2 billion, might be at risk in the upcoming spending review. Any reduction in that funding would seriously undermine efforts to deliver universal full-fibre connectivity. If such cuts were made, it is highly unlikely that our more remote rural communities would ever see a fibre connection. Will the Minister confirm whether the funding will be protected?
Finally, as we continue the digital switchover, what specific support will the Government provide to ensure that the elderly, the vulnerable and those in isolated rural areas are not left behind?
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
On the matter of the radio teleswitch service, there are 790 meters in my constituency still running off RTS, which operates Economy 7 meters, and across Wales there are 11,000. The Government do not know how many households depend on those meters for their heating. In many areas, particularly rural areas, that are off-grid and without any signal, smart meters will not work. How will we ensure that these often very vulnerable people are kept safe?
Anna Sabine
That is an extremely good point; perhaps the Minister will be able to address it in his response.
In today’s hyperconnected world, no community should be excluded. We speak of self-driving cars and space tourism, so clearly the technology exists; it is not a question of possibility, but a question of political will.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that rurality does not necessarily correlate with population density? My constituency is a city, albeit a small one, yet mobile signal is non-existent in the city centre, and businesses have had real issues attaching to any sort of broadband availability.
Anna Sabine
I agree with my hon. Friend; when I moved into my house in Frome recently, I was told that only one broadband provider was available, because all the other cabinets were full. There are many issues around broadband connectivity in towns as well.
I will finish my points there, because I believe that other colleagues have agreed to speak.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this debate.
Too many people in South Devon are still being cut off by poor digital infrastructure. Airband promised to deliver, but was allowed to fail spectacularly across my constituency.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
My hon. Friend mentions Airband. Building Digital UK wrote to me last month to say that villages and premises had been de-scoped because Airband had withdrawn from the contract. Does she share my view that BDUK ought to find alternative providers that can fill the gap left by companies such as Airband when they give up in places like Branscombe, Churchill and east Devon?
Caroline Voaden
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I totally agree. It is outrageous that a company like Airband is allowed to pick off the easy bits and then walk away when it comes to the more expensive bits of the contract.
In Staverton, most residents have no mobile signal at all. Although mobile providers claim high coverage levels, the claims do not align with the reality on the ground. In Diptford, broadband coverage is at best patchy. I myself used to have to have a satellite connection on the roof of my house to connect to a station in Italy in order to get internet connection.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Is the hon. Member aware of the ways in which the structure of the mobile tower market in the UK is holding back investment in 5G? Some of the regulations introduced by the previous Government are leading to a concentrated market that is not investing quickly enough in more towers and the better signal that we need to reach properties that otherwise would need a satellite connection, particularly in rural constituencies like hers, or mine in Lichfield.
Caroline Voaden
I am not aware of the specifics of mobile towers, but I am sure the hon. Member is absolutely right.
Back to Diptford: years ago, residents were promised full-fibre broadband, but it has yet to materialise. Despite repeated assurances from providers and Governments, very little progress has been made. Residents in Holne, Loddiswell, Aveton Gifford, Rattery, Capton, Higher Brixham, Buckfastleigh West, Maypool, Galmpton, East Cornworthy, Thurlestone, Woodleigh, Norton in Dartmouth and more remain disconnected, creating a digital divide that affects access to vital services and businesses’ ability to connect.
Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way and the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing the debate. The rural areas that I represent are blessed with incredible natural beauty, but too often that beauty can obscure deep issues in public services, transport, employment opportunities and connectivity. I have had to fight hard for local residents, such as those in Inkerman Court in Denby Dale in my constituency, to get the connectivity they deserve. With the new Government investing £500 million next year to deliver digital infrastructure upgrades through Project Gigabit and the shared rural network, does the hon. Member agree with me that high quality, stand-alone 5G is crucial to unlocking the economic and social potential of our rural communities?
Caroline Voaden
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; I could not agree more.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
My hon. Friend talks about rural businesses. Ollie, a constituent of mine in Glastonbury and Somerton, works in video editing and depends on fast and symmetrical broadband to be able to transfer his files, but his rural community is reliant on outdated copper infrastructure that severely restricts the upload speeds. Despite the nature of his work, suitable services are simply not available. He has asked several suppliers, but the services are just not available. Does my hon. Friend agree that outdated infrastructure is undermining rural employment and that we must urgently address that to support digital livelihoods?
Caroline Voaden
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; I could not agree more. I declare an interest here. A family member who has been trying to set up a business park has been told that it is not doable because they are too far from the exchange. As has been said, we can go to space, but we cannot connect to the internet. It just seems ridiculous.
For older residents, reliable broadband is crucial, as has been mentioned, for online GP appointments, personal alarms and emergency calls. Without it, they are left isolated and vulnerable, while young people in my area are being denied equal educational opportunities. Local businesses are missing out on the digital economy. Families are struggling with unreliable services. The divide between rural and urban areas is widening, and it is simply unfair. If remote parts of the UK can access full-fibre broadband and mobile signal, there is no reason that South Devon should be left behind.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Caroline Voaden
I am nearly finished—there is only one line left—but I will give way one last time.
Alex Mayer
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does she agree that it can be a particular problem when remote areas become new-build areas, yet are completely lacking in any mobile or broadband infrastructure? Some telecom companies say that they are not fully involved in the planning aspects, yet they can fully see the houses going up. Does she agree that this issue ought to be looked into?
Caroline Voaden
I absolutely agree. In the society we live in today, it is fundamental to planning that connectivity should be considered at the earliest stages of any new development.
I am on my last line, if anybody wants to intervene.
David Smith
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, especially on her last line. One of the key issues with rurality is that we often depend on mobile signal because of the sparsity of the areas we represent, such as my constituency of North Northumberland. We can be profoundly impacted by storms as a result, and we should be looking to build in contingencies such as generators for mobile masts. The Government should consider simple things like that.
Caroline Voaden
I thank the hon. Member for his excellent contribution.
Digital connectivity is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity, and it is time to treat rural communities with the same priority as urban areas.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
Mr Stuart, what a delight to see you in the Chair. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing the debate. She probably should have secured an hour and a half, or three hours, or even a whole day, because this issue obviously matters to a lot of people.
The two key things to discuss are mobile and fixed connectivity. Both of those could occupy all of us here, because many of the issues apply equally, I would argue, to rural and urban constituencies, albeit in slightly different patterns. I will push back slightly on the idea that rural areas are getting a worse time than urban areas; actually, in some urban areas, the fibre is theoretically passing down the street, but it is not going into the building where the flats are because of wayleave issues. There is a problem in cities as well as in rural areas, and we need to address both—they probably need different answers, but we need to address both.
In the end, our ambition is to get to 5G stand-alone across as much of the country as we possibly can, as fast as we possibly can, and to get full fibre to premises. Full fibre will not be for 100% of the country; that would be impossible, and financially it would not make logical sense. In some cases, getting to the cabinet is good enough, where it is a relatively short passage from the cabinet to the premises and there are only a few premises, so there will not be the same contention problems as there would be with a lot of premises on that same passage. We want to go as fast as we can and as far as we can, and the hon. Member made some very strong points, although I will come to another area later where I completely disagree with her.
Chris Bryant
I will, although I granted the hon. Lady permission to speak earlier.
Caroline Voaden
On the issue of not being able to get to every premises, particularly in very rural areas—the highlands and islands would be an example—have the Government given thought to satellite internet provision, and perhaps to subsidising the cost of that for homeowners?
Chris Bryant
We have looked at satellite provision. The difficulty is that there is not much of it left. It is already pretty occupied and it is quite expensive. There are other options as well, such as fixed wireless, where the connection is delivered to an area locally and the rest is delivered wirelessly. It would not be gigabit capable, but it would run at significant speeds that would match most people’s modern needs. We are looking at all of those options.
My suspicion is that in the next few years, technology will advance at such a pace that that will become easier for us, rather than more difficult. There probably needs to be more than one operator providing satellite options to people’s homes, and that might arrive in the next couple of years as well, with Amazon and perhaps others. That will definitely be part of the mix. There will always be a tiny percentage of properties that are simply impossible for us to reach with fibre; it would be crazy for us to try to take a piece of fibre down a 25-mile road just to serve one property.
We have obviously aimed to deliver as much connectivity as we possibly can on a commercial basis first, because that just makes sense. However, that is quite difficult in itself, because commercial operators change their investment plans. Some of that is about the availability of money to them in the market. We have been working on some of those issues so that they might be in a stronger position, but sometimes they make very specific decisions in local areas that make it difficult for us to know when we should intervene to provide a subsidy and when it should be delivered simply on a commercial basis. That makes Building Digital UK’s job of managing those decisions phenomenally complicated.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
Openreach has changed its mind several times about the affected community of Affetside in my constituency. What advice would you give that resolute, resilient community as it tries to convince Openreach to honour not just its historical commitment, but the one that it made, through me, only in December, and has since reneged on?
Chris Bryant
Well, you often do give advice, Mr Stuart, but that is another matter.
We will have to take this conversation elsewhere, because I am not sure whether that is a Project Gigabit-delivered contract or whether Openreach is rolling out its own commercial decision—[Interruption.] I will not take another intervention because I do not have very much time.
Sometimes all those elements change because the commercial operators say, “Well, actually, we have realised that this business park”—which is outside a town and feels more rural even though it is sort of theoretically attached to a town—“isn’t going to be connected unless we connect another bit that is contiguous.” They constantly change their commercial decisions. We try to help them to make sensible decisions that fit with our subsidy plans, but it is not always easy. That also applies to the shared rural network, which obviously deals with mobile connectivity. A large number of masts have been put up through the shared rural network, including in large chunks of Wales.
Liz Saville Roberts
I congratulate the Minister’s BDUK officers, who are really useful. The radio teleswitch service switch-off will affect people, and it is starting to happen on 30 June—just over a month from now. There are 11,000 households in Wales that are presently dependent on it, and if they do not have access to signal, as many off-grid homes do not, it will have an immediate effect on them. I beg the Minister to discuss with his colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero how to resolve that for vulnerable people.
Chris Bryant
I am very grateful for the last bit of that, because the right hon. Lady reminds me that I need to talk to my colleagues in DESNZ about that. It is not directly my responsibility but, if she writes to me about it, I am happy to get it to DESNZ or to ensure she gets a response from DESNZ as soon as possible. She makes a perfectly legitimate point, and we need to get that right. I thought she was talking about a different switch-off, which is why I was confused.
Reporting of mobile coverage is something that frustrates many of us. The Ofcom site may say, “96% of all four networks available everywhere across the whole of your constituency,” but I say, “No, you can’t get a signal anywhere in Hannah Street in the middle of Porth—end of story.” I have been in discussion with Ofcom, and we have exchanged letters, which I have placed in the Library of the House of Commons, about how it is going to change its reporting.
That reporting has historically been based in part on two things: first, the coverage predicted by the mobile phone companies, which might not necessarily match people’s experience; and, secondly, 2 megabits per second, which frankly is of no earthly use to anybody—most of us now want 5 megabits per second. From about the middle of June, Ofcom will be reporting across the whole of the country on 2 megabits per second and 5 megabits per second, so people will have a much clearer understanding of the situation on the ground. I hope that might drive further commercial investment from the mobile phone operators, which will say, “You know what? We need to make sure we have more masts in this area, because frankly it’s not good enough.”
The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) mentioned Chichester; I have Godalming in my head, because I was at the Pizza Express there one Saturday evening and I could not order a taxi because there was no mobile signal at all. You would think that in the middle of Godalming, with the former Chancellor of the Exchequer as its Member of Parliament, that would have been sorted. There are lots of places like that around the country where the mobile signal simply is not good enough and we need to strengthen it.
Much of that will be me trying to get the mobile companies to work harder to make sure that that works across the whole of the country. I want to work out with them what some of the problems are, and whether those are to do with the planning issues that have already been referred to. It seems to me bonkers that we would even consider building a new housing estate without making sure that it has proper mobile signal available and proper connectivity of every kind. One would think that that would just be quintessentially part of the offer. These are all issues that we are going to address.
The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset asked me three specific questions—I try my best to answer specific questions when people ask them, in the hope that that will encourage people to ask specific questions. First, she asked me about the promised map. That should be happening fairly soon. “Soon”, obviously, is a parliamentary word that has a moderate quantity of meaning, but I am trying to make it as fast as I possibly can. The advantage that will come roughly in the middle of June is that Ofcom will be providing a completely different understanding of mobile coverage in all our constituencies, which will be helpful.
I too thank everybody in BDUK; I think that when we have done the drop-in sessions for MPs, everybody has found it very helpful. It has been able to provide specific details about what is happening in a particular village and a particular street. We will continue to do that, so I would say, “If anybody has not booked in, please do.”
The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset asked me what would happen in the spending review. I will not answer that question, because I do not know what will happen in the spending review. As I said, our ambition is to get full fibre to as much of the population as we possibly can, as fast as we possibly can, and our ambition is to get to 5G stand-alone. For many public services, 5G stand-alone would be far more useful than a version of 3G that is not very efficient and not very functioning. For instance, the police would be able to use 5G stand-alone. People would be able to download video, to take part in video conferencing and so on.
We also need to do better at enabling people to have mobile signal inside their home and not just outside their home. I live in Wales and my house is stone built, which means whatever signal I get in the garden is not very available inside. I moved to VoIP, or voice over internet protocol, because I know how to do that—but of course many people do not, so we need to enable that more.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Minister asked for specific questions. Part of the problem is that the cost of customer acquisition is four to five times larger in rural Britain than it is in urban areas, so the big companies prioritise urban areas, where they can find a lot of customers, leaving rural areas to small businesses that then face the capital cost issue that he refers to. My specific question is this: how can the Government help those small businesses that are trying to connect rural communities to go faster?
Chris Bryant
That is precisely what Project Gigabit is designed to do. That is what we are doing, and it has been a significant investment already. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been to one of our drop-in sessions with BDUK staff, but they would be very happy to go through every part of his constituency and work through precisely what we are doing to try to help.
I need to temper people’s expectations about the speed at which some of these things can happen, partly because there are skills needs out there that must be addressed. There is likely to be, I would guess, some consolidation in the altnet market in the weeks and months ahead. In addition, where there has been competition between them, some of the altnets have ended up putting in ducts and poles, which are not exactly welcome in local communities that have never had poles before. It is not always an easy thing to arrange.
I want to correct the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) on one thing, because she referred to the Government’s switch-off process. It is not a Government switch-off process; it is led by the industry, for the very fine reason that copper is failing. The number of occasions on which copper is now failing far exceeds the problems we have had in any other way.
The thing that keeps me awake at night is, if people are moved from copper to fibre—they have an entitlement under the universal service obligation to a landline-only fibre connection, if they want it—whether their telecare device will work with that. That is why, since I was elected to this post, I have worked with the industry as hard as I possibly can to address some of those issues. We have been working with local authorities to identify all the vulnerable customers, trying to make sure that the operators switch people over only when all these issues have been dealt with and they know that their telecare device will still work, and saying to the telecare companies that they should stop selling kit that will work only in an analogue system and not in the new system.
On top of that, many companies have now moved to a much longer battery life back up than the one hour provided for by Ofcom. That is not Government-led, but obviously, we are trying to make sure that the sector and the industry deliver in a way that is safe for all our constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Parkinson’s Disease
(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
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered care for Parkinson’s patients.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Like many colleagues across the House, I was proud to mark Parkinson’s Awareness Month last month. This annual observance is more than a symbolic gesture; it is a vital opportunity to raise awareness, challenge misconceptions, and advocate for the thousands of people across the UK who live with Parkinson’s every day. It is also a time to reflect on the progress we have made and, more importantly, the work that still lies ahead.
Parkinson’s is a condition that touches every corner of our society. It affects over 150,000 people in the UK, and that number is expected to rise to 172,000 by 2030. In my constituency of Colne Valley, there are an estimated 253 people living with Parkinson’s. These are not just statistics; they are our neighbours, our friends and our family members, and behind each number is a story of resilience, of daily challenges and of hope.
Parkinson’s is a progressive neurological condition. It is complex, degenerative and life-limiting. It affects movement, speech, cognition and mental health. There is no cure, and while treatments exist to manage symptoms, their effectiveness often diminishes over time. The condition manifests differently in each person: some may experience tremors and stiffness, while others struggle with depression—
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes for a Division in the House.
Paul Davies
This variability makes Parkinson’s particularly challenging to diagnose, treat and manage. In West Yorkshire, the integrated care board is responsible for planning and delivering care for people with Parkinson’s. In 2023-24, spending on hospital admissions for Parkinson’s patients in our area rose by nearly 5%, with each admission costing more than £6,000. These figures underscore the urgent need for a more proactive, community-based approach to care—one that prevents hospitalisations and supports people to live well at home.
Today I want to highlight five critical areas in which we must act to improve care for people living with Parkinson’s: workforce shortages, support from diagnosis, timely medication, prescription charges, and access to innovation.
There is a severe shortage of neurologists and Parkinson’s specialists in the UK, and neurology services are meeting the 18-week referral target only about half of the time. The UK ranks near the bottom in Europe for the number of neurologists per capita. This shortage leads to delayed diagnoses, missed treatment windows, and a lack of access to essential multidisciplinary care. Only 44% of patients in England have access to an occupational therapist, 62% to a physiotherapist, and just 40% to a speech and language therapist. These professionals are not luxuries; they are essential to managing the condition and maintaining quality of life. Investing in this workforce is not only clinically necessary, but financially prudent.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
One of my constituents is a strong advocate for the Parky charter. I understand that the Government cannot commit to everything that is in the charter, but does my hon. Friend agree that, at every fiscal event from now until the end of this Labour Government, they should seriously consider investing in these services and the professions that he talks about, or at the very least outline exactly what they are doing to provide support for people with neurological conditions?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is crucial. We know the impact of Parkinson’s on individuals, and later I will mention two constituents I have been working with. I know the impact that it has on the community.
Parkinson’s costs the UK £3 billion annually. Much of that is due to unplanned hospital admissions and the lost productivity of unpaid carers. Too many people with Parkinson’s feel abandoned after receiving their diagnosis. Nearly a quarter report not being given adequate information or access to support services. That is totally unacceptable.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I defer to the hon. Member’s great wisdom on this matter, and he helpfully outlined the points that he intends to cover, but I want to add another aspect to the debate. The Government’s review of disability benefits may lead to pressure on people in receipt of personal independence payments, and it is poorly understood that people receive those payments to provide for adjustments that allow them to continue to work. Does he agree that the Government have an opportunity to learn from the system in Scotland? Scotland’s adult disability payment is a much more humane process, and it could support people in receipt of personal independence payments who have Parkinson’s, which is a fluctuating condition and may be missed.
Paul Davies
We have to keep an open mind, look at what is being done in other places, countries and regions, and learn from that. We should take that on board and relate any changes in the future to good practice elsewhere. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention.
A diagnosis of Parkinson’s is life-changing, and patients deserve immediate, comprehensive support. That is why Parkinson’s UK launched Parkinson’s Connect, which is a pioneering programme that enables healthcare professionals to refer newly diagnosed patients directly to a network of support. This includes access to specialist nurses, care advisers, local support groups and educational resources.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I want to look at things in a positive way for a moment. In my constituency, the local newspaper, the Ardrossan and Saltcoats Herald, highlights that the North Ayrshire table tennis club holds classes for people with Parkinson’s, and that the activity has been very well received. In 2024, a constituent of mine, Steve Morley from Stevenston, who took up table tennis to help with his symptoms after his Parkinson’s diagnosis, played at the World Masters in Rome. That is excellent. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to provide support for those with Parkinson’s who are keen to keep active?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree. This is not a case of placing people with Parkinson’s in the corner and providing them with medication; this is about helping them to lead full lives, improving their quality of life and aiding them to do what they want to do. I know from people I have met in the Parkinson’s community that that is exactly what they want to do, so I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
Early intervention can make a profound difference in how patients manage their condition and maintain their independence. For people with Parkinson’s, receiving medication on time—within 30 minutes of the prescribed schedule—is not a convenience; it is a necessity. Delays can lead to severe symptoms, including immobility, pain and, in extreme cases, life-threatening complications. However, more than half of hospitalised patients report problems receiving their medication on time.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
A constituent of mine was diagnosed with Parkinson’s at the age of 61. Individual sufferers can experience the symptoms to varying degrees day by day, which brings into question the effectiveness of PIP assessments, the results of which can vary depending on when they are carried out. With medical assistance hard to come by, charities such as Parkinson’s UK and Cure Parkinson’s are vital to sufferers. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in thanking them and similar organisations for their support to these thousands of people across the country.
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree—the role they play is vital in terms of supporting this community. To be truthful, the people I have met in those groups are inspirational, as is the work they do, so I thank them for that.
NHS England’s medicine safety improvement programme, running from 2024 to 2027, is a welcome step. It aims to ensure that time-critical medications are administered promptly in hospitals, but we must ensure that the programme is fully implemented and that its findings are acted upon across all NHS trusts. Timely medication is a basic right for Parkinson’s patients, and we must treat it as such. In England, people with Parkinson’s still face prescription charges, unlike in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. These charges can be a significant burden, especially for working-age patients, who may already face reduced income due to their condition. Research shows that eliminating these charges could reduce hospital admissions and save the NHS money, but Parkinson’s remains absent from the list of conditions exempt from charges—a list that has not been meaningfully updated in more than 60 years. It is time for a review. We must ensure that no one is forced to choose between their health and their finances.
New treatments such as Produodopa, which was approved for NHS use in 2024, offer hope for those with severe symptoms. This medication could be life-changing for patients whose symptoms are not well managed by the existing treatments. However, due to staffing and funding constraints, many hospitals are unable to offer it. We must ensure that all patients who need innovative treatments, such as Produodopa, can access them, and that the NHS is equipped to adopt new therapies quickly and equitably. Innovation must not be a postcode lottery.
I will now turn briefly to my constituency. Since being elected, I have had the privilege of meeting Dr Chris Ryan and Mrs Liz Ryan MBE. Over a cup of tea in February, they shared their experiences and highlighted the urgent need for better Parkinson’s care in Kirklees. Liz, who received an MBE for her services to education, continues to be a pillar of our community despite her diagnosis. Together they have organised local events, including a Parkinson’s choir that brings joy and support to many.
Following our meeting, I wrote to Kirklees council and Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS foundation trust to ask what more can be done. I also contacted the Department of Health and Social Care regarding regular consultations and better medication management, and the Minister informed me that the neurology service specification is being updated, and will be published later this year. Although remote consultations are helpful they are not always suitable for Parkinson’s patients, who require regular, holistic in-person care. I urge the Government to consult with Parkinson’s UK during this review.
I also had the pleasure of attending the Big Sing for Parkinson’s on World Parkinson’s Day. The event was organised by the “Movers & Shakers” podcast, and it was a celebration of community, resilience and hope. As I said earlier, it was absolutely inspirational; to witness that community, and the strength of community spirit and determination to drive through with their lives, was incredible. The group also published the Parky charter, outlining five key needs for people with Parkinson’s—needs that are still unmet. This year, two Big Sings were held: the one I attended in Huddersfield, and the other in London. They brought together people in solidarity and song.
As we move forward, let us remember that Parkinson’s Awareness Month is not just about raising awareness, but taking meaningful action. It is about listening to those with lived experience, supporting families and carers, and ensuring that our health system is equipped to meet the needs of every person living with Parkinson’s.
Parkinson’s is a condition that demands our attention, compassion and action. By addressing workforce shortages, supporting patients from diagnosis, ensuring timely medication, removing financial barriers, and embracing innovation, we can dramatically improve the lives of those living with Parkinson’s.
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
We have five Back-Bench speakers. I will call the Front Benchers at 5.23 pm, so I will let hon. Members make a judgment on that. We will start with the ever-succinct and effective Ed Morello.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart—especially after that flattery. I congratulate the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this important debate.
Parkinson’s, as has been said, is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world. But behind every statistic is a family, a carer, a friend—someone whose daily life is shared by this illness. My constituents have written to me about their experiences of loved ones living with the disease. The stories they have shared are heart-breaking, with long waits for specialist care, difficulties accessing the right medication on time, and exhausting battles for financial and social support. I know I speak for many here when I say that we must do more.
Parkinson’s is a progressive condition, with more than 40 possible symptoms affecting movement, sleep, mental health, speech, eating and swallowing. Nearly half of those living with it will experience anxiety or depression, and more than half will develop psychotic symptoms as the condition progresses. Across the country, there are long waits for specialist care, a lack of multidisciplinary teams with Parkinson’s experience, and serious difficulties in accessing vital medication in a timely and consistent way.
We urgently need to overhaul the way that care is provided for people with Parkinson’s, particularly in rural areas. That begins with primary care. GPs are the front door to the NHS, yet we know that continuity of care is beginning to be eroded. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for everyone with a long-term condition such as Parkinson’s to have access to a named GP—someone who can understand their history and needs, and can advocate for timely referrals and co-ordinated care.
This is not just about funding more; it is about funding smarter. Primary and community care can prevent some hospital admissions and provide medication and essential support for those who cannot easily travel. That is especially important in rural areas like mine, where distance, isolation and sparse public transport already pose significant barriers to treatment.
Care services are struggling with conditions like Parkinson’s and have been stretched to breaking point by Government decisions and a lack of funding. Weldmar Hospicecare in West Dorset is a lifeline for so many families. Earlier this year, NHS Dorset announced a £400,000 cut to its fast-track funding, starting next April. Weldmar also faces a £600,000 increase in costs as a result of rising national insurance contributions and other pressures. It already raises 60% of its NHS-commissioned care through charitable donations, and that is unsustainable in the long term.
The same goes for our community pharmacies, which are vital for people with Parkinson’s, especially in rural communities. They are not just dispensaries; they provide healthcare consultations, medical reviews and early advice, often acting as the first point of contact for worried patients. Yet the funding model they rely on is outdated and inadequate, leaving many rural pharmacies on the brink of collapse. If we are serious about reducing health inequalities, we must ringfence funding for essential services and not allow it to disappear into ever-wider budget allocations.
We owe it to everyone living with Parkinson’s, and to the families, the carers and the health workers supporting them, to do better. That means listening to the voices of those people affected, ending the postcode lottery and making sure that no one, wherever they live, faces this devastating disease alone.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in this debate, Mr Stuart, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this important debate. A family member of mine was diagnosed with Parkinson’s about two and a half to three years ago, so although I am not an expert on the issue, I understand how difficult it can be for family members, friends and the community. Unfortunately, my good friend from Yorkshire—my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley—has used up all my talking points, so I will keep my speech brief.
Many colleagues have pointed out that 153,000 people in the UK have Parkinson’s, but the figure predicted for 2030 will rise to 172,000. That is a significant increase in five short years, so we must do more to support people and medical practitioners in terms of Parkinson’s. This point has also been made but, sadly, the Parkinson’s workforce in the NHS has been facing a shortage for over 30 years. It has been neglected and the Government should address that urgently.
The Association of British Neurologists found that 1.1 full-time equivalent neurologists per 100,000 head of population were involved in patient care in the UK. If we compare that with France and Germany, the figure is one neurologist per—less than—25,000 head of population. The UK ranks 44th out of 45 European nations for the number of neurologists per head of population. That figure is simply not good enough.
The Parkinson’s UK programme, Parkinson’s Connect, has been mentioned, and I urge the Government to roll it out across the NHS in England to make sure that more people with the condition get the support they need. This Labour Government have made a decision to freeze prescription charges for 2025-26. I really welcome that, but unfortunately, Parkinson’s is not on the list of medical conditions that are exempt from prescription charges. My understanding is that that list was decided in 1968 and has barely changed since. Independent research suggests that scrapping prescription charges in England for Parkinson’s would save the NHS £93 per person per year, and reduce A&E visits by approximately 9%. I call on the Government to scrap prescription charges for people with Parkinson’s.
I will end on the blue badge scheme. Sadly, many people who suffer from Parkinson’s also suffer from a postcode lottery, where the local authority decides whether or not they will get a blue badge for their transport. A lot more research needs to be done on that. The Department for Transport and the Department of Health and Social Care should work together to ensure that people with Parkinson’s get the support that they need.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for raising this issue. As Members are well aware, I have been a vocal opponent of the changes to PIP, and I will concentrate specifically on PIP issues, how they affect people with Parkinson’s, and why it is important that the Government are careful about what they do with the PIP benefit and money in relation to those who have this disease. When we consider the care that is needed for those who suffer from Parkinson’s, it is a perfect example of those who might well miss out on the care that they need the most.
The hon. Gentleman set the scene well in relation to the problems that come with Parkinson’s, and others who have spoken also referred to them. We can all rightly understand how the personal independence payment costs may overstretch local authorities and providers—the NHS on the mainland and our underfunded trusts in Northern Ireland. The entire purpose of PIP, of course, is not to compensate for the illness in some way; it is to help someone live with the practicalities of the illness. That is the purpose of PIP and why I support it. I am really concerned about what might happen.
PIP is not a supplement to keep people off work. It can help people in work, which is part of what the Government say the purpose is. PIP exists to help offset the cost of being sick or disabled and, as such, is an effective health intervention. A recent freedom of information request, however, found that 36% of people with neurological disorders were at very high risk of losing out on PIP. That could be even higher for people with Parkinson’s, as even if someone has scored four points previously in a “daily living” category, the rapidly fluctuating nature of the condition means that it is not guaranteed that that will be scored again.
We need to understand what Parkinson’s is, what it delivers and the importance of it. Without the financial support needed to help with the additional costs of sickness and disability, and with many households losing passported carer’s allowance, unmet need will likely transfer to local authorities, as part of their statutory obligations. I am concerned about the scenario the Government could find themselves in if they remove or reduce personal independence payments, and take away the carer’s allowance. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), said during Prime Minister’s questions today that a family could lose £12,000 a year; other calculations that indicate it could be £10,000 a year. The financial impact will be ginormous.
Cameron Thomas
I am glad that the hon. Member has brought this point up. Hon. Members have mentioned that there are 153,000 sufferers in the UK, 10% of whom rely on PIP. It is vital for them to live and work independently. I share the hon. Member’s concern that any reduction in sufferers’ access to PIP will not only have serious financial consequences but lead to a diminishment of their independence.
Jim Shannon
That sums up the thrust of my comments. I am really concerned by what the Government are pursuing and the impacts that it will have. This is coming from the people on the frontline—I would call them the people on the coal quay—who understand exactly what it means.
Equally, if people with Parkinson’s are no longer able to afford the extra heating needed to help with their debilitating muscle spasms, they are more likely to have a fall. That will increase hospital admissions and stays, as well as social care support for fractures and joint replacements that could have been prevented by making sure that people retain their moneys and do not see corners cut in their care. It is not just individual health outcomes that will be affected. With a quarter of councils in England saying that they are on the brink of bankruptcy and other providers across the UK being stretched, this policy could have devastating impacts on local services.
I will conclude with this point, because I want to keep to time, Chair. When we think about care for Parkinson’s patients, we must think of the effect of removing PIP from those people. I know that it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I ask that he convey the concern that has been expressed in the debate to the relevant Minister in DWP and fight the fight to ensure that these people have the care that they need in the most cost-effective way possible.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this important debate. Over the last few years, too many patients living with Parkinson’s disease have sadly been left facing unacceptable waits to be diagnosed and treated; they then face further challenges accessing the medication they need. That has ripple effects across our communities—it certainly does in my communities in South Dorset—as the neurological condition impacts not just the person with the diagnosis but their family and loved ones.
Many Members will be very aware from their inboxes that thousands of patients in England—far too many—are on a waiting list for neurological services, and around half are left waiting for more than the NHS target of 18 weeks. That means that the illnesses of many patients may have gone undiagnosed, with their conditions worsening as they wait to be seen by the necessary specialist doctor.
Patients living in coastal communities, including in South Dorset, often encounter specific challenges when accessing healthcare, and they also face higher incidences of long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s. Too often, patients in my community are confronted with a long wait for an appointment with a specialist and a long journey to the nearest major hospital. That problem is compounded by a national shortage of Parkinson’s specialists.
More than 20 constituents have written to me to raise this worrying state of affairs. Parkinson’s is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world, and we must do more to support those whose lives have been changed by the disease. I join my constituents in South Dorset and charities such as Parkinson’s UK in their support for the Parky charter. It sets out five principles to improve care for everyone with a Parkinson’s diagnosis. The Home Secretary has rightly pledged to support those principles, which include delivering referrals in under 18 weeks; providing comprehensive information; giving automatic access to free prescriptions; comprehensive care; and increasing funding for research into the condition. On that last point, Parkinson’s is deemed incurable, but it does not have to stay that way. Treatment options are very limited in this country. More funding could certainly enable the development of innovative, life-changing treatments, or even a cure in the longer term.
Progress has already been made on the five points in the Parky charter. This Labour Government have already begun clearing the NHS backlog, with waiting lists down by some 219,000 since July, and I believe that their elective reform plan will mean more neurological appointments every year. By providing extra appointments, scans and operations, in particular at evenings and weekends, the Government can clear the backlog so that everyone is seen within the critical NHS target of 18 weeks.
More broadly, I hope that the Government’s 10-year plan for our NHS will radically reform how people with long-term conditions such as Parkinson’s disease are treated through the NHS. The Health Secretary’s action to clear the backlog, the 10-year plan and the elective reform plan have begun to improve care for those with Parkinson’s disease, but we can and must go so much further. I hope that today’s debate will galvanise support across the House for the vital mission of ensuring timely diagnosis, comprehensive care and dignity for all people living with Parkinson’s. My constituents and their loved ones and families deserve nothing less.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing the debate. It is interesting that three of the five Back Benchers who have spoken in it are from Dorset. I do not know what that says about our population, but there we go.
Edward Morello
I will answer that with one of my favourite facts about Dorset: if we were a country, we would be the oldest in the world by population age. We are older than Japan.
Vikki Slade
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is correct. We have the Jurassic coast, but we are also the oldest county.
My daughter is currently undertaking a PhD in the causes of Parkinson’s, and I should also declare that I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s. Although life expectancy for those living with Parkinson’s is much improved, their quality of life is deeply impacted. They are incredibly vulnerable to falls and infections, limiting their ability to work. The recent changes to PIP are causing deep distress to the community. I look forward to hearing how the Government will recognise the needs of those with fluctuating neurological conditions in assessments.
However, I want to focus on the issues of treatment and care for patients. There are 216 people currently registered as living with Parkinson’s in my constituency. I have been told that there is virtually no service of specialist nurses or active phone line support in my community. That leaves vulnerable people isolated and at higher risk of traumatic, expensive and often unnecessary hospital admissions.
The Minister will be aware that an absolute diagnosis of Parkinson’s is possible only post-mortem—I pay tribute to the work of the brain bank at Imperial and that of the similar motor neurone disease brain bank at King’s College London. We therefore rely on specialists to focus on the symptoms in order to make a diagnosis, but there is a significant problem, which was explained to me this week by a GP at Walford Mill surgery in Wimborne when I spent the morning shadowing him. He told me that wait times for diagnosis for Parkinson’s can be more than six months, so experienced GPs who are able to prescribe medications have a dilemma. They can help their patients by prescribing medications to reduce the symptoms, but in doing so they make it more difficult for the specialists to diagnose the condition. If the referral-to-treatment times were dramatically improved, GPs could ask people to wait, but with the current delays, it seems cruel to ask both those living with symptoms and their family doctor to do that.
That takes me to my next point: the lack of neurologists. The UK is 44th out of 45 countries in Europe for number of neurologists per head of population, and the waiting list for neurological conditions stands at a staggering 232,994 people. According to Alzheimer’s Research, neurological conditions are the leading cause of global ill health, with 3.4 billion people suffering from one, which makes it seem even crazier that we have this problem. It is not only that: Parkinson’s, along with other neuro conditions such as functional neurological disorder and achalasia, which I have raised previously, require multidisciplinary teams to look after patients, and local NHS systems just are not set up to do that properly. Will the Minister ensure that the NHS 10-year plan will deliver ways of working that will support those with such conditions?
Finally, I will touch on prescription charges. I know the issue has been raised before, but the list of conditions for free medication has not changed since 1968. It is shocking that Parkinson’s is not one of those conditions. My constituent, Carole, who was diagnosed aged just 46, is finding that really tough and believes, as I do, that a full review of these conditions for working-age people should be undertaken now.
The final word must go to two of my constituents. Malcolm, from Wimborne, said:
“I have suffered from Parkinson’s for 10 years. It has changed my life completely for the worse. I cannot speak, I have frequent falls, we need better support.”
Danielle, also from Wimborne, who was diagnosed at 38, said:
“This is becoming more common with younger people…The impact of this disease on my life is immeasurable. It is more than a struggle. It is a fight every day. We need these issues addressed urgently to reduce the burden.”
I hope that the Minister will be able to offer us some comfort.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing today’s debate. As hon. Members in the Chamber have noted, Parkinson’s does not just affect movement; it affects every part of life. It disrupts eating, swallowing, sleeping, mental wellbeing and independence. Although more than 40 symptoms are recognised, each person’s experience is different—as unique as their fingerprint.
I want to focus a little on one group today: the experience of women with Parkinson’s is often more complex, more misunderstood and more neglected. That was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine in Mid Sussex, whose mother was diagnosed six years ago; it took her mother five years to get an accurate diagnosis. Women are more likely to be misdiagnosed, and more likely to be underdiagnosed. They are more likely to experience delays in treatment and to have their symptoms dismissed or attributed to anxiety or the menopause. Some research even suggests that women’s Parkinson’s symptoms may fluctuate more dramatically due to hormonal cycles, but we do not yet fully understand that because, historically, as in so many other contexts, women have been under-represented in clinical trials. Women with Parkinson’s are also more likely to carry the invisible burdens of being carers themselves, all the while struggling with a progressive neurological disease.
We need gender-specific research, treatment strategies and clinical training. We need health professionals who understand that Parkinson’s in women is a critical gap in care that we must close. When I submitted a written parliamentary question about that recently, the response revealed that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has no specific guidelines for Parkinson’s that reflect those gender differences. We need, as a society, to realise how differently the disease can present in and affect women.
Across the board, people with Parkinson’s face long waits for specialist care, delays in diagnosis and difficulty in accessing essential treatments. I recently talked to Richard, a constituent of mine in Mid Sussex who has Parkinson’s. He spoke of the profound difference that such treatments can make; he told me that they make life-changing differences to him. Yet for too many they are inaccessible due to postcode lotteries, which hon. Members have mentioned, and a lack of trained staff. What is perhaps worse is that some patients in hospitals are not even receiving their medication on time. For people with Parkinson’s, that delay can mean the difference between mobility and being bedbound, between clarity and confusion, and between dignity and indignity. We have to do better.
We must also talk about mental health. Nearly half of all people with Parkinson’s experience anxiety and depression. As the disease progresses, up to 60% develop psychotic symptoms, and they are up to six times more likely to develop dementia. Those are staggering figures.
What needs to change? We Liberal Democrats are calling for urgent reform, starting with a full review of the medicine supply chain, to ensure that no person has to live in fear of running out of vital medication. We want a faster approval process for new treatments through an expansion of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s capacity—not slashing it, as the Government have done by cutting 40% of its workforce. Every person with Parkinson’s or other long-term conditions needs access to a named GP, because continuity of care should not be a luxury. We also need to restore the importance of mental health in NHS planning. The Government’s decision to let the share of NHS funding going to mental health to fall and to scrap targets for dementia and mental health was wrong and totally short-sighted.
We also know that family carers are at breaking point. I thank the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), for raising the issue of the personal independence payment. According to the Government’s own assessment, 150,000 family carers are going to be impacted by 2029-30 as a result of the proposals on PIP, and that is on top of the 800,000 people losing PIP. Has the Minister pressed his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions on that point when it comes to conditions such as Parkinson’s?
People with Parkinson’s should be supported not only to live, but to live with independence and dignity. Parkinson’s is cruel: it steals movement, independence and, far too often, hope. But we can fight back with the right policies, the right funding and the right political will. We can make a difference. Let us listen to the voices of people living with Parkinson’s—including women, whose voices and needs have been overlooked for far too long.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for his role in securing this vital debate and all Members who contributed.
As we have heard today, Parkinson’s affects 153,000 people in the UK; more shockingly, every hour, two more people are diagnosed. For me, the issue is personal: a close family member was initially diagnosed and treated for Parkinson’s, but more recently that diagnosis was revised to progressive supranuclear palsy—a rarer and more aggressive condition. That journey from uncertainty to diagnosis and then to living with a progressive neurological condition has profoundly impacted me. I have witnessed first hand the critical importance of early diagnosis, emotional support, specialist care and—above all—hope.
Last month, ahead of World Parkinson’s Day, I met representatives of Parkinson’s UK and individuals affected by the condition. I heard powerful accounts from volunteers about the daily challenges that they face with mobility issues, speech difficulties and the emotional toll on themselves and their families. I will continue to commend Parkinson’s UK for its tireless work, both across my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, including Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, and across the country, providing advice, support and advocacy at every stage of the Parkinson’s journey.
However, I have been concerned that the Labour Government have yet to identify Parkinson’s as a strategic priority. Will the Minister confirm what level of funding is being allocated to Parkinson’s research this year? How does that compare with the past five years? During my tenure at the NHS Getting It Right First Time programme, I was involved in the publication of the neurology national specialty report. That analysis highlighted significant variation in neurological services across England, particularly in managing conditions such as Parkinson’s disease. The recommendations are essential for reducing disparities and improving outcomes, so will the Minister commit to addressing in detail the priorities in the report, beyond general references to cutting waiting lists?
The previous, Conservative Government invested more than £79 million into research into Parkinson’s between 2019 and 2024; in 2022-23, the National Institute for Health and Care Research enabled 114 studies related to Parkinson’s through its infrastructure. We also rolled out a new treatment for advanced Parkinson’s disease through the NHS, which started in February last year, offering an additional option for patients whose symptoms were no longer responding to oral medication. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government plan to continue that momentum. What research funding will be maintained or increased and what new treatment options are being supported or explored? The new Government have committed to updating the last Conservative Government’s long-term workforce plan. When will they announce the detail and what specialist training there will be for Parkinson’s nurses and clinicians? Will they maintain the focus on specialist care?
Charities such as Parkinson’s UK do an amazing job, but as with many other sectors they are having to respond to higher taxes and squeezed funding. Will the Minister outline how he is talking to the charitable sector to ensure that the changes that the Government are making in the Budget are not damaging Parkinson’s care?
Finally, what guarantees can the Minister offer that the recent restructuring of NHS England will not worsen access to Parkinson’s services? With 50% cuts to integrated care boards, can the Minister reassure people that Parkinson’s sufferers and their families will not be disadvantaged?
Members from across the House are united in wanting to improve treatment, support and outcomes for people with Parkinson’s. In response to a debate I spoke in earlier this month, the Public Health Minister said that she would be happy to meet with stakeholder organisations to discuss the Parky charter and the progress of Parkinson’s Connect pilots. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline whether the Public Health Minister has arranged those meetings and, if she has not, when they might happen. A meeting would prove the Government’s action on workforce, waiting times, integration, support for carers, and access to research and innovation.
My colleagues in the Conservative party and I stand ready to work constructively with the Government, and with Members from all parties, to ensure that progress is not only protected but accelerated. Let us match awareness with action, for only with action will there be hope.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for securing this important debate. He spoke with real passion and conviction, as did hon. Members from across the Chamber. I do not know whether we have a full house from Dorset, but we have the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello), my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) and the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade); it was great to hear their thoughts. We also heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke, as always, with great passion and conviction. This debate follows closely on the heels of the Backbench Business debate on Parkinson’s Awareness Month, which was led by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). I thank the Members who have spoken in both debates.
I pay tribute to the invaluable work of NHS clinicians, charities and care workers who spend every single day improving the lives of people with Parkinson’s disease. I am particularly encouraged by the Parky charter, which is raising public and professional awareness about the needs of the Parkinson’s community and the importance of timely diagnosis, comprehensive care and dignity for all people with Parkinson’s. Organisations that fight for patients, such as Parkinson’s UK, are at the heart of our policies for the NHS, which is broken but not beaten. We look forward to working with them to fix the foundations of the NHS and to make it work for people with Parkinson’s in Colne Valley, throughout Yorkshire and across the country.
Parkinson’s disease can severely impact every aspect of a person’s daily life, as well as the lives of their family and unpaid carers. It can put people under immense strain, and they deserve additional support to help them live with the condition. Around 153,000 people live with Parkinson’s in the UK, and it is the fastest growing neurological condition in the world. About 16.5 million people in the UK, or one in six of the population, have a neurological condition, and 600,000 people are diagnosed with one each year. Together, neurological conditions cause around 140,000 deaths every year in the UK—one fifth of all deaths—and they are the leading cause of disability.
In 2019, the NHS spent just under £4.5 billion on neurological conditions and they cost the UK economy £96 billion, so tackling them presents a real opportunity not just for the Government’s health mission but for our growth mission. We must face the fact that patients are facing significant challenges, including not enough people in the places we need them, and delays to treatment and care, with long waiting times. We also listen to patients who tell us that they have experienced a lack of information and support.
We are acting to address those challenges, starting with our workforce. Parkinson’s nurses and neurologists are worth their weight in gold, and they are key to meeting patient demand. This summer, we will publish a refreshed long-term workforce plan, as a first step towards rebuilding our workforce over the next decade and treating patients on time again. We will ensure that the NHS has the right people, in the right places, with the right skills, to deliver the care that patients need when they need it. We will set out in black and white the numbers of doctors, nurses and other professionals who will be needed in five, 10 and 15 years’ time.
Turning to waiting lists, the NHS constitution sets out that patients should start consultant-led treatment within a maximum of 18 weeks from referral for non-urgent conditions. At the start of the year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister announced our elective reform plan, which sets out our approach to hitting that target by the end of this Parliament. We have already surpassed our manifesto pledge to deliver an extra 2 million elective appointments, seven months ahead of the deadline; we are now on 3 million appointments and counting. Many of those were appointments for treating Parkinson’s.
I know that there may be some people with Parkinson’s watching the debate at home and shouting at their telly, “Well, I am still waiting for treatment.” Although waiting lists are coming down, and recently fell for six months in a row, they are still high. I completely understand why people who are still waiting feel frustrated. I say to them: we are throwing the proverbial kitchen sink at waiting lists, and we will not stop until you see and feel the results.
The NHS has begun some important initiatives to improve its neurology services, including the neuroscience transformation programme, the Getting it Right First Time initiative, a strengthened clinical reference group and the appointment of a national clinical director for neurology. The NHS is focusing on improving patient experiences, addressing the disparities in care and ensuring that patients are given their medicines on time. The neuroscience transformation programme is focusing on faster diagnoses, better co-ordinated care and improved access to specialist services.
At the at the recent Backbench Business debate—and, of course, in this debate—a number of hon. Members spoke about personal independence payment as an important way of helping people to cope with the extra living costs of a disability or health condition. I am sure all Members would agree that those who can work should work. However, I am happy to reassure colleagues that our “Pathways to Work” Green Paper will make sure that people with the most severe lifelong health conditions who cannot work will see their incomes protected. We are consulting on the Green Paper to hear how best we can support those impacted by our reforms.
We continue to encourage research, which is advancing our understanding of Parkinson’s at breakneck speed, through targeted funding, infrastructure support and collaboration. For example, the UK Dementia Research Institute, sponsored by this Government, is partnering with Parkinson’s UK to establish a new £10 million research centre. The NIHR is supporting research that has discovered that eye scans can detect Parkinson’s disease up to seven years before symptoms appear, which helps people to receive treatment earlier and prepare themselves as best they can.
Research also underpins the entire drug discovery and development process. Produodopa is a groundbreaking new treatment for Parkinson’s disease, particularly for patients with advanced disease and severe motor fluctuations. It is revolutionary because it provides a continuous 24-hour infusion of medication via a small pump, allowing more consistent symptom control. The NHS rolled it out in February last year. It has been shown to improve motor function and has proved its worth by significantly improving the quality of life for people with advanced Parkinson’s.
At the debate on 1 May, many Members emphasised the importance of staying active. Indeed, there is strong scientific evidence that being physically active can help people to lead a healthier and happier life. For example, exercise can reduce the risk of major illnesses and lowers the risk of early death by up to a third. Our social prescribing programme is a key component of the NHS’s universal personalised care and a way for GPs or local agencies to refer people to a social prescribing link worker. Those workers give people time, focusing on what matters to them and taking a holistic approach to people’s health and wellbeing. They connect people to community groups and statutory services for practical and emotional support.
Looking forward, we have committed to publishing a 10-year plan for health to shift the focus of our NHS from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from treatment to prevention. In the meantime, we have taken steps towards those shifts through the home-based care pathway, which is providing comprehensive support and care for people with Parkinson’s in their own home, and through the NIHR project to test a non-invasive vibrational cueing system, helping people with Parkinson’s to maintain their walking as they go about their everyday lives.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing the debate. I declare an interest as a member of the APPG on Parkinson’s, as the son of a sufferer of Parkinson’s, and as the grandson of someone who died suffering of Parkinson’s. We all agree that, while there are real challenges, we must secure a cure for Parkinson’s. Does the Minister agree that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the partners, spouses and community groups that do so much to support people suffering from Parkinson’s as they go through not only horrific mobility loss but the associated deep psychiatric problems?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; our system could not survive without the amazing and heroic work of our unpaid carers. One of our Government’s actions that I am most proud of is the change to the carer’s allowance. We increased the number of hours for which a carer can work and still keep their carer’s allowance by raising the threshold from £151 to £196. I hope that is giving carers the flexibility that they need. Many carers want to work but it is immensely stressful for them to balance their working and caring responsibilities. I was very pleased that we could announce that change back in January, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is a lot more that we can do. I am working with colleagues in DWP and the Department for Business and Trade to look at how we can do more as a Government for unpaid carers. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to them; they are the lifeblood of our care system.
The consultation on our 10-year plan received over 190,000 responses, giving people with Parkinson’s and other conditions a voice in the future of healthcare. I want to conclude this debate by quoting just one of those voices—that of Winston, a former St John Ambulance worker from Lewisham. He said:
“People don’t always see what’s happening to me, or what Parkinson’s looks like on me. They don’t see me early in the morning. They see me looking nice and managing the condition as best I can. But I have to deal with my own bubble sometimes, and it gets burst, and things go all over the place.”
I am pleased that Winston is doing fantastically well and now sharing tips with people on how to improve their public speaking abilities. His words will resonate with anyone who has a long-term condition. Stories like his should remind us why we need a health service that sees the whole person, not just the condition, to give patients the dignity, care and respect that they deserve.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley again for securing this important debate, and I pay tribute to all Members for making it constructive and powerful. I look forward to working with Members on this matter.
Paul Davies
I thank all Members for their really thoughtful and powerful contributions; we heard a powerful consensus across the Chamber. We have heard from the Minister about the Government’s focus on making a difference. Clearly, the Parkinson’s community want to see change, and they want to see it as soon as possible. It is up to us to ensure that that happens, and I am sure that the Members in the Chamber will continue to do that.
I pay tribute to the groups supporting our Parkinson’s sufferers, and to those individuals themselves. I said this earlier, but it is hugely inspiring to talk to people in the Parkinson’s community. Their strength is remarkable. We need to repay that with change as soon as possible to help them live their lives to the full, and find a cure for this terrible condition.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered care for Parkinson’s patients.
Home Department
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Olivia Blake
Does the Minister agree that six weeks is a very short time for that consultation to run? Initially it was two weeks. Would not 12 weeks, as has been the case for various pieces of consultation undertaken by the organisation, fit better with the big issue that we are talking about today?
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend will be aware that the consultation on the draft updated code opened today.
[Official Report, 19 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 259WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra):
Seema Malhotra
My hon. Friend will be aware that the consultation on the draft updated code is expected to open this week.
Community Benefits and Shared Ownership for Low-carbon Infrastructure
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Today my Department is publishing a working paper on community benefits and shared ownership of clean energy infrastructure.
Britain is moving at speed to build the clean home-grown energy we need to deliver energy security, lower bills, good jobs and growth, and to protect future generations. Every wind turbine, solar panel and piece of grid infrastructure we construct helps protect families, businesses and the public finances from future fossil fuel shocks.
The Government are clear that communities are providing a vital service to the country when they host this infrastructure in the national interest. That is why our manifesto committed to ensure that communities directly benefit from infrastructure projects they host. The working paper is the first step to exploring how we may bring about these changes.
We are seeking views on the proposed introduction of a mandatory community benefit scheme for low carbon energy infrastructure in Great Britain, which would require developers to contribute a set amount to a community fund. This fund could be spent on local projects, such as school clubs, biodiversity projects, local insulation improvements, community sports and transport, and other initiatives—with the process led by communities, who would work with developers to tailor spending to local priorities.
Community benefits are already delivered on a voluntary basis across Great Britain, including in the solar, offshore and onshore wind industries. However, this is not consistent across sectors or locations, which is why the Government are considering mandating the provision of community benefit funds. This would create a level playing field across all developers and communities, ensuring consistency and fairness in application, while facilitating greater community engagement.
In addition, we are seeking views on how the Government can support the expansion of shared ownership of renewables. This offers communities the opportunity to invest in renewables projects, such as onshore wind or solar farms, and share in any profits. Shared ownership agreements will enable some communities to reinvest profits back into local initiatives, such as fuel poverty support and energy efficiency schemes, while increasing community acceptance of new infrastructure. The Government also recognise the importance of majority-owned community energy projects, and that is why the Great British Energy community fund will provide financial support to community energy groups to help prepare local energy projects this financial year.
The paper seeks evidence to further our understanding of current shared ownership practices in Great Britain and whether a voluntary approach to shared ownership is sufficient.
The working paper will be open for responses for an eight-week period. We look forward to hearing from communities, industry and others as we take the next steps in our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower.
[HCWS650]
World Health Assembly: Adoption of the Pandemic Agreement
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I would like to update the House regarding the international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response at the World Health Organisation. From 19 to 27 May, member states are convening at the World Health Assembly, the WHO’s main decision-making body, to discuss a wide range of global health issues. After three years of successful negotiations by member states, the pandemic agreement was adopted by the WHA on 20 May.
This is an historic moment, of which the UK and the rest of the world can be proud. The pandemic agreement represents an unprecedented opportunity to turn the hard lessons from covid-19 into lasting reform, by strengthening global pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. My last update to the House on 24 April outlined the benefits of the pandemic agreement and underlined that the agreement will respect the sovereignty of member states and protect our right to make independent, domestic public health decisions in the event of another pandemic. It should protect the NHS and the health of our people, and benefit our health security, economy and jobs, in line with our plan for change.
Now that the agreement has been adopted, an intergovernmental working group has been established to facilitate member states in negotiating and drafting an annex to the pandemic agreement. This annex will clarify the details of the pathogen access and benefit sharing system, including how it will operate. These negotiations will begin later this year. The UK will strongly advocate for expert input into the IGWG, to ensure the PABS system is both workable and effective. We will continue to work alongside our counterparts in the devolved Governments, overseas territories and crown dependencies, to ensure the development of a PABS system that works for the UK, the life sciences industry and our international partners.
Once the negotiations on the PABS annex have successfully concluded, the agreement, including the annex, will be open for signature. The agreement will not be binding on the UK as a matter of international law until the UK Government have ratified it in accordance with our own constitutional process. This would involve laying the agreement as a treaty before Parliament for scrutiny in the usual way.
I will continue to update the House at important and relevant junctures over the course of follow-up negotiations on the PABS system.
[HCWS651]
National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee takes note of the proposed National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the new National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation EN-7, which was laid before the House on 6 February. In particular, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, who is making her maiden speech. Redditch is not a million miles from Kings Heath, and it is great to welcome a fellow West Midlander to your Lordships’ House; I am sure we anticipate her contribution very much indeed. I am aware that the noble Lords, Lord Liddle and Lord Inglewood, have both withdrawn because they wish to be present for the EU-UK summit Statement, which is to be made shortly.
The Secretary of State and the Government have been clear that nuclear has a crucial role to play in powering Britain’s clean energy future. We see it as making an important contribution to helping the UK become a clean energy superpower, which in turn is a core part of the Prime Minister’s plan for change. For nuclear to play that crucial role, we need to support the construction of new power stations, including by improving how the planning system deals with such proposals. We have already introduced important reforms in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which I understand will be before your Lordships shortly. These will help us to consent to major infrastructure projects more efficiently—for example, by streamlining consultation requirements, providing flexibility in what consenting route is used and removing unnecessary elements of the judicial review process. We are also supporting the production of a strategic spatial energy plan by the National Energy System Operator, which will assess the optimal locations and types of energy infrastructure required to meet energy demand in future.
One of the most important ways we can support major infrastructure development is through national policy statements. These establish the type of infrastructure that is needed and the rules on site selection and mitigating impacts on communities and the environment. The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy, called EN-1, makes it clear that low-carbon energy infrastructure, including nuclear, is a critical national priority. In a context where electricity demand is expected to double by 2050, even with energy efficiency, EN-1 makes clear that the planning system places no limit on the amount of generating capacity that should be built. This new national policy statement, EN-7, will complement EN-1 and enable nuclear to play its crucial role in four ways.
First, EN-7 states the clear and unambiguous need for new nuclear to achieve energy security, support growth, and mitigate and adapt to climate change. Stating this fact in a national policy statement ensures that it shapes development consent decisions by the Secretary of State.
Secondly, EN-7 will allow, for the first time, developers to consider deploying the full range of nuclear fission technologies at any site in England and Wales that meets its criteria. This brings nuclear into line with other energy subsectors, where businesses routinely explore new growth opportunities without being restricted by assumptions about the scale or location of deployment. This flexibility will support new uses for nuclear, such as combined heat and power, hydrogen production and direct supply to high-demand users, such as heavy industry or AI data centres.
Thirdly, EN-7 imposes a single set of criteria appropriate to nuclear deployment at any scale and in any location. Infrastructure benefits everyone by providing the energy, transport connections, water and waste management capacity we need, but it can impact neighbouring communities and ecosystems. EN-7 supplements the impacts section of EN-1 with nuclear-specific detail on key areas including population density, flood protection and the use of water for cooling.
Fourthly, EN-7 goes further than previous national policy statements in clarifying the development consent process beside regulatory licences. Industry tells us that it is unsure of when and how to engage the various planning bodies and regulators, and that this is driving up costs and slowing delivery. This requires a multifaceted response, but EN-7 plays its part by clarifying that, first, the Secretary of State may decide that the low-carbon energy benefits of nuclear outweigh the residual risks remaining after mitigation; and, secondly, the Secretary of State should grant development consent if they are satisfied that there is no good reason why the project will not eventually gain regulatory approval.
Some of the responses have asked what EN-7 means for the sites listed in the previous national policy statement, EN-6. I want to make it clear to noble Lords that those sites will not be disadvantaged by EN-7, because both national policy statements have consistent criteria. Any of the advantages of the sites listed in EN-6 that are evident in a development consent application will be given great weight by EN-7. For example, EN-7 clearly requires a connection to the grid or end-user. This is what matters in practice when applications for development consent are being decided.
Our public consultation so far has found that stake- holders agree that EN-7 is a positive step forward. We received 77 responses from across industry, local authorities, campaigners and private individuals. A clear majority agree that EN-7 is future-proofed to deal with advancements in technology, applies the criteria properly and takes a sensible, pragmatic approach to population density requirements. A majority also agree with keeping the scope of EN-7 to nuclear projects with a generating capacity of at least 50 megawatts in England or 350 megawatts in Wales.
I also note that most respondents believe that we could do even more to support industry through the consenting and regulatory process. EN-7 could never solve this challenge on its own, which is why we are developing supplementary information for potential developers on the development consent process. Alongside the designation process for EN-7, we will seek input from industry and planning experts over the summer to develop it further.
We are also reviewing the regulatory regime in depth through the nuclear regulatory task force. This is examining measures to better support growth and innovation, including faster approvals of new reactor technology designs; international collaboration, potentially including the recognition of designs approved by other trusted safety regimes; and improved ways of working between regulators and industry. The regulatory task force is progressing swiftly. It completed its call for evidence on Monday this week, and in October it will report to the Prime Minister, the Secretaries of State for Energy and Defence and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is time limited in that respect.
We have received strong support for EN-7. The question of how to site nuclear power in light of small and advanced modular reactors has been pressing for years. We have consulted extensively with industry, planning and environmental experts, as well as the public, and now is the time to implement it.
In the time that I have been in this job, it has become clear that, compared with when we took the decision to go back to new nuclear in 2007, there has been a sea-change in support for nuclear. I believe there is a critical mass of support that recognises that nuclear is the essential baseload for a clean energy system and that we have a huge opportunity to grow and innovate in this country to develop a UK supply chain. I know that there is a certain frustration about a number of critical decisions that have to be made over the next few weeks. None the less, I hope that, as we go through that, we can make positive announcements that will lay the foundation for moving forward. EN-7 is clearly one of the policy statements that underpins the advances we want to make.
I look forward to the contributions of Members of the Committee to this interesting debate. I beg to move.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, like the Minister, I look forward very much to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Maclean. With her reputation and past work, I am sure she will bring a fresh mind. Fresh minds are certainly needed in this area, where technology is changing extremely fast—faster than some people realise.
If I could find a word to sum up my feelings about EN-7, it would be one borrowed from the Prime Minister, who uses it quite frequently. I am afraid it is “disappointment”. I am disappointed. When I went to get EN-7 from the Printed Paper Office, I thought the office had failed to give me all the adequate paper, because when I read it through, I could not find very much addressing all the energy issues that are preoccupying the people of our nation and the industry. I am sorry to say that it left me very disappointed. It is not very different from EN-6, which mentioned SMRs. It is not all that different from EN-1, published back in November 2023, which also mentioned SMRs and so on. There is a difference: the move towards more criteria-based decisions for sites, which I will come to in a moment, and more references throughout to SMRs. They are included in the words, but not very much in the action.
I sound—and feel—negative. When I opened it, I found that the very first sentence of the entire document, about demand doubling, is wrong. It does not seem to be understood by the department that we are running at about 65 gigawatts of electricity—these figures are rough—which is 20% of our total energy use. The talk in the first sentence of the document is that demand will
“more than double by 2050”.
As I said, 65 gigawatts is 20% of total energy use, so double will be 130 gigawatts. That is miles below what will be required for an all-electric decarbonised economy. It will be well above 130: most people who examine these things closely say that it will be more like 250, and some say 300 gigawatts. That is the kind of clean energy volume we have to mobilise, and I totally agree with the Minister that nuclear is essential to it. With 3,000 hours of windless time around the United Kingdom and in this part of northern Europe, we will need a massive nuclear contribution, miles above what we have now or are likely to have in the next two or three years. The official figure is 24 or 25 gigawatts. I would like to take a bet—except I am not a betting man—that we will wish we had 50 gigawatts by the time we move into the 2030s. I am very glad to hear that, from the Minister’s and the Government’s point of view, there is no limit on what we should be building; it should be determined by other factors.
As for SMRs, which the rest of the world is busily ordering, I can find nothing here on the obvious siting differences arising between putting down on the ground sets of four, six or eight smaller reactors, depending on their size and the total required, and putting them down on different areas from the usual list, which appears on page 10 and is the list we have all been looking at for the last 20 or 30 years. It seems to miss out the possibilities of all the other abandoned, closed or still-suitable sites.
I am not arguing for a moment that the world is ready for individual SMRs to be placed at the end of this or that street or in this or that locality. I do not think the public are ready for that. There has been absolutely no education of or discussion with the public on the question of ionised radiation machinery being spread around the country. I am talking entirely about sites that either have been, are still or could be safely and securely nuclear. What about all the old Magnox sites? What happened to them? There are Trawsfynydd, Berkeley, Hinkley Point A and Sizewell A—followed by B, which was the only one that was rescued from the ones I announced in the lower House in October 1979 when we wanted nine new reactors, but only one emerged from that plan. There are Heysham 1 and Dungeness B, which I have visited and has, I think, already closed, and there are the old coal-fired stations. In California, industries are saying that they do not trust the grid any more and cannot feel safe with it. They are buying up old coal stations and installing SMRs in them, very small ones, to get the reliable electricity they need for their production, so nothing is needed there.
I am looking forward to EN-8. I hope it is now being drafted, telling us the possibilities of setting down sets of small reactors from the various producers telling us that they can produce fully operative, commercially competitive models by the early 2030s, which is years ahead of anything being considered for Sizewell C. They say that the new one at Hinkley C will be completed in 2029 but, quite honestly, heaven knows when it will be. The original idea from the then chairman was that we should cook our turkeys for Christmas 2019. I think that the original deals approved by the Cameron Government and the first contacts with EDF under Tony Blair’s Labour Government were talking about an original expenditure of £9 billion. Then it became £17 billion, then £19 billion, £23 billion and so on. The latest figures I have seen are £46 billion- plus. One figure says £51 billion. Obviously, inflation affects that, but the expansion of cost has been enormous. I marvel that we want to proceed with a replica in the rather charming belief that we will have learned all the mistakes from Hinkley C and therefore it will all cost less and be much quicker. I do not believe a word of it.
There is nothing on offer about a central point when you come to building and siting nuclear power stations, which is that SMRs can be fabricated in a factory. There is not that business of trundling trucks smashing up country lanes and destroying the environment for years and years on end, which of course is one of the driving forces of planning objections and delays. If you can bring in fabrication in the factory, you gain an enormous advantage, take a great deal of heat and tension out of local objections and probably cut years off the construction time. There is nothing on the advantages of a more distributed electricity system, which is what we are discussing and what many people are beginning to analyse, and which the use of SMRs and AMRs would greatly contribute to.
That means—and this is a very important planning thing—fewer pylons. If we can distribute our electricity—if we can get to the point at which we can convey North Sea electricity through switching stations into hydrogen by electrolysis, and move that in the same way that we move petrol today; and if we can then localise and get to market electricity or an electricity vector such as hydrogen—we will need fewer pylons. That would save years of planning objection, difficulty and political problems. I am amazed that there is nothing about that.
There is nothing on the fuel side. Some companies have said that they can manage perfectly well without enriched uranium at all. They are going to use already irradiated plutonium, of which we have a store at Sellafield, which we are guarding at considerable cost. That is a whole new possibility.
Above all—I know I am a little over my time—the factor that is really missing in this is finance, on which there is nothing. The fact is that small reactors can be financed profitably and will be in the future. There are several companies ready to do that without government money, whereas the big boys—the giant gigawatt machines—will cost the Government money, which means that they will cost the consumers, who are already overloaded, and the taxpayers money. Both Sizewell and Hinkley C, the big ones in the pipeline, are already in deep financial trouble. We remain to see and hear how they will get out of it.
The whole world is into this new design system. Countries are ordering and building SMRs. Canada is putting four in Ontario. Denmark has said it wants to start, after years of being anti-nuclear. Indonesia has ordered 20. Poland is in the business, as are Korea, Japan, the United States and, of course, China and Russia. They are all building small nuclear reactors. There is a very long queue building up, and we will be at the end of it unless we move very fast indeed—faster than this EN-7 indicates or suggests.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis in the nuclear industry. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean. It is great to hear that, like me and the Minister, she comes from the Midlands—and I will come on to the Midlands shortly in my remarks.
I thank the Minister for bringing forward this draft EN-7 policy statement for debate. It is great that we have the opportunity to review it in Parliament, and it is something that I very much welcome: a more flexible approach to nuclear siting is essential to maximise the benefits of new nuclear. In addition to the reasons that the Minister brought out, it enables more areas of the country to benefit from the skilled, well-paid jobs that result from nuclear. It is very important that those benefits are spread around the country.
One of the reasons I am so excited about EN-7 comes from some work that I do chairing an organisation called Midlands Nuclear. This is a partnership between business, local government and academia that has been set up to maximise the benefits to the Midlands region of the nuclear renaissance. We have a fantastic arc of nuclear capability across the Midlands, which goes from Derby, where we have the Rolls-Royce submarines business manufacturing nuclear steam raising plants for Royal Navy submarines, to nuclear component manufacturing and now the STEP fusion plant, which is being built at West Burton in north Nottinghamshire. But what we do not have in the Midlands are any operating nuclear reactors, and I hope that EN-7 will begin to change that.
When we started Midlands Nuclear, we asked the board to focus on some initial areas of study. A clear front-runner was siting: where in the Midlands we could locate new nuclear power stations. The Midlands has a rich heritage in energy generation—Megawatt Valley was the name for a chain of coal power stations running along the Trent—and we want to bring back that focus on energy for the region.
We commissioned a study with industry, which is due to report in the coming months. Using the EN-7 criteria, we selected a shortlist of 21 sites across the region. Of those, two sites then underwent a further, more detailed evaluation—a really specific look at detailed site options.
This is a really ground-breaking study that looks at the practical implementation of the flexible siting policy enabled by EN-7. I am very proud that the Midlands is the first region to explore these opportunities in detail. There could be some really good collaboration between the teams looking at the practical impact of EN-7 for potential sites in the Midlands and the Minister and his officials. Will the Minister perhaps meet Midlands Nuclear so that we can present the study findings and considerations to his team and assist in that further policy development?
One key area to consider from the study is the importance of community support. Something that the Government need to consider more broadly alongside EN-7 is the strategy for bringing communities on board with new nuclear sites, particularly for areas such as the Midlands that do not have that nuclear heritage and history of nuclear reactor siting. I would be grateful if the Minister could say how the Government will progress with ensuring that communities are brought along on the journey to support new nuclear developments.
I have a few more specific comments on the draft EN-7. Alongside community consent, the Minister mentioned the SSEP, the strategic spatial energy plan, in his opening remarks. There is a risk, I believe, that the SSEP takes the more traditional view to nuclear siting in line with the specific sites in EN-6. How are the Government ensuring that the SSEP is not limited by that thinking and is taking EN-7 on board and ensuring that those two areas of policy are joined up?
It is a minor clarification, but can the Minister also clarify whether the 50-megawatt threshold that he mentioned for nuclear projects to be brought within the NSIP regime refers to projects or sites? For example, if a site consisted of a number of reactors under 50 megawatts electric that added up to more than 50 megawatts of capacity, would that be inside or outside the NSIP regime?
An additional area of policy that the Government need to carefully consider alongside the opportunities of EN-7 is ensuring that the regulatory regime—specifically the thorny areas of judicial review and environmental regulation—support the building of new nuclear power stations. We could be in a situation where EN-7 opens up new site options but, unless lessons learned from current nuclear builds are brought in, the aspirations of the Government in terms of build rate simply will not be met. That is why it is so important that, as the Minister referred to, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill delivers.
There are some doubts emerging about the Government’s proposed approach of environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund. I am confident that it will deliver for housing developments and nutrient neutrality, for example, but if we look at specific projects, such as nuclear projects, there are doubts as to whether the approach of environmental delivery plans will really unblock the system. Some habitats issues will be known in advance and an environmental delivery plan could be agreed for those, but as work progresses on the site, further habitats issues could be uncovered, which of course would not be within the environmental delivery plan or the nature restoration fund. Also, the developer does not know whether an EDP will be agreed at the outset, so it may be that a twin-track approach will have to be pursued for those habitats issues that come up during the build. There is risk with those habitats regulations that I think needs further consideration by the Government. I will certainly come back to this later in the month when that Bill comes before the House, but I hope that the Government will seize the opportunity that the Bill presents to unblock large clean energy infrastructure. There are three interlocking areas of policy here—the EN-7, the SSEP and wider planning reforms—that need to be considered alongside each other to ensure success.
Finally, one of the key benefits of EN-7 is that it will start to enable the benefits of advanced modular reactors in providing industrial heat, data centre power and fuels production. A lot of progress has been made in recent years, with both large gigawatt-scale reactors and small modular reactors, but the Government now need to look to the future and get behind a clear strategy for AMRs and all the benefits they will provide. Two broad approaches could be taken here by the Government: they could either buy an AMR product off the shelf, as a number of those projects are ongoing, or develop a UK advanced modular reactor, using all our heritage, skills and supply chains to do so.
Because we took the decision, many years ago, to go down the advanced gas-cooled reactor route, while the rest of the world went down the pressurised water reactor route, we have developed a unique skill set in high-temperature reactors and materials, including graphite, that no one else in the world has. We have that supply chain and expertise, and we should make the most of them, because we will otherwise lose them as the advanced gas-cooled reactor programme winds down in the coming years.
There is a real opportunity here for the Government to get behind a UK programme and UK supply chains, leveraging our unique skills and experience as a country. As we are doing with UK SMR, we need to get the first-mover advantage and seize all the export opportunities on offer, while aligning with the ongoing HALEU fuels work. Can the Minister say what plans there are to progress the AMR programme to subsequent phases and to develop a clear strategy for the future direction of AMRs in the UK? How will we seize those opportunities as a country?
In conclusion, I look forward to further collaboration with the Minister and his team to unlock all the benefits that we have discussed for a more flexible siting policy and a future where many more communities across the UK can access the benefits of the stable, clean, secure energy that nuclear represents.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, what a huge honour it is to make my maiden speech. My 18 year-old self would be utterly stunned to see herself standing here and, frankly, 40 years on, I am still having to pinch myself every day. My deepest thanks go to the wonderful doorkeepers, Black Rod, the Clerk of the Parliaments and all the dedicated staff for their invaluable guidance. I wonder whether colleagues, like me, have found that Black Rod has some sort of magic powers about her. She looks at you and, all of a sudden, your nerves are quelled—so I thank her for that amazing talent.
I would love to thank my superb supporters. My noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston, who is in his place, is a tremendous colleague in our shared endeavour to renew our party. Without the guidance of my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington, I would never have become the Member of Parliament for Redditch. My debt of gratitude to her is shared by countless women all across our party, sitting on our Benches in the other place and in your Lordships’ House.
I am especially touched by the kind welcome from colleagues here today and over the previous days and weeks. I thank my noble friend Lady Coffey, who has given me much useful, practical guidance. I am particularly delighted to be among so many Midlanders, with Members from Kings Heath to Birmingham. As a Brummie myself, I feel very much at home, so I thank colleagues for easing my path.
I wish to thank my right honourable friend the leader of His Majesty’s Opposition for her kindness and friendship to me and her graciousness in bestowing on me the honour of taking my place in your Lordships’ House.
My dear and exceptionally supportive husband, David, unfortunately cannot be with me today. I know he is cheering me on. He has agreed to continue to be a political spouse for a lot longer than either of us expected. He definitely deserves my gratitude for that.
On the face of it, not very much links these red Benches with the town and constituency of Redditch, possibly except for the colour red; but it is the values that built Redditch—those Conservative values and those values of the British people—that were etched on my heart every day that I was privileged to serve those wonderful people. It is a town of small businesses, warehouses, manufacturers, leading expertise, market stalls, pubs, volunteer groups both large and small, parish and town churches, farms, high streets and village halls—and all are driven by the power of hard work, enterprise and love.
The values of personal responsibility, prosperity, hard work, entrepreneurship and family are the values that drive Redditch—and they drive me. They are at my core, and they are the heart of our Conservative philosophy. Yet, sadly, last year our party drifted away from these values, and we paid a heavy price.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, whom I am delighted to see in his place today, explains in his well-received books, Return to Growth, Volume One and Return to Growth, Volume Two—I recommend that noble Lords buy copies of them, although they are available in the Library—that excessive state spending chokes private investment and productive growth. Conversely, when this trend is reversed, growth rockets. But in Britain we are now at an unsustainable 45% of state spending to GDP. That is perilously close to a point where every private sector worker, in effect, funds one individual on the public payroll or receiving benefits. Astoundingly, we are spending £110 billion more annually than comparable developed nations. We simply cannot afford it and I am determined not to leave this economic legacy and this situation for my three grandchildren.
That is why serious, costed reforms are essential to comprehensively rewire the British state to tackle entrenched challenges that have existed for decades. That planning has already started, led by the leader of the Opposition, through the policy renewal programme that our party has started.
Just as Margaret Thatcher tasked Keith Joseph with articulating the moral case for capitalism in 1976, we must again present a coherent, robust and intellectually rigorous argument for our principles. We must break from the failed consensus that led to our defeat, and our future vision for our country will be founded on personal responsibility. That is the only way to genuinely reduce state spending. It will be centred on a strong, vocal and unapologetic endorsement of wealth creation. We will be backing entrepreneurs—I was one for 30 years before I became a Member of Parliament—because they are the architects of prosperity and security for our country. The vital role of family will be central to everything we undertake, because the state can never address society’s challenges in the way that stable, loving parents can.
Today’s business is the NPS on EN-7. I am glad to see that the current Government are continuing to build on the groundwork of the last Conservative Government. We Conservatives agree that the rapid buildout of new nuclear, including SMRs, is a common-sense energy policy that has the potential to cut our dependence on hostile regimes, and it puts British engineering, especially Midlands engineering, back in charge of our power supply. In short, it is a great example of a common-sense energy policy. If I may say so, it is in stark contrast to Ed Miliband’s unevidenced rush to net zero, which is straight out of the pages of a science fiction novel.
I add one more caveat, on which I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts. As I know from my time serving as Housing and Planning Minister, some regulators can hold up building essential infrastructure and the homes our country needs for very unconstructive and unhelpful reasons. I worry that giving Natural England and the Health and Safety Executive an effective veto is very unhelpful, and the NPS should make clear that, given the urgent need of new nuclear, their approval is not required and does not hold up the delivery of this vital infrastructure.
Whatever topics I contribute to in this place—and there will be many in which I have an interest from my time in government—I can promise noble Lords one thing: I will never forget or stop talking about my Conservative values that I learned while serving the wonderful people of Redditch, and I was privileged to serve them. I will always be proud to have represented Redditch in the beautiful county of Worcestershire and to have been born an Englishwoman. What a privilege it is to be British and to enjoy the freedoms of this great country—the freest and the greatest country in the world. That is truly a privilege matched only by being able to take my place today among your Lordships. With God’s help, I will do my best to serve my country and this place. Thank you, and God bless, Redditch.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour for me to follow my noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch. As noble Lords have already heard, my noble friend is quite happy to spice things up a bit, but her principles are based on a genuine belief in family, faith and freedom. I am sure that we will hear those principles come through in many ways, as she contributes to the work of the House.
Family is certainly very important to my noble friend, and I am pleased to share that she recently became a grandmother for the third time. I know that your Lordships will say that she does not look old enough, but what a welcome blessing that is. I know how important her four children and her husband are to her. I was not going to include her two rescue dogs, but perhaps I should, as they are part of the wider family too. She will continue to be interested in a variety of those elements.
Something that also came out in my noble friend’s contribution is what we can do. Her family went with her when she and her husband set up a business together, a business that is still going strong. In publishing, it is now the largest company in the UK for technical and IT content. I hope we can share the experience that she will bring in our consideration of a number of pieces of legislation.
Family is important to my noble friend in a different way. It was her daughter who encouraged her to run for election because there were not enough women MPs. She did that, and she delivered. She delivered for the people of Redditch in a variety of ways, including the extensive efforts that she went to in keeping services in the Alexandra Hospital in Redditch so that people would not have to travel to Worcester.
It may not be known that my noble friend served in three different ministerial roles, although one of them was a joint role between the Home Office and MoJ. Tackling knife crime and violence against women and children was something about which she was particularly passionate. From speaking to people who have worked with my noble friend, I know that she goes deep into the detail and is not superficial. Candidly, that is something to be welcomed in people who are dedicated to being government Ministers.
One final point that might be worth sharing is that I am slightly surprised that my noble friend is dressed in just blue today because in the other place she was well known for being absolutely fabulous in the colours of her clothes. She normally has wonderful glasses, with bright, radiant elements in them. She was particularly known for her tights. I learned only today why they particularly stood out: they came from a factory in her constituency, so she was wearing Redditch at all times in the Chamber. I think she will continue to champion family, freedom and business, while she is also driven by her faith.
I still live in Suffolk, very near an operating nuclear power station, Sizewell B, and Sizewell C is being built as we speak. I have to say that it has been quite a long journey, but one that has needed to take time for reasons that I will explain. In thinking about what happened with EN-6—not for long, because I know that we are here to debate EN-7—we need to go back a bit and think about some of the context. Not only was Sizewell C cancelled, in effect, in the mid-1990s, but, to fast forward to going into a coalition Government in 2010, we were in a situation where the policy of our Liberal Democrat coalition partners was to oppose nuclear power. To try to make all this come together in order to get on with nuclear power, the coalition agreement was clear that the Liberal Democrats would not oppose the construction of nuclear power, but they certainly did not want to see any public subsidy. Candidly, this was one of the things that led to the creation of contracts for difference and to how expensive Hinkley has turned out to be. Fortunately, in the previous Parliament, the RAB model was extended to nuclear power, which is very sensible. I am sure it will be applied in many more nuclear or other energy generation sites going forward.
When I was considering this in the other place, I recall from the debate that several sites felt that they had lost out. I am thinking in particular of Dungeness, which was devastated; obviously, there was a site there. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford asked about some of the other sites. Sizewell A is certainly still there. It has had all the nuclear fuel removed, but I am afraid it cannot be touched for quite some time, as we see aspects of the process continuing its natural way of, in effect, decomposing.
There are some risks. One reason I strongly supported Sizewell C was that we had already had nuclear power in that area. However, I should warn noble Lords that they should not be surprised if other sorts of electricity generation suddenly come along where they live. You start to feel almost dumped on, which is how many people in east Suffolk feel with the need for substations, more cabling and so on. This brings me to siting.
Something I want to explore is water, which I cannot quite work out, although I am sure it is here somewhere. One reason why it has taken so long for Sizewell C to get to the stage it is at today is that the water supplier suddenly said that it could not confidently guarantee that it could supply the water needed for the nuclear power station. Some quite complicated things were evolving. Some of this was the result of legal cases lost that started to impact how much water could be extracted from parts of East Anglia. That had knock-on consequences in other ways to the point that, not having had to think too much about the supply of the fresh water that is critical to nuclear technology as it is now, Sizewell C had to start thinking and to include desalination and building a reservoir, which bring their own challenges, so factors along the way have led to some of the hold-ups.
I am aware of the difficult construction process in terms of what is happening in Somerset. Nevertheless, in considering the important environmental factors to be taken into account, it is important for Ministers to be clear on how some of these places that have been chosen for siting are confident. I know that it is up to the developer to put this forward and to show that, but it showed that a critical issue that was not in the control of the promoter of Sizewell C caused it to reconsider its proposal. That is worth thinking about during further or final consideration by Ministers.
When I looked at the factors influencing the site selection, I saw that the Government have decided to retain the semi-urban population density criterion. I get that. When it all started, nuclear was probably a bit scary, even though we were leading the way, but it has meant that nuclear power stations are quite a long way from anywhere.
I know that the ONR, which split out from the HSE, has its critics. I should register, but not declare as an interest, that as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions I was, surprisingly, in charge of the Office for Nuclear Regulation. I felt I had to intervene at times to defend its integrity and independence because it is vital that we have good, effective nuclear regulation.
As an aside to noble Lords, when Fukushima happened in Japan, that was because there had been a breakdown. In effect, people were not prepared to reveal problems, perhaps from embarrassment, but the site had gone on for too long. Our chief nuclear inspector went out to Japan to address some of those issues on behalf of the wider, global nuclear approach. We should be confident that, while it may seem laborious and there are definitely improvements that could be made on how some of these situations are sped up or considered, it is important to recognise that we have very good nuclear regulation, and that is why we do not have issues.
Let us not pretend we are perfect in this country; we are not. There are parts of Cumbria now where, basically, people cannot go. Only robots can go into some of those sites. That is the reality of some ineffective nuclear regulation. It was early days, and we now know what we know. Given the long-term nature of these proposals, I caution that we make sure that, as and when ONR perhaps makes improvements in some of its processes, we do not forget what has happened in the past or around the world.
Having said all that, I am surprised that we are not thinking further about connectivity to the national grid. There is no doubt that this is causing a lot of grief around communities. If electricity is generated far from where it is used, transmission means that you end up losing electricity along the way unless you have a direct current cable, and I do not believe we have anywhere at the moment that has that. I believe we should be starting to consider whether it would be safer to move some of these future technologies. I appreciate that somewhere such as Sizewell C or Hinkley C is simply so big that it would be difficult to host it closer to the population, especially with the demand for water, but it is important that we start to consider the technology that we are seeing for the future. Some of the SMRs are still pretty big, but as this evolves we should be revisiting that, or at least starting to commission some research. I know about the issue of people getting away. I know that people in many towns and villages have iodine tablets. I know there are precautions to be taken, but I think it could be worth considering to make sure that we have energy generation close to where energy is likely to be used.
Overall, I think there is an effective interaction with EN-1, which went through in the previous Parliament. As has already been mentioned, there are some interesting elements coming up in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Trying to see quite how it works is proving quite interesting, not only the issues about biodiversity. I will be paying a lot of attention to Part 1 of the Bill when it comes to this place, as it includes, I think in Clause 2, parliamentary assessment of NPSs. This is not a criticism of the Minister—far from it—but it is not entirely satisfactory as it is, so we need to continue to look at it very carefully.
As a consequence, I support EN-7. It may seem a bit bland, but it is giving developers what they need, and that is to be welcomed. The quicker we can get on with additional nuclear generation, the better for the prosperity of this country, so I welcome this today.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the very thoughtful speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and particularly to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, on her maiden speech, which was a tour de force. I am sure we will hear much more in the Chamber and that it will create discussion in all parts of the House. I wish her well in her parliamentary career in this House. She will find that being on the Opposition Benches is a little different from being in government—those of us who have never been in government know that even more, but we have to learn to live with it.
I thank the Minister for the manner in which he introduced this debate and, indeed, for his personal commitment to the nuclear industry. We know that what he is doing is very positively motivated to make sure that we get progress. In welcoming this debate, I should perhaps first spell out—some noble Lords will be aware of this —my background in nuclear energy. Many years ago I graduated from Manchester University with a degree in physics, with nuclear physics a key component—although I readily admit that I have largely forgotten that science.
During the university vacation, I worked on the building site of the Trawsfynydd power station, and for 27 years I was the MP for the Caernarfon seat—now part of Dwyfor Meirionnydd, as it has been recast—where Trawsfynydd is of course located. My constituency included the Dinorwig pumped-storage hydroelectric scheme, the third largest in the world when opened and with which I was closely associated during its construction phase. It was built in tandem with the Trawsfynydd and Wylfa nuclear power stations, with a lifespan that anticipated further nuclear energy investment in north-west Wales.
I have been a member of several cross-party parliamentary groupings on nuclear power and a firm advocate for the construction of additional nuclear power capacity, as indeed are two Plaid Cymru MPs in the other House, Llinos Medi and Liz Saville Roberts, who represent, respectively, the areas where Wylfa and Trawsfynydd stations are located. There have been local campaigns to use those two sites for new nuclear generation capacity, and possibly for industries associated with the production of medical radioisotopes needed in the treatment of cancer. I should make it clear that, like other parties, there are members of Plaid Cymru who do not support nuclear energy for a variety of reasons. Over recent decades, the party has accepted the compromise that the two existing nuclear sites should be developed for future nuclear power and associated industries, but with a presumption against the development of greenfield sites for such purposes.
I personally am fully persuaded that nuclear energy has a significantly lower carbon footprint in its electricity generation profile than other sources of electricity. Indeed, it is two orders of magnitude less than coal, oil and gas, and one order of magnitude lower than wind and hydropower. But it is not a question of either/or in relation to such renewables—we need both. Wind, wave, solar and estuarial sources of power certainly have a significant role to play, but in planning modern generation facilities we have to provide a source of energy that meets baseload requirements, and I have no hesitation in advocating nuclear power for those purposes.
It is worth noting that the great Welsh climate scientist, Sir John Houghton, seen by many as the father of the campaign alerting the world to the dangers of carbon warming, who died in 2020, revised his attitude towards nuclear energy in the latter years of his life. A few years before his passing, he came to accept the overwhelming scientific evidence that nuclear energy is part of the solution, not the problem, though he advocated in the fifth edition of his book In the Eye of the Storm, published in 2013, that the first port of call for the necessary nuclear material should be from the reworking of existing nuclear weapons. That is a viewpoint with which I have considerable sympathy, although that is of course not the sole source of the necessary nuclear material.
We have, at Wylfa and Trawsfynydd, two sites that are already licensed for nuclear purposes. Decommissioning work commenced some years ago, but both sites will, of course, need to be safeguarded and monitored into the future. In these circumstances, rather than build brand new nuclear facilities on greenfield sites, which will need both new town and country planning authorisation and clearance by the nuclear safety authorities, it seems basic common sense to locate new nuclear generation facilities on these existing sites. This can be achieved more expeditiously and at lower cost.
The original planning application for Wylfa B was in 1989—I emphasise that the application for the second Wylfa station, for which we are still waiting, was given back in 1989. Apparently, the Government have removed the existing list of designated nuclear sites, including Wylfa, from their approved planning policy. I am not quite sure why that has happened.
Their decision to consult on a new planning policy is creating totally unnecessary uncertainty at Wylfa. Surely recognised locations such as Wylfa should be given a swift go-ahead, while any new sites are rightly put through the rigorous planning and safety-check process. As things stand, it seems that the Government are content to see the whole process slowed down to allow the speed of the slowest, most complex site to determine the speed of the entire convoy of new nuclear stations. To my mind, this is an absolute nonsense.
Both Wylfa and Trawsfynydd are ideal locations for new small modular reactors, which we hope will get the go-ahead very soon. I commend Rolls-Royce on its pioneering work. Wylfa could also accommodate a larger nuclear power station—such as an AMR, which we heard about earlier—as its seaboard location gives it a ready source of coolant. Trawsfynydd is constrained by the size of the lake nearby as a source of coolant, so it is probably better suited for an SMR and to radioisotope production facilities.
The Welsh Government have indicated their general support for both locations, though obviously both will need detailed planning consent when firm proposals are mature for consideration. The Senedd has also supported initiatives to see whether a project related to the medical use of radioactive technology could be developed at Trawsfynydd, and I believe that it has allocated £40 million for that initial work.
I remind colleagues participating in the debate that there is an approaching crisis because of the shortage of radioisotopes, both as tracers for the identification of cancers in the human body and for the treatment of such conditions. At present, there is a critical shortage of such material, and the NHS will face a crisis if it is not soon sorted.
There are also several excellent sites for further pump storage schemes similar to Dinorwig but on a smaller scale, one of which has been developed by the site owners—who come from Worcestershire, I am glad to say—who are doing excellent work, at the old Dorothea slate quarry at Talysarn near Caernarfon. This will create much-needed work in the Nantlle valley. I hope that GB Energy will be in a position to give the go-ahead to this and similar pump storage schemes. They are highly relevant, both to nuclear projects, such as Trawsfynydd and Wylfa, and to estuarial, tidal and wind-generated electricity, which is an essential ingredient in the basket of power sources needed to meet current and future demand. This dimension will be greatly expanded by AI and other computer technology, which will require a far greater availability of electricity than that which can be facilitated by existing sources within the grid.
I also point out that Bangor University, located about half way between Wylfa and Trawsfynydd, has a significant level of nuclear expertise. The vice-chancellor Edmund Burke—a fine parliamentary name—came to Bangor from the University of Nottingham and is a physicist himself. He is excitedly awaiting the go-ahead for these sites, with a mission to train the nuclear scientists, technologists and engineers who are much needed for these schemes and, indeed, for other nuclear energy projects in other parts of these islands.
It is against this background that I address the National Policy Statement for Nuclear Energy Generation EN-7 before us. It is no doubt full of worthy, carefully considered provisions relating to the rollout of the new nuclear energy programme, but nowhere does this document come anywhere near to conveying the urgency of making decisions on new nuclear, and making them now, if we are to have any chance whatever of meeting our net-zero carbon targets by 2050.
All the environmental, social and legal screening of new projects seems to be geared to slowing down their rolling out. Successive Governments, of both political persuasions, have dithered and prevaricated on this issue for three decades and longer. The time is surely now ripe for firm decisions to be taken. The proverbial Mrs Jones Llanrug, as we say in Wales—or perhaps Mrs Smith of Smethwick, as would be said in the Midlands—has a right to expect that, when she flicks a switch, there will be electricity running through her light bulbs, electric fires and water heaters. If the day comes when she flicks that switch and nothing happens, there will quite rightly be holy hell to pay. It is the duty of this Parliament to avoid shirking, yet again, the vital decisions needed on these matters.
Future generations have the right to expect that we shall generate electricity from a balanced combination of renewable, tidal, estuarial, solar and wind power, underpinned by a baseload capacity of clean, new nuclear sources, including, eventually, electricity generated from fusion technology. I therefore call on the Government to step up to the plate, to grasp the duty that faces them and to announce the approval of a new programme of nuclear power construction with minimal delay. I hope that the Minister, who I know shares our concerns about these issues, is in a position to give news of when such go-aheads will happen, either here today or within a timescale that does not run beyond this parliamentary Session. I hope that he will not disappoint us.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ Committee’s attention to my entry in the register of interests, particularly that I am vice-chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, for which I do consultancy work. It is a not-for-profit organisation with a global reputation based in Washington DC, and its work is focused on nuclear security and safety. It is the publisher of the annual Nuclear Security Index. It was in partnership with the Obama Administration in the nuclear security summit that he held after he made his famous speech in Prague that everyone remembers. That will influence my contribution to this debate.
It is an enormous pleasure to follow my friend and fellow Celt, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I had no idea of his qualifications in this scientific area, but I commend his speech; I will take it, word for word, to the members of his sister party in Scotland, the SNP, to remind it that nuclear energy is not what it thinks it is. I intend to take this message to Glasgow in another form shortly, and I invite him to come to take part in explaining to the people of Scotland that there is such a thing as safe and secure nuclear energy.
It was an enormous privilege and delight to be present while the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, made her maiden speech in your Lordships’ Committee. She will be aware that her family name has its origins in Scotland. It is a Gaelic name that means, in one interpretation, “son of the servant of John”. It is derived from the name of the 13th-century warrior Gillean. I shudder to give his full title, but I will—it is Gillean of the Battle Axe. The noble Baroness gave a speech of great clarity and passion, and while I did not agree with all of the policy suggestions that she made, she eminently has the ear of your Lordships’ House, and I look forward to hearing her speak again many times. Maybe on those occasions I will be more direct on the areas on which I disagree with her, and I look forward to doing that.
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to address this critically important issue and to commend my Government on the steps that they have already taken since coming into office. Mindful of the depth of expertise—which deepened when my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke—among other noble Lords participating this afternoon, I will make just a few observations on the international context by which the success of the NPS will be measured and will ask a couple of more specific questions.
Over the last few years of the Conservative Government, we heard much talk of Britain leading the world in a multiplicity of areas—rhetoric often untethered, as far as I could see, from any specific policy aims or objectives. Given the international context, this national policy statement is timely. COP 28 made the international direction of travel clear, with nuclear energy recognised, for the first time in a major COP decision, as among the solutions needed to keep the 1.5-degree goal within reach. Six more countries have opted to become signatories to the Declaration to Triple Nuclear Energy by 2050, bringing the total to 31 and meaning that we will be faced with a swathe of countries bringing nuclear into their energy mix for the first time. That will generate potential non-proliferation challenges. If we do not make the same mistake that was made by what was called Atoms for Peace, by spreading material around the world which was for good purposes but became a potential source of challenge and recently had to be brought back very quickly, we will have done well—but there will be these challenges. The countries that have taken this on will need leadership and help and, in many cases, because of long-standing relationships, the UK will be called upon to give that leadership.
SMRs have begun to be deployed in China and Russia. The International Energy Agency—IEA—estimates that 80 SMR concepts are in development and two US SMR developers are currently in negotiations with their domestic nuclear regulator with a view to imminent deployment. However, this situation is fraught with risk as well as potential. Emerging nuclear energy countries will face the task of securing this critical national infrastructure as well as the potential political and logistical challenges inherent in the deployment of SMRs, which is an area in which the UK has the chance to assume—and maybe share—genuine global leadership.
This international context points to the necessity of an uptick in nuclear deployment and capacity in the UK. EN-7 explicitly identifies the importance of accelerating investment into SMRs and AMRs. The Prime Minister has publicly identified a goal of deployment in the early 2030s; planning regulations have already been eased with a view to swift approval for SMR deployment, and new nuclear technology has been cited as indispensable for the Government’s growth agenda.
In this context, and at a time when the issue of energy security is increasingly prominent, the new national policy statement gives us an opportunity to adopt a position of leadership, as well as enhancing our sovereign energy supply. With a national developer, a national insurer and a climate encouraging investment, the UK can ensure that it is well placed to assist other nations in risk mitigation and ensure that they do not become non-proliferation risks but are able adequately to ensure the security of SMRs and AMRs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, in an excellent speech, made reference to the need for proper regulation. We have in the United Kingdom, by international reputation, a first-class regulator. We have a very good history in relation to the regulation and safety of nuclear, being a nuclear-armed country, which is an additional challenge. I recognise the source of the Cumbrian problem that she identified, but that goes back a long way in history. Recently, we had—and, in the future, I predict that we will have—that strong regulation, and it will be the enemy of large parts of the world if this story that I am telling becomes a reality. Those countries will need help from us in that regard.
There are overt political challenges, including incentivising communities to accept local SMR deployment. The response to the first round of consultation on this national policy statement showed that around 40% of respondents remain concerned about the prospect of future SMR and AMR deployment, citing environmental concerns, concerns around the disposal of radioactive waste and opposition to nuclear energy in principle. Given that microreactors are likely to be ready for deployment by the late 2020s, they may have a critical role to play in assuaging the concerns of communities that would otherwise be cautious about the prospect of SMR deployment in their local area.
I live within about 20 minutes’ walk from two nuclear power stations, at Hunterston in the west coast of Scotland, which are being decommissioned at the moment. These nuclear power stations not only were partly built by local labour, although expertise was brought in, but have provided excellent long-term jobs to the people of the area, who would welcome more nuclear development at that site. The people of Scotland have welcomed the building of a disproportionate number of wind energy turbines: there are 11,000 wind energy turbines in this country, of which 4,000 or more are in Scotland; and Scotland, substantially through them, generates 25% of the renewable energy on these islands. This is welcomed by the people of Scotland, and I do not understand the opposition to this form of energy generation that seems to pop its head up everywhere I go in England. I quite often say to some of my English friends, “If the alternative is a coal-fired power station, I do not understand why you can’t live with these”.
I will share a story with noble Lords. When I was an MP in the west of Scotland, I had part of the largest onshore wind farm in Europe in my constituency. I had few problems. I had two people come to me, separately. One was concerned about the disturbance to planes landing at Glasgow Airport, because it was on the flight path. I brought somebody from Glasgow Airport to persuade him, very quickly, that it was not going to disturb the radar or the ability to land planes. Another was very worried about damage to birdlife, so I brought in an expert on birds from Glasgow University, who sat him down and said, “Birds are very interesting in the way they developed. It didn’t take them long, as they emerged, to be able to figure out how to avoid trees”. There are a series of explanations of that nature to people who are worried about this sort of thing.
As we have heard, SMRs have been explicitly identified as a critical component in the successful delivery of the Government’s AI Opportunities Action Plan. AI data centres are power intensive and will require a more resilient energy mix as well as an exponential increase in capacity. This challenge is one in which the Government are already engaging, but the scale of that challenge is clear, with an IEA report recently suggesting that the amount of electricity needed to power the world’s data centres will double in the next five years. The revised criteria for selection in EN-7 will open up far more capacity and diversity, taking into account emerging technologies such as SMRs and AMRs. Indeed, Energy UK’s response to the consultation’s second question makes clear its belief that EN-7 has been drafted in such a way as to future- proof for technological developments.
As Monday’s proceedings in your Lordships’ House made clear, time is very much of the essence for SMRs, especially if we are to ensure that they will be made in Britain with a UK supply chain. The Czech Government announced Rolls-Royce as their developer of choice, with a site already chosen for the first SMR deployment near the existing Temelín plant. As Great British Nuclear comes to the end of its evaluation process, I think that we would all be grateful for any information that my noble friend the Minister can give on the timescale within which an announcement will be made on the UK’s national supplier of SMRs. He engaged with us on this subject in your Lordships’ House earlier this week, but I would like to hear him do so again.
Finally, an update on the work of the Nuclear Regulatory Taskforce would be extremely welcome. EN-7 should prove a critical step in establishing a favourable regulatory framework to encourage the deployment of both on-grid and off-grid SMRs and AMRs. Assuming that this is achieved, it has the potential to unlock international investment, thereby addressing the skills shortage for nuclear infrastructure, enhancing the UK’s position on a global scale and enabling us to export our expertise to other countries. This is all in the service of increasing low-carbon baseload electricity at a lower price. For these reasons, my noble friend the Minister and the Government have my full support as this national policy statement is finalised and the associated legislation makes its way to your Lordships’ House.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Browne. My university career was spent studying nuclear strategy, so I welcome the work that the Nuclear Threat Initiative has done. It has also been fascinating to learn that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, studied nuclear engineering. What expertise we have with former Energy Ministers around the Room.
I also very much welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, to the House of Lords. She talked about pinching herself—I have been here for two years, and I can say that it is worse after you have had a holiday. I congratulate and welcome her, and I know that she will make a valuable contribution to the House, as she did as an MP in fighting for her constituents.
I thank the Minister for bringing forward this debate. I apologise in advance that I will put several general questions to him, but I do not expect answers to everything that I raise today. I welcome this national policy statement on nuclear EN-7. Much of it is about SMRs and AMRs and about the energy we need—predominately for AI and data centres in the future. Indeed, if there is no energy, there is no AI. The alternative to small modular reactors is that they will turn to gas-powered turbines, which would be an absolute disaster for our net-zero ambitions.
This Government are clearly serious about taking this forward, which I welcome. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, remined us, the UK is in a global competition, and, as other Members have said, time is short, even though these things are happening at pace. Personally, I well recognise the need for nuclear energy as part of our energy mix, particularly for baseload power. I also recognise the role that SMRs can play for data centres and the harder-to-abate industries. This is obviously a moving space. If we were making counter arguments, we could say that the cost of renewables continues to go down and, as yet, we do not have a commercially operating SMR—we have many in development but not one in place already. However, I welcome this development, and I welcome nuclear as part of our energy mix to meet our net-zero goals.
EN-7 is about modernising our planning processes to make sure that they work, deploying projects after 2025 and ensuring longer-term planning. Can the Minister explain how EN-7 will be integrated with the energy spatial plans, when they are ready, and how they will fit together? EN-7 is designed to be more flexible and—as many noble Lords have said—it needs to be so in order to incorporate the new technologies. It is broader in scope, and it will enable site selection to be done by the developers themselves, whereas previously it was done by the Government—let us hope that that will speed up things. It will be done on a “first ready, first served” framework, once developers pass through a series of checkpoints.
EN-7 will supersede EN-6, but EN-6 will not be withdrawn and remains a material consideration. The removal of time limits and the focus on criteria-based selection aim to open up more sites. Generally, we welcome this policy, as I said. We welcome that the Government are taking it seriously and bringing forward new policies and plans to implement these new technologies and make this happen. The Government’s policy is better developed on SMRs than it is on AMRs—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, made quite strongly. Picking that up, what further work will the Government do to progress the AMR side of things?
Previously, before this policy, this country had only eight sites licensed for nuclear power. As we move to SMRs, we are moving to a completely different system where any site can potentially have small modular reactors if it meets the appropriate criteria. We need to acknowledge, in this Room and on the record, that this is a huge and fundamental change. I will come on to that later, but these are big and important changes.
The Government’s press release talked about slashing red tape,
“ripping up archaic rules and saying no to the NIMBYs”.
That is a bit unhelpful. We have new technologies and planning processes, and it is important that the Government take the time to explain, consult and provide reassurance. As we have a whole new system, with new nuclear power plants, we need a new way to assess the risks that this changed system brings with it. That is important, too.
My understanding is that SMRs are happening and should be going to tender by next March, which is welcome. Can the Minister confirm that it is still the Government’s plan to tender for two SMRs?
I wish to pick up some of the concerns from the consultation. Waste was one of them: the management of radiological waste and spent nuclear fuel and putting that in the context of the fact that we still lack a geological disposal facility. Depending on what design is chosen, it is possible that we will continue to generate waste from even small modular reactors. How will these challenges be met? How will this fit with the need for the geological disposal sites that are not ready? There will be allowance for interim storage. How will that system work? What do the Government mean by “interim” in that context? What general timeline are the Government working to for the GDF?
Who bears the cost here? Small modular reactors, in particular, could be from one commercial company providing energy. Where does the cost of the processing and long-term storage of waste sit? Does it sit with the state or with the company? These are fundamentally different, in that they are providing power to a company. Will the Government update EN-3 in relation to waste for SMRs and AMRs? Is that planned? I am not certain.
I turn to the site selection criteria. The semi-urban population density criteria remain, which is absolutely right, but is there a conflict between that and powering data centres? I may be wrong, but my understanding is that most data centres are in fairly urban populations. Do the Government know whether that is a tension? I know that they are thinking about reviewing that. If that policy is reviewed, could the Minister give some reassurance about how that might happen, including the processes, and that there will be some scrutiny around that?
On climate change, which is one of the key criteria that need to be looked at, we are in the middle of—until it started raining today—a dry spring. Water usage is one of those primary concerns, particularly the impact of abstraction on water bodies.
There is also the security of these sites. The Office of Nuclear Regulation used to provide security for nuclear sites. I think it is still not certain whether it will take up the role with SMRs. Is that still to be decided? How will that work? If there are more sites, more need to be protected. There will also possibly be more nuclear material moving around the country to fuel these sites. Is there a policy coming on that? Is that still to be determined? The response cryptically said that there was not uniformity of views on everything. Are there issues for the Government that come from the consultation? Were there particular areas where the consultation responses picked up issues? Will that be subject to further review?
The need for a skilled workforce has been mentioned. We have not built new nuclear for a while. We have the nuclear skills task force but the words were “careful future management”. The hope is that we can grow our nuclear industry. We have two nuclear engineers in this Room. This is important much needed jobs and skills and growing our economy.
The communication bit is important for me. This is new stuff and a change of siting policy. I call on the Government to work with communities and to communicate in more open and co-operative language around these matters—this point has already been raised here—and to provide community benefit where that is possible. It may not be possible in all cases, but providing community energy through waste heat might be an option in some dcases.
Does the Minister see a role for SMRs in helping with grid balancing and providing baseload where we are providing these this energy to data centres? Are there options in terms of stabilising the grid?
My final point, noble Lords will be pleased to know, is around AI and energy. As we transition to net zero, we need at least to double the amount of electricity by 2050, and noble Lords have made the point that that need might be much greater. At the moment, data centres consume 2.5% of our electricity, but that is going to rise to 10% by 2050. Against that background, the general demand for electricity is going to double. There is no doubt that nuclear and the need for data centres will rub up against our need for net zero, and there will be competition for resources, workforce, government time, money and so on. That needs to be looked at. We had a Question to the Minister in the House the other day. There are loads of opportunities for us to make better use of AI to become more energy efficient, run our grid better, run our industry better and use less energy across so many sectors of the country from manufacturing to transport and everything else. While I welcome the creation of the AI Energy Council, I call on the Government, if they are embracing AI and providing energy, to put as much energy into trying to make sure that AI is as energy-efficient and energy-saving to the country as it possibly can be.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will know that I always welcome every opportunity to talk about nuclear power in all its forms. I echo the appreciation by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, of the Minister’s support for the nuclear industry. Of course, I endorse all the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about the obvious opportunities for nuclear power generation in Wylfa and Trawsfynydd in north-west Wales. I hope that this Government will work closely with their colleagues in Cardiff Bay to bring these projects about as speedily as possible.
It has also been good to welcome a new voice on these Benches. My noble friend Lady Maclean of Redditch will certainly prove to be an enthusiastic Member of the House, as evidenced by her barnstorming maiden speech.
The importance of nuclear energy in securing the UK’s future cannot be overstated. It is essential for energy independence, affordability and achieving our climate goals. We must adopt a diverse and balanced energy mix, one that is secure, sustainable and capable of providing affordable, reliable power for generations to come. In this mix, nuclear power plays an indispensable role. It is clean, reliable and can provide the baseload power necessary to complement intermittent renewables such as wind and solar.
The updated national policy statement, EN-7, represents a welcome and crucial step forward in the UK’s energy strategy. It is vital that the future of the UK’s energy generation is guided by a long-term vision grounded in a pragmatic understanding of what the future requires. Nuclear energy is central to that vision.
Of course, we must be mindful that innovation in nuclear technology comes with challenges. The development of SMRs and AMRs requires significant investment, careful regulation and rigorous safety standards. To an extent, the statement acknowledges some of these concerns and I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring the highest safety standards. Nuclear power has long been one of the safest and most secure energy sources available, and it will continue to be so with the right regulatory framework in place.
Here I stress that it would be enormously helpful if regulation between the international regulatory authorities could be aligned, as the Minister suggested it might be, thereby cutting down the expensive and time-consuming duplication of processes.
Energy security is one of the most pressing challenges of our time and nuclear energy will play a pivotal role in tackling this reality. The geopolitics of 2025 mean that energy is no longer just an industrial policy but at the very heart of national defence. The UK now imports 70% of its gas, largely from Norway and the USA. Additionally, 20% of peak UK gas comes through the pipeline between Norway and the UK.
Despite this, to achieve the Government’s clean power 2030 target, we are shutting down our domestic production of oil and gas, which supports an entire sector of jobs, brings tax revenue to the Exchequer and encompasses part of that 72% of hydrocarbons which we still rely on and will continue to rely on through the necessary transition period. It is particularly concerning that industry bodies, particularly Energy UK, have questioned whether the Government’s focus on clean power by 2030 could actually divert resources away from nuclear projects in the short term.
The UK completely removed all coal-fired power in 2024. It was largely replaced by both gas and naturally unreliable renewables. Relying on any one technology makes an electricity grid less resilient. However, nuclear power is zero carbon and will be integral in stabilising the grid when so much electricity comes from intermittent renewables. Even the former Prime Minister Tony Blair has argued that:
“Nuclear power is going to be an essential part of the answer”
to net zero. Writing in the foreword of a report by his think tank, the Tony Blair Institute, he rightly acknowledges that small modular nuclear reactors, nuclear fusion and other advanced technologies can help lower the emissions of the electricity sector.
So we welcome the updated EN-7, which emphasises the development of SMRs and AMRs alongside traditional gigawatt-scale nuclear plants. SMRs, in particular, offer significant benefits such as smaller footprints, lower costs and faster construction, making nuclear power viable in areas where large-scale plants are impractical. As the Minister stated, AMR technologies offer the potential to co-locate safely alongside data centres and heavy industrial users of power, such as the Port Talbot steelworks, providing dedicated power outside the grid.
We can also look towards nuclear power’s capabilities in meeting the UK’s ambitious sustainable aviation fuel mandate. This requires 22% of sustainable aviation fuel use in total jet fuel demand by 2040. This must not be overlooked: unlike intermittent renewable sources, nuclear power provides the steady, reliable energy supply demanded by large-scale SAF production. I hope the Minister recognises that significant investment is required to ensure the scalability and sustainability of nuclear energy in this sector.
By supporting nuclear innovation, we can position the UK as a global hub for nuclear expertise and technology, attracting investment from around the world. This is not merely about energy; it is about securing the UK’s future growth and prosperity. It is about ensuring that Britain remains a leader in high-tech industries, while creating jobs and fostering growth in communities across the nation—particularly those left-behind communities in the Midlands, Wales and the north-east. A strong, homegrown nuclear sector is central to achieving this.
We must also acknowledge the UK’s role as a global leader in nuclear innovation. Many of these advanced reactor designs are being developed right here in Britain. With the support of EN-7, we can strengthen the UK’s nuclear sector, positioning the country as a world leader in nuclear energy, but may I first make a few suggestions to the Government?
NESO needs to prioritise the siting work for advanced nuclear technologies. Sites identified as having potential must be reserved as strategic national assets now. Many of these could be currently designated as brownfield, such as those being identified in the Midlands near water and transmission lines; they must not be covered over by houses or solar farms for short-term gain.
The Government need to share the heavy lifting on the production of the appraisal of sustainability. Having to evaluate all possible alternative sites and flood protection for the entire life of the project is an onerous burden for developers, as highlighted by my noble friend Lady Coffey. The Minister will know that I have concerns about the method of gaining community support. While this is important in general terms, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, outlined, endless contact between developers and communities with potential sites could become counterproductive—unless they are in Wylfa or Trawsfynydd, perhaps. Lastly, the Government should ensure that the Committee for Climate Change has a nuclear advocate—it has long been missing from its mix.
To conclude, the updated EN-7 represents a positive step towards a cleaner, more secure and more prosperous energy future for the UK. By embracing nuclear energy, we can achieve energy independence, stabilise our grid, reduce emissions and create economic opportunities across the country. Finally, I very much look forward to the end of spring—in six weeks’ time—as, I am sure, does the Minister.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, is very experienced and knows that departmental spring is not entirely consistent with meteorological science. I very much take the point, however, that we all want to see a final investment decision on Sizewell C—except the noble Lord, Lord Howell—and great progress on the SMR programme.
This has been a really interesting debate, and I just make it clear that the contributions that noble Lords have made today will be fed into the consideration of our final version of EN-7. In a sense, the debate does not finish here; we will make sure that the contributions are considered very carefully by officials before we receive final advice on the contents.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, on a very lively, excellent maiden speech. We look forward to her future contributions. She will discover that the West Midlands is not overrepresented in your Lordships’ House, so it is very good to see her here. I did not know about Redditch tights—I now know—but I do know about the potential of Redditch. I also share her view about the need to encourage the aspirations of young people in Redditch, and I know about the work being done on the educational system there to try to improve aspirations, including through access to higher and further education.
This debate has been very encouraging. When I last had this job in 2008 to 2010, there was much more of a mixed view, inside and outside Parliament, about the role of nuclear. There has been a huge change in attitudes and in support for nuclear. We know that from the regular polling that my department has done on public attitude following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Among experts and political parties, there is generally now a baseload of support for nuclear, which is really encouraging. Given the long lead times of investment decisions and build for nuclear, having stability for the companies that wish to take this forward is absolutely crucial, as it is in terms of building a UK supply chain. This kind of debate is therefore very encouraging in that respect.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, was disappointed with EN-7. On future demand, there is clearly a range of estimates for what we need based on assumptions including the extent of electrification, the role of hydrogen and the growth of artificial intelligence. I assure him that we are not wedded to a single estimate, but we clearly have to flex the supply of electricity generation according to how we go forward in relation to the future.
On EN-7 and his argument that it insufficiently mentions SMRs, we believe that EN-7 caters to SMRs throughout. We do not refer to broad categories such as SMRs as planning decisions will reflect the facts of each set of plans rather than what they are called. The different characteristics of SMRs are addressed, particularly when it refers to phased development and cooling, where we recognise that different stations may be cooled in completely different ways.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell, made a number of remarks about Sizewell C that I do not think other noble Lords agree with. I know that he thinks that the replication of Sizewell C in relation to Hinkley Point will not lead to improvements in productivity, but I point him to the improvement in productivity between unit one of Hinkley Point C and unit two. To be fair, we know that Hinkley Point C has had many challenges, and clearly we are all anxious to see further progress made, but it has made progress. There is no doubt that it has learned about how to build on a huge site using the modular approach in many ways. I am convinced that Sizewell C will benefit hugely from it. Pulling the plug on Sizewell C and saying that we will put all our eggs in the SMR basket would be greeted with consternation within the industry. That is not the way to go forward.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about the RAB model. That was an important consideration. I was interested in what she had to say about the coalition agreement in 2010, and I still remember the decision made to withdraw support from Sheffield Forgemasters in 2010, which I think was a big mistake. I pay tribute to Sheffield Forgemasters, the work it is now doing and its potential.
On the financing of SMRs, there are plenty of companies which are knocking on our doors saying, “Just give us the green light. We can develop all this. We do not need any public money”. Allow me to be a little sceptical, particularly when it comes to first-of-a-kind development. Coming back to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean, about the share of GDP spent on public finances, et cetera, nuclear is one of those areas where you need public and private partnership. Of course we will develop our policies over the next few months, in particular in relation to advanced modular reactors, and look at the best way we can encourage private finance, because clearly we need the private sector to finance the development of AMRs in future. However, at the moment, and we have seen this with Sizewell C, public finance will be involved with the development of SMRs. Public finance is involved.
Clearly noble Lords are impatient for us to get to the end of the current programmes. We have basically inherited GBN’s assessment of SMRs. We cannot intervene now. It is working as hard as it possibly can to get decisions to government very quickly. Of course it is then tied into the spending review process, as it has to be, but the spending review outcomes are going to be known within a very short space of time. I do not accept that we are at risk of falling behind. I know from various discussions that I have had with other countries that there is huge interest in the GBN process. I hope that at the end of the process we will have a decision that will enable us to go forward with confidence and with the huge opportunity of developing a UK supply chain.
On the various contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, I first thank him for all the work he has done in the Midlands, showing the potential that we have in the Midlands, both east and west. He and his colleagues, uniquely, have brought the east Midlands and the West Midlands together, which as he and anyone living in the Midlands will know, is one of the greatest challenges known to men and women. Even though Brum is only a few miles away from Derby and Leicester, pulling them together is hard. He and his colleagues have done that and my department is very interested in the work that he is doing. I have already met him and I hope that he will carry on this work. It is worth saying that we already have huge assets. For instance, at the grid in Warwick, we have great skills and I am sure that we will contribute more in the future. That is probably not a departmental view, but noble Lords will know where I stand on these matters.
On community support, I very much take the point. It is an unknown quantity at the moment. With the existing sites that are listed in EN-6, we know that there was broad support in the local community for the development of new nuclear. We do not really know what the appetite will be in those areas that are new to nuclear. I take the point about the need for communications—mainly by the developers but I accept that the Government have a role. I should say that today we published our Community Benefits and Shared Ownership for Low Carbon Energy Infrastructure working paper for consultation, which may be helpful in encouraging communities to host infrastructure, receiving high-quality benefits in a consistent manner by building on existing voluntary approaches to community benefits.
On the noble Earl’s point about the Strategic Spatial Energy Plan, this will not be limited by EN-6 but will be consistent with it, as it obviously should be in EN-7. He asked about the threshold of 50 megawatts in England and 350 megawatts in Wales. This applies to planning applications, so it would naturally incorporate entire projects and entire sites. We think it unlikely that a developer would split a complex nuclear project into multiple planning applications to try to game the system. If they did, we could call in the applications and treat them as nationally significant infrastructure projects. I think that, given the scale of investment that is concerned, that is very unlikely.
I turn to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I take her point on population density. We had a lot of discussions about that before we published EN-7 and we are continuing to look at it in the EN-7 consultation. Any change we make has got to be broad-based and based on strong evidence. There is obviously a balance between safety, certainty of industry and public confidence. We are still considering this point. We are of course reviewing the national policy statement at least every five years and the review will give us an opportunity to revisit this as evidence develops and we gain experience of community attitudes in, say, urban populations, which we do not really know at the moment.
A very important point was made about water. EN-1 requires applicants to consider water quality and resources in detail, covering both construction and operation. Obviously, they need to engage early with the Environment Agency and water companies, but it is a substantive point. Of course, we have the more general issue of the need to build reservoirs, and I am well aware of some the discussions taking place about this at the moment.
My judgment on Sellafield, having revisited it after a gap of 14 years, is that it has made considerable progress. There is a long way to go, but I pay tribute to the work that is being done, the current leadership at Sellafield and the good relationships it has with the workforce. My judgment is that we need to see Sellafield as part of the future rather than just a legacy of the past. The skills developed at Sellafield—and, generally, in nuclear decommissioning—contribute to the industry as a whole. Confidence in the future and new nuclear depends on our being seen to deal with waste and decommissioning as effectively as possible.
We did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was such an expert and had such experience. His constructive approach to new nuclear in north Wales is very much appreciated. He has made the point to me, and I very much accept it. He will know that Wylfa offers many attributes; that is why it is listed in EN-6. I also understand the issue about Trawsfynydd and isotope production. Isotopes are a matter for my colleagues in the Department of Health, and I encourage the noble Lord to talk to them about that.
I visited Wylfa in 2009 and met many people in the workforce there. At that point, they were very keen to see nuclear development continue. It is a matter of great regret that the Horizon project fell apart, but we certainly consider Wylfa to be a site that offers many attributes.
On the issue of the sites listed in EN-6 that missed out, we are saying, in essence, that we have those sites and they continue to have much to offer, but we want a more flexible siting to allow more areas to come in. Before this was published, I was very keen not to suggest that, suddenly, the sites we listed in EN-6 were being overlooked, because they are not. Clearly, they offer many advantages.
My noble friend Lord Browne made a number of important contributions. On Scotland, it is interesting that, between 2004 and 2021, nuclear energy accounted for 25% to 43% of annual electricity generation. Scotland has this hugely rich heritage, and it is a tragedy that, at the moment, we cannot see new nuclear developments in that country. Let us hope that we see a change.
My noble friend’s remarks on the COP declaration on nuclear energy—on the risk of proliferation and the security issues that arise—were very important. The COP declaration itself and the addition of a number of countries—which, as he mentioned, was announced in the previous COP—are to be encouraged.
We are strong supporters of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has such a vital role to play on nuclear deproliferation. Its work in Ukraine over the past year or two has been amazing and the people involved in that deserve great credit. The UK is one of its strongest supporters and is acknowledged as such. I have had a series of meetings with the agency to talk about these matters.
I totally agree with my noble friend about the UK’s potential with the SMR programme globally. I know that we need to make progress quickly, but we have not missed, and will not miss, the boat. We have a great opportunity.
I very much take the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the energy needs of AI, which will make huge electricity demands but can make great contributions to improving our energy efficiency and the efficiency of the whole energy sector. We want AI to be linked to decarbonised energy. That is what is so exciting about what is happening in the US and the support that companies such as Amazon are giving to AI centres linked to nuclear power stations. We are looking at that carefully. Over the next few months, we want to work to ensure we have policies that make it as easy as possible for these to be developed using funding from private finance. The noble Earl asked me a question about one or two SMRs. He does not really expect me to be in a position to answer that. We will just have to be patient at this point.
Geological disposal is important, of course. EN-7 makes a number of points about waste, its importance and how it needs to be factored into the developers’ considerations and applications. I cannot give timelines on geological disposal. The noble Earl will understand that the Lincolnshire position is difficult at the moment, and we are not absolutely certain about where we are going with that. Clearly, the long-term future in relation to waste is geological disposal, but interim storage is of the highest quality and can assure safety. It fits into the general position. I cannot comment on the CNC role and security issues. All I will say is that security at our existing sites and new sites is crucial.
I fear I am going over my time, but I must refer to the important contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield. We are totally agreed on the importance of nuclear energy and safety standards. Let me reassure her that our review of the regulatory system will not put safety at risk. I will make just one point about international collaboration. Surely we can do more to share knowledge and information. If in the US, for instance, a technology has been given approval, there must be ways in which we can have reciprocity. I am convinced of that. In relation to the collaboration between regulators, we need to do much more. A comment was made earlier about the roles of Natural England and the Environment Agency. We have to ensure that these regulators work together and in a timely way.
Perhaps I can pass on oil and gas, as we have debated that many times, but nuclear innovation is very important. The Prime Minister’s visit to the UK National Nuclear Laboratory in Springfields only a couple of months ago was a signal of the Prime Minister’s support for nuclear and our innovation.
I am sorry that I have taken so long, but this has been a really interesting debate. The contributions of noble Lords have been very helpful. They will be carefully considered by my officials before advice is given to Ministers.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I apologise to the Committee. I should have started my speech by drawing attention to my registered interests. I still have a small legacy involvement with a Canadian nuclear company.
Armed Forces Recruitment
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made on plans to expedite and streamline armed forces recruitment processes.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I must start by declaring my interest as an honorary captain in the Royal Navy. I welcome noble Lords to the “Ruth show”, given that I will answer three Oral Questions today.
The Armed Forces recruitment service contract with Serco will fully unify recruitment by October 2027. The ministry has also set an ambition to make a conditional offer of employment within 10 days and to give a provisional start date within 30 days if the candidate desires it, in addition to scrapping more than 100 outdated medical policies.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
My Lords, there has been some improvement in retention rates recently, but since 1999 there have been only six years when the number of personnel joining the Armed Forces was higher than the number leaving. Last month, the Chief of the Defence Staff reported that the forces are getting smaller each month to the tune of 200 to 300 people. There is low morale, as well as various forms of job dissatisfaction. Can my noble friend explain what is being done to improve retention among service personnel?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her question. I want to make it very clear that I am in awe of anybody who puts on a uniform and runs towards danger; that is why we have to look after them. This Government inherited a recruitment and retention crisis from the previous Government.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
We did; noble Lords have discussed this in your Lordships’ House many times. However, since July, we have taken decisive measures on both recruitment and retention.
On the recent statistics, Armed Forces inflow has increased by 20% compared with the previous 12 months. The Army currently has a seven-year high in application volumes, the Royal Navy yearly recruitment target has been exceeded, and RAF applications are up by 34%. However, we still have a huge amount of work to do. That is why, specifically on retention, it is such an important step forward that we have introduced new retention teams, which hold exit interviews to work with service personnel to see whether we can help them overcome their reasons for leaving. We spend a huge amount of money on training our Armed Forces personnel; it is important that we make sure they stay.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lords, would the Minister consider a trial run of reopening high street recruiting centres, the closing of which was, in my view, a disaster? They enable people who know the area in which they are recruiting and the people whom they want to recruit much better than some remote service. Would the Minister consider giving that a trial just to see whether it still works?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point; I will pass his views on to the Minister and report back.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, 2027 is a long way off. The problem is urgent now. I understand that, between now and the full implementation of the contract with Serco, there will be a period that has been referred to as a “mobilisation period”. Can the Minister tell the House what that will entail, as well as what will be done to improve the situation this year and next year, rather than waiting for 2027?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his service and for holding the Government to account on this. The new contract is an important and significant change in the recruitment process: a single recruitment service operating on behalf of the services and the reserves that will make sure we are recruiting where we need to. We need to make sure we get it right so that it does not lead to shortages. We are implementing some of the parts of the contract as quickly as we can. On turnaround times, noble Lords will be aware that one of the biggest challenges that the Army had with the Capita contract was access to medical records; it was taking weeks to get them. We are now utilising AI and that has sped up from weeks to hours, which is speeding up the process.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, the Government inherited an MoD employing 63,000 civilians. Of course, many do vital and necessary work, but surely this is an absurd number, given that the Army itself is only 72,000 strong. Have the Government made any international comparisons in this area, and what plans do they have to tackle the bloated bureaucracy, particularly in procurement? The realised savings could then be diverted to improve pay and conditions at the sharp end, in our forces themselves. Perhaps the civilian excess could be drafted into the mooted Home Guard: I am sure there will be many aspiring Captain Mainwarings in their ranks.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, one of the themes of the strategic defence review is to explore the approach to recruiting, educating, training and retaining the people needed for “one defence”. This includes the regular reserve, the Civil Service and industry. It simply is not always appropriate for people in uniform to do some of these jobs, and we need to utilise those in uniform where they can best serve. The SDR will be published in the spring—and by the spring I mean “Civil Service spring”, so it will be imminent. While we are here, I thank my noble friend Lord Robertson for his work on the SDR.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, 43 years ago today, at this time, I was under heavy air attack and was later sunk. Recruiting at that stage was very buoyant—thank goodness, after one sinks. Post the war, it became even more buoyant. We have never had any shortage in this country, thank goodness, of young men and women who are patriotic and willing to risk their all for our nation. It seemed as though our recruiting system was trying to actively stop recruiting those people. I am very glad we have now got around that.
I will ask my noble friend the Minister two questions. Are we doing something special to get the engineers we are so very short of, particularly in the Air Force and the Navy, and the technicians who are crucial for our weapons systems? Is the UK Military Flying Training System now fit for purpose, because it has not been for a few years?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend not just for the question but for his incredible service. He highlights exactly what he did to keep our country safe and why people want to join our Armed Forces. I am proud to be his noble friend. I have to say I was disappointed because I had an update on ships, which is what I thought he was going to ask me about.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Just for my noble friend: HMS “Glasgow”, a new Type 26 will officially enter the Royal Navy tomorrow.
On the specifics of his question, I will have to revert on some details but let me be very clear on how we are recruiting and ensuring that people can come through, especially engineers. We are looking at each pinch point individually, and for tri-service air engineers we have offered a £30,000 incentive.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, there is an urgent need not only to increase the number of people recruited into our Armed Forces but to ensure they are better allocated to roles appropriate to their skills. Serco will, I understand, lead a consortium of six delivery partners—TEAM Serco. How do the Government and Serco propose to monitor progress by the individual team members to ensure the aggregate objective of increased numbers of personnel and better alignment of skills is achieved?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. At the heart of the contract is making sure there is one clear oversight to ensure of where we have missing skills. So, if a recruit says, “I want to be a chef in the Navy”, but we actually have too many vacancies for chefs in the RAF, we will actively encourage them to consider the RAF. Although this is candidate centred, we will for the first time be able to have an assessment of where our gaps are across the whole of the Armed Forces. If Serco fails, there are financial penalties.
Lord Peach (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. As the Minister has touched on reserves a couple of times in this brief session, does she agree that, following the SDR, we need to look at a surge in reserves—not just volunteers but really paying attention to our regular reserves? Given the threats and risks we face as a nation, we need to become very serious about mobilisation and think about the narrative for our society on defence, national security and especially national resilience.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord makes an excellent point regarding the strength and capacity of our reserves. They are a core part of our Armed Forces and it is vital that they are treated as such, which is why they are also included in the single recruitment contract. We are currently reviewing, through the prism of the strategic defence review, how we recruit reserves and what additional support we need to put in place, up to and including potential legislation.
Online Harms: Young People
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the challenges facing young people from online harms, as raised in the Netflix drama series Adolescence.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, we are committed to protecting children from online harms. Under the Online Safety Act, social media companies have a duty to remove illegal, misogynist and violent content from their platforms. From July, platforms will also need to protect children from harmful content, including hateful or abusive content, violent content and pornography. Ofcom is clear that it will use its strong enforcement powers for platforms failing to fulfil these duties. This reflects the priority the Government place on these actions.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, the Netflix programme “Adolescence” is a brutal exposition of the growing incel culture and manosphere that is infecting too many hearts and minds. A staggering 45% of young men have a positive view of the misogynistic influencer and conspiracist Andrew Tate. Every 29 minutes there is a post about rape on a popular incel forum. This content is leading to hatred of women and girls, and to serious violence. I listened closely to what my noble friend just said. Is she able to set out what the Government are doing to prevent this explosion of harmful misogynistic content and, in particular, the radicalisation that it can inspire?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise the destructive role that misogynistic attitudes, including online misogynistic content, can play in society, including the impact it can have on the views and behaviours of men and boys. Tackling misogyny both online and offline is central to our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, supporting victims and preventing harm in our communities. We will publish a new violence against women strategy this year. The Government will ensure that schools address the root causes of violence against women and girls, and teach pupils about healthy relationships and consent, and will continue to ensure children and young people are at the heart of prevention and intervention programmes and policies.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, one of the key themes in “Adolescence” was intimate image abuse. Just this week, the Government have rejected the Women and Equalities Committee recommendation to increase from six months the time limit for victims to seek justice when their intimate images have been non-consensually shared. Will the Minister explain the Government’s reasoning for rejecting a change that would help so many victims?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, the Government welcome the Women and Equalities Committee report on tackling non-consensual intimate image abuse, and the issues it raises are an absolute priority for us. That is why we have taken action by strengthening the Online Safety Act and introducing further offences as part of the Crime and Policing Bill and the Data (Use and Access) Bill—and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for all the work she has done in helping to us to strengthen that legislation. We will not hesitate to go further to protect women and girls online. Technology-facilitated abuse will be a key component of the upcoming cross-government violence against women and girls strategy.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, there has been much discussion about online access for children and young people at schools, and the advice on keeping phones out of schools is much welcomed. However, surely we need to ensure that parents and carers have all the information and skills that they need to navigate and guide their children. Are this Government planning a comprehensive campaign to alert parents to online harms and to ensure that they have the right digital skills to be able to access information and support for their children?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that important point. Media literacy in all its forms is important for parents, teachers and young people, to make sure that we create a respectful online environment. Ofcom has specific media literacy duties that it will carry out. Its media literacy strategy prioritises research and initiatives to address online misogyny, including research to understand how such harmful behaviour occurs. As set out in the strategy, Ofcom expects its work on online misogyny to directly target teenage boys and young men. However, the noble Baroness is right that it goes further than that: we have to educate parents as well, to look at what their children are accessing. There is a huge job of work to be done on education in the wider sphere. Obviously, schools are playing their part in that now, as the noble Baroness acknowledged, but we have far more to do on this, and all aspects of government are addressing these issues.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, the Online Safety Act allows Ofcom to look at how much children are using social media, yet the new children’s code from Ofcom does not mention addiction. What are the Government doing to deal with the problem of screen addiction among our children?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Viscount will know that schools already have a policy, or are expected by the Department for Education to have one, to ensure that children do not have access to phones in schools. That is a clear policy that the Government are keen to reiterate. What we are talking about here is what children do outside the school environment. From July, the children’s code of practice will provide much greater reassurance and protection for children. Services will be expected to provide age-appropriate experiences online by protecting children from bullying, violent content, abuse and misogynistic content. In other words, there will be much more forceful regulation to specifically protect children. Obviously, we will continue to monitor the codes of practice, but there are specific new powers under the code that come into effect in July and we want to see their impact.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I very much hope the Government are actively tracking and measuring the effects of schools’ own policies on mobile phone use during the school day. If so, what conclusions can be drawn about the wisdom of an outright ban? If they are not tracking that information, why not?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as I said, the Department for Education’s mobile phones in schools guidance is clear that schools should prohibit the use of devices with smart technology throughout the school day, including during lessons, transitions and breaks. The Government expect all schools to take steps in line with that. Beyond that, my own department, DSIT, has commissioned a piece of research to look at young people’s use of social media and their access to it throughout the day. The outcome of the research is due very soon and we will learn the lessons from that. Up until now, the evidence has not been as clear-cut as we would like. We hope to learn on an international basis how to protect young people throughout the day, and will apply those lessons once the evidence has been assessed.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, “Adolescence” is probably the latest in a long line of TV dramas that have the effect of changing societal attitudes—you can think of “Cathy Come Home”, “Queer as Folk”, “Mr Bates vs The Post Office” and indeed “Breathtaking”. One of the ways in which young people can be encouraged to get off their mobile phones is through engaging more in drama, but we are seeing drama and arts taken out of the curriculum. Does the Minister agree that there is value in these dramas, not just in raising awareness and changing attitudes but in helping young people to explore themselves and their identity, and to communicate in ways that do not involve devices?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point that we need to provide alternatives to online activities for young people. She is absolutely right about drama, and sport can also help with that. The Department for Education is conducting a curriculum review at the moment and one of its priorities is to make sure that children genuinely have a balanced, wholesome curriculum that deals with all those issues—one that is not just academic but deals with children’s development in the round, which is exactly what the noble Baroness is saying.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Finland is known as a global leader in education and has schools that focus on critical thinking and the ability to absorb online information and regard it sceptically, when needed. Does the Minister agree that that is something we need to see much more of in British schools? We are presenting teachers with a real challenge, with so many subjects focused on teaching to the test and rote learning things to regurgitate. We have to think about the whole way in which our schooling operates, so it is focused on critical thinking.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point, and it goes back to the need for a balanced curriculum. In the past, our curriculum has become too focused on a very specific set of goals and not the broader issues. Having healthy relationships is part of teaching and learning at school; that is absolutely something that we need to do and we are strengthening the provisions for that within the curriculum. The Department for Education will provide guidance to help young people develop the skills that all young people need to be able to navigate this complex modern world.
Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the declassification of files which stated that the Government “turned a blind eye” to serious crimes of the IRA in 2001, whether they will refer any murder cases to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, under the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, the commission is responsible for Troubles-related investigations for the period 1966 to 1998. Any alleged criminality which took place after 10 April 1998, including that described by the noble Lord, remains a matter for the PSNI. The UK Government do not comment on national archive releases or releases relating to previous Governments.
However, I want to take this opportunity to pay thanks to my noble friend the former Secretary of State at that time, as well as to all Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, for their role in the incredibly challenging work of helping to maintain peace and delivering and implementing the Good Friday agreement, including the effective decommissioning of weapons. We owe them an immense debt of gratitude and should never forget the context in which they were operating.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, last year, the Conservative Government brought a Northern Ireland legacy Bill to this House and this Parliament. I did not support it because of limited immunity, but at least they had the courage and the decency to bring it to this House for debate and voting instead of having a de facto amnesty. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, at the time warned Prime Minister Blair of the consequences of having Sinn Féin, linked to a terrorist organisation, in government. I ask the Minister: at that time, because of the individuals involved in that meeting, does she accept that Gerry Adams was a senior figure in the IRA?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that I cannot comment on anything to do with the archive. As to the matter he raises, it is currently a matter of ongoing court proceedings.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, for his helpful Question, which allows me to reply. Would the Minister confirm to the House—if it needs confirmation—that the conduct of investigations and prosecutions in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, was under the exclusive control of the police service, the prosecution service and the courts, and that Ministers had no locus, no power and no desire to interfere with that process? Will she accept that the transition from war to peace is not always easy and that what Ministers did, accompanied by the work of people such as Lord Trimble and John Hume, was to persevere in a political peace process, whatever the odds, which has resulted in inestimable benefits for all the people in Northern Ireland?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend, as ever, makes a series of excellent points. He is absolutely right. He knows better than I do, as he served our country in government in numerous roles at Cabinet level, that the police have complete operational independence. We owe all those who operated as politicians in Northern Ireland and the UK Government and who worked so hard in the most difficult of circumstances to deliver peace a huge debt of gratitude. Every day, we now have to live up to the promise of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the spirit of the Stormont House agreement to make sure the people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain have the peace that was so difficultly earned.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, the Minister may know that Gerry Adams is suing the BBC for accusing him of being—I am not quite sure how to put to it—not necessarily on the side of the good. Can the Minister therefore help the BBC in its defence, particularly in the case of Jean McConville, dragged from her home in front of her young children and murdered by IRA gangs? Can she look at how much we can help the BBC against Gerry Adams, particularly with respect to what he was doing with the Jean McConville case?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord served for many years in the other place and will be very aware that I cannot comment on ongoing court proceedings, but he does raise a very important case—that of the McConville family. Every time such cases are raised, we need to remember the impact they have on the families concerned and all victims of the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Three and a half thousand people lost their lives; families were for ever destroyed, and many people were hurt. There is a responsibility on all of us to make sure they get justice where they can and get to find their truth too.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, given that the Minister is quite correct in saying that the ICRIR cannot deal with cases post-1998, and given that the PSNI budget has been so seriously reduced that it is now operating with 75% of the officers it should have, can she commit to the development of ring-fenced funding to enable the PSNI to deal with the cases referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, in order that justice may be done?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, with Stormont up and running, how finances are allocated and spent is a matter for it. That includes the PSNI budget. The noble Baroness will be aware that at the spending review we increased additional security funding for the PSNI for this financial year by £37.8 million. She will be further aware there are ongoing conversations between the NIO and the Northern Ireland Executive about how we can keep working together, but part of this is a question for the Northern Ireland Executive.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the question from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and point out to the Minister that there are national security issues that remain the purview of our national Government in dealing with funding. I congratulate the Minister on the many strings to her bow this afternoon. Despite desperate attempts to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland during what were euphemistically called “the Troubles”, I know that she will agree that Northern Ireland society did not break down during that campaign of criminality—not a war—and because of that, the line was held by our security forces and services, and I am proud to be a daughter of the RUC. Given all that, can she give us an update on the stage that the Ministry of Defence is at with the Clonoe inquest review? I understand that the Ministry of Defence was to take judicial review proceedings—could she give us an update on that?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a really important point that I know is of huge concern to the veterans community, both those who served in Operation Banner and more broadly. With regard to the specifics of the inquest, the veterans involved in the Clonoe inquest and the Secretary of State for Defence have applied for a judicial review of the coroner’s verdict and findings, which do not properly reflect the context of the incident nor the very difficult circumstances in which members of the Armed Forces served in Northern Ireland. The MoD is also funding the veterans in question to seek the judicial review and providing them with welfare support.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that trust is an essential element in the process of dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, and does she recognise that the current lack of legal certainty regarding the repeal of the legacy Act is adding to a lack of trust? Will she confirm therefore that it is still the Government’s intention to bring forward new primary legislation on legacy issues during this parliamentary Session?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Everything in the delivery of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the ongoing peace in Northern Ireland is about trust and bringing people together. With regards to forthcoming legislation, we were clear in our manifesto, and we have been clear by having it referenced in the King’s Speech. This Government are committed to bringing forward the timing of the legislation. However, noble Lords will appreciate that, as my Chief Whip is sitting two feet away from me, I am going to confirm: when parliamentary time allows.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, dealing with the here and now, can the Minister confirm that the Government’s decision to reopen legacy inquests, alongside the new legacy commission, inevitably risks elderly veterans being dragged back into coroners’ courts over events that happened as far back as half a century ago—yes or no? When the Tánaiste said this week that the UK and Irish Governments are working strenuously to find a “landing zone” on legacy issues, can she confirm that this will include full Irish co-operation with the legacy commission on information recovery?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord knows the answer to the first question. With regards to conversations with the Irish Government, he will be aware that we are working closely with them as the co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement. At the recent BIIGC, both Governments reflected on the positive and constructive bilateral discussions which have taken place, as well as the substantive progress towards reaching agreement on a joint comprehensive approach to legacy issues consistent with the principles of the Stormont House agreement. We can see part of that change through the memorandum of understanding that was issued to the Omagh bombing inquiry, which the Government viewed as a significant step forward. We look forward to further enhancements in this regard—for example, legislation on co-operation.
Improving Cyber Resilience
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to improve the cyber resilience of UK businesses, organisations and government systems.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
Did noble Lords miss me? The cyber threat to the UK is significant and growing; recent attacks on retailers and the Legal Aid Agency are just the latest examples of this. This Government are introducing the cyber security and resilience Bill to ensure that critical infrastructure and the digital services that UK citizens and businesses rely on are secure. We are also working tirelessly to improve the cyber resilience of government systems and are providing more support and services from the centre, such as the Government Cyber Coordination Centre, which brings together cyber defenders to share data and respond more effectively to cyber threats, vulnerabilities and incidents.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the recent CYBERUK conference reported that the number of cyberattacks had doubled in the past year. This is costing tens—indeed, hundreds—of millions of pounds to businesses and is making people very nervous about their personal data. It is having a huge effect right across society. I welcome the fact that a new Bill is coming in, but we cannot wait for that. What is the National Cyber Security Centre doing now to review its strategies to proactively get businesses to sign up? Not many—a relatively small number—have signed up. Does it have sufficient staff to deal with this growing problem?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a timely and important intervention, given recent events. Our online and offline worlds are merging, and there is no clear differential any more. This is a different frontier in that crime. This is an evolving and increasingly sophisticated threat, and we need to make sure that we are ahead of it. Candidly, as the NAO report earlier this year said, government cybersecurity practices are not yet where they need to be—but we are investing. Because of the report, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been clear that we will bring forward a new cybersecurity strategy this year, and the NCSC is making sure that all resources are available. I urge all noble Lords to look at its website and specifically at what tools are available through the Cyber Essentials system. Companies that sign up for Cyber Essentials controls are 80% less likely to make a claim on cyber insurance than those without certification.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have any plans to update the Computer Misuse Act, mainly to protect our cybersecurity professionals and researchers, who do so much to keep us all safe? The Act is over 35 years old. Will the Government take the opportunity of the cyber security and resilience Bill to insert clauses to this effect?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, when parliamentary time allows, there will be a cyber security and resilience Bill, and I am sure that, at that opportunity, we will discuss this in detail. I look forward to doing so with the noble Lord.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interest in the register as chair of the National Preparedness Commission. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, I congratulate my noble friend on her ubiquity in terms of policy today. There has been a sequence of very bad cyberattacks and, although I am sure that Marks & Spencer, the Co-op and so on address very carefully their cybersecurity expectations, it is very difficult for any organisation to withstand what may be a state-inspired, state-sponsored or state-supported attack—I do not know, and I am sure the Minister will not be able to comment on, whether these were such cases. Therefore, is it not important that the National Cyber Security Centre provides enough guidance and encouragement to support businesses in recovering after they have been hacked, providing them with, if you like, a plan B for recovering and dealing with the consequences of a successful attack?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the question. He is absolutely right: there is a clear role here for the National Cyber Security Centre, both during an attack and afterwards, as it works with experts. My noble friend is right that I cannot comment on the details of the current attacks. I reassure noble Lords that the NCSC has a sector-specific trust group, where 60 CEOs from the retail sector have come together, both during the attack and afterwards, to make sure that best practice and information are shared in real time, so that other retail organisations can make sure that they are not subject to similar attacks.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the NAO report in January on government systems, which says that
“departments have significant gaps in their system controls that are fundamental to their cyber resilience. The resilience of the hundreds of ageing legacy IT systems that departments still use is likely to be worse”.
Accepting that the Government have inherited a legacy of years of underinvestment in Whitehall IT, and that the cost of successful cyberattacks is very high, does it not make sense to raise the level of investment in replacing some of these legacy systems as rapidly as possible?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point. The NAO report was clear in its criticisms of our structures, and we accept every recommendation of the report. We are working our way through them, which is why we will be bringing forward a government cybersecurity strategy this year—building on the work of the previous Government—to make sure that we are fit for purpose. On the updating of IT, I have just lived through the updating of the printer system in the Cabinet Office. I would suggest that we take a bit of time with the next one.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, in November last year, media reports confirmed that the GOV.UK One Login service had been adopted by 50 government services, and that was expected to reach 100 within the year. However, Computer Weekly has since reported on serious cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Given that One Login processes biometric data from millions of citizens, why have the Government refused to publish their data protection impact assessment, and can the Minister confirm whether the rollout will continue on that timescale?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a series of important questions. Given the detail of them, I will write to her, and make sure that I speak to relevant officials, so that she gets the answers that she seeks. On One Login, over 5 million people are currently using it to prove their identity, and the ID Check app has over 6.5 million downloads, and a 4.7 rating on all app stores. If there are questions to answer, I will make sure that we get her the answers.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the government advice to companies facing not just a cyberattack but a ransom demand; whether that advice tallies with the advice and, indeed, instructions from their insurers; and how much money companies have paid out in ransom demands so far?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the threat of ransomware and ransoms are clearly appalling crimes undertaken by cybercriminals. The Home Office—and I can speak only for the public service and Government—has concluded a consultation on world-leading proposals to strike at the heart of the ransomware business model, cutting off criminals’ funding and protecting UK business by deterring threats.
The position of the Government is that public funds will not be used to pay ransom demands made by cybercriminals. This is, however, an important issue, which is why last year the National Crime Agency led a global collaboration to disrupt one of the most dangerous cybercrime networks in the world. In February, the UK sanctioned six Russian individuals for facilitating crippling ransomware attacks. This is at the frontier of the cyber threat, and from the Government’s perspective, we highly recommend that people do not pay ransoms; there is no guarantee that their data has not already been sold on.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, when Richard Horne spoke at the CYBERUK conference this month, he stated that Britain has suffered double the number of serious cyberattacks in recent months compared with the same period last year. Nevertheless, only 35,000 SMEs have been issued with Cyber Essentials certificates in the last year. Can the Minister say what steps are being taken to increase uptake? Without it, SMEs will be critically vulnerable.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness gives me the opportunity to promote Stop! Think Fraud, an active campaign that promotes the work of the NCSC and directly targets organisations. The next iteration of its campaign is to target SMEs and micro-businesses, to make sure that they are aware of the tools that are available to them.
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before colleagues leave the Chamber, I am delighted to be able to update the House on the plan for recesses up to Whitsun next year. I have already announced the planned dates for recesses until January 2026. As ever, these and the new dates can change subject to the progress of business. To save noble Lords rushing for their diaries, I shall email them to all Peers and place a copy in the Royal Gallery immediately after I have finished speaking.
Without further delay, I am pleased to confirm that we currently intend to adjourn the House in early 2026 as follows. For the February Recess, we will rise at the conclusion of business on Thursday 12 February and return on Monday 23 February. Easter Recess will start at the end of business on Thursday 26 March, with the House returning on Monday 13 April. Finally, I would expect Whitsun Recess to start at the end of business on Thursday 21 May, with the House returning on Monday 1 June.
I hope that that assists colleagues in planning the year ahead. I shall always endeavour to keep the House updated with forward dates as soon as possible and of course communicate any changes in the same way. With that, I thank all staff and colleagues across the House for their hard work. I wish everyone a restful Whitsun Recess with family and friends.
Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to the Statement made in the other place almost to the day of the anniversary of the Statement and apology made on behalf of the Government by my right honourable friend the former Prime Minister.
The infected blood scandal is one of the most serious failures of the British state in recent years, and it has caused immense harm for tens of thousands of people and their families. The heartbreaking film shown on ITV last night depicted the terrible deeds at Treloar college in Hampshire in the 1970s and 1980s, reminding us that the story is not yet over for so many living in the aftermath of such enormous negligence. As I mentioned when we debated the infected blood regulations earlier this year, in his 2022 report Sir Robert Francis said:
“Sadly, many of the infected community fear that they have not got long to live”.
That is why urgent action is needed, and we are united across your Lordships’ House in our conviction that the victims of this appalling scandal deserve justice.
As noble Lords across the House are aware, when we were in government we made significant progress towards justice for victims of the infected blood scandal—and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead for her role in establishing the statutory inquiry. I put on record once again our thanks to Sir Brian Langstaff and Sir Robert Francis for all their work, as well as to all the tireless campaigners, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, Lady Brinton, Lady Featherstone and Lady Finlay of Llandaff.
We welcome the fact that the Government have picked up where the Conservative Government left off and are continuing work to deliver justice for the victims. I particularly welcome the announcement that Sir Robert Francis, who has done so much to design and deliver the compensation scheme, will continue in his role as interim chair of the IBCA for a further 18 months.
We know there is nothing we can do that will truly heal the wounds felt by all those affected, but it is vital that we do all we can to address the pain and anger felt by those in the infected and affected communities. I also welcome the announcement of funding for charities to provide much-needed patient advocacy services. As time passes, we know that, sadly, fewer and fewer of the victims will be with us. For them, justice delayed really is justice denied, and that is why we support the Government’s work to speed up the pace of compensation.
The Minister will not be surprised to know that I have a few questions on the Statement. In the other place, Ministers said they expect to see a significant increase in the pace of payments. Can the Minister please explain the Government’s actual expectations of this increase in the pace of payments, and what does it mean in practical terms for victims?
Ministers have also said that a new surveillance registry will be set up to monitor liver damage in those infected with hepatitis C. I very much welcome this but, again, for victims, time is of the essence. Can the Minister please confirm when this service will be established?
Finally, I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the inquiry’s recommendations, either in full or in principle. However, I note the mention made in the Statement that the implementation of some recommendations will depend on future spending decisions by the Department of Health and Social Care. It is obviously important that the expectations of those applying for compensation from the scheme are managed clearly and transparently at the outset. Can the Minister say which areas of the recommendations may be affected by the departmental spending decisions that were referred to, and will she undertake to report to the House by an appropriate means when the relevant spending decisions have been made?
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for responding to the Statement in your Lordships’ House. I will start by thinking about all those infected and affected who, a year ago yesterday, heard Sir Brian Langstaff speak at the launch of the inquiry report. For those of us who were there, it was a joyful day when people really thought that things were going to change and happen at pace. The last Government promised rapid action, and the new Labour Government promised, and continue to promise in this Statement, moving “at pace”—indeed, the Statement uses this exact phrase. However, any conversation with any of the infected and affected leaves you in absolutely no doubt that, from their perspective, progress is still glacial: 77 claimants have been paid out of a possible 140,000, of whom over 3,000 have already died. Only 475 infected claimants have been invited to claim so far, and no affected claimants have even got that far because that scheme does not open to claimants until later this year.
If this is complicated—and we know that it is—why have the Government not invested more resources in the compensation body to process claims and, above all, not repeat work that has been done under previous schemes? As with many of the other current compensation schemes, including the Post Office Horizon scheme and the Windrush scheme, this one is floundering. It is fascinating that, whenever I talk to people from one of these schemes, they always cite how well the others are going, but all of them feel that everything is far too slow.
It matters because claimants are dying, probably every week. Some claimants were infected nearly 50 years ago, and Sir Brian’s statement on 13 May, made after taking two extra days of evidence earlier in May, is very clear. Action to speed up is needed now. Instead of a random system, including deferring all affected claimants until after the infected claimants have been sorted, is not acceptable. He proposes a prioritisation scheme, helpfully including worked examples. Will the Government accept that prioritisation is now necessary?
I have raised before the issue of an affected claimant who, when we looked at the regulation some months ago in February, was given less than a year to live. Under the current arrangements, there is not a hope that she will have even started the process before she dies. This is unacceptable. Will the Government ensure that all who have a limited time to live—I include within that Sir Brian’s definition of those over 70, and there are other detailed definitions as well—will have their claims started sooner rather than later?
There is also a difficulty with some of the routes. Those who were infected with just HIV—but probably hepatitis as well—have a very simple, essentially three-step route, and I am very grateful to the survivor who sent me two A3 pages demonstrating the processes. The HIV one is very clear, but for someone infected with hepatitis alone, it is essentially a horribly multifaceted process that takes up a whole page of A3 full of boxes. Will IBCA prioritise a simplification of this process? That is what is taking the time.
I also watched the Treloar documentary last night. I met some of the Treloar students in the mid to late seventies, with drama groups. I worked with those students. Talking to the survivors of Treloar’s, most of the young men I spoke to are dead. That, we need to remember. They and their families have a very difficult life; their families are still waiting. These are the affected people we have been talking about.
The Statement talks about listening to the incredibly moving testimony of those impacted, but feeling pain on their behalf is no longer enough—we must see action. Yesterday, a letter was delivered by the various survivor groups to No. 10, in which they said:
“As the Infected Blood Inquiry heard when it reconvened hearings on 7 May 2025, the community’s voice was absent when the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme was drawn up. The resulting scheme contains fundamental flaws, which could and would have been foreseen”.
Will the Government instruct IBCA to ensure that those are dealt with?
I will move on briefly to the government response last week to the Infected Blood Inquiry report, which has only taken a year to be published. First, on page 31, the Government say that it is
“complex to implement and enforce”
a duty of candour. I am grateful to the Government for making a priority of duty of candour in their manifesto, but there is still no timeline on when the Hillsborough law will appear. Those countries that have either a duty of candour or mandatory reporting for safeguarding find that having a strong law and good training absolutely changes the culture of those organisations. In Australia in particular, it works really well. May I encourage the Government to look at that?
Secondly, there are two recommendations on the defensive culture in the NHS and the Civil Service that are accepted only in principle. Repeated Home Office failures on the Post Office Horizon scheme and the Windrush scheme demonstrate that actually, we have to get rid of the defensive culture. It is a shame that, frankly, this has been recognised in principle only, and that the scale for it to happen has no timetable attached to it.
The Government say that the recommendations on training and an effective transfusion service are a
“complex set of sub recommendations”
from Sir Brian, but they say there needs to be
“a joined-up approach across … four services”.
This, again, is in principle, with no timeline, mainly because no funding has been identified. Have we not learnt from Sir Brian’s inquiry report that we have to do this to stop future mistakes?
On the patient voice, I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, about the gratitude for the funding for the IB groups. That is important, but the Government have not accepted in principle the clinical audit. The Welsh and Scottish Governments have, but our Government and the NIA have not. Please can this be done at pace? It is ridiculous to do it on its own.
In summary, things need to change, and fast. I recognise that the compensation body is an arms-length body, but please will the Government provide funding to upscale things so that compensation can start in earnest?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady Brinton. As ever, the tone of this discussion and the questions so far has been one of sensitivity and co-operation; it is your Lordships’ House at its best.
I pay tribute to the work of many noble Lords across the House. Parliamentary scrutiny has played an important role in holding the Government to account on the progress they have made in responding to the inquiry, and I know that your Lordships’ House will continue to push forward the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations.
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell of Surbiton and Lady Featherstone, for their ongoing engagement. I also put on record my personal thanks to the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Finlay, who have been incredibly helpful in my own journey on this area. We are truly lucky to have such tenacious women in your Lordships’ House.
The inquiry’s report revealed the scale of devastation caused by the infected blood scandal: lives were shattered and families were torn apart, all attributable to the collective and avoidable failings of the state. I and ministerial colleagues have pledged on a number of occasions that this Government are listening, and we are hearing. We will not seek to repeat the mistakes of the past. I hope that the progress set out in the Government’s response provides some reassurance—although, rightly, with questions—that we are acting on the inquiry’s recommendations. On behalf of the state, I reiterate our deepest apologies to those impacted by this heartbreaking scandal, as my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Cabinet Office have stated.
I turn to some of the specific points and questions that the noble Baronesses have raised. I apologise if I am unable to cover all the points raised, or if I have misunderstood any of them. I will reflect on Hansard and write to all noble Lords who participate today.
On the speed of delivery of the compensation, I think we know that this is at the heart of many of the issues highlighted over the last week in the media, separate from the heartbreaking documentary shown last night. I know that the speed of compensation payments is a primary area of concern to both noble Lords across this House and in the infected blood community more widely. Earlier this month, IBCA confirmed plans to ask an average of 100 people a week to start their claims. While the rollout of the scheme is an operational decision for IBCA, as an independent body, the Government are supportive of this ambition and stand ready to assist in speeding up payments. I am assured that it has the resources to expedite its findings. If it does not, I will speak to officials today and find out what else we need to do.
As the Minister for the Cabinet Office noted to the inquiry last week, the Government will consider the concerns that the inquiry and the infected blood community are continuing to raise. The Government’s primary focus is ensuring that compensation payments are made as quickly as possible, and we are aware that that leads to some challenges with certain parts of the implementation.
On the duty of candour, I recognise the concerns about the delay in introducing the forthcoming Hillsborough law Bill to Parliament. I want to assure your Lordships’ House that the Government remain fully committed to legislating in this area. The Government have been consulting widely with interested parties—we want to get this right—and are working to ensure that the best version is drafted ahead of its introduction. I look forward to debating the content of the Bill with noble Lords.
I reiterate the point about the ongoing implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations: we are committed to future transparency and accountability in this area, and we will be publishing the Government’s progress via a publicly accessible dashboard in due course. The dashboard will be updated regularly as progress is made.
We started by highlighting the documentary that was shown last night. There are too many heartbreaking stories associated with the infected blood scandal—in fact, every story is heartbreaking. What happened at Treloar’s was utterly abhorrent. I encourage all noble Lords across the House to watch the documentary, and I pay tribute to those in the community who courageously told their stories again to bring this documentary to our screens. The Government are committed to remembering the victims of this scandal through memorials, both specifically at Treloar’s and more widely in the UK. We are working through the process to remember them in a way that is appropriate and fitting.
On the extension of Sir Robert Francis’s contract, I am pleased that he will be continuing in his role. He has been involved in the creation of the process, and we have a shared priority to deliver compensation as quickly as possible.
With regard to monitoring liver damage, we absolutely recognise the importance of this for those who have been infected, and we will accept the majority of the sub-recommendations in full. Our approach will balance the implementation of the recommendations against the principle that all patients should receive the same treatment, irrespective of how the disease was acquired.
With regard to the DHSC and the recommendations, we are awaiting the CSR, so noble Lords will have to bear with me, but we will update the House on the additional recommendations as and when.
In respect of compensation and the speed of delivery, I can assure noble Lords that IBCA is committed to opening the full compensation service to all those eligible as soon as possible. On 11 February, IBCA set out its plans to open the compensation scheme in stages to make sure it is effective and secure for all those claiming. This was a decision taken independently of the Government by the IBCA board. IBCA is —importantly—an independent agency, but we do want it to expedite the payments. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is looking at all the recommendations and I will report back to your Lordships’ House in due course, when we have the recommendations of the latest stage of the inquiry.
With regard to charitable funding, as has been mentioned, I am pleased that the Department of Health and Social Care has identified a pot of £500,000 for this financial year. This is brand-new money for those charities that have supported victims in the infected blood community for many years, doing so independently. The Government recognise the important work done by those charities that are supporting the infected and affected community and the pressures placed on these organisations following the inquiry’s report and the Government’s setting up of the infected blood compensation scheme. Earlier this week, I met with the Hepatitis C Trust, which has had more than 3,000 phone calls just this year related to infected blood.
With regard to further hearings and the report, we remain fully committed to co-operating with the inquiry and to acting on its recommendations, and we are grateful for its compensation work to date. So far, we have set aside £11.8 billion to compensate the victims and made compensation offers of £130 million. I am conscious that noble Lords across the House will be keen to hear the Government’s plans for responding to the inquiry’s forthcoming report on the design of the scheme and the speed of delivery. While I cannot commit to concrete timelines at this stage, my honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office will carefully consider all proposals and recommendations from the inquiry and will respond as soon as possible.
I thank noble Lords once again for their contributions. I am determined that we shall continue to work closely together to progress this work and continue in the spirit that has characterised our debates on this issue. The Government are clear that this is not the end of the discussion on infected blood. There is much more for us to do to deliver justice to the infected blood community: people who have suffered so much hardship as a result of this scandal. We must do what we can to provide what justice we can, and they must be at the forefront of our minds and our primary focus as we do so.
Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest as the widow of Graham Ingleson, who died at the age of 33 in 1993.
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for meeting me before the Easter Recess. I know that she is genuinely committed to ensuring that the victims get justice, and that is welcome. However, she will not be surprised when I say that the Statement that was made in the House last week is wanting. I do not feel that it reflects the deep frustration and disappointment of the infected blood community at the shocking lack of progress. Therefore, in the light of their concerns, Sir Brian Langstaff took the unprecedented step of reopening the inquiry two weeks ago to hear why the compensation scheme is failing the community so profoundly. Does the Minister agree that the chronic delays in processing claims are lamentable? Only 160 or so of the 30,000 known to be affected received payment in the last year, and people are dying at the rate of one or two a week. Will the Government consider quarterly targets for IBCA to speed up claims settlements?
The Statement rightly recognises the devastating impact of this scandal. Does the Minister accept that the bureaucratic nature of the scheme exacerbates the distress of the community as they relive their trauma?
It is clear from the recent hearings that genuine engagement with the community is just not happening. Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government will address this with IBCA urgently? A
“publicly accessible dashboard in due course”
is not good enough.
Lastly, the Prime Minister said a year ago, “Politics itself failed you”. Will the Minister acknowledge that the paramount need is to ensure that politics does not repeat itself? In the words of the CEO of the Haemophilia Society:
“The inquiry gave us the truth, but we’re still waiting for justice”.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for coming in today to participate in the debate. As she is a member of the affected community, I know of the strain of leadership that she has had to face as people look to her for answers. She is a tenacious woman and a dedicated campaigner, but that still requires a huge amount of inner strength, and I thank her for what she is doing for the community.
With regard to the specific points, obviously several were raised and I will reflect on Hansard. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right: politics failed the infected blood community and we need to make sure that that does not happen again, both for this community and any other community that is facing issues where the state has let them down. I truly believe that politics is a force for good in society; we need to make sure that it is. I hope that the noble Baroness will soon be meeting with the Minister for the Cabinet Office to discuss next steps, and I hope both to be present and to make sure that she makes some of these recommendations forcefully, as I know she will. We will reflect on them as we also reflect on the findings of the second phase of the inquiry.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite him to ask his question.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, with an infected blood compensation bill of £11 billion-plus and a further annual bill of £3 billion for misdiagnosis and incorrect medication, and then recognising the limitations on Commons inquiries due to Member availability, limited expertise and agenda pressures, does not this whole affair now demand an ad hoc inquiry into compensation arrangements administration in the Lords, drawing on our huge expertise in accountancy, healthcare and wider issues of compensation law? I am sure our people could find ways of speeding up the process and the scheme, saving a lot of public money that is currently unnecessarily feeding some areas of the legal and other professions. I suspect this will all end up in a VFM report before the Public Accounts Committee in years to come.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Noble Lords across your Lordships’ House have extraordinary expertise, and I will more than happily meet with any of them if they have recommendations for how we can more quickly expedite infected blood compensation payments. With regard to the £11.8 billion, though, that money has been ring-fenced in compensation payments for the victims of infected blood. We will do everything we can to make sure they get it. This is taxpayers’ money, so there is a balance here; we need to make sure that the people entitled to it get it, which is more straightforward for the infected; we will discuss in great detail what that means as we progress on to the affected, to make sure that safeguards are in place. But this money is for those people who have been directly affected, and we need to make sure that they are the ones with the money.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Many noble Lords will have heard me say before that I have to declare an interest, but for those who do not know, it is because one of my sister’s twins died aged 35 of infected blood and hepatitis C, leaving a 10 month-old baby daughter.
I met with the campaigners yesterday and these are among their main issues. Those in the infected blood community told me of their deep concern about the delays in the application process, but also of an arrogance of behaviour on the part of members of the IBCA. They said it appeared that the delays were deliberate and that, as has been stated, up to two victims a week are dying and there is a feeling that the Government might be saving money. I do not think that is the case, but the delays allow such theories to develop.
I ask the Minister the following questions. Why are responses to applicants’ queries taking so long? Is it that the IBCA needs more capacity, staffing or training? What are the Government doing about the difficulties that victims are having navigating the bureaucratic compensation claim system, which many of them think is vastly overcomplicated? There is, as I mentioned, a constant complaint about the attitude of some within the IBCA, who
“come across as gatekeepers rather than efficient, compassionate compensation enablers”.
Many wonder whether Treasury civil servants are seconded to the IBCA, as their treatment is so like the treatment they received from members of the Civil Service and the Government during the 40 or 50 years when they were trying to bring this to a head.
What is happening on the disparities between those with HIV, as opposed to hepatitis C? At the moment, HIV is scheduled for a vastly larger amount of compensation than hep C, yet those with hep C are dying more than those with HIV. Creating divisions among groups of people who are suffering and dying is not a great idea; I should like the Minister to convey that to the IBCA. Lastly, what is happening about the issues within the compensation scheme, such as 25% less for carers and underpayment errors due to wrong tariff calculations? I hope the Minister can answer some of those questions.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions. Every time we discuss this, I am very aware of the impact that it has on members of the community who have to relive the pain and hurt of the loved ones they have lost or are still caring for.
I want to be very clear and put on record that none of the delays is about saving money. That would be the most heinous of approaches. Although I understand that that is being said by members of the community, it is simply not true. Rather, we adopted the establishment of IBCA with a test-and-learn approach. We thought that the worst thing we could do would be to promise more and not be able to deliver. We are trying to ensure that we can deliver at a level and that the people who are entitled to money are actually getting it, and that we are learning from where we get it wrong and fixing it.
On streamlining the process, I tried to use the calculator to figure out what I would or would not be entitled to if I was a member of the community. There is still some way to go in terms of IBCA’s communications, I think it is fair to say. They are getting better but there is still some way to go. I say to all noble Lords, but especially to the noble Baroness, that if there are specific complaints and people are coming to you because they trust you, but there are cases that you would like me to raise directly to find out what is going on, then please pass them to me. I have already done this on behalf of some noble Lords and I have been more than happy to do so. I am very aware of the added burden this is, both in your inboxes and in the emotional toll that it takes. Give them to me and I will raise them.
On the tariffs, the impact of hepatitis infections can range from very mild to, as the noble Baroness’s nephew experienced, horrendously severe. The expert group provided clinical advice on the distinctions between these impacts. This meant that we could set severity bands. I am really sorry, because bringing it down to bands is emotionally very difficult when we are talking about people’s horrendous experiences, but if we are to expedite the compensation then that is the practical way in which we have to do so. The bands mean that when someone’s experience of hepatitis is more severe, based on clinical markers, they receive more compensation, and if their hepatitis symptoms get more severe they can then progress and reapply for additional funding.
On the lack of an HIV tariff, very, very sadly, most people infected with HIV due to infected blood have already passed away; in most cases their deaths were as a result of their HIV infection. It was the view of the expert group that it would be disproportionately complex to break down the HIV category into different severity bands, given the ultimate severity of death.
Lord Prentis of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I declare that I was a member of one of the expert groups that fed into the Infected Blood Inquiry, which looked into one of the darkest periods in the history of healthcare in our country. There was systemic failure and inertia, with blood plasma being brought in from dangerous sources, such as American prisons. Lives were destroyed. So many people are suffering. So many families are feeling pain. So many people are dead, with many deaths yet to come.
There is a moral duty on all of us to ensure that Sir Brian’s report on compensation is implemented in full. It is well over a year since it was published. I say to my noble friend the Minister that putting aside so much money is welcome, but surely there is a moral imperative to pay compensation now to those who have suffered or are suffering through no fault of their own. It is great that money has been put aside, but what is causing the delay? What is the hold-up? I am sure that, if that could be dealt with, we could then move forward to spend the money that has been set aside. The delays appear cruel and besmirch all of us, to say the least.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question and for the work that he did as part of the expert group. The Government will not be satisfied with the speed of payments until every eligible person has received the compensation that they are due as quickly as we can do it. When the previous Government and the then Opposition worked together to ensure that this could be delivered just before the general election—or just as the general election was called—we were clear that we would work together to make sure that this happened.
The money is there. We have had to create an independent vehicle to make sure that it is given away judiciously and is accessed by the people who need it—these are public funds—because, given the community that we are talking about, which for every reason in the world simply does not trust the state, having a body that is not the state was viewed as incredibly important. This means that we have had to create something from scratch, which takes longer, and we have had to make sure that the people working there have the tools and experience to give the money out. They are doing a job that most of us, when we enter public service, would celebrate. Those whom I have met cannot believe that their job is to try to fix something that was so horribly broken. The agency literally exists to give compensation to people who have experienced something horrendous. The people who work there are doing themselves out of a job, because IBCA will close as soon as people have received their compensation.
There is a long way to go but we want to do this as quickly as possible. I look forward to working with all noble Lords as we progress on this journey.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I would be very happy if my noble friend the Minister could outline when the funding for the support organisations will be provided. Many of them have worked strenuously over many years to ensure that the funding and the compensation go to the people who need them most: the victims of infected blood.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. The money was allocated only last week, I think; I will correct the record if I am wrong. We are working with the charities now to see which of them will be allocated the funding. That is a matter for the DHSC, but I will update my noble friend when I have more details.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, in joining with the moving testimony of those on both sides of the House who have done so much, I will just end with one tribute. I gave evidence to Sir Brian Langstaff’s inquiry over a number of days. I have had the misfortune, or fortune, to appear before a number of inquiries in my relatively long parliamentary career. Sir Brian conducted an absolutely exemplary investigation, with all those who worked with him. Among all this horror, it is something to hold on to that we have people in our public life in this country who can do work of that quality.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord rightly highlights the work of Sir Brian Langstaff. If we consider the subject matter that he has been exploring and the trust that he has managed to instil within the community, we see that his work is both extraordinary and miraculous. On the day of the report, when, across the road, he came forward to the group in the room to present the final report, there was cheering and a standing ovation from a group of people who have been so badly treated by the state. The fact they had that reaction to him—someone who, based on his CV, could easily be said to be the establishment—shows what an extraordinary thing he has managed to do. We owe him hugely for the work he has done, which is why we will act on every one of his recommendations.
UK-EU Summit
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I will repeat a Statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday. The Statement is as follows:
“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 resounding 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 such as 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 such as 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 eGates 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 party opposite. 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. I do not have time to run through the list of supportive quotes from businesses, 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 and Drink Federation, the British Chambers 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. For weeks now, she has been dismissive of the benefits of any trade deal, in defiance of her party’s history. It is not just the Conservatives that I am talking about here; the honourable Member for Clacton, who is not here, and the right honourable Member for Kingston and Surbiton have both shown, in their own way, that their parties 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”.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. I say at the outset that we share her concern about the humanitarian situation in Gaza, and I think everyone in this House would wish for a peaceful and swift resolution.
I have been around long enough to know that when a Prime Minister, of any party, tells you a deal is a triumph, you need to look pretty fast at the small print. In this latest case we do not yet have most of that, which is actually quite a problem, but the basics are clear: EU control of our food standards restored; Britain as a rule-taker, not a rule-maker; the ECJ back; dynamic alignment back; and, frankly, our fishermen sold all the way to the Dogger Bank in a December gale. All this for a packet of sausages that the French do not actually want. The promise is that we might—potentially, where appropriate, is what the communiqué actually says—be able to go on a summer holiday through passport e-gates. That is something the UK has continued to give EU citizens ever since Brexit. Why did they have to give up so much to get something that we in this country, who have real good will to our European friends, have given to EU citizens for decades?
I have defended some dud deals at that Dispatch Box in my time, and some good ones. You get to sniff them out—and this one is a dud. It reminds me of some other negotiations with the EU in the past: surrender all the key principles first, then try to negotiate the details later when your leverage is gone. So, having been told in the Labour manifesto that there will be no freedom of movement, the Government have a proposed scheme that could see tens of thousands of working-age migrants come to Britain, potentially with the ability to settle and bring dependants. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether reports that the scheme may be capped at 100,000 people are correct, and will she say what upper age limit the UK is seeking for the scheme?
The deal has again made Britain a rule-taker, leaving our farmers subject to rules made in Paris and enforced in Brussels, while they have no voice at the table. What assessment have Ministers made of the impact of EU regulations and dynamic alignment on the viability of family farms in this country?
Do the Government understand that autonomy on food standards is vital to the prospects of our being leaders in precision breeding, for which we only recently legislated? From being world leaders in this industry of the future, we will be tied to move at the pace acceptable to the most resistant bureaucrat in Brussels.
We have also agreed to send new money to the EU for the right to sell to our neighbours defence equipment they desperately need, though it is still unclear what we will get for it and what we will have to give. It is disappointing that, in the face of the greatest challenge to European security for generations, we are haggling on the price of co-operation with would-be allies.
Perhaps the worst case is that of our fishermen. Personally, I was unhappy in 2019 when we delayed for five years full control of our waters, but our fisher folk had reason to expect that things would then improve, and so they did. Replying to a Question from my noble friend Lord Roborough just seven weeks ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, told the House that
“after the end of the fisheries adjustment period set out in the trade and co-operation agreement, European Union access to UK waters … becomes a matter for annual renegotiation”.—[Official Report, 31/3/25; col. 8.]
We agreed with the noble Baroness when she said she would work tirelessly to achieve that. However, along with our fishing fleet, she was torpedoed by a late-night call from President Macron. From working for annual agreements—something given to the Faroe Islands but not, it seems, to Scotland—the Prime Minister turned tail on a sixpence and ordered a 12-year surrender of our fishing rights.
There is something of a pattern. The US deal was good start with the US, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s achievement there. President Trump said that after the deal was done, he picked up the phone to the Prime Minister and boasted, “We got a billion dollars more for the US”. One late night call and they cave in. I beg the noble Baroness: when a deal is being discussed, please get the Prime Minister to bed early. Heaven knows what time the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General woke him up to sell him the ludicrous Chagos deal.
Will the noble Baroness set out what control the UK will have over quota-setting and marine protected areas in our territorial and EEZ waters? Will she explain why some of the poorest communities in our country should pay for 12 years the price for the Government declaring a triumph over well-chilled wine at a summit? On energy, just when it seemed some common sense was breaking out at the extremes of net-zero policy, we have entered the EU emissions scheme and cast away energy autonomy. If we want to be a leader in the vital industry of AI, we need large quantities of cheap, reliable, home-grown energy delivered by a UK Government. How will this help?
The Labour manifesto said on Europe that it would not reopen
“the divisions of the past”,
yet instead of looking to the future of a free, fast-developing, independent economy, it has reset us to a misremembered, hyper-regulated past where in some of the key industries of the future Britain must again move at the rate of the slowest in the slowest growing economic bloc in the world. This is a bad deal and, as my right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition has said, it should be ripped up, or perhaps used to wrap up some of our dwindling supplies of fish and chips.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating yesterday’s Statement. I begin by associating these Benches with the sentiments expressed in the Statement on Gaza. Recent Israeli action is indeed horrific and requires a response. Yesterday’s actions by the Foreign Secretary are welcome, but the most obvious way in which we can demonstrate our further support for the Palestinian people is to support their demand for statehood. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether this option is under active consideration by the Government?
On Europe, the joint statement issued by the UK and EU begins by pointing out that this was the first UK-EU summit since Brexit, and this is the context against which the outcome should be judged. It was, of course, a real dereliction of duty for the previous Government to turn their back so comprehensively on our largest and closest partner. A reset in our relations is long overdue in the national interest.
Perhaps the biggest achievement of the summit was that it represented a milestone in rebuilding trust between the UK and the EU. For too long, too many in British politics have poured scorn on the EU while placing their hopes on replacing ties with Europe with countries which are now run by unreliable allies. The EU has noticed this and has been understandably wary about treating with the UK as a result. Against this background, the specific outcomes of the summit are to be welcomed, whether on freer trade in food products, energy, security, defence, or youth mobility, and I am sure pet owners will also be cheering to the rafters the return of the pet passport.
It will surprise no one, however, that we on these Benches see these agreements as but small, tentative first steps towards restoring a much deeper, more productive relationship with the EU. The progress on veterinary and plant health requirements is particularly welcome as it will lead to immediate benefits to the food and agriculture sectors; and, as the Statement made clear, it has even been welcomed by the Scottish salmon industry. The return of frictionless trade in these areas is one of the main reasons why yesterday’s deal will add 0.2% to GDP.
However, for firms in every other productive sector seeking to export to the EU, the deal does nothing to make that easier. Before yesterday’s deal we were set to lost 4% of GDP as a result of Brexit. Now we are set to lose 3.8%. This shows how much more there is to do and why movement towards rejoining the customs union and single market is still urgently required.
The commitment to a youth mobility scheme and reassociation with Erasmus+ I welcome, but it is vague as to timing and detailed content. Can the Minister say what the Government’s aspirations are for concluding these new arrangements so that students and young people more generally can benefit?
The agreements on travelling artists, short-term business mobility and mutual recognition of professional qualifications are also welcome but are even vaguer. Given that agreement in these areas would be a clear win-win for both sides, it is surprising and disappointing that more progress has not been achieved. Can the Government say what they envisage happening next to bring about these much-needed easements?
The new UK-EU security and defence partnership is also welcome. At the heart of this is the €150 billion defence equipment procurement fund. The UK will now negotiate to become a participant in this programme. This could significantly benefit the UK defence industry, but there are no details. When can we expect some? In defence and security, and in the other areas covered by yesterday’s agreements, new institutional ties with the EU will give the UK, for the first time in almost a decade, a formal route to influence EU thinking. This is no small gain.
Taken together, yesterday’s agreements, far from representing a surrender of British interests, are an overdue reassertion of them. This view is shared by the British public, who now decisively support closer ties with the EU. The Government now need to build on the progress they made yesterday. That will make the UK more prosperous, more influential and more secure. The sooner and more decisively they do it, the better.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions on the situation in Gaza. It is dire; it gets worse by the day. Some will have heard Tom Fletcher from the United Nations on the radio yesterday speaking about his fear of the number of babies who could die in the next 48 hours if aid does not get in quick enough. I understand that a very limited amount of aid went in yesterday. There are lorries at the border now waiting to take more aid in. There are containers available, and discussions are ongoing to get that aid in. My noble friend Lord Collins will be repeating the Statement in the House tomorrow so there will be the opportunity to ask further questions on that.
I felt that this debate ran true to form. On the Conservative Benches the feeling was, “You’ve gone too far, it’s terrible”. On the Liberal Democrat Benches it was, “You haven’t gone far enough”. I feel that we have pitched ourselves in the right place. It was an uncharitable and, unfortunately, predictable response from the noble Lord, Lord True. He had questions and criticisms on e-passport use and asked why the deal was so bad last time. He should ask his own party that because the deal was done by his Government.
I will go through some of the issues raised. The noble Lord, Lord True, asked about the emissions trading system. It is a ridiculous situation that British businesses—a trade worth, I think, £7 billion—are at risk of paying what is, in effect, a levy to the EU. That has gone. That has to be in the interests of energy prices and British industry. That money was going straight from UK exporters into the EU budget. There is a better way of doing this. This streamlines the regulatory barriers. CO2 storage is a growth industry in the UK, with enormous potential for investment and jobs. Linking the ETS removes the disincentives for EU emitters to store CO2 in the UK. That makes our industry far more competitive. That is an important point.
On the SPS agreement, I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord True, was not supportive of it, and I am grateful for the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. It is a huge improvement, and it will have a huge impact on Northern Ireland. The original Brexit deal tried to find a fudge to make this work, with the Windsor Framework. It was a terrible situation where we even had problems exporting between GB and Northern Ireland.
I do not know whether other noble Lords do, but I remember Boris Johnson talking to a group of businesspeople, when he said, “If there are any forms to be filled in, you come and see me; you send them to me”. I suggest that, if they had, he might have disappeared under the pile of forms sent to him. We were speaking to a businessperson the other night who said that, for one consignment, his company filled in 2,000 forms. That is damaging to our industry, and it is damaging to our exports. While those forms were being checked and more forms had to be filled in, produce was rotting at the borders. I know that Members across the House have found this to be an issue in their own businesses. It is absolutely right that we have taken action to deal with that.
The noble Lord, Lord True, questioned how long the deal on e-passports is going to take, and suggested that it is not going to happen. Negotiations with EU member countries are starting immediately to make sure that it does happen to protect and support those in the UK who are travelling. Anyone who has been on their way back from a holiday or business travel, joined a very long queue, and seen others with EU passports wandering through and British citizens not being able to, will be pleased to see that as well.
These are very important agreements. If it helps the noble Lord, in 2024, £14.1 billion of UK agri-food exports went to EU countries. That has a huge impact on British businesses. The noble Lord also went on about dynamic alignment. It might be helpful if I said something about divergence and dynamic alignment, and the rule-taking issue. Research undertaken this May by UK in a Changing Europe showed that the UK has done very little to diverge from EU regulations. That means that British businesses have been sticking to those rules, because it is in their interest since they are still exporting, but the barriers and difficulties they have faced in exporting have had a huge impact on their businesses. The lived reality is that we have had very little benefit from that, which is why this deal has been welcomed by so many businesses. In our trade deal with the United States, we made it clear that we were not prepared to accept, for example, chlorinated chicken, because it would have a detrimental effect on our farmers, who have invested in higher welfare standards. There are always issues that come along on that point.
I probably do not have time to respond to all the questions, but I want particularly to come back to fishing. On the point that the noble Lord, Lord True, raised about the European Court, we will have a role in shaping new rules. No rules will apply in the UK unless they go to Parliament and get its agreement, and any disputes will be resolved through international arbitration and agreement. Where the CJEU has a role is with regards to the interpretation of EU law.
Briefly on fishing, the fishing industry exports 72% of its produce to the EU. It will benefit hugely from the SPS agreement, which will make a difference. Our shellfish people have not been able to export anything. Saying that we can now export shellfish will have a huge impact and be beneficial to those farmers in Scotland, Devon and other parts of the country who produce shellfish, as well to our salmon farmers. On the year-on-year agreement, there was obviously a wish to get a better deal, but it was highly unlikely because we had not reset the relationship. The 12-year agreement provides some certainty, and alongside it is a £350 million investment for coastal areas and the fishing industry to help them invest in technology and grow their businesses.
I think this is an excellent deal. It deals with defence, security and the things that matter to the British people. It takes us a step forward, and away from the argument of Brexit or no Brexit. On the question from noble Lord, Lord Newby, about why we do not further, there will be annual summits to look at these issues; he mentioned some of them. On the customs union, if we were in that union, we would not have achieved the deals with India and the US. People said we could not do it; they said, “You will never get a deal with the EU and the US”. We have done it.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their progress in strengthening the European arm of NATO in the light of the changed circumstances we have, and on the start they have made on putting us back into a healthier relationship—a soft Brexit—with the European Union, to replace the hard Brexit that has done so much harm to our economy in recent years and continues to do so. But will she acknowledge that this is by no means a final deal, and there are many questions to be asked and many other areas to be opened up, such as benefits that might be brought to other sectors of the economy, to get us back to something like the healthy trading relationship we had with the EU before Brexit intervened? Will she confirm that we can make great progress without in any way compromising the public vote in the referendum? The hard Brexit we had was quite unnecessarily, fiercely anti-European. Can she reassure us that this is only the start of a continuing process of negotiation, so that we see firm detail and more positive results for interest groups in addition to the farmers?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lord, the noble Lord makes an experienced and wise point. There is more flesh to be put on the bones of these particular agreements as well. For me, one of the most important things that came out of this is that now we have a willingness to talk, engage and reach agreement. That has been sadly missing, and this has been damaging to the British economy and the British people. There will be an annual summit as well, and there are a number of issues that are referenced in the documentation. I am thinking, for example, of those in the creative industries, touring musicians, et cetera—that is mentioned as well. There is more detail to be put on paper on the youth experience scheme and all those issues. But, yes, the annual summit is a way to have these discussions, and we are also looking to trade with other countries around the world. We all, I hope, want to see a better relationship with the EU—one that is mature—where we can have those discussions. Where we agree and can move forward, we want to do so. So there are outstanding issues and details here, and we intend to make that progress in the interests of the economy and the people of this country.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench and I very much welcome this Statement on SPS, electricity trading and emissions trading. We must not forget that UK energy was looking for a deal on electricity trading and the alignment of schemes in respect of emissions trading. In congratulating my noble friend and our Government on bringing us further towards the European Union, I point out and will ask the Minister about paragraphs 30 and 44 of Common Understanding, which was launched on Monday. It said:
“The European Commission should consult the Government of the United Kingdom at an early stage of policy-making”
in respect of SPS, emissions trading and electricity trading. Can she, at this stage, give us a timeline in relation to this? I declare an interest as a member of the Government’s Veterinary Medicine Working Group. In the fullness of time, I would welcome a resolution in that regard.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s comments, and she is right about the importance of these particular issues. I cannot give her an exact timeline, because the summit was only last week. But we want to work at pace on all these issues because, between summits, we want to see progress. We need to put the detail on the bones. But she is right about the issue of consultation, which is what has been missing throughout the time since Brexit. We need this consultation. We have been in government for only eight months, and the progress that has been made in eight months is good and something we should be proud of. But I take the noble Baroness’s point: you need the detail and, as soon as the timeline is available, we will share that information.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on pressing ahead with the youth experience scheme, and indeed with negotiating Erasmus+ —schemes which, in answer to the naysayers, will increase opportunities for less privileged young British people. However, it is disappointing that there are no concrete proposals on creative professionals touring. This is urgent. Many musicians cannot tour Europe, and of course this affects all the other arts too: visual arts, fashion, film and theatre. Finally, will there be discussions about rejoining Creative Europe, which would benefit us hugely, including in film?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl, who has been a good advocate for exchanges and touring artists. I can tell him that paragraph 15 of the common understanding says:
“The European Commission and the United Kingdom recognise the value of travel and cultural and artistic exchanges, including the activities of touring artists. They will continue their efforts to support travel and cultural exchange”.
That indicates the direction of travel, and that we do want to ensure that there are such arrangements. I cannot answer the noble Earl him on Creative Europe, as those discussions have not taken place. Not everything was dealt with at this summit, and that is one of the issues that we wish to see progress on.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the outcome of the summit is welcome, and the restored trust has been vital, although it does leave a lot of detail to be filled in. I fear that the Conservative reaction is insulting to business. There are also limits to what we can get, imposed by the Government themselves. For instance, even though, very welcomely, some red tape will be cut by the SPS agreement—of which we are yet to see the detail—there will still be customs hoops to jump through. Why are the Government maintaining their red lines against the single market and customs union? We know the ideology around that, but what is the practical value? I heard the Minister talk about the India and US agreements, but the volume of the EU market is far more important and the Government are limiting our ability to improve life for businesses and citizens.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not accept entirely the noble Baroness’s parameters. We are where we are, and in our manifesto we set out what the clear red lines were, recognising the public vote on Brexit. As well as having an agreement with the EU, we are looking further abroad as well. We have two agreements in place with the US and India, which, as she will know—as she was in those many debates until very late into the night—so many said would never be done if we had any arrangement with the EU, and we have proved them wrong. It is important that we look across the world for agreements as well, and we will continue to ensure that our relationship with the EU is one that is mutually productive.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I must declare an interest as a French farmer, in a small way, in my smallholding in France. In any case, I would welcome any agreement that I believed would remove or reduce unnecessary burdens to trade resulting from SPS regulations across the Channel. Indeed, I was party to the negotiations which ultimately culminated in an agreement to which the UK and all 27 members of the EU are party, called the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. It says that SPS measures shall not be applied as
“a disguised restriction on international trade”.
Yet that is what EU countries do, and the EU has been found in repeated violation of this agreement. The agreement goes on say:
“Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other Members as equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own”.
Ours are currently identical. Why, therefore, does the EU not accept them as such? The agreement goes on to say that control, inspection and approval procedures are to be
“completed without undue delay and in no less favourable manner for imported products than for like domestic products”.
We know that does not happen for our exports to the EU.
I ask the Minister why she believes that the EU will adhere to a rather vague and ill-defined agreement that she proposes to reach, when it in flagrant and repeated violation of an agreement that has been in force under international law for some years?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, we are confident about this agreement and confident in our relationship with the EU. All those who export to the EU and have produce going to the EU, as well as all those who bring produce into this country, know how urgent and important it is that we reached the agreement. We have confidence in it, we believe that we will adhere to it, and we will ensure that the EU does too.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, will the noble Baroness accept the congratulations that she should convey to our Prime Minister on this very important step in rebuilding our relations with the European Union? They are pragmatic steps, but they open up the way to great future co-operation. For example, the framework of alignment that has been agreed on energy and phyto- sanitary standards is capable of being extended to other sectors of the economy, such as chemicals, pharmaceuticals and engineering, which would be important. Finally, does she note that, at a time when the security situation in Europe is deteriorating fast, and there is talk of President Trump withdrawing from supporting Ukraine, it is crucial that Europe gets its act together on defence and rearmament, and that what is in this agreement will enable that to be done with much greater effectiveness?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I will pass the noble Lord’s comments to the Prime Minister, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and others involved in the negotiations. We will proceed only when it is in the interests of British businesses and the people of the UK. Each case is being taken step by step and on its own merits, and there is certainly scope for mutual benefit. The noble Lord is right to mention security and defence. He will be pleased to know that, in the second paragraph of the second chapter of the Common Understanding document, it was highlighted that, at the heart of all this, is common security and defence. As we have seen with the invasion of Ukraine, it is more important than ever that we have a strong and secure Europe, and that we are all working together to the same ends.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, whatever the claims and counterclaims of any deal by any Government, and whatever concerns may be raised today—I share some of those concerns, although some of us see the irony in that some of those raising concerns were very happy, only a short time ago, to see exactly the same conditions imposed on one part of the United Kingdom and to then tell us that it was the best of both worlds—what will be critical will be the practical experience of how this works out in reality.
The Minister is right in identifying that the most significant aspect of this deal is the SPS agreement. Under the previous arrangements that were in place, the Government are due in July to impose a labelling system for goods—food, drink and other SPS products—going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. That adds an additional layer of bureaucracy, creating the only instance in the UK, or indeed all of Europe, where this will happen. In the light of this new agreement, will the Government give a commitment to end what would be a ludicrous situation of imposing new restrictions in July which are then redundant and will have to be removed at some stage in the next couple of months? Would the Government not be better to pause that, or at least increase the grace period, until this is implemented, so that we are not left with an unnecessary additional burden of the labelling of goods coming into Northern Ireland?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has experience of this. He will know that I have said in this Chamber before that I think it is a great shame that, when the Brexit debate was taking place, so little attention was given to the impact on Northern Ireland. Some people were taken aback, and certainly there were no preparations by the Government for how Northern Ireland could manage this. The SPS agreement removes the barriers on agri-food products. I will take away the point the noble Lord makes—I think it is wider than just agri-food products—see what is happening and discuss it with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and will come back to him ASAP on that issue.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, there are another five minutes left.
Lord Deben (Con)
Will the noble Baroness accept that this has been widely supported throughout the country, and right across parties, because it shows that this Government have at least lived in the world we live in, and not in some past world? We now go forward to work more closely with our biggest and most important market and our closest neighbour. Will she accept those congratulations and our hope that we can move further forward in this direction?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am always happy to accept congratulations. The noble Lord makes a very important point about living in the real world. The issue of alignment came up a moment ago. If you look at what has happened already, you find that there has not been the divergence that we were told was going to happen. That is why the paperwork that British businesses have to go through in order to export is such nonsense and a burden for them. This is about living in the real world and doing the best we can for the economy and the people of this country.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, the Statement read out by the noble Baroness the Leader said that this arrangement will do away with the long delays faced by lorry drivers with rotting food in the back. Can she say whether it will do away with the long delays faced by coach-loads of schoolchildren on school trips to France? Since the Government did away with the group passport scheme, groups of 40 or 50 school- children all have to get off the coach and be individually checked, which occasionally results in the coach driver hitting the legal drive time limit and abandoning the coach altogether. Will this new arrangement see the reintroduction of the group passport scheme or an equivalent replacement scheme to facilitate educational school trips for children?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness highlights one of those issues that was never thought of as going to be a problem. I am pleased to hear that schools are still going on trips. I have heard of so many schools not undertaking trips because of the problems, with many schools cancelling trips because of the complications of taking them. I do not think it was discussed at this summit; it is not in the papers I have seen, but I will find out. I will certainly ensure that it is raised in the future.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, during the European Affairs Select Committee’s recent visit to Brussels, it became very clear that it was the constructive and positive attitude of this Government that was opening the way to meaningful discussions, particularly on defence and security. There are obviously some details to be ironed out, but can my noble friend the Leader set out what advice and processes there will be so that the UK defence industry can benefit from the partnership agreements on defence and the funds available?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful for that question and mindful that I did not properly answer the question on this point from the noble Lord, Lord Newby. When I was a Member of the other place, the defence industry was in my constituency, and I know that it is entrepreneurial, forward-looking and innovative. It does a great deal of technical research that has applications across the board, and the MoD will work with those companies. With the EU setting up the security action for Europe instrument, for which is proposed a €150 billion fund, we plan to make arrangements so that we can be part of it and benefit from it. Exports by the UK defence industry are going to benefit enormously from this, if we can ensure that its skills are recognised and we work in a joint partnership. It is that joint partnership that will allow us to bid for and be part of the €150 billion fund.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, to look at the real world, France has a budget deficit of 5.8% compared to ours of 2.3%. France has an unemployment rate of 7.3% compared to our 4.5%, and France has 19% youth unemployment. Germany’s economy is going down rapidly, with exports going down a lot. So, I am confused when the Prime Minister and the Government call this a wonderful deal. How can it be a wonderful deal for our businesses and this country’s economy?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am slightly puzzled by the noble Baroness’s question, if I am honest. Our economy is doing really well now. We are picking up, having been through a very difficult time over the last 14 years and with, I hesitate to say, a £22 billion black hole in current spending plans. By doing a deal with the EU on trade and the economy—I will answer the question from the noble Baroness if she will let me and not make hand signals at me—we have just done all the things we were told we could not do. We have a trade and co-operation agreement and a defence and security agreement with the EU; we have a trade agreement with India and a trade agreement with the USA. The noble Baroness told us last year that would never happen—it has, and we are delighted that we can deliver for the British public.
Employment Rights Bill
(1 day, 3 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes
“Duty to prevent violence and harassment in the workplace(1) Section 2 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (general duties of employers to their employees) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (2)(e) insert—“(f) the adoption of proactive and preventative measures to protect all persons working in their workplace from violence and harassment, including—(i) gender-based violence;(ii) sexual harassment;(iii) psychological and emotional abuse;(iv) physical and sexual abuse;(v) stalking and harassment, including online harassment;(vi) threats of violence.”(3) After subsection (3) insert—“(3A) It shall be the duty of every employer to prepare, and as often as may be appropriate revise, an assessment to identify potential risks of violence and harassment in the workplace and implement policies and procedures to eliminate these risks so far as is reasonably practicable.(3B) It shall be the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches.(3C) In subsection (3B) a “gender-responsive approach” means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls, when designing and implementing policies and procedures. (3D) In this section, “persons working in their workplace” includes—(a) employees,(b) full-time, part-time, and temporary workers, and(c) interns and apprentices.(3E) In subsection (2)(f) and subsections (3A) and (3B), a reference to the workplace includes remote and hybrid work environments.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause will amend the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to place a duty on employers to protect all those working in their workplace from gender-based violence and harassment.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for signing Amendments 99 and 100. As I open the debate on them, I look forward to hearing from all Members who would like to engage on this very important topic of tackling workplace gender-based violence and harassment.
First, I thank the Minister for meeting me ahead of today to discuss these amendments. I am grateful for the engagement on this matter and hope that it continues. I also thank a number of organisations for their support in the drafting of the amendments: the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, Rights of Women and the Workers Policy Project. The formation of the amendments began with the Private Member’s Bill to the same effect tabled by my Plaid Cymru colleague in the other place, Liz Saville Roberts, who is below the Bar today. Finally, I thank Mr Richard Spinks for sharing his personal story. Mr Spinks has experienced the most devastating consequence of the inadequacy of protections against gender-based violence in the workplace in the tragic loss of his daughter, Gracie, and I am thankful to him for showing his support for these amendments.
Amendments 99 and 100 attempt to tackle those very inadequacies in employee protections. By amending the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, Amendment 99 would introduce clear, actionable duties for employers to protect workers from violence and harassment, including risk assessments and policy development. It would provide recognition and prevention training to all employees. Amendment 100 would mandate the Health and Safety Executive to develop and publish an enforceable health and safety framework on violence and harassment in the workplace and issue guidance for employers in collaboration with relevant bodies.
The prevalence of sexual harassment and violence in the workplace across the UK shows that interventions such as these amendments are unfortunately absolutely necessary. The Government Equalities Office’s survey in 2020 found that 29% of those in employment reported having experienced some form of sexual harassment in their workplace or workplace environment in the previous 12 months, and only 15% reported it. A 2024 study by Sheffield Hallam University found that sexual harassment is particularly high in traditionally male-dominated and female-dominated industries, and highest in hospitality. Given that workers may be unlikely to recognise some of their experiences as sexual harassment, these numbers are probably much higher in reality. This is also true of gender-based violence, psychological and emotional abuse, physical and sexual abuse, stalking and harassment, and threats of violence. In fact, 56% of calls to Rights of Women’s sexual harassment at work advice line are made up of reports of sexual assault, rape, stalking and coercive control.
However, despite the UK ratifying ILO Convention 190 in 2022 to enhance worker protections against workplace violence and harassment, there are significant gaps within our legal framework to protect workers from those kinds of harm. The status quo is deeply lacking, and we are currently failing our women as a result, such as in the case of some 100 women, according to the police, who have accused Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed of offences including multiple counts of rape and attempted rape. Despite being owner of the Ritz Paris hotel and Fulham Football Club at the time, he was never held to account.
My mind turns also to those eight people, most of them current or former BBC staff, stalked by former BBC radio presenter Alex Belfield, who was also sentenced to a five-and-a-half-year term for harassing four people online, and Gracie Spinks, who was killed by a former male colleague, Michael Sellers, after having reported his obsessive behaviour towards her to her employer, Xbite. The inquest into Gracie’s death found that seven other Xbite employees had received unwanted attention from Sellers, with most consequently leaving their jobs while he continued to work for the company until dismissed in February 2021. Many said the company was aware and had spoken to him about his inappropriate behaviour.
Incidents such as these show the dangers of employer inaction under current regulations, and His Majesty’s Government are not absolved of this, with sexual assault, harassment and abuse having taken place at the Ministry of Defence, according to 60 senior women in 2023. The reluctance of employers—and that includes public bodies—to address such behaviours directly endangers people’s lives.
I understand that it is His Majesty’s Government’s belief that the worker protection Act 2023 has addressed some of these regulatory gaps. I, however, disagree. That Act was introduced to tackle the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace by creating a preventive duty requiring employers to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment in their workplaces. That is a commendable effort, but there are key issues with that legislation.
First, an automatic investigation into a breach of this duty takes place only after an individual successfully brings a claim of sexual harassment. This severely limits the preventive function. Secondly, it excludes other forms of gender-based violence in the workplace, including physical, psychological and emotional abuse, which form part of the recommendations of the ILO 190. It is clear that there is real need for legislation that requires employers to proactively create a safe work environment, one that addresses wider gender-based violence. The Employment Rights Bill is a good vehicle to bring about this change, cementing further the need to address sexual harassment and violence in the workplace as the employment-related issue that it is.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am very happy to add my name to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, having worked for many years before she came to the House on domestic abuse issues.
Nobody would disagree with the Government having this priority to reduce violence against women and girls; it is a no-brainer, given where we are starting from. The examples in the workplace of things going wrong, often in plain sight, are embarrassing, and the list the noble Baroness put before us, which I will briefly repeat in part, demonstrates that it is just the tip of the iceberg.
When I was a head-hunter, for many years I specialised in HR—sometimes known as “human refuse” or “human remains”, but otherwise known as personnel—and Harrods was known as a revolving door for HR directors. Any personnel director who looked at an offer of employment from Mr Fayed—he actually was just Mr Mohamed Fayed; he added the “al” because it makes you sound posher in Egypt—and who had done their homework knew what they were in for. Even people who took a deep breath and, for a large amount of money, took on that role rarely lasted more than 12 months. It really was supping with the devil, and it was widely known, but nobody did anything about it.
The BBC has been mentioned, as well as the NHS. The fact that female employees, surgeons included, in the NHS have reported rape—both allegations of rape and actual rape—over many years is inconceivable in principle but is and has been taking place.
The case of Gracie Spinks was mentioned. I too had the privilege of listening to her father as he spoke of his anguish at the death of his daughter. That is an interesting example. The company where the person who killed her, and who then killed himself, worked, Xbite, had a grand total of 140 employees. So, as we think through how to deal with this, how can we help organisations such as that, which had started up only five years before, to understand the co-responsibilities they have with their employees to try to protect them in the working environment? But also, how do we make that practical and effective?
I was involved, with others, in the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill which has just left your Lordships’ House. Part of the reason that the Government brought that in is precisely because of issues of abuse in the workplace. The well-known tragic case of Jaysley Beck, who took her own life after years of repeated harassment by, shamefully, a series of her superiors, is a case in point. The Ministry of Defence itself also has a major issue in this regard.
The fact is that, as many of us will know, many of us—some of us—will indeed have married, gone out with or, heaven forbid, had affairs with people that we have met through interactions at the workplace. The workplace, outside of the home, is a major cause and focus of social interaction between people, and most of us spend a significant part of our lives there. To expect that to exist in a separate bubble and compartment and not recognise the issues that can often be engendered and amplified by the intensity of a working environment is to ignore the obvious.
So, should we ignore this in this Bill? I think we all agree that this is an issue that needs to be tackled. I think we all agree that we need to do better, but I think we need to ask ourselves: is this the right vehicle by which to try and do something about it? I have come to the conclusion that the answer is probably yes, not least because of the timing of the Government’s current focus on reducing violence against women and girls. What is clear at the moment is that there is a real lack of clarity and guidance, and ownership and responsibility, on how to respond in these kinds of situations.
We have a tangle of different laws and regulations dating back as far as 1974, with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. We have the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. We have the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. We have the remit of the Equality and Human Rights Commission. We have the Health and Safety Executive, and we have the International Labour Organization’s Convention No. 190. That is a complicated thicket to try and work your way through, and there are many inconsistencies in the way it is applied and an almost total lack of understanding by those employers who are perhaps trying to respond to some of the issues that their employees are raising as to how best to deal with it, because there is no clear path or clear outline of how to respond. Creating clarity in this area for both the victims and the employers is an opportunity we should not miss.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that he/she and their colleagues will sit down with Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones to try and look at this in the round, because, in a way, it would fit in very neatly with some of the other laudable initiatives of the Government to reduce violence against women and girls. I ask the Front Benches: please can we work together, politics out of the window, to try and work out between now and Report whether there are ways we can try and pull all this together, give greater clarity and improve on the unacceptable status quo?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am speaking in place of my noble friend Lady Bennett, who is not able to be here today, and she has signed both of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes.
The noble Baroness made an excellent opening speech and has covered almost everything, but I think it is worth repeating that what we are trying to do here is provide workplaces that are safe, free from violence and free from gender-based harassment. As we heard during an Oral Question earlier, sexism and misogyny are on the rise in our society, and that impacts on women and girls—probably girls, particularly—of all ages. It is crucial that the Government take this seriously.
We are not asking employers to sit down and think what they have to do from scratch, because this research has been done before. There is an excellent project conducted by the Fawcett Society that identifies five key requirements to create a workplace that does not tolerate sexual harassment: culture, policy, training, reporting mechanisms and the way that employers respond to reports. Successful and lasting change needs sustained commitment, and the Fawcett Society shows the way forward—or a way forward. Of course, that, with a great deal of other existing research, is something that the Health and Safety Executive could draw on.
The size of the problem is probably indicated by research from Scotland; there is no reason to think that the issue there is larger than anywhere else on these islands. Last year, a study reported that 70% of women in Scotland reported having experienced or witnessed sexual harassment in the workplace and that 80% of those never reported it to their employer. Those are absolutely terrible statistics. I am sure that the Government want to do something about this, not least because lower-paid and younger workers are particularly vulnerable. This is something that the Government will surely want to address because there are an awful lot of votes out there from younger people and, at the next general election, this Labour Government might need them.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to raise some problems with these amendments. I have to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, made an absolutely brilliant, compelling case for her amendments and has been amply backed up by others. However, I still think that, if you look at what these amendments would do, there is a danger here.
We have already discussed, in our debates on recent groups, mission creep in relation to the concept of harassment; we have talked about it a great deal. I am concerned about subsection (2)(a) of the proposed new clause to be inserted by Amendment 100, which relates to
“the prevention of gender-based violence and harassment of those in the workplace including the prevention of physical, emotional, and psychological abuse”.
Bringing that into the law would introduce a very wide and broad set of rules into the workplace.
I am absolutely sympathetic to taking on some of the problems that we have seen in workplaces—for example, people being stalked at their workplace or being stalked by fellow workers, as well as the kinds of domestic abuse that have been described, with the Harrods example of rape and so on—because all of those things are terrible. However, we should not shy away from the fact that it will be quite difficult to legislate on every aspect of every intervention between employees in a workplace if we are going to broaden it out to emotional and psychological issues. That is one problem: it is overly subjective.
The use of the phrase “gender-based violence” is in danger of confusing us as well, because we now know that there is a confusion between gender and biological sex. We should not shy away from the fact that that language has been confusing for some time. We need some clarity, not muddying. If we call it “gender”, this could turn workplaces into sites of perpetual ideological grievances and finger-pointing.
Let me give noble Lords an example. Proposed new subsection (3C), which would be inserted by Amendment 99, says that the aim is a “gender-responsive approach”. This, it says,
“means taking into account the various needs, interests, and experiences of people of different gender identities, including women and girls”.
I point out that women and girls are not a subsection of gender identities. Gender identities are, “Have ’em if you want ’em”, in my view. If we are serious about tackling violence against women and girls, do not throw them into this mix. We certainly cannot have gender identity created as a legal category by a well-intentioned amendment that would, in fact, undo the clarity we have recently had. These amendments completely conflict with the Supreme Court’s clarification of the distinction between biological sex as fact in law and gender identity, which is, I am afraid, often not just what people choose but part of an ideological activism that has, I would argue, been incredibly damaging to sex-based rights for women—often in the workplace.
We need to be very careful about proposed new subsection (3B) in Amendment 99. It talks of
“the duty of every employer to provide training to all employees on recognising and preventing violence and harassment in the workplace, with a focus on gender-responsive approaches”.
I get worried when the bosses are asked to provide training that is not about how you do your job, because training has become the vehicle that is often used not to protect employees from harassment but for viewpoint conformity and as an insidious form of harassment of anyone who does not conform.
We have to consider what this training consists of. I do not want to just say, “Oh yes, training, that is a good idea then”. The danger of training is that it can introduce all sorts of problems; and, in fact, training was the way that in most workplaces we now know that people misunderstood equality law. It was via training, informed by third-party organisations involved in the gender issue, that they started to adopt what has been called, by some KCs, “Stonewall law”. That is why so many organisations are now saying, “We were doing what we thought was legal”.
To finish, I will show the Committee how complicated it is. I hope noble Lords have read that incredibly moving and harrowing interview with Karen Danson, one of the eight Darlington nurses who are taking legal action against their employer, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, after they were forced to share a changing room with a male nurse who identifies as a woman and calls himself Rose.
As Karen explained in the interview, she had been abused as a child. She goes to work, where, as a nurse, she has to get to changed. In walks Rose, wearing only boxer shorts that are full of holes—details do matter in this instance—who keeps asking Karen why she is not getting changed. Karen, understandably, feels very disturbed. These amendments are about sexual harassment in the workplace. Karen and her colleagues go to their bosses and HR and say, “This is our changing room. We do not want to get changed in front of this man, however he identifies. What will you do about it?” What did HR say? It said that the nurses were the problem, called them transphobic and said they needed to be re-educated in trans inclusion; in other words, they were about to be sent on a training course.
I make my point that if you are the wrong kind of victim in a workplace in an ideological sense, you could be the victim of the training which tries to get you to accept “right” things, rather than protects your rights. I really admire the spirit of the way that the amendments were introduced. However, they are absolutely wrong-headed and we should reject them.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I will just say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that the greatest danger we have is that the Bill passes and yet we have groups of people in the workplace who are not in any way protected, or not sufficiently protected, either from violence or from harassment. I thought the case was brilliantly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
I say to the Minister: carpe diem. Here is an opportunity to make sure that there is not a gaping omission in the work that the whole Bill is attempting to do to provide proper protection in the workplace. I find it quite ingenious that the approach here is to try to use the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. If the Minister has a better way of doing it, I am sure that everyone will be very eager and willing to listen. It contains within it the capacity for both investigation and enforcement. When we talked in previous groups, it was very evident that investigation and enforcement are very often the vital missing elements in the arrangements that we have set in place today. This seems to me to have been a very sensible approach to try to find an organisation that is appropriate and has the relevant kind of teeth.
I will not attempt to expand on the case as it has been made so eloquently. I am sort of filling in on this Bill when others have been called away—in this particular case to a NATO meeting. But I would have been very pleased to add my name to these amendments.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I join the general congratulations offered to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, on her very comprehensive introduction of these amendments; she deployed some incredibly powerful examples.
We are all in agreement that violence and harassment, particularly sexual harassment and gender-based abuse, have absolutely no place in any workplace. Every worker, whether in an office, on a site or working remotely, deserves to feel safe, respected and protected. Tackling those issues must remain a top priority.
The amendment before us seeks to introduce stronger duties on employers to prevent and respond to these harms. Measures such as risk assessments, training and clear reporting systems can be important in building a workplace culture where abuse is not tolerated and victims are supported, so we absolutely understand the intention behind the amendment.
Although we agree that there is a need for action, we do not believe that the Health and Safety Executive is the right body to enforce these new responsibilities. That is not meant as a criticism of the Health and Safety Executive; it is simply a recognition that there are fundamentally different areas of concern that we think require a different kind of regulatory response. That is not the same as saying that we do not support the intentions of the amendment.
We do not support Amendment 100. We need solutions that deliver real protections to address sexual harassment. Finally, I have to say, from a very personal point of view, that I completely agree with my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and her reservations about proposed new subsection (3B).
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, for her patience and apologise to her that it has taken until our fifth day in Committee for her to introduce her amendments. I thank her again for Amendments 99 and 100.
I assure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to protecting workers from workplace violence and harassment. This is a top priority for this Government, with our manifesto commitment, as mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. In response, I am happy to say that we already have a strong and, in the Government’s view, appropriate regulatory framework in place that ensures that workers are protected from such risks.
I refer to the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. Under the statutory provisions made under the existing Act, employers have a very clear duty to protect their workers from health and safety risks, including workplace violence. Employers are required to assess and take appropriate steps to eliminate or reduce this risk. The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, along with other related legislation, also mandates employers to take measures to reduce the risk of workplace violence.
As part of this, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require employers to assess risks in the workplace, including the potential for violence, and to take suitable action to reduce or eliminate this risk. The Health and Safety Executive—HSE—and local authorities are responsible for enforcing the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and carry out both proactive and reactive measures to ensure that employers are complying with their duties. This includes ensuring that employers assess risks and implement appropriate measures to protect their workers and anyone else affected by their work from workplace violence. The HSE has also published accessible guidance on its website to help employers comply with their legal obligations. It also works very closely with other regulators to promote co-operation, share intelligence and, where appropriate, co-ordinate joint activities.
In the noble Baroness’s proposed amendments, there is a request for HSE to publish a health and safety framework specifically focused on violence and harassment in the workplace. Employers already have duties under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations to ensure they have sufficient arrangements in place to manage health and safety risks in the workplace, including violence and aggression. Although workplace harassment could be addressed under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, the HSE does not intervene where there is a more appropriate regulator or where more directly applicable legislation exists.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the plethora of different types of Act and instrument that are meant to be woven together into a seamless whole to stop abuse in the workplace happening. He started off by mentioning an Act passed 51 years ago. He then talked about regulations enacted 26 years ago. He then spoke about the harassment Act of 18 years ago and the Equality Act of 16 years ago. With the greatest respect, if the combination of these regulations has been in force for as long as they have been and we are in the situation we now find ourselves in, with the evidence of what is happening in a variety of workplaces, large, medium and small, clearly all is not well.
The idea of bringing forward amendments such as these is not that they are word perfect from the word go. Everybody in the House knows that perfectly well. Committee is to probe; to try to see if we can come to agreement across the Chamber that it ain’t working and we need to do something better. With the best will in the world, standing up and trying to defend the status quo, when the status quo quite clearly is not working as it is meant to do in theory, is not helping anybody. So, I again ask and suggest—and I am sure the noble Baroness will say this when she responds to the Minister—that we accept that it is not working properly and that it would be a no-brainer to try to work together, across this House and with another place, to see if we can use this Act as a way to improve on what clearly is not working at the moment.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for that, and I hear what he says. But I stress here, with all the current legislation in place, that there must have been cases before us that we can learn lessons from. What we need to do, and do better, is use “black box thinking”, where we can learn from what has happened and hopefully share with other regulators what works and what may not have worked, so that we can address a problem rather than bring in more legislation. We can look at what has been successful and share those successes among other enforcers as well.
I conclude by saying that the Government remain committed to raising awareness of this important issue. I can confirm that the Minister, my noble friend Lady Jones, has already met with Minister Jess Phillips and Alex Davies-Jones, and we continue to work with them to try to see how we can come together on this. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has spoken in this debate. I am grateful to those who have shown support for these amendments and also those who support the outcome these amendments are trying to achieve. I will reflect on what we have discussed in this debate today, ahead of Report.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about a “gender-responsive approach”, I can clarify what that entails. The amendment addresses the different situations, roles, needs and interests of women, men, girls and boys in the design and implementation of activities.
As we have hit on during this debate, the status quo is clearly not working. I know that the Minister outlined in his response the preventative measures being put on to employers. But, as I have explained, those preventative measures are not actually preventative, because you have to prove your sexual harassment claim in order for it to be a breach. Even in the language we use about what is currently in place, it is not preventative. I welcome further discussion with the Minister following this, and hopefully we can come to an agreement on how we can bring this forward within the wider approach.
I will withdraw my amendment today, but I retain my right to bring back further amendments on Report. I hope that His Majesty’s Government reflect on this debate and that we can engage further on this matter. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Young of Acton
“Protection from discrimination on the basis of political opinion or affiliationAfter section 40A of the Equality Act 2010, insert—“40B Employees and applicants: political opinion or affiliation(1) An employer (A) must not, in relation to employment by A, discriminate against, harass or victimise (in a manner prohibited by sections 39 or 40), a person (B)—(a) who is an employee of A’s;(b) who has applied to A for employment;in relation to their political opinion of affiliation.(2) For purposes of this section—(a) “political opinion” means any political opinion and a reference to a political opinion includes a reference to a lack of a political opinion;(b) “political affiliation” means membership of any political party, group or organisation which is not excluded by subsection (2)(c);(c) political opinion or affiliation does not include any opinion or affiliation which—(i) would be unworthy of respect in a democratic society,(ii) is in conflict with the fundamental rights of others, or(iii) is affiliated with any political party, group or organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000.””
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 101B, which seeks to amend the Equality Act 2010, I will also speak to Amendment 141A, which seeks to amend the Employment Rights Act 1996. I declare my interest as the general secretary of the Free Speech Union.
These amendments would protect job applicants and employees from being discriminated against by employers for their political opinions or affiliations, provided those opinions are not
“unworthy of respect in a democratic society”,
incompatible with
“the fundamental rights of others”,
and are not connected to a
“party, group or organisation which is proscribed for the purposes of the Terrorism Act 2000”.
In the Telegraph on Monday, a government spokesperson said these amendments are not necessary because:
“Any employee dismissed because of their political opinions can already bring a claim of unfair dismissal at any point”.
Well, they can. But whether they are successful or not depends on whether their political beliefs satisfy the Grainger test—a reference to a case in which an employee sued his employer, Grainger PLC, for discriminating against him because he believed in manmade climate change. It was established in that case that, in order to enjoy protected status under the Equality Act, a belief had to satisfy five separate conditions. This is the Grainger test:
“The belief must be genuinely held … It must be a belief and not … an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available”—
remember that one because I am going to come back to it.
“It must be a belief as to a weighty and substantial aspect of human life and behaviour … It must attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance … It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others”.
Noble Lords will notice that the test I am proposing is a simpler alternative to the Grainger test. It is, in essence, just the fifth limb of the Grainger test.
So what is wrong with the Grainger test? For one thing, it is overcomplicated and leaves too much room for the personal political views of the members of a tribunal panel to creep in. That is why it has led to some arbitrary and biased decisions. For instance, the tribunal has ruled that anti-Zionism is a protected belief, while a belief in Zionism has not been granted that status, at least not yet. A belief in manmade climate change is protected—that was the judgment handed down in Grainger plc v Nicholson—but climate scepticism is not, and that has been tested in the tribunal. A belief in democratic socialism is protected but a belief in conservatism is not, and that too has been tested. In the case of Ms K Sunderland v The Hut.com Ltd—a Free Speech Union case—the tribunal ruled that a belief in a small state, low taxes, freedom of expression and as few controls on an individual’s freedom as are consistent with human rights was not protected.
That is one reason why the Free Speech Union currently has five cases in which employees have been dismissed because of their links to Reform UK. One such case is that of Saba Poursaeedi, who is in the Gallery as I speak. He lost his job at the Hightown Housing Association because he was due to stand as a Reform candidate. He was told that Reform’s policies on immigration, net zero and housing were “in direct conflict” with the values of the Hightown Housing Association—as clear a case of discrimination against someone for their political views as you could hope for. He is taking Hightown Housing Association to the tribunal but, given the judgment in Ms K Sunderland v The Hut.com, he may not be successful. That is one reason to accept these amendments: to level the playing field so that many people with right-of-centre political beliefs enjoy the same protection as people with left-of-centre political beliefs.
Another difficulty with the Grainger test is that it disadvantages open-minded people who, as the late Lord Keynes did, change their minds when the facts change. Remember the second limb of the Grainger test:
“It must be a belief and not … an opinion or viewpoint based on the present state of information available”.
Do we really want the Equality Act to encourage dogmatism and punish open-mindedness in this way? Why should someone’s belief be undeserving of protection if it is susceptible to changing if the facts change?
The amendments would bring the Equality Act into line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Articles 9, 10, 11 and 14 provide a higher level of protection than that granted by the Equality Act, particularly Article 10, which protects freedom of expression, including the expression of political views. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, would no doubt point out if she was in the House, if there is a discrepancy between the Equality Act and the convention then its shortcomings will be corrected by the courts eventually, since, as per the Human Rights Act, our courts must interpret legislation in a way that is compatible with convention rights.
However, bringing a claim before the employment tribunal is a time-consuming process and one that can be extremely expensive. The Free Speech Union helped a man to bring a case for unfair dismissal against Lloyds Bank to the tribunal two years ago, and it cost over £85,000. Not only can it be eye-wateringly expensive but it takes a long time, given the current backlog of cases. Mr Poursaeedi’s case has been scheduled for July 2027, more than a year hence. In the meantime, he and other victims of discrimination based on their political beliefs are awaiting justice. Why not short-circuit that process, bring the Equality Act into line with the convention and ease the burden on the tribunal at the same time, as well as protect people now from being discriminated against in this way, by accepting my amendments?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I put my name down on Amendments 101B and 141A, tackling employment discrimination on the basis of political opinions, because I wanted to probe whether the Government can see that it is a real, contemporary issue that needs to be tackled, however they do it. We know from the history of the labour movement that in the bad old days, as it were, attacking people’s employment rights, sacking them and suspending them were used by employers to discipline the workforce, and they were often focused on people who had the wrong views in the workplace. Often, the trade union organisers who were involved in left-wing parties and so on were the ones who were targeted, and we had McCarthyite-type purges, red scares and anti-trade union blacklists of individuals in workplaces—shocking, but those were the bad old days and it would not happen today, except that I think we are witnessing something similar today even if the political opinions of the victims might be very different and it might take a different form. This is an under-discussed phenomenon, and I hope the Government will see that the Bill is a way of tackling it.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I support the excellent amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton. It is hard to adequately follow the tour de force and the passion and energy of—I will call her my noble friend— Lady Fox of Buckley. I would make the point, and it bears repetition, that free speech is worth defending on all occasions and, in many respects, transcends party- political affiliations.
As my noble friend Lady Fox alluded to, there was a time many years ago—until quite recently, historically—when people who represented labour versus capital were discriminated against for organising in the workplace. If people who worked in factories and mines, and on farms, tried to organise a trade union—which was perfectly reasonable—to improve their conditions and pay, they were politically discriminated against, suspended or fired, and their very livelihoods were put in question. That is a fact. We know that was the case.
We have made good progress. Those people who were, for instance, organising the Workers’ Educational Association classes for manual workers, in order to improve their education and their life chances, were discriminated against. That was wrong. We have gone full circle now, and those people who may support a right-of-centre position—pro-capitalism, pro-tax cuts, pro-lower regulations—are discriminated against.
The importance of this amendment is that it distinguishes what is respectable, moderate, mainstream opinion, which noble Lords may or may not agree with, from the extremes. The caveat in this amendment is very nuanced, in that it defends free speech for respectable political debate and discussion. That is very important.
The other reason why I support this amendment is that we have a very unfortunate phenomenon these days with the advent of social media: doxing. If you are a pernicious, unpleasant, vexatious, litigious person and someone on social media appears to have a view with which you disagree, you are no longer going just to take issue with them on social media and let the matter drop; you are going to identify where they live, where their children go to school and, more importantly for our purposes today, where they earn their living.
A good example—and a proud member of the Free Speech Union—is Mr Ben Woods, who was employed by Waitrose at Henley as a wine specialist. He had unfashionable views, certainly unfashionable in the Liberal Democrat citadel of Henley-on-Thames, being against immigration. But actually, he represented the majority of people in that he was gender critical and believed that women are biological women and men are biological men, and he put that on his social media. Maybe he was a bit exuberant in his opinions, but someone decided to contact John Lewis Partnership and Waitrose to dox him. He was suspended, investigated and lost his job, and that is now going to an employment tribunal.
That is a good example of a very regrettable modern phenomenon. This amendment would seek to protect people like this, who have perfectly respectable views and are entitled to earn a living and to try to get on with their fellow workers in their place of work—who may disagree with them—but not lose their job unfairly. On that basis, this is an excellent amendment. I certainly urge the Minister to give it some consideration, because it would not detract from the Bill. Above all, it is a fair amendment, and I believe she should support it.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I would join with anyone who wants to speed up employment tribunals and cut the costs of going to them. I hope that is an agenda the Government will take on rapidly. We heard an unfortunate case of someone who is waiting until 2027; some people are waiting four years. I hope the Government will address that issue, but I cannot see that it is central to this Bill.
I am not a legal expert, and many of the cases quoted are not ones that I know—I do not know any of them intimately. In my experience, at least with employment tribunal judgments, it is very unsatisfactory to sum them up in a single sentence. They usually have within them a great deal of complexity and a fair amount of nuance. Without going through those, I am in no position to assess the evidence that has been put before us today.
I remain somewhat sceptical. I hope that we can get reassurance that people are genuinely protected because of their political views. I do not think anyone in this Committee would think it was right for someone to lose their job because they belong to one particular affiliation or another. I will look for the Minister to make that case and to explain the legal situation in far more depth than I can. I do not feel qualified to be more than somewhat sceptical.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, it is commonplace for individuals who express personal views that clash with the ethos of a particular company or institution to run into some trouble. Gary Lineker is the latest and most topical example, for displaying material that is considered to be antisemitic. My first experience, age 12, was my father refusing to let me display a political poster at a general election. If I had known about the Free Speech Union, maybe I would have joined the noble Lord, Lord Young, at that stage—maybe he should send Gary Lineker a membership form.
Lord Monks (Lab)
Oh, he has already done it—very good.
Let us be real about this. A lot of situations call for tact and diplomacy, and for us to be careful about the way we express difficult thing. A lot of people do not do that; they say what they like, thinking it is totally justified, and they get into difficulty. Unions spend a lot of time helping people get round those kinds of situations when they have got into trouble with their employer.
I do not think the argument coming from the other side of the Chamber is a convincing one. Let us remember a bit of common sense, and that tact and diplomacy are still required in many organisations, not just the BBC—and not just with my old dad, who did not like the fact that I had a “Vote Labour” poster in the window.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I did not want to intervene on this group, but, listening to the noble Lord, I became slightly worried that we are getting into censorship. This country is a proud country because of its ability to speak out and speak up. I would be incredibly nervous if we felt that we could not demonstrate our political views openly without being penalised for it. The unions do their own work, but it is incredibly important that people are able to demonstrate a political affiliation or a particular viewpoint without having to feel that they are going to be censored. That would really worry people like me, who often are the recipient of things that we do not like to hear, but we tolerate it because we think the country enables us to have the debate.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Acton for his expert introduction to the amendments in this group. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Monks, about common sense, but I fear that went out of the window of an employment tribunal some years ago. As my noble friend Lord Young laid out in an earlier group, this Bill threatens to restrict free expression in some cases with its provisions. It is for this reason that I support the amendments, which seek to safeguard political opinion and affiliation within our employment laws.
At the heart of any thriving democracy lies the freedom to hold and express political beliefs without fear of retribution. In a democratic society, freedom of speech and freedom of belief are not luxuries; they are fundamental rights that underpin our entire system of governance and civil life. The workplace, where so many of us spend a significant portion of our lives, must be a space where individuals can hold and express their political views without fear of unfair treatment or dismissal. As it stands, our existing laws provide only patchy protections for political beliefs, and they leave many workers vulnerable. My noble friend Lord Young’s examples are truly shocking, and I would like to take this opportunity to wish, in particular, Mr Poursaeedi well in his ongoing battles.
We should draw upon the timeless wisdom of John Stuart Mill, who was one of the great architects of liberalism. He argued in his seminal work On Liberty that the truth emerges only through free and open debate, and he warned against the suppression of any opinion, because no one person or group holds a monopoly on truth. Even opinions that we may find mistaken—perhaps such as democratic socialism—or indeed offensive, must be heard and challenged openly, for only through such dialogue can society discern truth from error. Voltaire was right on this. I must admit I find it a bit disappointing that the Liberal Democrat Benches are not more enthusiastic about these amendments.
By protecting employees from dismissal or discrimination based on their political opinions or affiliations, these amendments would ensure that the workplace remains a forum where diverse ideas can be expressed, scrutinised and debated. Suppressing political expression risks silencing valuable perspectives and preventing the emergence of truth through robust discussion.
We in this House pride ourselves on opening our minds to a broad range of political views. Obviously, that involves robust engagement, challenging each other and refining our positions through vigorous debate. If such diversity of opinion is essential to the functioning of this Chamber, why would it not apply beyond these walls, and particularly in other workplaces? Workers, like us, should be free to express their political beliefs without fear of losing their jobs or being discriminated against.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to accept my noble friend’s amendments. To go back to the great liberal John Stuart Mill, he also said:
“A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury”.
This is not the time for inaction. These amendments not only would protect workers from unfair dismissal and discrimination but would uphold our fundamental democratic values. By embedding these protections into our laws, we would reaffirm our commitment to free expression. I am afraid saying just that they are not necessary is not good enough. They clearly are necessary, as we heard in the examples from my noble friend.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I think it would be helpful if I first clarify where the law stands on this.
On Amendment 101B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, let me make it clear that religious and philosophical beliefs are already protected by the Equality Act 2010, including in the workplace. However, political belief—in the sense of a party-political affiliation or opinion—was not included as a protected characteristic in the Equality Act 2010. The noble Lord referred to the Grainger case. That case and the definition that the noble Lord read out referred to the issue of philosophical belief, which is already protected by the Act.
In 2015-16, the Equality and Human Rights Commission reviewed whether Great Britain’s equality and human rights legal framework sufficiently protects individuals with a religion or belief and the distinction of a religion or belief organisation while balancing the rights of others protected under the Equality Act 2010. The review found that the definition of religion or belief in the Equality Act is sufficiently broad to ensure wide protection for many religions or beliefs. It recommended no change to the definition of religion or belief or to the approach that the court should take in deciding whether any particular belief is protected under the Act.
We are not convinced that a political opinion or affiliation should be specifically protected by amendment to the Equality Act 2010 in contrast to other religions or beliefs. The extent of protected beliefs has been developed in case law, and we have not been presented with strong evidence that any legislative amendment is necessary. The amendment the noble Lord is proposing would potentially cause legal uncertainty over its relationship to the protected characteristic of religion or belief in Section 10 of the Equality Act, which has a much wider application than just the workplace.
The Government frequently receive calls for new protected characteristics—there have been over 21 suggested to date. While some of these carry merit, it simply would not be practical to include these all in the legislation, which would quickly become unmanageable for employers and service providers to follow, and for courts and tribunals to process and judge.
The noble Lord referred to the European Convention on Human Rights. The courts and tribunals will always be required to balance competing rights on the facts of a particular case, including the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom of expression under Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as academic freedom.
Noble Lords have referred to a number of individual cases. They will appreciate that I cannot comment on individual cases. However, I can assure them that free speech is a cornerstone of British values. We are firmly committed to upholding the right of freedom of expression, which is protected by Article 10. I also absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Monks that, in many cases—and preferably in all cases—it is ideal for these issues to be resolved by common sense at the workplace.
Turning to Amendment 141A, I seek to reassure the noble Lord that further legislative provision on this matter is not needed. Through the Bill, the Government are creating a day one right against unfair dismissal. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, acknowledged in his explanatory statement, additional protections for employees already exist under Section 108(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which currently ensures that claims for unfair dismissal on the grounds of political opinion or affiliation are not subject to any qualification period. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that, while dismissal on the grounds of political beliefs and affiliations is not automatically unfair, if brought to a tribunal, the tribunal could find that it was unfair based on the circumstances at hand.
As we have said, these issues will very often have to be decided by a tribunal, based on the facts of the case. This will obviously also have to apply to the noble Lord’s amendment as well. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that the delays in employment tribunals are a very real challenge that we are very conscious of, and we have already reported elsewhere in other debates on the Bill that we are taking steps to address this.
Relevant case law sets out the circumstances where political beliefs may constitute a philosophical belief for the purpose of the Equality Act 2010. In these cases, discrimination provisions could apply. Following a judgment from the European Court of Human Rights, the qualifying period for bringing a claim of unfair dismissal relating to political opinions or affiliation was removed, further strengthening employees’ access to justice in instances of unfair dismissal based on political views. The Bill ensures that claims for dismissal on this basis continue to be treated in the same way as claims for automatic unfair dismissal by carving them out in a new Section 108A from the requirement that any employee must have started work before a claim can be brought.
We regard this as the right approach. Making dismissal for political opinions automatically unfair, as this amendment seeks to do, would fundamentally change the way that free speech is considered in relation to dismissal for the holding of views or the expression of views that the employer regards as unacceptable. It could sweep up such a wide range of views as to be unworkable. As sufficient protection against dismissal for political beliefs already exists, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 101B.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who spoke in support of my amendments. I echo the tribute made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, to the journalist Patrick O’Flynn, who has just been taken from us so ahead of his time. I appreciate the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, who I note did not oppose the amendments, although she was a little bit sceptical about the case I had made. I also thank my noble friend Lady Verma for her intervention.
In response to the Minister’s remarks, as she says, some political beliefs are protected by the Equality Act. The issue is that not all political beliefs are protected by the Equality Act. I gave some examples and I will give just one more: an employment tribunal decision that a belief in Scottish independence is protected, but a belief in unionism is not. There is often not much rhyme or reason to these employment tribunal decisions, because the Grainger test leaves so much room for bias, interpretation and subjective judgment. I am merely asking the Government to bring the Equality Act into line with the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 14 lists the characteristics that should be protected and includes the words “political … opinion”. That means all political opinions, not just those you disagree with.
Finally, I come to the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Monks, and point out that Saba Poursaeedi did not lose his job at the housing association because he was tactless or undiplomatic; he lost it because he was intending to stand as a candidate for Reform UK. The association had no misgivings about his performance in his role; indeed, it promoted him. He was a model of tact and diplomacy when dealing with the residents managed by the housing association. That was not the reason he was fired. The noble Lord is, of course, welcome to join the Free Speech Union, and I hope that he does. I have reached out to Gary Lineker, not to defend him in any case he might want to bring against the BBC—which I do not think he intends—but because the police have said they may now be investigating his remarks. I reached out to him and said that, if that happens, we will provide him with a solicitor and, if necessary, a barrister.
Lord Aberdare
“(2) The provisions of Schedule 3 do not apply to apprentices during any probationary period of up to six months, as specified in an apprenticeship contract signed by the apprentice and the employer and where the apprentice is less than 21 years of age at the time the contract is signed.”
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 102, in the name of my noble friend Lady Wolf of Dulwich, who much regrets that she is unable to be here today to move it herself. I was delighted to add my name to this very specific amendment, addressing what I am sure is an unintended consequence of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, both of whom have enormous expertise in apprenticeships, for adding their names as well.
Apprenticeships are key to developing the skills we need for achieving our national goals, including all the Government’s missions. The value and importance of apprenticeships is increasingly recognised, not least by young people and their families, but there are not enough apprenticeships available, and the majority are used by employers for upskilling or reskilling older people already in the workplace. We need many more apprenticeships for younger people, but the number of 16 to 24 year-olds starting apprenticeships has been declining. Only one in four young people in this age group who seeks an apprenticeship gets one, and the number of apprenticeships going to young people has declined from 41% in 2008 to 23%.
Small businesses have a crucial part to play in providing apprenticeships for young people. Some 70% of existing apprenticeships are in small businesses, and there is huge scope for small firms to offer many more apprenticeship opportunities. But it has proved consistently hard to persuade small employers to take on apprentices. One reason is cost, despite the extra payments available from government for small firms employing young apprentices, particularly if they have special needs. More important disincentives include the extra workload involved in training and supervising young apprentices, the amount of bureaucracy involved in navigating the apprenticeship system and, sometimes, the uncertainty about whether a firm will have a sufficient pipeline of work for the full term of the apprenticeship. There have been various schemes aimed at addressing these issues—group training associations, apprenticeship training agencies and now flexi-job apprenticeships—but in none of these cases has much impact been made on convincing more SMEs to offer more apprenticeships.
I believe there is a real danger that the day 1 employment rights set out in Clause 23 and Schedule 3 to the Bill could actually exacerbate this problem rather than helping to resolve it, by acting as a further significant disincentive to small employers considering taking on apprentices. My noble friend’s proposed amendment provides a closely targeted exemption for apprentices under 21 during a probation period of no more than six months, with a contract agreed by both the apprentice and the employer. This seems to me to be fair to both the employer and the apprentice.
For the employer, it helps to offset the high risk involved in taking on a young person who may—indeed, probably will—never have been employed before, and who may themselves decide within the first few weeks or months that the apprenticeship is not right for them. The existing risks and unknowns for an employer in taking on the costs, workload and duties of apprenticeships are hard enough to overcome without the additional burden of taking on full employment responsibility for an untried young person, probably in their first job, who may or may not turn out to have the attributes for or interests in that particular job.
These are not, after all, people with experience from previous jobs and a track record for a new employer to assess. Many of them may be among the almost 1 million young people currently defined as NEET—not in employment, education or training—whom the Government quite rightly are desperately keen to get into employment, for example through the planned youth guarantee. The amendment does not relate to people changing jobs, so it has nothing to do with labour market mobility, which this clause seems designed largely to promote.
I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what specific assessment the Government have made of the likely impact of this part of the Bill on the willingness of businesses, especially smaller businesses, to take on young apprentices. You would not need to talk to many small business employers to conclude that it could be very damaging. That would be bad news for such firms themselves, for our national skills needs, for the wider economy and, above all, for the potential young apprentices, who might miss out on attractive opportunities. This amendment would help to counter that, and I beg to move.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment, which was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, but has been very ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. He and I tend to find ourselves in the same Lobbies for just about everything to do with apprenticeships.
We only very recently debated a Bill abolishing the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education so that this amazing new body Skills England could emerge. We still know remarkably little about Skills England. It has a proud remit, but we do not yet know what it is going to perform.
As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, set out, this amendment is really important because there is a real problem in attracting youngsters into apprenticeships. An apprenticeship was always something for somebody starting out in a career, but the vagaries of the apprenticeship levy mean that they are increasingly being given to people mid-career, for advancing their careers. Unless there is more incentive to enable young people to access the workforce, we will be in an even more dire state. We have nearly a million NEETs now—young people not in education, employment or training—and, if they cannot access apprenticeships, that figure is only set to go up.
We know that, in other European countries, apprentices have a specific distinctive legal status, but they do not in the UK; they are simply employees who have received an apprenticeship learning contract. The Bill will apply to them all, whether they are an 18 year-old or a 50 year-old. This cannot be desirable. I beg the Government to look again at this, because it is hugely important that we do not deter employers from taking on youngsters.
I went with the social mobility committee up to Blackpool and The Fylde College recently, and we were talking to employers there who were already bemoaning the fact that it was incredibly difficult for them to take on apprentices. There was so much bureaucracy and burdensome stuff that they had to follow. They were all saying that, if this came in and if the apprentices had full employment rights from day 1, that would deter them even more. That really cannot be right, and I beg the Minister to listen to this amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I briefly add my support for Amendment 102 and will pick up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, on her committee’s recent visit to the Blackpool and The Fylde further education college. I declare an interest as a commissioner at the Social Mobility Commission, the chair of which is also the principal of the FE college that the committee went to visit. From the perspective of social mobility and the importance of apprenticeships, any measure that would deter the creation of quality apprenticeships that are successful is a bad one, and I therefore support this amendment.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 102 in the name of my noble friend Lady Wolf of Dulwich and pitched so perfectly by my other noble friend Lord Aberdare—I realise that that sounds as though I only have two friends in this House, which I hope is not the case.
This amendment addresses a consequence of the Bill that will significantly reduce the willingness of employers to hire young people as apprentices—a consequence that I am sure was neither anticipated nor desired by the Government or indeed the Bill’s drafters, which is strange because this Government are acutely aware of the skills shortages facing this country and the need to address them. It was notable that, in introducing the Government’s new immigration strategy last week, both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary emphasised the need to invest in skills so that the immigration system
“no longer ignores the millions of people who want the opportunity to train and contribute”.
They also highlighted that, in sectors like engineering, apprenticeships have “almost halved” in recent years.
We only very recently debated the Bill, now an Act, that abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. That change was not introduced because the Government are against apprenticeships; on the contrary, this is part of a reform that is creating a new integrated strategic body, Skills England, as we have heard, to meet, in its own words,
“the skills needs of the next decade across all regions”,
and apprenticeships are a central part of Skills England’s brief.
Young people do not need persuading of the value of apprenticeships. On the contrary, there is huge excess demand, as we have heard. Of those 17 to 18 year-olds who make a serious effort to find an apprenticeship, only 25% succeed. Young people typically start off on what are called intermediate apprenticeships, but these are in decline too, in absolute numbers and proportionally —crowded out by so-called higher apprenticeships, which are equivalent to university qualifications.
Today, more and more of our apprentices are older. Around half of apprenticeship starts now involve people over the age of 25. Critically, large numbers of older apprentices were already working for their employer before they became an apprentice. This is especially true of large employers who pay the apprenticeship levy, who account for a growing proportion of apprenticeships. So, if the Government are going to achieve their aims, we need to have far more openings for young apprentices —but there is a serious danger that the Bill will make large employers even more inclined to give apprenticeships to existing employees, with whose employment they take no risks, rather than hiring new young apprentices.
What about the young people who make up the growing number of NEETs? SMEs are the main employers of young apprentices and absolutely central to the economies of less-advantaged areas. But their apprenticeship recruitment has been plummeting. SME business owners complain that apprenticeships, as we have heard, have become more and more burdensome and bureaucratic, and just too expensive. So if, on top of this, young apprentices are entitled to full employee rights from day 1, many more employers, especially SMEs, will surely just walk away.
Taking on an untested person is always risky, and this Bill will make it much more so. In many other European countries, apprentices have a specific distinctive legal status. In the UK, they do not; they are simply any employees who have received an apprenticeship training contract. This Bill’s provisions will apply to them all, whether they are an 18 year-old training as an electrician or a 50 year-old on a leadership apprenticeship. These are the dangers of a one-size-fits-all approach, as I have already pointed out numerous times in Committee.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I did not put my name to Amendment 102, because I do not agree with it entirely, for reasons I will set out, but the general approach is absolutely right.
We do not need to get into the rights and wrongs of the apprenticeship levy and higher-level apprenticeships, particularly level 7, but it is important to recognise that the number of people starting apprenticeships—particularly down in levels 1, 2, 3 and perhaps even 4—is a challenge, and is holding young people back from getting into work. Indeed, it is not just young people, and that is my broader point: getting people—many of whom, for a variety of reasons, may have been out of the job market for a long time—into work. It is exactly this approach, through apprenticeships, which means that, usually for SMEs, the larger elements of the levy are not being used by the larger employers and are instead being used to help provide 100% of the cost in order to train people.
There are a number of different factors there. People have talked about the different elements of costs. There is also the opportunity cost. It is important that employers get involved in identifying and helping the supply chain of their own workforce. I am sure I am not the only person who has been somewhere where I just got fed up doing the hard yards on training and the extra work, and, as I said, the opportunity cost, only for someone else to come along and poach that person, or for that person, once they had fully qualified, to leave. I have seen the frustration that this sometimes brought.
One of the adjustments I would have made to this builds on the discussion about NEETs. The definition of NEETs is those aged 16 to 24. My suggestion is that the amendment be amended, to cover an apprentice who is less than 25 years of age at the time that the contract is signed.
On the consideration of a probationary period, it is fair to say that people will want to give those new to a sector, and new to the world of work, more than a week or so to see if it is going to work out. There is a mixture of elements that need to be considered when people take on apprentices. One is their capability in work and college, and seeing how that evolves, because it is not always such a straightforward translation. Nor should apprenticeships be considered as work experience; they are proper jobs, admittedly a training job, and we should bear that in mind if we see a further drying up of apprenticeships.
We can debate at other times how, sadly, unemployment seems to be rising, which I believe will be exacerbated by this Bill more generally, but the Government should be specific about how we give more people a chance. I know we will debate probationary periods in general later. Apprenticeships should not be seen as, “We will just see if they work out or not”. It is supposed to be more of a commitment.
The Government could accommodate this. They will be aware that, already, on wages—if not some of the other rights—there is an apprenticeship rate which is not the same as the national minimum wage in the first year of an apprenticeship. There is already a precedent in legislation and practice that apprentices can be treated differently. I appreciate that people do not necessarily want two-tier elements like that, but we need to give special consideration to apprenticeships, recognising the special status they are given by the Government in contributions towards training and given the risk that employers may take on.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment and declare my interest as the chair of a small housing association, Look Ahead, where we employ a lot of care workers and are encouraging apprenticeships to keep people in care work and to develop proper careers. We have not yet got the Casey review on care workers, but we know that the Government intend to reduce visas for overseas workers in this area. However, when you go into care work, you always find a small proportion of people who, when they realise some of the challenges of giving intimate physical care, feel unable to go on with that particular work. That is perfectly appropriate for both the apprentice themselves and the people they are supporting. I urge us to try to reach an agreement on this that is more flexible, so that people can have the opportunity of an apprenticeship in care, while recognising that, sometimes, a different kind of work is more appropriate.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, this has been such a valuable debate, for a number of reasons. We are grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf of Dulwich and Lady Garden of Frognal. In many ways, it gives us an opportunity just to see where we are going, and to identify the fact that, for many of us, apprenticeships mean something deep and profound.
I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Monks, in his place. He probably will not remember but, 32 years ago, he came to see me when I had responsibility for this area of policy. Accompanying him was the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, and they said to me, as Secretary of State for Employment, that apprenticeships needed to be brought into the modern age and that there had to be something deeper, wider and more productive for the individual than the idea of standing by a machine for five years and then qualifying. They were talking particularly of young apprentices. I was persuaded, and, slowly but surely, modern apprenticeships have evolved.
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Monks, remembers this, but that was followed by a cartoon in the Guardian, which my children still show me—I should not talk like this on my birthday. The cartoon demonstrates me getting into a large four-poster bed with the noble Lord, Lord Monks, who was in the form of a large cart-horse—the cart-horse had the face of John Monks. This gives me an opportunity to apologise to the noble Lord. I suppose that the Guardian was saying that it looked as though the Conservative Government were listening to the TUC. We did, and modern apprenticeships have taken off ever since.
The levy though, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, reminded us, has shifted the emphasis and the whole intention, which was to encourage younger people to get more involved. In a way, we need to identify that—and I hope that the Minister will recognise that apprenticeships are the lifeblood of the new economy, in particular, provided that they receive that special status. It was very helpful that my noble friend Lady Coffey reminded us about age, and that perhaps 25 is a better age in this regard. My noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston also put it much more into context, and the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins of Tavistock, gave an additional dimension. It has been a valuable debate.
I remind the Minister that we are talking about specific instances where there has to be an apprenticeship contract containing often wide-ranging provisions but giving security and opportunity. So it is a balanced and measured amendment that acknowledges the critical reality that apprenticeships are not just simply jobs—they are a structured training programme, often the very first experience that a young person has of the workplace. For many of these individuals, particularly those youngsters, an apprenticeship is a gateway not just to employment but to the habits, responsibilities and expectations of adult working life.
We are already in a time, as many of my noble friends pointed out, when young people are struggling to access secure employment. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, reminded us about the serious problems affecting NEETs, which have cropped up several times in this debate already—and also the fact that, in other European countries, apprentices have a special legal status. In many ways, that is recognised in this amendment, because it talks about a contract. We can identify that we are talking about a very special situation, and I hope that the Minister sees that.
I will just add that, without legal clarity around probationary periods, particularly in the case of apprenticeships, many employers will be left uncertain—and uncertainty breeds hesitation. It becomes less likely that they will take on the risk of hiring an inexperienced young person, especially under a regime of day one unfair dismissal rights, with no allowance for the formative nature of apprenticeships. I shall be very interested to hear the Minister’s response on that matter, on how the Government seek to balance the protection of apprentices with the practical realities of probationary periods. I support the amendment.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, first, I take this opportunity to wish the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, a very happy birthday. It is a fine way to spend a birthday this evening.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, notably the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for speaking on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich. I thank the noble Baroness for her amendment and for all the work that she has done in primary and secondary education—especially her book, The XX Factor, which should be read widely by every person involved in education policies.
This group relates to apprenticeships; a later group delves deeper into unfair dismissal and probation. The Government recognise the significant value of vocational learning, and on-the-job training will continue to be fundamental to building the skills that the economy needs to grow. We recognise that employers value building knowledge and skills through apprenticeships, and this Government are committed to apprenticeships.
The Government are providing day one protections against unfair dismissal to all employees, including apprentices. Maintaining a qualifying period for apprentices will leave them open to being fired without any recourse to legal challenge on the grounds of unfair dismissal during their apprenticeship. This amendment would not create a probation period, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, said; it would deny young people their day one rights. The Government’s preference is for statutory probation to be a period of nine months; in some instances, when an apprentice completes their apprenticeship, an employer may not have a permanent job for them. Most apprenticeship contracts are around two years in duration; in this case, the apprenticeship contact will expire and the normal tests for unfair dismissal will apply.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. I add my good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for choosing to spend his birthday in support of my amendment, and I hope the rest of it is equally enjoyable. I thank the Minister for his response. I think all the speeches were in favour of the amendment, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made some interesting comments on how it could be further improved.
However, to me, one of the most important messages that came across—which many of your Lordships mentioned—was that apprenticeships are different; they are not the same as a standard contract of employment, as many other countries have recognised by having different legal frameworks for apprenticeships. I believe that flexibility is needed. I think it was my noble friend Lord Londesborough who talked about an unduly rigid, one-size-fits-all approach to employment laws. There needs to be some flexibility to cater for the special needs and features of apprenticeships.
I am concerned that we are looking at two options. One is apprenticeships with day-one employment rights—jolly good; the other is no apprenticeships at all, because the employers will not offer them on that basis. I hope that, between now and Report, we can do some more thinking. The Government may come up with more thoughts about how we can ensure that we balance the advantages of having full employment rights on the one hand and the necessity of having firms—particularly small ones—offering apprenticeships on the other. Hopefully, we can have further discussion of that on Report, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my noble friend’s name.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, we now come to the general subject of unfair dismissal rights from day one, which we have just touched on in relation to apprentices. Many of the same arguments are going to apply more widely. For me, this is most damaging part of the Bill because the unintended, but well understood, consequence is that it will damage the life chances of the young and the most vulnerable. I thank the Ministers for their time last week; I am not sure if I persuaded them, but I will try again now.
At Second Reading, I asked why these changes are required. What is the evidence that there is a genuine problem, or that the qualifying period of two years is being abused in any material way? The Minister did not answer the question, so I have therefore given notice that I intend to oppose the question that Clause 23 and Schedule 3 stand part of the Bill, so that I can probe further into what problem these changes are intended to solve.
Rather than hearing my views on the subject, I am going to tell noble Lords what the Government’s views are, and what they think the impacts of these changes to the qualifying period will be. According to the impact assessment,
“it is likely employers will make changes to hiring, dismissal and management practises to minimise the risk of litigation for dismissal and minimise unproductive employee-job matches. The burden of these changes could be in the hundreds of millions per year”.
It goes on to say:
“The impact on businesses is expected to be negative and driven by familiarisation costs, and administrative costs from providing a written reason for dismissal, as well as the costs associated with additional early conciliation and tribunal cases, which is also likely to create additional burdens for the Employment Tribunal system”.
So, the Government agree that there will be a substantial cost to business, an increase in litigation risks and additional burdens on the tribunal system. They also state that these impacts will fall disproportionately on smaller businesses. I assume that nobody in this Chamber thinks that any of those are a good thing.
More importantly, what are the impacts on employees, especially those who are trying to find work? The impact assessment is pretty clear on that too. It says that
“there is some evidence of a negative relationship between stronger dismissal protections and hiring rates … this suggests that if not implemented with care ‘Making Unfair Dismissal a Day One Right’ could damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire (e.g., younger workers with less experience, ex-offenders, etc.)”.
It later says that
“there is evidence that the policy could negatively impact on hiring rates. For example, employers may be slower to take on workers due to the liability and increased protections, particularly for those that are seen as riskier hires”.
Again, I cannot believe anyone thinks those are good things.
The Government accept that this policy will create costs in the hundreds of millions for businesses, add burdens to the already stretched tribunal system and, most importantly, damage the hiring prospects—the life chances—of the very people we should be helping to get into employment. I hate the term NEETs, but we have heard a number of comments about the nearly 1 million young people who want to get into work. It goes directly against the Government’s admirable policy to get people off welfare and into work. So, why do this? Surely there must be some hard evidence that the current two-year qualifying period is causing some genuine problems, or evidence of material abuse, to justify these changes that will have all the damaging consequences that the Government themselves accept.
However, the impact assessment makes no such claims. It provides no evidence whatever that there is a problem. It simply makes a number of very vague and unquantified statements about people benefiting from increased job security. For example, it suggests a direct benefit to households driven by the welfare benefit arising from increased job security, with absolutely no attempt to quantify it. It also goes on to say that there are benefits from
“additional settlements and awards from additional early conciliation and employment tribunals”.
That last one really is extraordinary. This Bill has been described as a bonanza for employment lawyers; the Government appear to be confirming that, and actually seem to be suggesting that it is a good thing.
To read or listen to what the Government say, noble Lords would be forgiven for understanding that there are currently no protections from unfair dismissal for employees during the qualifying two-year period. That is quite wrong. There is a whole list of reasons for dismissal that are automatically unfair from day one. I will give a few examples, rather than go through the whole list—I do not want to keep everyone here all night. They include dismissal for reasons of a protected characteristic, such as age, disability, race or religion, et cetera; for being pregnant or on maternity leave; for being a trade union member or representative; for taking part in industrial action; and for being involved in whistleblowing. There are many others. So, let us stop this idea that new employees are unprotected from day one. It is just not true.
I ask the Minister, as I did at Second Reading, when she did not answer: why are the Government doing this? What evidence do they have that the qualifying period is really a problem? Presumably, there must be some tangible benefits from the policy to justify all these disadvantages that the Government have described. What are they?
The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt—and happy birthday to him—would require impact assessments of the changes, which I support, but surely it would be better to get this right in the first place. The impact assessment does say:
“The impact of hiring and labour mobility will ultimately depend on the final regulations on what is permissible in the ‘initial statutory period’ of employment”.
That is absolutely right, and that is what the rest of this group tries to deal with: to reduce the negative impacts of this change.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 says that the Secretary of State may make regulations about dismissal during the initial period of employment, which is generally called a probationary period. My Amendment 104, along with Amendment 334, is intended to make it a requirement that the Secretary of State “must” make, rather than “may” make, such regulations. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morse, for his support on this and other amendments. He sends his apologies that he is unable to be here tonight.
As the Bill stands, the two-year qualifying period can be abolished and not replaced with anything. I understand that is not the Government’s intention, and we heard earlier about the nine-month preference, but it is what the Bill says. Having no probationary period at all would be extremely damaging, so it is important that it should become a requirement that these regulations are issued, and not just a “may”.
My Amendment 108 would ensure that any probationary period is at least nine months long. What is important is that the employer should have adequate time to assess whether the new employee is right for the business, including by giving them a good chance to get up to speed through training and so on. I agree that the current two-year period is very long, and from discussions I have had with business groups and from my own experience in business, I am confident that the shorter period would be acceptable to most businesses. I think the Government’s suggestion of nine months is workable, and that is what I have proposed in the amendment, so I hope it is not particularly controversial from that point of view.
The other critical factor for a probationary period is that it must work in a way that enables an employer to give the person the benefit of the doubt, rather than acting as a disincentive to hire them, especially for the riskier hires that the Government described and that I mentioned earlier. For that to be the case, it is essential that the employer can dismiss them without having to give a reason during the probationary period.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I find myself wanting to support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. The reason is this. We arrived in Berwick-upon-Tweed, which, by the way, according to the Guardian a few days ago, is the most loving, caring place—the best in the country. Yes, maybe since I arrived it has become that; none the less, that is what it said. It is the most peaceful place to live in. Sometimes, we do not even lock our doors when we go out for a short period. In other places, they would know, word would get round, and you would be visited by people who think they should acquire your property, outside the law.
We had to find a plumber. The plumber was wonderful, the best in the town, and people said that to get him was quite costly. He was costly because, once you agreed to let him do the work, he would say, “I have an apprentice. I could pay him as the Government say and give him the national living wage. But he is at college and doing very well, and I would like him to graduate, and to succeed”. So, he said that a fee would be charged to the person who hires him. He showed that in his receipts—the amount you paid for the wonderful apprentice. That apprentice, Oscar, has grown in his job since being there for four years. When he graduates, he will be one of the best plumbers.
Apprentices need to be protected. My plumber will never just immediately say that the job is coming to an end, because he has been very wise. He is a single employer who works alone, and out of his business he is willing to pay the amount of money the Government have allocated. However, he suddenly realised that some of us would like to put in a little bit more for this apprentice. So, there will never be a day when he has not got money to keep that apprentice, even if business may not be coming in.
This is an example of an employer who employs an apprentice, and I am sure he is going to get another one. His apprentice learnt very fast: for three days a week, he had to go to college in the morning, and then come back to do the apprentice work—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
I think the noble Lord is speaking to the previous amendment, which is about apprentices.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
This is the clause stand part notice. The previous amendment was about apprentices, which I think the noble Lord is speaking about.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I am supporting this one, but also the amendments which come later, which are mentioned. That is what I said at the beginning.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 105 to 107 and 109 to 112 in my name, and I am delighted to have the support of my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lords, Lord Morse and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, who has already spoken so eloquently as the mover of the first amendment in the group.
I agree with the noble Lord that this is the most damaging part of the Bill, which is why I have joined proceedings today. I support all that he has said, including his Amendment 334. The approach in Amendment 334 may reflect the Government’s intention on timing, so I look to the Minister to support this clarificatory amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for a very useful online meeting and for a speedy response to my queries from her excellent office.
My main current concern is the promotion of economic growth. It is also the Government’s stated main objective, with the Prime Minister saying that:
“Growth is the defining mission of this Administration”.
Yet, the need to drive growth conflicts with their manifesto promises on employment rights. These will slow growth and increase bureaucracy and inefficiency across the economy, especially the proposal to specify reasons if employees are let go in the period immediately after appointment, which is the subject of this group.
The Government cannot have it both ways, and with growth prospects so poor next year, changes must be made to the Bill. There is evidence to support this. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has already quoted from the impact assessment. Careful reading of the DBT economic analysis of 21 October, written to support the Bill, admits in section 16, on unintended consequences, that:
“There is some evidence that employment reforms make employers less willing to hire workers, including evidence specific to the strengthening of dismissal protections. For example, the OECD”,
an external body,
“noted that more stringent dismissal and hiring policies involve an inherent trade-off between job security for workers who have a job, and firm adaptability to changes in demand conditions or technology”.
In other words, it implies lower growth.
Noble Lords will know of my own background in retail and wholesale, working for many years at Tesco, a company that had a unique partnership with the trade unions. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hannett of Everton, and I worked together, and I am delighted that he now sits on the Labour Benches and only sorry that he is not here today.
Retail is a sector that leads the way in employing the economically excluded and those who need flexibility in their hours and location of work.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannett, is sitting there, just not in his usual place.
However, I understand from the BRC, which has recently surveyed HR directors, that there could be a significant impact on hiring decisions, particularly for those starting in or returning to the workforce after a period of leave or inactivity. That includes those coming back from parental leave or those who have been unemployed for an extended period. The changes could reduce opportunities for entry level jobs—27% of the retail workforce is under 24—and for those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
As our birthday boy, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral has already explained, it also jeopardises the vital increase in our apprentice population, which is desperately in need of a simpler and more flexible system —another reason to think again.
All this uncertainty is bad for the Government’s wider objective of growth and, very important, for getting hundreds of thousands off benefits and into work. Without a genuine probation period, employers, especially smaller employers, will no longer be willing to take a chance on people for fear of being stuck with bad or unsuitable employees or facing unaffordable compensation bills after a very short time.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
The noble Baroness mentioned the OECD. Is she aware of the OECD’s employment protection index, which shows that countries such as Germany, Poland and Japan have stronger protection than the UK on dismissal, yet they have lower unemployment? I think it would be helpful if she agreed that there is no direct association between employment protection on dismissal and unemployment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I am not sure that I agree. I have sat on a German company. Growth is very poor in Germany at the moment. A company I worked in exited France because of the difficulty with employment protections. Employment protection is not the only issue we are talking about. In my opinion, we are trying to find the right employment protection mix to make sure that the economy continues to flourish.
Before closing, I highlight two of the less obvious perverse effects. The provisions will require significant extra internal resources to ensure compliance, in addition to the cost of the various measures in the Bill. If anyone has been through the sad process of sacking someone, they will understand this point. It is necessary to be extremely organised and have a cast-iron paper or email trail to avoid losing in a tribunal. This approach will now be necessary for the 9 million employees who currently work for less than two years in a job. Even if the Government introduce a lighter touch probationary period—now expected to be nine months—it will still be necessary to implement cumbersome administrative procedures across all businesses for all employees, including in the public sector. It will make the introduction of Making Tax Digital, deferred a number of times because of the difficulties businesses faced, look extremely easy in comparison. Above all, it will increase costs, thereby reducing investment and growth.
The second perverse consequence, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has already said, will be the increase in traffic through employment tribunals. There is already a tremendous backlog of 50,000 cases in the system. I met someone yesterday whose case has been listed in 2027. The changes look as if they will plunge the employment sector into the sort of chaos we saw in the past on passports and in several other areas as a result of Covid.
I am extremely keen to find a way out of this unfortunate set of circumstances and am open as to how the problem is resolved. The fact is that sometimes appointments do not work out and it is no one’s fault. I accept that that should normally be clear within nine months. If the changes on unfair dismissal are to be workable, let alone a success, the Government must listen and come forward with firm proposals before Report. These can be consulted on in parallel, as has already happened in other parts of the Bill. This House cannot agree to delegate this vital matter to the Executive in a statutory instrument that we have not even seen in draft.
The proposed nine-month probation period is a welcome start. However, so far, the only way forward I can see is to amend the Bill to allow the termination of employment during a probation period without giving rise to an unfair dismissal claim, as proposed in our amendment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, but I also support all the other amendments in this group. Both the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and my noble friend have already fairly comprehensively treated the issues that concern a number of us, so I will not repeat all those points.
I just underline three brief points. We are trying to look for a balance between the legitimate expectations of employees and employers, because we need those to work in harmony. At the end of the day—as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe pointed out—employers will be producing the growth that the economy needs, so their hiring plans will be critical and anything that harms this balance will damage the economy.
From an employer perspective, anybody who has undertaken recruitment as an employer knows that most employers approach this extremely responsibly—it is not a cheap process to get the right people into the jobs—but we also know that, however diligent you are in screening, interviewing and assessment processes, you do not always get it right. You can usually test whether a person has technical skills, although sometimes you need to see them in practice before you know whether they really have them. The important area is whether an employee fits with an organisation. That is really difficult to tell until the person turns up and starts working. Do they share the same values as the rest of the workforce? Do they have ways of working that are just not compatible with the culture of the organisation? This is particularly important for small organisations: if you have one employee who does not fit in a very small organisation, that is a significant proportion of the workforce and can be very damaging to the business of a small business.
The last point that I underline is that this Bill will make it much more difficult for the difficult categories of people who want to find a job but cannot. There has been much talk about NEETs, and ex-offenders are another case. Why would any employer want to take on an ex-offender with day-one rights? We know some of them make excellent employees but quite a lot of them do not. They can become quite difficult to handle in the workplace. If employers fear that they will not be able to easily overcome mistakes in recruitment they simply will not hire, which will harm people who want to work.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, as an employer who has employed people over the past 40-odd years, I know that the difficulty for an SME—any small business such as my own—is the ability to manage all the bureaucracy that is entailed with it.
For businesses in the social care sector, for example, unfortunately you cannot really understand how good or bad a care worker will be until they have worked a little while in the organisation, even with the training. However, if we are to give the rights from day one, the difficulty will be that we will end up with a sector already very short of workers needing to hire more workers in case any are not suitable for the role. We would have to release them, knowing that they may then apply workers’ rights on day one without proper probation periods and take us to tribunal. It is a difficult sector.
There are many sectors like the care sector, and it is particularly challenging for small businesses in the wider sector of delivering something that is so important. If the care worker is not the right fit, it does not really matter how big or small the organisation is—that person is just not suitable for the role. We need to have the ability to dismiss the person without having to go through the bureaucracy of all the Government’s intentions in this part of the Bill. I therefore support my noble friend and the noble Lord on these amendments.
It is time to have a strong rethink about how we can come to a good middle ground, where employers are not fearful of employing. I have been talking to a lot of SMEs over the past few months, and the difficulty that noble Lords across the House will have found, when they have talked to businesses in their own communities, is the worry around what will happen when the legislation in this Bill is enforced.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I will speak in support of this group of amendments. I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests as the proud employer of 140 employees.
The removal of the qualifying period for a right not to be unfairly dismissed is not, and should not be, feared by good employers. Good employers should have systems in place to ensure that new employees have regular reviews to enable them to feed back to the employer and, likewise, for the employers to feed back to the employees. As an employer, I am aware of the protection that employees are entitled to, and rightly so.
When dealing with any employment issue, the word that always comes to my mind is “reasonableness”. Is it reasonable to totally remove the qualifying period? I do not think so. Employees should be protected from just being dismissed without proper procedures, review and consultation. I support this group of amendments on the probationary period, which is described in the Bill as the “initial period of employment”. There is very little detail in the Bill on what length the probationary period will be.
This lack of detail and clarity creates real uncertainty for employers at present, including myself. The probationary period is an essential time for both employees and employers to get to know one another. For the employees, it ensures that the job meets their expectations, including about terms and conditions, that the culture within the workplace suits them and that they are respected. For employers, it is time to ensure that the employee has the skills and knowledge—or the potential to develop their skills and knowledge—to fulfil the tasks required by the role in question.
The employees in our business can give one week’s notice that the job is not right for them. Likewise, the employer needs flexibility, if they feel that the employee is not right for their business for conduct, personality or capacity reasons. Therefore, employers do not need to go through a long and detailed process to end the contract when the employee has just started that job. In some cases, the procedure to dismiss an employee could take longer than the time they have been employed by the company. I acknowledge that the reason for ending a contract in this probationary period, as has clearly been said by my noble friend, should never be for a protected characteristic under any circumstances, which I fully support.
The group of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seek—as other Peers have clearly observed today—to enable the termination of a contract without fear of unfair dismissal claims being brought during a probationary period. It gives employers the confidence to employ individuals, and at times gives employers confidence to take on an individual who may not fully meet all the criteria of that role but shows potential, thereby giving that individual the opportunity of work. Nearly every noble Lord has discussed young people and people possibly with a disability.
However, further details are required. It is essential that a minimum length of probationary period is detailed in the Bill. For my business, that is three months, but it may be longer for others. The extension of the probation is required when things are not quite going to plan. In that case, the employer needs to go through a process of extending it, which is essential for both the employee and the employer.
I support my noble friend Lord Vaux of Harrowden’s Amendment 108, as it puts a minimum length to the probation period within the Bill and therefore gives employers confidence in the probation process. Nine months gives employers time to have an initial probation period and then extend it if need be. If then the employer wishes to terminate after that many months, they will still need to follow a detailed procedure, as the risk of unfair dismissal is still high if not followed. This is a benefit to the employee from the shortening of the qualifying period. Moreover, the probationary period cannot be renewed continuously, which is to the benefit of both the employee and the employer, as there is a time limit.
Within secondary legislation, the Secretary of State can define the length of an initial probationary period, for, say, a maximum of six months. With this time limit, as proposed in Amendment 108, it would allow for one extension to nine months. The initial period of employment is an important part for all employers, whatever size, but for the SMEs and the micro-business, as previously stated, it allows flexibility. It avoids time-consuming and very costly processes to end the contract of an employee who is not working out in terms of conduct, capacity or personality. I ask the Minister to consider these amendments or refine them before Report to give all employers the confidence to employ new people, but especially in the SME sector and micro-businesses.
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, I, too, rise to support all the amendments in this group. I support the Government’s ambition to boost productivity, create good jobs and crack down on bad employers. However, as many noble Lords have highlighted before me, Clause 23 risks doing more harm than good. The letter from the UK’s five leading business organisations, cited repeatedly at Second Reading, sets out the long-term damage that this Bill, and this clause in particular, would do to business and the wider economy. Surely, they understand the risk better than anyone, and, if I may say so, better than most politicians. We really should listen to their concerns.
After Covid and all the additional costs, many small and larger businesses are struggling. This clause will hit them further, particularly small and medium-sized businesses. Are we really willing to push them out of business? I do not think that this is what the Government really intend to do.
Let me give noble Lords one example. A Ukrainian cabinetmaker whom I met 15 years ago—in fact, I was his first client—built a small business from scratch. He actually talked to me last week, and told me that rising costs and additional regulations are now threatening his business. He told me that, with this Bill, he might not be able to go any further and, especially, he will not be able to hire altogether.
Like many tradesmen, he cannot risk employing somebody based solely on their CV. He needs a clear period to assess whether this person can actually do the job and fit into the team, as noble Lords have highlighted before. Without a workable probation framework, he will not be able to take the risk. The Government have acknowledged this problem and proposed this nine-month statutory probation period with a “lighter touch” dismissal process. However, there is no detail, no definition and no guidance, and legal experts still question its compatibility with the ACAS code.
Worse still, this framework will not come into force until August 2026, leaving 18 months of legal uncertainty. How can employers plan or hire when they do not know what the rules are going to be? Therefore, if the Government accept these risks and have promised a solution, why is it not part of the Bill as it is? It risks killing job creation, driving away investments and weakening economic recovery. This is definitely not what this Government intend to do.
However, with that background, I add my voice to those of other noble Lords who say that this clause may need to be taken out altogether; otherwise, we will need to take into account all these amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 107A in this group, which is intended to be an entirely helpful amendment for the Government, allowing them to put nine months on the face of the Bill but preserve all the flexibility they have there at the moment. I think that would be a small step forward in giving comfort to employers to know what is coming their way.
I understand that probationary periods are uncomfortable for people who want to take them—it would be interesting to try them in this House. None the less, when you run a small business, as I do, they are important. I have in the past employed prisoners; actually, every single one of those has worked out really well. I have employed promising young people who have turned out to be a total disaster. It is really hard to know. You cannot rely on references these days; nobody gives a truthful bad reference, because they would just get sued for it, so it is really hard to pick up warning signals. Everyone’s documents are compiled by AI, so they are beautifully written and answer all the questions perfectly. You cannot interview everybody, you have to take a chance, and sometimes it just does not work out.
To have to prove capacity or competence is hard. I do not know whether any noble Lords here have been involved in a school where the head has not quite worked out. It is really difficult to get rid of them on the basis of competence; it takes so long to negotiate their departure. If you are faced with that sort of disincentive for the ordinary, run-of-the-mill employees—“If get this wrong, I’ll be saddled with a £50,000 bill for unfair dismissal”, which is about the scale of these things if you are paying people decently—that is a big disincentive to employing people in the first place. It is certainly a huge disincentive to taking on people who have a question mark in their CV—a period of unemployment or something that looks odd about it—or who are just young.
We want people to take risks. I have enjoyed taking risks. It is wonderful when it goes right. You really feel you have helped someone in their career and have been part of building a life for them. They leave you, which usually they do, but you take pleasure in what they have gone on to do and the success they have made of their life, and perhaps you have done a bit there. But it is a risk, and to load that risk on to what is by its nature an inexact, uncomfortable and uncertain decision is a real incentive not to take that decision—not to hire.
I think it would be a mistake to go down that road, although I am comfortable, as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, pointed out, with a shorter timescale. You ought to know, if you are paying attention, whether things are right within three months; you might want to give someone a bit of extra leeway if you think they can set themselves right—but not holding it at two years. I am totally in favour of that; nine months seems a decent figure. It has to be possible, as my noble friends have said, to dismiss people just because it has not worked out. In some circumstances that is the best you can say: “No, sorry—we both did our best and it didn’t happen”.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
Very briefly, because we are talking about the time periods here, you have to be very careful because accrued holiday goes into that, and if you do not give people notice before the holiday is up, you cannot get rid of them. So be careful: it should be three months or less, and actually you have to knock off another week or so. This is from experience.
The other thing is the headmaster issue. I know one small school which had terrible trouble because the headmaster was incompetent. He knew it, so he got depressed and went on permanent sick leave, and of course the school was then saddled with the costs. There are a lot of problems such as that. It would be nice to clean them up at the same time if we could, but I do not think it will happen in this Bill.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group and endorse most of the arguments that have already been advanced. I will focus just briefly on tech scale-ups.
Noble Lords will, I hope, remember that the Communications and Digital Select Committee published a report just a few months ago on AI and Creative Technology Scaleups. These businesses are incredibly important to our economic growth. They represent the innovation that comes out of our universities and the talent that exists in this country, but they need a huge amount of support to get from being start-ups to scale-ups. However, if they are successful, the return that they then deliver to our economy is huge.
Our inquiry found that the UK is, in effect, an incubator economy. What we are seeing now is that increasingly the kinds of businesses that have the potential to turn into unicorns, or indeed become unicorns, are galloping away. They are doing so because of many things. Sometimes it is about access to capital growth and to highly competitive workforces. But one of the biggest challenges that we face is that our regime, whether it is regulatory or investment, is not supporting risk-taking. As my noble friend Lady Noakes said a moment ago, the measures in the Bill about day-one rights on unfair dismissal, along with many other things, are undermining risk takers.
As part of our inquiry—before the Bill was published—witnesses told us, in the context of hiring, that the costs of hiring and firing are already much higher in the UK than anywhere else, which is putting UK businesses at a disadvantage. In the context of the Bill and the day-one rights around unfair dismissal, the Startup Coalition, which represents the start-ups, talked in its briefing note about the chilling effect that these day-one rights around hiring and firing would have on start-ups, seriously undermining their potential for growth. TechUK, which represents tech businesses of all sizes, has raised a lot of concerns about some of these day-one rights, but in the context of unfair dismissal, one of its concerns, which I do not think we have heard much about so far, is the risk of fraudulent claims.
In the Government’s response to our report—while I am on my feet, I add a bit of advertising: the debate on the report is on Friday 13 June, so I urge any noble Lords who are interested in this to sign up and contribute—they referred a lot to their AI action plan and the forthcoming industrial strategy, saying that jobs will be “at the heart” of that strategy. If that is the case, I urge the Minister to think again in the context of what I have just argued. If jobs are to be at the heart of that strategy, and the Government are as keen to support tech scale-ups as they have declared themselves to be and have put this part of the economy centre stage in all their growth plans, but these kinds of measures are making it impossible or so difficult for these businesses to be willing to take the risks to hire in the way that they need to in order to scale, then the Government are introducing measures which are self-defeating and which will undermine their own objectives.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 104, 105, 106 and 107, but particularly Amendments 107A and 108, relating to day-one rights.
Getting into work helps people make the best of their lives and reach their full potential. It is good for them and their families, and, of course, employment helps businesses and, through the taxes that everybody pays, helps sustain our state. You would expect that it was a core role of the state to incentivise the creation of jobs in pursuance of economic growth, personal fulfilment and a reduction in the costs of worklessness. It sounds so obvious, but the Government need to be reminded of those simple truths, because the facts are that the well-meaning and superficially attractive suggestion that employees should have full rights from day one is full of perverse consequences that will reduce the appetite to take on staff and will particularly benight those with few qualifications and limited experience. Furthermore, it does not reflect the way in which the economy is changing and the world of work is altering, as people choose to work in different ways.
Taking on new employees is not something that organisations do lightly. For the most part, there is an application and interview process, and we have heard about this from other noble Lords. For most employees, applying for and getting a new job is a well-trodden path, as someone builds a career, gains experience and seeks promotion. But that is not how it is for the part of the workforce that does not have formal qualifications. We have heard about ex-prisoners and people without experience or a strong track record in a particular field. People get on the ladder only when an employer takes a chance on them. The muddled thinking behind this Bill will result in the perverse outcome of increasing not only the cost of taking somebody on but the risk of getting it wrong. The consequence will be to make a business think twice before taking a chance on the person with limited experience, people at the beginning of their career, or those with an impaired employment record. These people need the greatest help.
It is not just the youngsters who may suffer from these well-meaning but counterproductive proposals. Many people prefer a portfolio of part-time jobs nowadays, because it suits their lifestyle. The facts are that the relationship between casual, agency and temporary work in the UK suits those engaged in it for a variety of reasons. The temporary agency, Adecco, tells me in a briefing that 79% of UK temporary and agency workers rate the flexibility it gives them most highly, and two-thirds say that temporary or part-time work helps their work-life balance.
Because much of the temporary work is variable and unpredictable, it is incompatible with some of those other day-one rights, such as the offering of guaranteed hours over a reference period. Some of the employment that might fall under this ambit is weather-dependent work—there is not much call for an ice-cream seller on a wet bank holiday weekend in a seaside town, for example. Seasonal work—harvesting, for example—often depends on the weather. It has been very dry recently, and harvest is going to be earlier this year. If you think about the reference period, there is more likely to be work up until 30 June, rather than in the normal quarter, which would have been the successive quarter reference period. There is casual work, such as waiting at a wedding or manning the turnstiles at a stadium concert or event, for example. All of these are temporary things, and it is going to be very difficult on day one for the employer to commit to some of these rights, because it is out of the employer’s control.
There is another perverse consequence that relates to the wider umbrella of agency and temporary work, such as supply teachers and supply nurses—I notice that the noble Baroness who was the chief nurse is no longer in her place—and locum and sickness cover, where the employee determines their availability, not the employer, as it suits them. We see that some of these rights are actually going to put the employee in a worse situation, because they are going to lose their bargaining power.
I will move on, because I am conscious of the time. All I will say is that codifying many of these things will make it harder for people to take advantage of temporary opportunities and will counterintuitively reduce their bargaining power, removing the labour market liquidity that makes the economy work for all parties, and particularly the taxpayer.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly—I promise—in support of the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and Amendment 113, from my noble friend Lord Sharpe. I begin by apologising for not speaking on Second Reading of this Bill.
We have heard many contributions in today’s debate about the impact that the provisions in this Bill around unfair dismissal and probationary periods will have on businesses, and I agree with the points made. I will focus on the impact of these provisions on potential employees—people not currently working who are seeking employment.
The Government clearly understand the need to get more people into work. Their recent Pathways to Work Green Paper and last year’s welfare to work White Paper demonstrate their commitment to getting 2 million more people into work. This is a subject very close to my heart. As president of the Jobs Foundation, as declared in the register, I regularly meet with jobseekers, employers and the charities that help get people from welfare into work. In doing so, I have developed a good first-hand knowledge of the obstacles and friction in the process of potential employees finding meaningful employment.
Business leaders have raised concerns with me about the provisions in this Bill on unfair dismissal and the unclarity around the length of probationary periods. They have told me that the Bill, if passed unamended, would make them think twice about taking on what they describe as riskier hires. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment would reduce these risks. One business leader, Michael Lorimer, who employs over 600 people and who gave evidence on this Bill in the other place, wrote:
“Today, making a hire from long-term unemployment comes with an element of flexibility. If it works out, everyone benefits. If it doesn’t, the employer has an exit strategy. As it stands, this Bill significantly erodes this flexibility”.
It is not just businesses and business leaders. Those working with charities in this space have also raised concerns. The Ascend programme in Sheffield helps people that the local jobcentre views as “difficult to place in employment”. About 75% of those who are taken on as part of the programme go on to get a job. Clearly, these jobs do not always work out. Without amendments to the Bill, businesses will be more reluctant to take on potential employees from initiatives such as the Ascend programme. These potential employees might well lose out on the chance of employment.
To conclude, it is right that we consider the needs of employees and businesses, but we should also consider the effect that this Bill will have on potential employees and their chances of finding employment. I support my noble friends’ amendments. I want the UK’s labour market to remain sufficiently flexible to ensure that Britain’s workers of the future continue to have the dignity, joy and independence that meaningful employment provides.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I do not doubt that critics of this part of the Bill speak with a lot of personal experience as well as commitment to their employees and the way they run their affairs. However, let me remind people that the argument that is really coming from the other side—that the qualifying period would be damaging to employment—is the argument as has been used against just about every bit of progressive employment legislation from the Factory Acts onwards. If noble Lords think that that is hyperbole, they should remember the national minimum wage and the campaign that was run against it. None of that came to anything like what was forecast from that side of the House. I have risen briefly to ask the other side of the House to remember that it was wrong on the minimum wage and to consider whether it might be wrong on this as well.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I get the impression that there is a bit of a misunderstanding around the nature of employment tribunals. I spent the first half of a long career at the Bar doing employment tribunal cases, many of them unfair dismissal cases. In fact, the first case I ever did—pro bono, by the way—was an unfair dismissal case in 1972, under what was then the very new unfair dismissal legislation. Unfair dismissal cases are difficult for employees to win. Most cases that go to a full hearing result in the employer being vindicated.
I want to make two points. The first is that employment tribunals now have robust procedures for weeding out vexatious cases; such cases never go to a full hearing. Secondly, I remind your Lordships of the law on unfair dismissal in Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The test is in two parts. First, the employer must demonstrate that the reason for the dismissal is capability, qualifications, conduct or redundancy or the fact that the employment is in breach of some enactment. Once the employer has shown that that is the reason, the test for the tribunal—I shall read it out—is whether the dismissal is fair, which,
“depends on whether in the circumstances (including the size and administrative resources of the employer’s undertaking) the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably in treating it as a sufficient reason for dismissing the employee”.
So all the factors that one would expect to have to be taken into consideration are taken into consideration.
The tribunal then has to determine that,
“in accordance with equity and the substantial merits of the case”.
The Court of Appeal has added yet another burden. When the tribunal decides whether the employer acted reasonably or unreasonably, it is not about what it considers was reasonable or unreasonable; it is about whether it considers that the dismissal fell within the band of responses of reasonable employers. It is at two stages removed. It is not like an ordinary negligence case where the court decides whether an employer was reasonable or not reasonable in putting a guard on the machine. It must decide. Even if it thinks that the decision was unreasonable, if it finds that, nevertheless, reasonable employers would say that it might be possible that the reason was fair, that would be legitimate.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
The noble Lord referred to the likelihood of cases succeeding if they got as far as the tribunal. Does he accept that the vast majority of cases that are initiated never get as far as a tribunal because there is a huge incentive in the system for employers to settle? The costs of taking a case right the way through are huge—not just in the monetary cost of employing clever employment lawyers but, in particular, in the diversion of management effort within the organisation. I have seen this in large organisations, where swathes of the management team can be tied up for long periods of time. Employers cannot afford that in the broadest sense. If you put that in the context of smaller organisations, they absolutely cannot cope with it.
Whatever happens at the tribunal and whatever the law says, the mere initiation of an action nearly always results in an economic decision, made by the employer, to settle. That is one of the most difficult aspects and is why extending that into the early period of employment causes so many worries for employers.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I absolutely agree that most cases never get to a full hearing; only a tiny minority ever do. The noble Baroness is right that many cases settle, of course. Many are conciliated, because there is now compulsory conciliation by ACAS, but many are withdrawn by the employee. You have to visualise it, as I am sure the noble Baroness does: most employees bringing an unfair dismissal claim are completely unrepresented. They are on their own, so all the expense, research and preparation that have to be done must be done by them personally. That is a huge disincentive. Many claims—tens of thousands of them—are simply not brought because it is not worth the employees’ while to do it.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the case is exactly the same for small employers? They too will be in the position of having to deal with tribunals in the same way—hence why, as often as not, the settlements are taking place.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Of course; that is always the way whenever there is litigation. Whatever the subject matter, people do not want the burden of defending the case and the people bringing the case do not want the burden of bringing it. That is just the reality of litigation.
I will say one last thing before I sit down. The argument that the noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite have put forward is all about what they perceive to be the consequences of this matter, which my noble friend Lord Monks just addressed. But nobody can seriously advance the case that employers should have the right to dismiss anybody unfairly and without recourse to the law.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Does the noble Lord accept that these are not simply arguments that people around this Chamber are putting forward but matters that are in the Bill’s impact assessment? It is the Government’s own statement that the Bill will have these impacts. It is not being made up by any of us: the Government accept that this will be the impact.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
That may very well be, but it still does not remove the fundamental point: what is being proposed is a category of worker who can be dismissed unfairly for the most extreme reasons without resort to any justice.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
I would like to take the noble Lord up on this, because I have had experience with this. When an employee has been behaving very difficultly and sometimes they want to go anyway, but you want to dismiss them, they say, “Right, we’re going to take you to a tribunal”, and the answer is they will settle for £3,000 to £4,000 just because it is cheaper for everybody. The trouble with that is, for the loyal employees who stay, it is a huge disincentive and causes a lot of aggro within the thing, and it is very unfair on everybody else.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I stand with some trepidation at this stage to support very much the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and indeed I support the other amendments in this group.
We have to think that any company—large, small, charity, whatever it may be—that hires a new employee takes a calculated risk. They are unknown. The company hopes that the individual, young or more mature, will integrate well into the company culture and be capable of handling the expected workload with the appropriate training needed.
I understand the Government’s position, as mentioned in a previous day’s debate on the Bill, that the employee also takes a risk when starting a new job or changing careers. They too must be confident that the role aligns with their skills and aspirations. A probationary period exists to serve both parties. It allows the employee to assess whether the role suits their interests, skills and abilities, while giving the employer time to evaluate whether the employee fits before making a long-term commitment. Is that unreasonable?
In my own place of work, I have seen this very much in practice. In fact, when I returned to work, I had a six-month probation period, and I had worked for them for 25 years before that. We once hired a seasoned practitioner with considerable market experience. However, for various reasons, they did not pass their probation. Should that individual be entitled to bring a claim for unfair dismissal, noting what the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, said? From the employer’s perspective, they are simply trying to safeguard their business, its culture and its ability to deliver results for clients. The smaller the business, the harder it is, as we have just heard and as, I think, the noble Lord accepted.
Is it right that an employee should be granted full employment rights from day one, when both sides are still in a learning phase? Is it fair that a company could face the threat of an employment tribunal for unfair dismissal if the probationary period is not successful, on which we have had a lot of discussion? Whatever happens, should it go towards that phase? Should it never reach the employment tribunal? It is a gruelling process for both parties, and an expensive one—emotionally, culturally, and potentially in the pocket.
The Government rightly seek to stimulate growth, as mentioned by the Minister on the previous group. For that to happen, businesses must feel confident in hiring. But, if the terms of employment are too burdensome, companies may hesitate to expand their workforce. It is imperative that the economy is prevented from becoming stagnant or, worse still, contracting. I simply do not understand why this clause is in the Bill. It does not propose anything that helps growth in this country.
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
The noble Lord pointed to the daunting process that faces an employer potentially facing an employment tribunal accusation that would damage perhaps their reputation, as well as the daunting issues that also face the employee who is considering going down that course. My noble friend made some emphasis on that point.
The debate has been conducted as if this is a hugely common threat: indeed, as if it is a threat that, potentially, is going to do tremendous damage to our economy. But could I just point to the scale of the issue? In 2023-24, there were just over 5,000 unfair dismissal cases referred from the Tribunals Service to ACAS for the conciliation processes that my noble friend referred to. What is the size of our workforce in the British economy? Is it 25, 26, 27—
Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Lab)
Thirty-four million workers. Five and a half thousand cases. Why is the number so small? It has been suggested that it is because an employer’s immediate response is to offer a settlement to buy off the prospect of a tribunal. Some may make that judgement, but, given the evidence my noble friend has referred to about the unlikelihood of applicants succeeding with their claims, that does not seem a very wise response to give. There may be some, but for the individual, it seems to me, more daunting factors influence them to hold back because it is so painful and potentially stressful that they are reluctant to take their case in the first place.
This whole Bill is about giving people at work in Britain more confidence and there needs to be some sense of perspective about the scale of the issue we are talking about. Five thousand people.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
I am aware of a case of a small company that has got rid of four individuals in view of the legislation because those individuals are not doing a good enough job, but it could live with them if it had the ability to get rid of them. What it cannot face the thought of is having to go down any form of tribunal route or indeed threat thereof. That is not what we are trying to do with this Bill; we are trying to prevent that. We do not want to see those individuals leave employment. That is not what we want, and that is where it could lead a lot of people.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this is one of the most important parts of this legislation, and I am very conscious of the Labour Party’s manifesto and its success in the election last year. However, at the same time, this is the same Government who want to increase the employment rate to 80%, which has not been achieved in a very long time. If we go back in history, we see that the Blair-Brown Government did not make changes to go to zero or day-one rights in the same way. Yes, they changed it from two years to one year. The coalition Government later changed it back to two years.
Yet we are now seeing—as has already been pointed out elegantly by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in response to some of the comments raised on the Government Benches—that this is the Government’s own impact assessment. If we look at the Regulatory Policy Committee’s assessment of these proposals, we see that it gives a very strong red rating on this element and suggests that, basically, there is no evidence that they are in any way needed.
There are aspects here of “What is the problem that the Government is trying to address?”. Lewis Silkin solicitors point out that if the only changes to be made were those referred to and we were still to have, as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy read out, the different approaches on fair dismissal in the tribunal, the Government could just put forward a statutory instrument based on the existing power of the 1996 Act. However, they have not done so in the Bill; they are seeking to go much further in a variety of ways in Schedule 3. That is why I share the concerns of many other noble Lords who are worried about the unintended consequences. Nobody can believe that a Labour Government would want to see unemployment rise or more people on benefits, or not tackle the challenge of people not in education, employment or training—
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Or the most vulnerable—and we can just keep going.
However, on whether people take cases to the employment tribunal, as has been referred to, we are not going to debate Part 5 tonight, but in this same Bill, where we have to consider a lot of these things in the round, the Government are proposing to give an unlimited amount of money to somebody to get legal aid or legal support so that they can go to tribunal. In fact, they are going further and saying that the Secretary of State or somebody they appoint can go to court on their behalf. In that case, in Part 5, we are talking about people who have not even started work.
So, rolling it back, on some of the concerns about which noble Lords on the Government Benches are suggesting, “Don’t worry about it, this isn’t going to happen”, actually, the entire Bill is opening that. That is why I hope the Government do not just listen to the real concerns of noble Lords in this House; they should consider their own impact assessment and the representations of all the business organisations that think that this is just wrong.
I support the amendments. There are a variety of them about putting in the Bill a defined time for what should be considered a probationary period. We have already had a separate discussion about apprenticeships but, going further, one thing that surprises me is that in paragraph 2 of Schedule 3, new Section 108A refers to:
“Employees who have not yet started work”.
You may think, “That’s very sensible. How can you have an unfair dismissal?” I have already referred to Part 5, coming somewhat later. Then there is a list in the Explanatory Notes. It is quite complicated—it tries to simplify it, but the legislation is complicated—but here we have one of the answers. A lot of the Bill is basically about trying to make sure that trade union membership goes up—that means more money going into the political fund and having to wait to opt out until the following January, for, in effect, finances. Indeed, paragraph 5(3) of Schedule 3, as a consequential amendment, says that, in effect, the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, before you have even started work, will not apply if you are a member of a trade union. That is what is going on in this legislation. I will read it out:
“Omit section 154 (disapplication of qualifying period for unfair dismissal relating to union membership”.
There are a number of activities here; it goes further in the Explanatory Notes. They include if you are on strike—I do not quite understand how you could be on strike if you have not started work, but perhaps one is on strike if one is in a different job. There are already protections in the disapplication in existing law—it suggests people who are pregnant and similar. There are a variety of things here where there are already protections, but these are now being extended in different ways. Sometimes, the Government Back Benches may not all have necessarily read the full detail of the Bill.
To that end, I support the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in saying, “Let’s get rid of this clause and this schedule”. There is genuinely a way to start this again. There is still time for the Government to go away and do proper thinking—there is plenty to get through in this debate before we get to Report—to really narrow in on what the Government are trying to do, rather than, frankly, giving a blank cheque to a series of employment situations. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral—happy birthday to him, by the way—has already deemed this to be the unemployment Bill. I know those are not the consequences that the Government are seeking to address, but the experience and the petitioning of business organisations is very clear that that is what will happen.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, there are two things that I can safely say. One is that I am unanimous in my comments tonight, and the other is that you cannot accuse the Liberal Democrats of extending the debate past a reasonable hour; we have done just over an hour on this debate. The debate has been quite sensible and both sides have ventured into the usual jousting, but the comments from the noble Baroness who just spoke were a bit disingenuous in saying, or intimating, that the real reason behind this measure is to increase union membership and generate money for the Labour Party. That could not be farther from the truth of what this Government are trying to do, whichever way you look at the Bill.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Has the noble Lord read the later parts of the Bill that specifically say that? In the human rights assessment, there is a qualified comment from the Government that, basically, cites in particular the element about postponing any refunds until January. That is exactly what part of the Bill is designed to do.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I will reply to that. Yes, it is a technical question, and perhaps that wording sits there, but any person with an ounce of common sense who sees the Bill can see what the Government are trying to do. I do not think that the Bill, with over 300 amendments to it, is geared to do what the noble Baroness is intimating. That is cheap political point-scoring, and I think it is beneath her.
I have carefully considered the amendments put forward by noble Lords in this group, particularly those seeking to remove Clause 23 and Schedule 3, including Amendments 23 and 334 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the series of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and others relating to probationary periods, including Amendments 105 to 112. While I am not persuaded by those amendments or the case for removing the provisions or fundamentally changing the Bill, I recognise the need for greater clarity on probationary periods. Given the Bill’s current drafting, which relies heavily on future regulation, it is essential that the Government provide clear and firm guidance on how the provisions will operate in practice, especially for small businesses, which will find ambiguity challenging in difficult times.
Amendment 107A from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, which proposes a default initial employment period but would allow the Secretary of State flexibility to amend that through regulation, offers a balanced concept that could be helpful in providing certainty while retaining adaptability. Likewise, Amendment 334 from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which calls for a retention of the current qualifying period until suitable regulations are in place, reflects concerns about the smooth transition, and that deserves attention. However, I am less convinced by the calls for further impact assessments or reviews of the proposals in Amendments 103 and 123, which I believe risk delaying the necessary reforms without providing clarity.
In light of those amendments, I urge the Government to seize this opportunity to give definition and definite practical guidance on the provisions that the Bill will implement. It would be better if the Minister could say in absolute terms the length of time for which probationary periods will be set in future regulation after the passage of the Bill. That would be particularly important for smaller employers that need certainty to comply. Providing that clarity would help to ensure that the reform worked as intended, and it would help to strike the right balance between protecting employees’ rights and allowing employers the flexibility to manage probationary employments effectively. On that basis, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lord Lucas for their amendments and their thoughtful contributions in this group. It has been a most interesting debate. I will speak to my Amendments 103, 113 and 123.
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that it would be much better to get this right now rather than pursuing Amendment 103 in particular, which returns to the Government’s insufficient impact assessment. The assessment that has been produced states that this provision will have one of the highest impacts, yet, as we have mentioned before, the Regulatory Policy Committee has given the Government’s analysis in this section a red rating. The RPC’s critique is not a matter of minor technicalities because it identifies serious deficiencies in the Government’s case for intervention in the options that they have considered and in the justification for the policy that they propose. The Government’s impact assessment admits that it lacks robust data on dismissal rates for employees with under two years’ service. To answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, there is no evidence for that. It proceeds regardless, however, with only superficial reference to “asymmetric information” and without any substantive analysis of any market failure.
The RPC highlights the impact assessment’s failure to consider how long-serving employees might view the equalisation of rights for new joiners—an issue of fairness and workplace cohesion that the Government have ignored. The impact assessment itself mentions that options such as reducing the qualifying period to 18 months or one year were considered and rejected without detailed assessment. No real exploration of probation periods was provided. That is not a balanced appraisal of possible alternatives; it is a justification for a predetermined decision.
On the justification of the preferred option, the impact assessment is again found lacking. The RPC calls for clarity on the costs to businesses—the costs of managing performance, handling disputes and the increased settlements to avoid tribunal risks. It also questions whether the Government have considered evidence from existing unfair dismissal claims and how risks might vary across sectors or job types, particularly in roles where reputational damage from a claim might deter employers from hiring at all.
More significantly, the Government have not addressed indirect and dynamic labour impacts, such as whether day-one rights might lead to more cautious hiring, greater use of temporary contracts or weaker overall job security. These are not abstract concerns as they go to the heart of how this policy might reshape employment relationships across the country. Noble Lords might be interested in a real example. I was talking this morning to a senior executive at a FTSE 100 company. It is an exemplary employer in every way; for example, offering many day-one rights. But this year—partly as a result of the jobs tax but also in anticipation of the Bill—it has reduced its hiring by 84%. I repeat that for the record: 84%. This is not abstract or theoretical. This is real, this is now.
It is important to note that these likely labour market impacts are not accounted for in the £5 billion cost to businesses, so the real cost is likely to be significantly higher. The result is a policy with high ambition but little practical clarity, as the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, has just noted. How will unfair dismissal rights interact with a statutory probationary period? Will employers still have access to the same set of fair reasons for dismissal? Will there be a different threshold for acting reasonably during probation? Can probation be extended if needed? None of those questions has been clearly answered.
The noble Lord, Lord Leong, reminded us of the light-touch, nine-month proposal, but what does that mean in practice? My noble friend Lady Meyer asked that. At the same time, the Government’s own analysis predicts that granting day-one rights for unfair dismissal alone will result in a 15% increase in employment tribunal claims. Using the statistics given by the noble Lord, Lord Barber, that is an additional 750 claims per year, on top of the 50,000 backlog already waiting 18 months to two years. The noble Lord argued that this is, in effect, a statistical irrelevance, but it is not to the 750 business owners who are being dragged through courts. That is a substantial impact. It represents direct costs to businesses in terms of time, legal risk and, of course, the chilling effect on recruitment.
The tribunal system itself needs to be looked at. Without significant new investment it is hard to see how the system will cope with this 15% increase. The result could be longer delays, greater costs and justice deferred for all parties. In an earlier group we heard about a case that is going to take more than two years to come before a tribunal. Yet the Government intend to bring these changes into force in 2026. On what basis? There is nothing in the impact assessment that explains why 2026 has been chosen or how the system will be ready by then. Businesses will need time to revise contracts, restructure probation processes and train managers on the new rules. What assessment has been made of whether 2026 is realistic, with all those things in mind? What engagement has been carried out with employers, particularly SMEs, about what implementation will require?
It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to explain how the timeline was determined and whether it is genuinely achievable, given the lack of clarity in both the policy detail and the supporting evidence. We all agree that employees deserve fair treatment, particularly in the vulnerable early stages of employment, but employers must also have a reasonable opportunity to assess performance, capability and suitability without the immediate threat of litigation.
We have established that there is no evidence for any of this clause. In fact, when the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, was arguing his point, he said that it is very difficult anyway for employees to take a case to an employment tribunal. The noble Lord, Lord Barber, as I just mentioned, said it is, in effect, a statistical irrelevance. If there is no evidence, it is too difficult and it is a statistical irrelevance, why are we bothering at all?
I want to raise a final point that others, particularly my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes, have referred to. It is not just about the policy itself; it is a more troubling concern. The policy will create unintended incentives, but for whom? It is not just about employers scaling back hiring overall but about who they stop hiring. If we remove the qualifying period for unfair dismissal and provide no workable probationary mechanism, we tilt the hiring incentives away from risk-taking, as we have heard. It will, in effect, stop employers taking a punt.
Right now, a small business owner might be willing to take that chance on someone with no formal qualifications, or from a non-traditional background, or re-entering the workforce after a time away. That chance exists because the employer has a short window to assess their suitability—and vice versa, of course—before facing the full weight of employment litigation risk. If that safety net is removed and exposure begins from day one and the probationary period lacks clarity or legal protection, that same employer will think twice. They will play it safe.
Noble Lords opposite should pay attention to those of us who have employed people. It is a simple fact. Who is going to suffer? It is not the already advantaged candidate with a polished CV. It is the young person with gaps in education, the career switcher with no references, the working parent returning after years out of the labour market, or the person coming back to work after a long period of illness. Noble Lords opposite should reread the speech given by my noble friend Lord Elliott, with his experience of the Jobs Foundation. He explained this much more eloquently than I just have. Those are the people who benefit from flexibility and second chances and who may now find those doors quietly closed.
This goes to the heart of social mobility and genuine workplace diversity. I would like to ask the Government a rhetorical question: have they considered the incentives this policy creates? If they have not—both common-sense experience of real working life in the private sector and, indeed, the RPC suggest that they have not—we risk designing a policy that sounds progressive but, in practice, reduces opportunity for the very groups that we should be helping the most. We need a decent impact assessment, and my amendment would allow for it.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As there have been a number of questions about our intentions with these clauses, I think it would be helpful to clarify them and put them on the record.
Clause 23 introduces Schedule 3 and repeals Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, thereby removing the two-year qualifying period for protection against unfair dismissal. Schedule 3 further amends the 1996 Act, including the introduction of a statutory probationary period in legislation. Schedule 3 also removes the two-year qualifying period for the right to request written reasons for dismissal. Any employee who has been dismissed after the statutory probationary period will have the right to written reasons for dismissal within 14 days upon request.
The legislation will introduce a statutory probationary period that will maintain an employer’s ability to assess any new hires. Schedule 3 allows the duration of a statutory probationary period to be set in regulations by the Secretary of State following consultation. The Government’s preference, as we know, is for this probationary period to be nine months in length. Schedule 3 also creates the power to modify the test for whether dismissal during the probationary period is fair for reasons of performance or suitability for the role.
The Government’s intention is to use this power to set light-touch standards for fair dismissal during probation. The power will be limited to the following reasons for dismissal, which, under Section 98 of the Employment Rights Act 1996, qualify as potentially fair reasons: capability, conduct, illegality or some other substantial reason relating to the employee. The Government will consult on the light-touch standards and proceed to set out in regulations what specific reasons relate to the employee and when.
Schedule 3 amends the delegated power to set the maximum compensatory award for unfair dismissal so that a different maximum can be set for dismissals during the probationary period and when the light-touch standards apply. It is our intention to consult before the introduction of any new cap on awards.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
Forgive me if I am pre-empting the Minister, but given that she has just responded to my noble friend on the question of economic growth, what is her reply to the issues I raised about the specifics in the context of tech scale-ups, which are a priority for the Government’s growth agenda? What is the impact of these measures on that particular industry?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. She will know that I share her ambitions for the tech sector. The UK remains the number one country for venture capital investment, raising $16.2 billion in 2024—more than either Germany or France—and since last July we have secured £44 billion in AI investment. Strengthening employment rights and giving day-one protections can help support talented people to take the leap into a start-up company.
I turn to Amendment 104, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Setting a statutory probationary period during which light-touch standards will apply is a crucial part of our plan to make work pay. I can reassure the noble Lord that setting out the detail in regulations is fundamental to fulfilling this commitment. It is not necessary to make this a requirement in legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked a number of questions. He, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and others asked why the Government are doing this. The UK is an outlier compared to other OECD countries when it comes to the balance of risks and entitlements between the employer and the employee. We believe that it is an important principle that employees should have greater security at work. Our reforms will mean that around 9 million employees—31% of all employees —who have been working for their employer for less than two years will have greater protection against being unfairly dismissed.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I hate to interrupt the noble Baroness at this late hour, but that is just a repeat of what has been said before; it is not a tangible quantified reason for doing this. Yes, for a short period of time, they will have greater security in theory, but the downsides of this—they are in the Government’s own impact assessment—are really clear. The Government say that this will reduce the life chances of people who are riskier hires. It will cost business hundreds of millions of pounds. There is no quantification of that benefit against those downsides, and I am still not hearing that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I will talk about the impact assessments in more detail shortly, but the noble Lord will know that it is a lot easier to identify the costs in impact assessment than the benefits. We have worked with academics who are looking at this subject. I reassure the noble Lord that we have looked at this and are confident that the benefits in this particular case will outweigh the risks.
I will pick up the point made by other noble Lords about cultural fit and other reasons why an employer might want to dismiss somebody during their probationary period. Dismissal for “some other substantial reason” is a catch-all category designed to allow employers to terminate an employment contract where no other potentially fair reasons apply. There can be cases where dismissal is legitimate and reasonable; “some other substantial reason” dismissals depend on the facts and circumstances of the employment relationship. “Some other substantial reason” is broad, and case law supports personality clashes in workplace teams or a business client refusing to work with an employee being a potentially fair reason for dismissal. The Government do not believe that an employee not being a cultural fit within an organisation should be a fair dismissal per se. We would expect an employer to be able to dismiss someone fairly only if any cultural misfit was relevant in a reasonable manner to the employer’s business objectives and the needs of the workplace.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, mentioned employees with spent convictions. I gently point out to her that dismissing an employee solely for having spent convictions is currently unfair and potentially grounds for an unfair dismissal claim—
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I never mentioned spent convictions; I referred merely to the risk of employers taking on ex-offenders. I cannot think of a point I could have made in relation to spent convictions. The issue is these categories of potential employees who a represent higher risk in terms of judgment to employers, and I was using former offenders as one example of that.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I apologise if I misunderstood the noble Baroness’s point. I can only reaffirm the point I was making: with all these issues, there can be reasons for fair dismissal during the probationary period, and we have set out quite clearly what the grounds for that would be.
Amendment 107A was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. As always, he thinks outside the box and comes up with interesting ideas, including the idea of a probationary period here in your Lordships’ House, which I am sure we all have strong views about. Going back to the specifics of his proposal, the Government have expressed an initial preference for a nine-month statutory probationary period. We intend to consult with stakeholders and the wider public before committing to a duration, which will be set by the Secretary of State through secondary legislation after this consultation has taken place. Maintaining this flexibility allows the duration and calculation of the statutory probationary period to be adapted in light of future changes in employment practices.
Amendment 108, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, would also amend Schedule 3 to the Bill. It is of great importance to this Government to get the length of the statutory probationary period correct. The Government have already stated in Next Steps to Make Work Pay their preference for the statutory probationary period to be nine months in duration. However, this is subject to consultation, and I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on that matter.
On Amendment 334, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, while I recognise what the noble Lord is seeking to achieve with his amendment, I reassure him, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, that the Government have no intention of removing the two-year qualifying period until the regulations setting out the statutory probationary period are in force. We will, of course, give businesses time to prepare, and we are engaging with them already. These provisions will not commence before autumn 2026, which will give time to prepare. I hope that this reassures the noble Lord, Lord Goddard.
I move on to address Amendments 103 and 123, from the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, in respect of their mandates for further impact assessments. The Government have already produced a comprehensive set of impact assessments, published alongside Second Reading, and based on the best available evidence of the potential impact on businesses, employees and the wider economy. Our analysis includes an illustrative assessment of the impact on employment tribunal cases, which we intend to refine over time by working closely with the Ministry of Justice, His Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service, ACAS and wider stakeholders. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for setting the record straight about the impact of tribunals, and the thorough ways in which they conduct their proceedings. Many cases settle in advance, and we want to encourage more cases to reach a settlement with proper advice and support. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Barber for putting the scale of the problem in perspective, with only 5,000 cases referred to ACAS in 2023-24.
We will publish an enactment impact assessment once the Bill receives Royal Assent, in line with the requirements of the Better Regulation Framework. This will account for ways in which the Bill has been amended in its passage through Parliament, to the extent that those changes significantly change the impact of the policy on the enforcement system. This impact assessment will then be published alongside the enacted legislation.
To follow up on the impact of this, we acknowledge that the policy is expected to benefit close to 9 million employees, driven by well-being benefits arising from increased job security for those with under two years of tenure. There will be costs to businesses, including familiarisation and compliance costs, from this change. However, businesses could benefit through improving their people management and hiring practices, which could deliver medium to long-term benefits, such as higher labour productivity. In addition, increasing employee well-being could increase worker productivity. These benefits will be tested further during consultation.
The Government have also pledged to conduct a consultation on unfair dismissal policy, to collect feedback from employers and employees. Specifically, the Government have outlined that we will consult on the length of the statutory probationary period, and the potential cap on compensatory awards for unfair dismissal occurring during the statutory probationary period. I can reassure the House that there is no need for the Bill to require the Government to undertake further assessment of the impact on tribunals before commencement. We will be updating our impact assessments in any case, alongside the consultation on implementing the various provisions in the Bill.
I turn to Amendment 113, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are not proposing to expand the five potentially fair reasons for dismissal that have been a central part of employment law for decades. An employer’s decision to dismiss an employee in the early stages of their employment or otherwise will have to be underpinned by a fair dismissal reason, such as capability or conduct. It stands to reason that these would be the most likely dismissal reasons when employees fail their probation.
I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these amendments but, for the reasons set out, the Government cannot support them. I therefore ask that Amendment 103 be withdrawn.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, we are being promised a blizzard of consultations, but can the Minister give me any idea when those consultations will take place? Can we also have some assurance that all the employer organisations will be consulted on this occasion? From our conversations with many of them, they do not feel particularly consulted up to now.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
First, on the issue of consultation, I assure the noble Lord that there have been a considerable number of consultations, not only with the main employer organisations but in terms of working parties working on particular aspects of the Bill, and those will continue. That consultation will continue—and I have now forgotten his other question.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Will the Government consult with employer organisations?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Yes, I can confirm that that is the case.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
The Minister has not addressed the fact that there are already powers in existing legislation to modify the qualifying period. The Minister talks about going into consultation, but that consultation on the probationary period could start right now with the SI, and that element. I struggle to understand why we have to wait such a long time when, actually, the Government could get on with their policy a lot more quickly.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
That has reminded me that that was the other question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—so I thank the noble Baroness for raising it.
As we have said before, we are working on an implementation plan, which we hope to share with noble Lords as soon as we can. It is in my interests as well as noble Lords’ interests that they see it sooner rather than later, but there is no point in sharing something that is not complete. Noble Lords will see that—and it will set out exactly what we are planning to do and where the consultations will fit in with all of it. I hope that when noble Lords see it, it will reassure them.
To go back to the particular question from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we see this as a wholesale package. It is right that it is introduced to employers as a package; it will have appropriate timescales in it. We do not want to do things on a piecemeal basis, we want to do them in the round. That is why we are attempting to address this in the way that we are proposing today.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Unfortunately, that is our concern—that we do not know what the detail is, and we are being asked to pass a Bill without all that detail, as I said in my speech.
There was a more technical point that I wanted to raise with the Minister, if she wants to come back to me. I set out how having to cover an extra 9 million employees is going to lead to huge amounts of extra compliance costs. She emphasised the benefits for the workers, but she did not at all address the monumental amount of paperwork. My noble friend Lord Sharpe raised a similar point. As he explained, all managers in all companies are going to have to prepare for this and work out how they treat their employees from day one and what paperwork is required. I am not convinced that there is any understanding of that.
When we had similar consultations on the minimum wage, when I was in business, which the noble Lord, Lord Monks, mentioned, there was a great deal of detailed consultation very early on on how it would work. I said in another debate how I was consulted about whether we could put it on the payslips—and I explained that it would cost us £2 million, so it would cost the whole economy an awful lot just to put the minimum wage on the payslip. That sort of detail is incredibly important, if you are bringing in regulation that affects all employers and potentially benefits all employees.
I urge the Minister to think about these things and not say that it is going into the long grass and that we will get an impact assessment ex post, but think about how employers will actually manage this.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I can assure the noble Baroness that not only have we thought about this but we are working very closely with the business sector to get this right. We understand that some of these things will take time. It takes time to change systems, and a lot of it is about changing computer systems for processing and so on. We are aware of this and, when the noble Baroness sees the implementation plan, it will reassure her that we have allowed space and time for it, as well as proper consultation with those who will be affected.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, it has been a long debate so I will try not to detain the Committee much longer. I thank the many noble Lords across the Committee who have contributed. It has been long because this is really important. I confess that I come out of the end of this debate feeling somewhat depressed. I still have not heard really why we are doing this, and what the real, tangible benefits are, to offset against the very real negative impacts, particularly on those who are looking for employment and are perhaps disadvantaged in one way or another: they have not worked before, they are young, they have a gap—we heard all the various examples. The Minister did not really address that point terribly clearly in her speech, and it is so important.
This may be, as the Government have regularly called it, a Bill for workers. However, as I said at Second Reading, it is not a Bill for people who want to work—the potential workers who were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Elliott. He stole my Charlie Mayfield quote, but I will not worry about that. It is true that Denmark has much easier hire and fire, and he was using that as a paragon of virtue because it allows people who are harder to hire to get into employment, which is so important.
In the interests of being constructive, I hope the Minister understands the real concerns about those people and the impact the Bill is going to have on them, and the negative impacts this section of the Bill will have. I hope that she will be prepared to spend a bit of time with us between now and Report to try to find solutions to those negative impacts, to minimise the problems and downsides that they will cause. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monks: I am not making this up, or crying wolf, as with the national minimum wage, as the noble Lord suggested. This is what the Government say will be the impact. I cannot emphasise that enough. It is not me saying that; the Government say this will be impact. If we can try to work together before Report, to try to find ways of knocking the edges off this and reducing the negative impacts, that would be very helpful. With that, I will not oppose Clause 23 standing part of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Wirral
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and another in the name of Lord Sharpe limit the application of the clause to cases where the employer sought, without good reason, to vary the employee’s contract of employment in relation to their pay or benefits.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, as we move to consider Clause 26, I believe Amendments 113ZA and 113B bring essential clarity, balance and proportionality to the Bill’s treatment of contract variation.
In last week’s debate, we discussed how recent changes to statutory sick pay might prompt employers to scale back or modify enhanced sick pay schemes. Such adjustments would require changes to contracts, and under the Bill’s current wording could be caught by these provisions. This raises the question: is it really the Government’s intention to classify necessary contractual changes prompted by those reforms to statutory sick pay as grounds for unfair dismissal?
The Government’s plan to make work pay rightly criticises cases where these practices have been used to enforce lower pay or to reduce terms and conditions. That is a legitimate concern. However, as currently drafted, Clause 26 goes far beyond this intention. It would cover any contractual change, no matter how minor, technical or reasonable, even those entirely unrelated to pay or benefits. This creates serious practical problems. Employers would be exposed to legal claims of unfair dismissal, even when seeking to modernise contractual terms; for example, aligning shift patterns with contemporary trading hours or updating disciplinary procedures drafted decades ago. In effect, this clause could fossilise employment contracts, preventing businesses from adapting to economic, operational or technological change, unless they meet a narrow and restrictive test.
I acknowledge that the phrase “without good reason” in Amendment 113ZA may introduce some degree of ambiguity. However, any dispute from it would fall to the employment tribunals to determine. While we have previously argued—and I maintain—that the Government have no credible plan to resolve the serious backlog and underfunding of the employment tribunal system, the fact remains that these tribunals will be the ones to judge whether a variation was sought with good reason.
In the current economic climate, businesses may need to make reasonable changes to pay structures to remain viable. Without these amendments, I believe employers may be deterred from offering pay increases or promotions, unless employees accept other contractual changes, potentially creating a two-tier workforce. In more extreme cases, employers might choose to make roles redundant altogether, rather than risk costly litigation over sensible and necessary variations.
I will speak also to Amendment 114 in this group. The clause’s reliance on language such as
“the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern”
and “financial difficulties” implies that only in the most extreme circumstances—insolvency or imminent closure—can dismissal and re-engagement be considered. That is surely far too narrow a test. Businesses are not static and responsible employers must often adapt to evolving market conditions, consumer behaviour and, of course, technological innovation. These changes are not about survival, they are surely about growth, competitiveness and investment, as we expressed in earlier debates.
Medium and large businesses may face particular challenges here. They may need to apply changes to specific segments of the workforce, not the entire business, yet the Bill appears to treat the business as a whole, creating further uncertainty and limiting proportionate action.
It would be very helpful if the Minister could explain how the Government define business. The revised wording in this amendment, “could reasonably be expected”, better reflects how responsible employers assess risk and manage their operations. It would give them the legal certainty to act proactively to avoid crisis, rather than reactively once a crisis is already upon them. The existing wording could penalise businesses for prudent foresight, discouraging early intervention and increasing the likelihood of greater harm to jobs and continuity of business.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 113A of this group, which is a very minimalist amendment designed to deal with circumstances in which, for instance, the company needs to change its registered address. That does not in any way affect the employee, but in the current wording of the Bill it would constitute a variation of the contract, and if the employee refused it—they do not have to be reasonable in doing so—we have found ourselves in difficulties for no good reason. I have a lot of sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Hunt has been saying, but my amendment is just to try to avoid creating difficulties where there should be none.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 115 in my name, and I wish the Committee to note my entry in the register as set out in the previous group.
Employer businesses sometimes need to change, to adapt to the changes in the marketplace, to their customers’ needs, and sometimes to changes in society. Therefore, on occasions, employers need the ability to vary their employees’ contracts. This process should be done through consultation, negotiation and finally, agreement with their employees, at all times respecting the rights of those employees. I will quote from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s website, which refers to the current legislation:
“In exceptional circumstances, where there are genuine and pressing business needs and agreement cannot be reached, employers can sometimes be justified in unilaterally changing workers’ terms and conditions by terminating their contracts and re-hiring them on new terms and conditions”.
That comment and others that I have heard would suggest that the current legislation has been working, other than in exceptional circumstances and by some terrible employers. There will always be employers and people in society who will manipulate the law to their own advantage. This certainly was the case with the notorious P&O Ferries, which undertook an outrageous fire and replacement of their employees. Also, sometimes employers will certainly threaten employees with a fire and hire to gain advantage in negotiation. I recognise the value of unions and other employee organisations to assist and support employees when employers undertake varying contracts as a last resort.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Fox, who is unfortunately away today, on NATO business I believe. Tomorrow, no doubt, he will pore over today’s Hansard. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, will be available then. I cannot unsee the picture of him in a four-poster bed with the trade union man climbing aboard, and will have to try to explain down the telephone to my noble friend Lord Fox, “It was quite humorous”. We will see what happens with that tomorrow.
My noble friend Lord Fox’s concerns include his Amendments 116 and 121, which offer much-needed clarity and balance to the protections around contract variations and unfair dismissals. The issue of predatory fire and rehire, as seen in the widely condemned P&O Ferries case highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, is an unacceptable, serious and pressing concern that employment legislation rightly needs to address now. No worker should be threatened with dismissal simply to impose worse terms and conditions on that person.
My noble friend Lord Fox’s proposals to exclude routine non-detrimental contract changes from triggering automatic unfair dismissal protections, as in Amendment 116, and to safeguard reasonable flexibility clauses expressly agreed in contracts, as in Amendment 121, would help ensure that protection against abuse is balanced with the practical realities that employees face. His further clarification in Amendments 117 and 122—that dismissals linked to redundancy with offers of suitable alternative employment and the lawful use of fixed-term contracts should not be unfairly restricted—rightly recognise that not all contract variations are harmful and that employees must be able to operate flexibly and fairly.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would facilitate contractual changes for financial organisations or workforce-related reasons. Although the intention is understandable, it is crucial that the Government provide clear guidance to ensure fair protection for workers, particularly those in smaller businesses. The approach to seasonal and variable-hour workers also requires careful consideration to safeguard their rights. We will return to that in a later group.
These amendments collectively illustrate the careful line that the Government must tread. Although it is crucial to clamp down on unfair and predatory fire-and-rehire tactics, as addressed by my noble friend Lord Fox’s amendments, we must equally recognise the legitimate need for flexibility and contract review in a changing economic landscape. I commend my noble friend’s amendments for their clarity and fairness in this regard, and encourage the Government to consider how best to incorporate these protections. At the same time, I urge the Committee to approach other proposed changes—as in Amendments 115 and 115A, which seek to clarify reasonable adjustments and productivity improvements—with a measured and practical mindset, to support both workers’ rights and sustainable business operations. I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. This Government are absolutely clear that the use of unscrupulous fire-and-rehire practices must end. Employers should not be able to impose contract changes through threats of dismissal, except in the most limited and justified circumstances. We recognise that, at times, businesses may need to restructure to survive and protect jobs. The legislation accounts for such cases where there is genuinely no alternative and a business faces immediate financial difficulty. Fire and rehire may be used, but only following a proper good-faith process, grounded in open dialogue and mutual understanding.
Let me begin by addressing Amendments 113ZA, 113B and 118 from the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, Amendment 115 from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and Amendment 116, spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. These amendments aim to exclude certain types of contract variations from the clause, such as those relating to terms other than pay, benefits, hours or location, or to allow changes made for good or operational reasons. When a change in contract is essential and the employee will otherwise become redundant—for example, due to a move in location—or where the changes are necessary to reflect a change in the law, the employer will still be able to explain to the employee when proposing these changes. However, such changes should always be a result of meaningful consultation. Employers and employees must reach mutual agreement, allowing both sides to understand and assess the impact of the proposed changes. Open dialogue is key.
I turn to Amendment 114 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and Amendment 115. These propose broadening the permitted use of “fire and rehire” to include changes that are reasonably necessary to improve workforce productivity. The Bill is the first phase of delivering our plan to make work pay. We are supporting employers, workers and unions to get Britain moving forward. Alongside this and a new industrial strategy, the Bill will support the Government’s mission to increase productivity and create the right conditions for long-term, sustainable, inclusive and secure economic growth.
The Government do not support these amendments. We believe this practice should be allowed only where an employer faces no reasonable alternative and is under imminent financial threat. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned what happens if a company is facing insolvency. I am sure most noble Lords know that insolvency does not come straight away. There is a whole process, and it is during this that consultation should happen between the employer and employee. When it comes to the last resort, when until and unless something happens the company is going to go belly-up, there may be a practice of “fire and rehire”, but before that, there should be consultation along the way.
These amendments would significantly widen the exemption and make it necessary for employers to use “fire and rehire”. That is not our intention. While businesses can still agree changes to boost productivity, such changes must come through proper negotiation, not coercion, as I just mentioned.
I now turn to Amendment 119, also from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, which proposes allowing “fire and rehire” if the changes are reasonable and supported by a majority of affected employees. This issue here is subjective. What is reasonable for one employee may be deeply unreasonable for another. Our goal is to protect individual rights. Clause 26 is designed to reduce the use of “fire and rehire” as a means to push through significant changes without individual consent.
I will address Amendments 117 and 122 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and Amendment 120 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. They focus on whether dismissals for redundancy or the end of a fixed-term contract should be considered automatically unfair under Clause 26. The Government’s position is that, where a role is no longer viable under current terms, employers should follow due process, including meaningful consultation to seek agreement to vary contracts. If employees do not agree, and if the employer no longer requires the work to be done, redundancy may still be appropriate. In such cases, redundancy procedures must be followed, including consideration of alternative roles. Where the principal reason for a dismissal is redundancy, the dismissal will not be automatically unfair under Clause 26.
Now I turn to Amendment 121 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which concerns variation clauses in employment contracts. I wish to reassure the House that existing case law already governs the enforceability of such clauses. This clause applies only where there has been a dismissal, and so would not apply where a lawful variation clause has been lawfully exercised. Courts and tribunals will not uphold variation clauses if they are oppressive and exercised unreasonably. This amendment is therefore unnecessary as a legal protection already exists.
I now turn to Amendments 120A and 120B, which relate to the factors a tribunal should consider when assessing the fairness of a dismissal under the clause exemption. It is appropriate that tribunals should consider where the employer offered the employee something in exchange for agreed-to changes. Fair contract variation should be built on dialogue, not pressure. It is right that the Secretary of State should have the power to specify additional relevant factors for tribunals to consider in future. These regulations would be subject to affirmative resolution procedure, ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny.
Finally, Amendment 113 from the noble Lord, Lucas, seeks to limit the clause to only substantial contract changes. We reject that. Even minor-seeming changes can have major consequences for individual employees. Individuals must be allowed to consider proposed changes without facing dismissal threats. That principle underpins the clause.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I have a feeling that although the Minister was doing his best, he was reading from a script that had been drafted before this debate took place. I listened to my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Goddard of Stockport. They were just giving ordinary examples that need clarity. We did not get from the Minister a clear exposition of how, in those individual cases instanced by colleagues in the debate, they could prevent the Minister’s overall objective. We all agree with him that we have to try to prevent the sort of situation that arose, which we all condemned, ever happening again. But do not let it be so wide that it will stop just minor organisational changes.
Lord Leong (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The principle here is that we have to consult with employees before the final resort. Fire and rehire should be the final resort and remedy. Before we even reach that, the whole process of consultation and sitting down and finding a solution should be an underpinning principle.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I think we are all in agreement, except that the Bill goes too far. For a minor change of address when a company moves offices to be caught by all this in the way that we have exemplified—I think we need greater clarity. But, of course, the hour is late and I do not want to prolong the debate. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.