Oral Answers to Questions
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
This is the first opportunity I have had to apologise to the House for using an inaccurate figure on previous occasions. I had told the House that the Scottish Government had received a record settlement of £47.7 billion this year, but Treasury figures show that the block grant for this year is actually £50 billion. That is the highest ever settlement in the history of devolution, with bells on. That £50 billion is more money for schools, hospitals, policing and housing; it is an end to austerity. That is the Barnett formula in action—the formula that both the SNP and Reform have announced this week that they want to scrap.
Oil and gas will remain a crucial component of our energy mix for decades to come. Our workforce is the most talented in the world, and we are committed to ensuring its future. We have consulted on support for the energy transition in the North sea, including on these issues, and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero will respond to that consultation shortly. Economic growth in the UK in the first quarter of the year beat all forecasts, reaching 0.7%—the highest in the G7. Growth in Scotland is more sluggish than in the rest of the UK; if Scotland’s economy had grown at even the low rate at which it grew under the Tories, it would be £10 billion larger. That makes it even more astonishing that the Opposition parties oppose the EU, US and India trade deals.
Joe Robertson
Ministers across various Departments have repeatedly said that oil and gas is here to stay for many years. Issuing new North sea oil and gas licences would support tens of thousands of jobs, return millions in tax revenue to the Treasury and help to grow the Scottish economy. Why are the Government refusing to issue any new licences?
Ian Murray
A consultation on Rosebank and Jackdaw is concluding, and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero will report on it in due course. There is also the North sea transition consultation, which has concluded, as I mentioned earlier, and which will take into account all those issues. It will be published in due course.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Labour’s windfall tax on North sea energy profits is designed to make us less reliant on people like Vladimir Putin. When I was campaigning in Hamilton last week, voters asked me why the SNP, the Tories and Reform were so against our windfall tax. I could not explain. Can the Secretary of State?
Ian Murray
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the question. What astonishes me more than anything is that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland was the Energy Minister when the energy profits levy was brought in.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
indicated dissent.
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he was the Energy Minister. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) may remember, the leader of the SNP in Westminster, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), did not support the levy, then did, then did not, and then put in the SNP’s manifesto that it would be extended to every single Scottish industry. I am at a loss, as is my hon. Friend.
Andrew Bowie
I start by congratulating the famous Aberdeen football club—the only team in red I like to see winning—and the manager Jimmy Thelin, the players and all the coaching staff for winning their eighth Scottish cup a week and a half ago, qualifying for the Europa league in the process. The pride and jubilation on the streets of Aberdeen last Sunday show just how much the club means to the north-east of Scotland. Even more important to the north-east than Aberdeen football club is the oil and gas industry. What does the Secretary of State make of the report published by Robert Gordon University this week that warns of 400 job losses every two weeks in the North sea?
Ian Murray
I join the shadow Secretary of State in congratulating—through gritted teeth—Aberdeen on winning the Scottish cup. Speaking as a big Hearts fan, it is always nice to see the smaller clubs doing well in national competitions. [Interruption.] I do not know whether I have lost or won the House there, Mr Speaker.
We have this discussion across the Dispatch Box a lot during questions. We are aiming for clean energy by 2030, and setting up GB Energy in Aberdeen—something that the shadow Secretary of State voted against, of course—to ensure a transition. We have a declining and mature base, and we need to create the jobs of the future and the future industries in Scotland. He should support that, rather than voting against it. The EPL was brought in by his Government.
Andrew Bowie
To be absolutely clear, there is no transition under way. It is not the Conservative party saying that; it is the Robert Gordon University Energy Transition Institute. These mythical jobs in renewable energy simply do not exist yet. There is a slowdown in offshore wind deployment and a steep decline in offshore oil and gas activity as a direct result of Labour’s ideological policies—400 job losses every two weeks, a steep decline in skilled roles, nowhere for supply chain jobs to go but overseas, and a decline in the workforce of 25%. Why? Because of massive investor uncertainty due to negative sentiment around oil and gas as a result of the ban on licences and the EPL extension. When will the Secretary of State and the Scottish Labour party grow a backbone, stand up to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, and stand up for Scotland and Scottish workers?
Ian Murray
I do not know whether the hon. Member agrees with net zero anymore—certainly, his party leader does not seem to believe in it—but that is where the jobs are for the future. There is a declining base in the North sea. Companies are making that transition already, and we need to ensure pace; that is the big issue. We need regulatory change and investment, and GB Energy is there to ensure that. The National Wealth Fund is making investments as well. We have seen £600 million invested in Scottish Power’s infrastructure. Things are starting to happen, but we need cross-party support on this.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
The National Wealth Fund has made its first Scottish investment in the Glasgow city region, which is one of four areas across the UK selected for a strategic partnership with the fund to unlock private investment opportunities. The Secretary of State meets the Deputy First Minister regularly to discuss economic growth, which is this Government’s No.1 priority.
Martin Rhodes
Does the Minister agree that in recent years, we have witnessed the benefits of further devolving power to cities and city regions, which have created tailored policies to better serve communities? In Holyrood, however, devolution appears to have stalled, and there is little appetite to pass power down to our cities, towns and communities. Does she agree that the recent Glasgow city region devolution proposal makes a compelling case for further devolution to that city region?
Kirsty McNeill
It does, but I am afraid that the SNP seems determined to hoard powers and funding, rather than passing them to communities. There is no better example of that than the Labour-run council in South Lanarkshire proposing £8 million for Hamilton town centre, only for the SNP to vote against that. That is why, tomorrow, voters in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse should back a real local champion, Labour’s Davy Russell.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
I wish to thank veterans for their service, and their families for the sacrifices that enabled it. As it is Volunteers Week, may I place on record my thanks and those of the whole House to the volunteers who do so much for our military charities? I welcome the announcement of the new programme, Valour, which is giving veterans across the UK easier access to essential care and support. The Minister for Veterans and People is leading work across the UK Government to ensure that veterans and their families have sufficient access to health services, housing, employment and other forms of support.
Sam Rushworth
I regularly speak to veterans in Bishop Auckland and, although they mostly reflect positively on their military service, they often mention the need to improve homes for forces families. Will the Minister welcome this week’s announcement that Labour will improve 3,000 forces family homes in Scotland as part of a £1.5 billion investment, and does the Minister agree that all those who serve our forces in this United Kingdom should have a home fit for a hero?
Kirsty McNeill
I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the strategic defence review, which was launched by the Prime Minister in Scotland on Monday and included more than £400 million of investment in military accommodation in Scotland. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend will be appalled that the First Minister snubbed a confidential briefing on that strategic defence review to go campaigning, during a by-election campaign, at a charity whose funding he had slashed.
Emma Foody
A local charity in my area supports women veterans. Recently, it was supporting a woman who was rehomed in general-purpose supported accommodation for veterans in Scotland. The accommodation was entirely unsuitable for her as a survivor of sexual violence, and it led to her being subjected to a further sexual assault by a man who was also housed there. Can the Minister assure me that her work with the Ministry of Defence will ensure appropriate support for women veterans?
Kirsty McNeill
First, I am truly sorry to hear about the experiences of my hon. Friend’s constituent. Support services and accommodation across the UK must reflect the needs of all our veterans, including women. That includes the provision of safe, suitable and appropriate housing. If she writes to me, I shall ask the Minister for Veterans and People to get in touch with her.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The previous Conservative Government had a dedicated Minister of State for veterans sitting at the Cabinet table, but that job was taken away by the new Administration. How are the interests of veterans in Scotland being raised in Cabinet under the new Government?
Kirsty McNeill
The Minister for Veterans and People is doing sterling work. His advocacy has helped to ensure that Labour will improve 3,000 forces family homes. We are making a £1.5 billion investment across the whole UK. I am sure that when the strategic defence review was launched, in Scotland and then in this Chamber, the hon. Member was full of admiration for what the Minister is doing for veterans and those who currently serve us with such distinction.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Scotland-born veteran Betty Gallagher joined the Army when she was 17, but eight months later she was dishonourably discharged for what were referred to as “lesbian tendencies”. Today, Betty runs the thriving BourneOut LGBT hub in Eastbourne and founded Eastbourne Pride. Will the Minister thank Betty for her service to our country, and advise on how she and other veterans can seek justice for the discrimination that they were subjected to?
Kirsty McNeill
I am delighted to join the hon. Gentleman in thanking Betty for all her efforts. He will know that, in the review, work has been undertaken on justice for LGBT people in our armed forces, and we are pleased to commend that to the House.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) about the success of Aberdeen football club. The strategic defence review makes it clear that housing must be a priority, and that the money from the sale of housing must be reinvested, but veterans continually come to me who have been discharged into homelessness. Can the Minister reassure us that we will ensure that houses that are sold or redeveloped are available to veterans’ families?
Kirsty McNeill
I am very pleased to offer the hon. Lady that reassurance.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I join colleagues in congratulating Aberdeen FC, despite the impact of their victory on my beloved Dundee United. I also congratulate Arbroath FC on securing the Scottish league one championship title. The Scottish Government have reinstated the winter fuel payment for up to 88,000 pension-age veterans in Scotland, but the Prime Minister has said that it was right to slash the winter fuel payment. Was the Prime Minister right to slash it?
Kirsty McNeill
The hon. Member will be perfectly aware—as, indeed, everyone in the House will be—that questions about the winter fuel payment in Scotland are devolved to the Scottish Government. Decisions made in Scotland are the responsibility of the Scottish Government, but I am pleased to reiterate to the House what the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said. This was a difficult decision, and now that we have a little more breathing space, we are very pleased to make changes to help more pensioners.
Stephen Gethins
I see that we are not going to get a straight answer out of the Minister, just as the people in Hamilton did not get a straight answer out of Labour’s candidate. That will be why Labour is sinking without a trace. Let me put it this way: does the Minister think that the Prime Minister was right to slash the winter fuel payment for up to 1 million veterans across the UK?
Kirsty McNeill
When this Government took office, we inherited a £22 billion black hole, which required emergency action. We said at the time that our decision on the winter fuel payment was a difficult one that we did not want to make, and we are very pleased to be in a position to reconsider it.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Scotland’s universities are of course world-class, but I am very concerned about the financial difficulties faced by several of them. As the hon. Lady will know, higher education is a devolved matter, and Scotland’s universities, their staff and their students all need a Scottish Government with a proper plan to turn this crisis around.
Wendy Chamberlain
International students are hugely valuable, not just when it comes to sharing cultures and knowledge, but to our universities and local economies. In North East Fife in 2021-22, that value was estimated at £159 million. What discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government about the economic impact of the reforms relating to international students in the immigration White Paper? Can she update the House on whether an economic impact assessment has taken place?
Kirsty McNeill
We are in ongoing discussions with the Scottish Government and Scottish universities, but I want to be absolutely definitive about this, because there has been some confusion in the press. Education policy is devolved, and the international student levy will not apply in Scotland unless the Scottish Government decide to introduce it. I met Universities Scotland just this week and made that very clear, and I am pleased to do so again today.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The university sector is important for growing the Scottish economy, but so is tourism. Can the Minister enlighten me about the jet safari trips from Clacton to Scotland that have taken place, allowing former bankers to patronise the locals, miss the big picture and be back in England for a pint of warm beer by lunchtime?
Kirsty McNeill
I think I did hear something about the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) getting lost in Hamilton this weekend, and sculking behind the bins before he was sent packing by the good people of South Lanarkshire. Of course, the only local candidate in that by-election is Labour’s Davy Russell, who will stand up for his community against the division peddled by both the SNP and Reform.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
The right hon. Gentleman will have heard me remind the House on a number of occasions that John Swinney said that education was the “defining mission” of his SNP Government, but earlier this year we got the news that standards of attainment in Scotland’s schools are declining across the board and, shamefully, outcomes for young working-class kids are getting worse. The attainment gap is widening. The Scottish Government have failed a generation; they cannot be allowed a third decade in power to continue that damage. Scotland’s teachers, parents and pupils all deserve better standards in our schools.
Sir Desmond Swayne
What has caused the system, which was once the benchmark for all others, to become such a disappointment?
Ian Murray
There is a simple answer to that question: the SNP Scottish Government.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
When my right hon. Friend discusses with SNP Ministers, through announcements made this week, the huge employment opportunities that this Government have created for young people in Scotland, will he impress on them the urgent need to finally tackle the persistent—and in some areas widening—attainment gap faced by pupils from poorer backgrounds, not only in Fife but in South Lanarkshire? These concerns are often raised by residents of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse.
Ian Murray
The House may not know that last year, 1,351 pupils left high school in Scotland without a single qualification to their name, and one in six Scots is not in education, employment or training. That is the legacy of the SNP Scottish Government. What have they done about jobs and growth? They are against the defence industry and against the trade deals with the EU, India and the US. They are against young Scots in Scotland.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Our recent trade deals with the United States, India and the EU will improve access to vital markets for businesses in both Scotland and Northern Ireland. These are deals with the most populous country in the world, the richest country in the world and our most important trading partner. I recognise the importance of economic co-operation between Northern Ireland and Scotland. Indeed, earlier this week I met the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) and a local business to discuss exactly this issue.
Alex Easton
Will the Minister set up a meeting with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to consider creating a trade fair focusing on trade between Northern Ireland businesses and Scottish businesses? That would create networks, would possibly create jobs, and would be great for the economy in both Northern Ireland and Scotland. It would certainly go down well with businesses in North Down and right across the UK.
Kirsty McNeill
I would be delighted to see more trade between Scotland and Northern Ireland. I will happily meet colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office to explore that.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Scotland and Northern Ireland are set to benefit from the Government’s trio of trade deals. Does the Minister agree that it is astonishing that the SNP stands with the Tories and Reform against an EU trade deal that is good for Scotland, and that after almost 20 years in government, the SNP has no plan for Scotland? One in six Scots is on an NHS waiting list; Ayrshire ferries are late and are costing £1 billion; one in six Scots is not in education, employment or training; and the SNP has no plan for the defence of our Union.
Kirsty McNeill
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is astonishing that we see ranged on the Opposition Benches numerous people who have talked down the potential of Scotland’s exporters, and who have said that there is no benefit to be had from these deals for a Scottish business sector that is desperate to grow and export, and is delighted with the three trade deals, which will make such a difference to them.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
For years, there has been under-investment in Scotland’s roads. The A9, A96, A77 and A75 are all in dire need of upgrading or dualling; work on all of them has been delayed or even cancelled by the SNP. In the spirit of improving economic co-operation between the nations of the UK, and specifically between Scotland and Northern Ireland, and given how vital the A77 and A75 are to individuals, businesses and hauliers, will the Minister seek the ringfencing of the Barnett consequentials that will arise as a result of this morning’s announcement by the Chancellor, so that the SNP must spend that money on improving roads in Scotland?
Kirsty McNeill
We are in conversation with all the relevant parties, but yes, we would like an increase in trade, and in the transport infrastructure that supports it.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
As a former publican, I know that these are hard times for businesses on the high street. We are investing £200 million in our plans for neighbourhoods in Scotland, with £20 million-worth of funding for towns including Irvine, Greenock, Kilmarnock, Coatbridge, Clydebank, Elgin, Dumfries, Arbroath, Peterhead and Kirkwall. Of course, it would help if the Scottish Government extended business rates relief to retail and leisure businesses, as has happened south of the border. Many businesses in Scotland are asking where that money went.
Dr Sullivan
Does the Secretary of State agree that it was astonishing that the SNP voted against the £8 million to regenerate Hamilton town centre and that only Labour’s Davy Russell will stand up for local people, jobs and services?
Ian Murray
I have brought glasses to see if I can find an ounce of credibility in the SNP’s candidate in Hamilton for voting against that £8 million. The SNP candidate is a councillor from Cambuslang who stood for election twice in Rutherglen, sought selection in Shettleston and then voted against £8 million for the Hamilton town centre before seeking selection there. In Scotland, we are allowed to elect councillors with a single transferable vote; she appears to be the SNP’s single transferable councillor.
Becky Gittins
A proud industrial heritage, a strong community spirit and an overwhelming feeling of being let down and under-invested in by the previous Conservative Government unite towns in my constituency with those across Scotland, including those in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. In Wales, Labour’s transforming towns programme has invested in Holywell in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State join me in calling on the SNP to U-turn and finally back Labour’s plans to invest in Hamilton town centre?
Ian Murray
What a wonderful representative my hon. Friend is for her constituency. I could not agree more. The SNP candidate is yet to explain to voters in Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse why she voted against the much needed £8 million investment in Hamilton town centre. I hope she will explain before tomorrow’s vote. If she does not, everyone should back Labour’s Davy Russell.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I will tell the Secretary of State what is bad for town centres, and that is job losses. On this Government’s watch, Robert Gordon University has been forced to publish a report that outlines that there could be 400 job losses in the North sea every two weeks. That is a Grangemouth-type shutdown every two weeks. How many jobs have to be lost in my constituency for his Government to act?
Ian Murray
The leader of the SNP in this House voted against the setting up of Great British Energy in his constituency, which is creating jobs in Scotland. He is against the EU trade deal, he is against the US trade deal, he is against the India trade deal; he is bad for jobs and should go.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Towns and villages across north-east Scotland, such as Aberdeen, and Inverurie, Kintore and Ellon in my constituency, will all need regenerating in future if the Secretary of State’s Government keep decimating the oil and gas sector. The best thing his Government can do for the north-east of Scotland is allow new licences and cut the increase to the energy profits levy. Will he commit to that? Otherwise, more and more money will need to be put into north-east Scotland to regenerate our towns in future.
Ian Murray
This Government are putting money into Scottish towns to regenerate them. As we keep saying from this Dispatch Box, oil and gas will be with us for decades to come. The industry itself is making the transition, and we have to make sure that it happens, and happens for the benefit of workers in the north-east and all over Scotland. I am not even sure, however, that it is a transition that the hon. Lady and the Conservative party now back.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
Following the spring statement, it was confirmed that the block grant for Scotland this year was a record £50 billion. That was no thanks to the SNP and Reform, which both voted against that massive funding boost for Scotland and want to scrap the Barnett formula that delivered it. Despite that record funding, the SNP still has no plan to get waiting lists down, when one in six Scots are stuck on an NHS waiting list and the educational attainment gap is growing by the day.
Anneliese Midgley
Despite the record funding provided by the Labour Government, the SNP plans to downgrade the neonatal intensive care unit at university hospital Wishaw, which could force the families of sick babies to travel as far as Aberdeen for treatment and support. Does the Secretary of State agree that the SNP cut should be reversed?
Ian Murray
As the father of an 18-week-old daughter, I am absolutely horrified by those proposals and I know that they will be causing anxiety for families across Lanarkshire. That is why it is so disappointing to see the SNP candidate in the Hamilton by-election back the plans to downgrade the Wishaw neonatal unit. The way to send a message to the SNP that that is unacceptable is to vote for Davy Russell tomorrow in the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
The Chancellor’s autumn Budget delivered the biggest settlement in the history of devolution for the Scottish Government—£50 billion. I want to see that cash reach the frontline services that have suffered years of cuts under the SNP. That record settlement is possible only because of the Barnett formula—something opposed not only by the Scottish nationalists, but by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), whose Reform circus was sent packing from Hamilton this week.
David Smith
The largest ever devolution settlement—£50 billion—is great news for Scotland and its local authorities, but under the SNP there are 840,000 cases on NHS waiting lists. This affects people in my constituency in North Northumberland, many of whom use cross-border healthcare and dental services, so does the Minister agree that the SNP needs to sort itself out and start delivering change to the NHS, as Labour is doing in England?
Kirsty McNeill
I could not agree more. In England, waiting lists have fallen since Labour came to office less than a year ago, while in Scotland they continue to rise, and we now see nearly one in six Scots waiting for treatment. John Swinney has, in total desperation, announced that the SNP Government’s fifth NHS recovery plan in less than four years, but the reality is that patients, staff and we all know that Scotland desperately needs a new direction.
Mr Speaker
Before we start Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to welcome to the Gallery the Speaker of Bahrain and his delegation: a big welcome to you.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Today we are investing £15.6 billion in the transport infrastructure of the north and of the midlands. We are decisively turning the page on a failed economic model of low investment, and we are backing the talent and prospects of the whole country. Over the coming weeks we will set out plans for further investment and renewal.
Our strategic defence review shows that this Government will never gamble with our national security. Through the biggest sustained funding increase since the cold war, we will transform our defence, strengthen our nation and invest in jobs and industry 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.
Clive Efford
We all remember the glorious summer of 2012 when the world’s greatest athletes came to London to compete in the Olympics and the Paralympics. It showcased Britain at its best, not just in track and field, but as a country that can host major cultural and sporting events. My right hon. and learned Friend has been written to by over 200 of our top athletes—some of them are members of Cambridge Harriers, who meet in my constituency—and they are calling for the Government to support the bid for the 2029 world athletics championships to take place in London. If successful, it will lift the whole nation—[Interruption.] If successful, it will lift the whole nation, inspire a generation of new athletes, showcase Britain on the world stage and put £400 million into our economy. What’s not to like?
The Prime Minister
One of the greatest achievements of the last Labour Government was the 2012 Olympics in London, and we all remember it—[Interruption.] Given that response, can I pay tribute to the extraordinary contribution of Tessa Jowell to those games? I agree that there have been huge economic benefits from hosting major sporting events as well as an important legacy.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Three weeks ago, the winter fuel policy was set in stone. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister U-turned. Today, the Chancellor is rushing her plans because she just realised when winter is. So, on the behalf of the pensioners who want to know, can the Prime Minister be clear with us here and now: how many of the 10 million people who lost their winter fuel payments will get it back?
The Prime Minister
Well, I am glad to see the right hon. Lady is catching up with what happened two weeks ago. At the Budget, we took the right decision to stabilise the economy because of the £22 billion black hole that the Conservatives left. We took the right decisions and the growth figures are up, interest rates have been cut, and we have free trade deals. So we will look again, as I said two weeks ago, at the eligibility for winter fuel and of course we will set out how we pay for it, but because we have stabilised the economy, we on this side are committed to the triple lock, and that increased pensions by over £400 this April. The Conservatives say the triple lock is unsustainable. I think her position is that she wants to means-test it.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister clearly has selective amnesia. I asked him three questions about the winter fuel payment two weeks ago and he was floundering. The fact is he has not answered the question I asked him; he cannot tell us who will get the payments. All we see is U-turn after U-turn—his head must be spinning. Will he apologise now, including to his own Back Benchers, for taking the payments away in the first place? Can he tell us how he will pay for this?
The Prime Minister
We took the right decisions at the Budget because we needed to stabilise the economy. The right hon. Lady needs to apologise for the fact that the Conservatives left the economy in a terrible state, with a mini-Budget that blew up the economy, and we were left with a £22 billion black hole. When she gets up, perhaps she should apologise for that.
Mrs Badenoch
The Office for Budget Responsibility has said there was no such black hole. The Prime Minister has just given away £30 billion for the Chagos islands—that is his black hole. He has not stabilised the economy. Borrowing prices are higher now than at any time in the last Parliament. He has not stabilised the economy. He has no clear answers on what he is doing. It is just chaos, chaos, chaos. He keeps making announcements with no detail.
Let’s move to another area of confusion. Can we get a simple answer: will the Government keep the two-child benefit cap?
The Prime Minister
I am absolutely determined that we will drive down child poverty. That is one of the proudest things of the last Labour Government. That is why we have a taskforce and that is why we have a strategy, and we will set out that strategy in due course. But we drive child poverty down; under the Conservatives, poverty always goes up.
Mrs Badenoch
I did not ask the Prime Minister about a taskforce. I asked him if he will keep the two-child benefit cap, and he does not know—it is just chaos and uncertainty. He has no details. He is briefing something and causing a lot of confusion to the people out there. On that two-child benefit cap, I tell him this: I believe in family, but I also believe in fairness. On the Conservative side of the House, we believe that people on benefits should have to make the same choices on having children as everyone else. What does the Prime Minister believe?
The Prime Minister
I believe profoundly in driving down poverty and child poverty. That is why we will put a strategy in place. But the right hon. Lady talks about heads spinning. There is only one leader who been praised this week by the Russian embassy. If she carries on echoing Kremlin talking points like this, Reform will be sending her an application form for membership.
Mrs Badenoch
I asked the Prime Minister what he believes in. He had to look in his folder to find the answer. His MPs behind him know what they believe in—he does not know. He has been in government for nearly a year. It will only get harder and harder. The canned, forced laughter, the planted questions—all that will disappear because at every single point things are getting worse. He has to ask Morgan McSweeney what it is that he believes in, but the fact is that chaos is being felt in the economy. The Chancellor said she would not be coming back with new tax rises, but she will have to pay for all these U-turns she is announcing out there, won’t she?
The Prime Minister
I am going to look in my folder because here I have the quote that the right hon. Lady said on Sky News—[Interruption.] I will read it, thank you. [Laughter.] It is what the Leader of the Opposition said—it is worth listening to. She said:
“Israel is fighting a proxy war on behalf of the UK, just like Ukraine is on behalf of Western Europe against Russia.”
Well, that was certainly noticed in the Russian embassy because they put out a statement saying that the Leader of the Opposition has
“finally called a spade a spade”.
It said:
“Ukraine is indeed fighting a proxy war against Russia on behalf of Western interests”.
It went on to say:
“The illegitimate Kyiv regime, created, financed and armed by the West, has been at it since 2014.”
So they endorsed—[Interruption.] They want the detail; I have given the quote. That is what Russia said in response. She asked me what I believe in. I believe in standing by Ukraine and calling out Russia as the aggressor.
Mrs Badenoch
It was our Government that stood behind Ukraine and led the way in Europe. Everything the Prime Minister has said this afternoon is total nonsense, obfuscation, and avoiding the question. He does not have any answers. It is disgraceful.
I asked the Prime Minister about the two-child benefit cap; he is talking about the Kremlin. He is saying everything he can to distract from the mess he is making of our economy. The OECD has downgraded growth for the next two years. He cannot rule out tax rises. Police chiefs are saying that they do not have the money they need to keep the public safe, just as he is releasing more criminals on to the streets. His Cabinet are squabbling with each other, and they said that they have lost control of the borders, but he still managed to find £30 billion to give away the Chagos islands. This is total and utter chaos. Two weeks ago, he was crowing about his historic trade deal and how he got zero per cent tariffs on steel. Now the steel industry will face 25% tariffs unless he does exactly what President Trump tells him to. It is chaos, chaos, chaos—and isn’t the root of the chaos that it is about this Prime Minister, his decisions and his judgment?
The Prime Minister
The only advice—[Interruption.] She gets up on a Wednesday morning, scrolls through social media and never does any of the detail. We are the only country in the world that is not paying the 50% tax on steel, and we are working on the rest. That will be coming down. She—[Interruption.] We are working to bring it down to zero; that is going to happen. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, let us listen to the answer, even if you do not believe you are getting one. It is how the Prime Minister wishes to do it.
The Prime Minister
She opposes the US deal, she opposes the India deal, she opposes what we are doing with the EU, and she opposes Diego Garcia. That is a vital intelligence and strategic capability, and it is absolutely clear that legal uncertainty would compromise that capability in a very short time. No responsible Prime Minister would ever let that happen. We have secured the long-term basis for the base. That has been welcomed by the US, NATO, Australia, New Zealand and India. They are our allies. It has been opposed by our adversaries, Russia, China and Iran—and into that column we have Reform, presumably following Putin, and the Tories following Reform.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Anyone who saw the six-year-old girl fleeing the flaming shelter where her family were killed by an Israeli air strike will carry those horrific images with them forever. These are very dark days. Gaza is a stain on the soul of humanity, and it is a further shame that there is more moral clarity coming from Ms Rachel on YouTube than from many world leaders, who are complicit in silence. The Prime Minister said this week that Britain must be ready for war. I ask: after tens of thousands of deaths, after a generation of Gazans stunted by hunger and trauma, when will it be ready for peace? When will it help to stop this genocide? When will it hold the Israeli Government to account, and when will it recognise the state of Palestine?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising this. She is absolutely right to describe these as dark days. Israel’s recent action is appalling and, in my view, counterproductive and intolerable. We have strongly opposed the expansion of military operations and settler violence, and the blocking of humanitarian aid. The House will have seen that we have suspended the free trade agreement talks and sanctioned extremists supporting violence in the west bank. We will keep looking at further action, along with our allies, including sanctions, but let me be absolutely clear: we need to get back to a ceasefire, we need the hostages, who have been held for a very long time, to be released, and we desperately need more aid, at speed and at volume, into Gaza, because it is an appalling and intolerable situation.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I start by welcoming reports that the Chancellor will give winter fuel payments to more pensioners this winter, although because we still await the details, we will reserve our full judgment.
I recognise the efforts of the Prime Minister to pull out all the stops to avoid President Trump’s damaging tariffs: a letter from the King, offering to water down online safety laws and even trying to send the Open to one of Trump’s golf courses. The Prime Minister thought he had secured 0% tariffs for British steel, but now Trump is threatening us with 50% unless we comply with his new, five-week deadline. This is classic Trump—changing the terms of a deal he has already agreed. Does the Prime Minister share my fear that nothing will stop Trump messing the UK around, short of bunging a few hundred million pounds into his TrumpCoin?
The Prime Minister
We have a deal and we are implementing it. Within a very short time, I am very confident that we will get those tariffs down in accordance with the deal. I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman and update the House in due course, and I think the House will be very pleased at the outcome—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) says no. This is zero tariffs on steel. [Interruption.] Let us come back to this in a couple of weeks when we have implemented it, but the Conservatives obviously do not want it. Labour has backed steel; the Conservatives laugh at attempts to do so. That is a big part of the problem.
Ed Davey
I had hoped the Prime Minister would now be beginning to see the sort of man Trump is and start getting tough on him, so we will come back to this issue.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s remarks about Gaza, because I am sure that all of us are appalled by the latest scenes: starving people desperate for food, water and medicine, met with chaos and violence. The US-Israeli programme is clearly failing and nothing short of lifting the full blockade on aid will do. Given that the Netanyahu Government refuse to do that, will the Prime Minister take more decisive action today? Will he push at the United Nations Security Council for humanitarian corridors to get the desperately needed aid urgently into Gaza?
The Prime Minister
I give the right hon. Gentleman my assurance, because this is a very important issue, that we are working at pace with our allies on that very issue, to take whatever measures we can to get that humanitarian aid in. We have been doing that intensively over recent weeks and I give him my assurance that we will continue to do that, because that aid needs to get in at speed and at volume, and he is absolutely right about that.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign. I know that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will have heard her representations. We have commissioned the expert Animal Welfare Committee to produce a full report on the responsible sourcing of fur to inform the next steps that need to be taken, and we are committed to publishing an animal welfare strategy later this week.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this case and I am deeply sorry to hear about Molly’s situation. We are improving the lives of those that need it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has just said to me that she will look into the case, so if the hon. Lady will provide the details, I will ensure that it gets proper attention so that we can deal with the particular problems she has raised. I am grateful to her, as I am sure Molly is, for raising this and I hope that we can now take the action that is necessary.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is doing great work with Welsh Labour colleagues to champion working people in Wales. The United Kingdom is the only country in the world that will not be subject to the additional tariffs announced today, and we are working with the US at this moment to swiftly implement the agreement we have reached, which will see the 25% tariffs removed. We want that—the Conservatives do not want it—and it is crucial for British jobs. We have fought tooth and nail for our steel industry, saving jobs at British Steel and improving the deal at Port Talbot, and we will continue to do so.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
I have said that we are strongly opposed to, and appalled by, Israel’s recent actions. We have been absolutely clear in condemning them and calling them out, whether that is the expansion of military operations, settler violence, or the dreadful blocking of aid—it is completely unacceptable. We must see a ceasefire, hostages must be released, and there must be aid into Gaza. However, the hon. Gentleman talks about peace and security. As I understand it, at this moment of global instability as we go into a new era, what does his party want to do? It wants to get rid of the nuclear deterrent—the single most important capability that we have to keep the UK safe—harming the industry and harming the country.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. At a time of global conflict, it is staggering that the SNP policy is to block an £11 million investment for a new national welding centre on the Clyde. I was there earlier this week and saw the huge potential for apprenticeships, for job opportunities, and for young people. [Interruption.] I support it—the SNP blocks it. In England, we are backing 120,000 more apprenticeships with £3 billion of funding as part of our plan for change, but despite the highest funding settlement in the history of devolution, the SNP is cutting college budgets and blocking opportunities. It has no plan for Scotland’s future.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
The Prime Minister
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. I am not going to follow her down that line, but now she is in Parliament and safely in her place, perhaps she could tell her new party leader that his latest plan to bet £80 billion of unfunded tax cuts with no idea how he is going to pay for them is Liz Truss all over again—although, considering that I think the hon. Lady was a Conservative member when Liz Truss was leader, she probably will not.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
What my hon. Friend describes is how health services in Scotland are utterly broken under the SNP, whether it is people waiting too long for mental health support in his constituency, or the Wishaw neonatal unit in Hamilton, which the SNP is threatening to downgrade. In 2021, the SNP Government said they would recruit 1,000 more community mental health workers. They utterly failed to do so. If they had a plan to fix Scotland’s NHS, they would have done it by now. Scotland needs a change of direction.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I share the hon. Member’s anger and frustration at the broken water system that we inherited, with frankly appalling sewage, higher bills and executives paying themselves huge bonuses. The era of being rewarded for failure is over. We have launched a record 81 criminal investigations into lawbreaking water companies in England, and we have introduced the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, with prison sentences for polluting bosses and the banning of unfair bonuses. We will respond to the independent water commission in full following the publication of the final report.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to how my hon. Friend is bringing people together to deliver better care in the community that meets the needs of his constituents. The proposals for the health campus will be open to public consultation. I urge the whole community to input into that, to ensure the strongest investment case is put forward. I am pleased that waiting lists in his local trust have fallen by a fifth since March 2024, because of the investment that we have put into the NHS. That, of course, was opposed by the parties on the Opposition Benches.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
We announced £502 million to support local authorities to manage the changes in NICs. We have put in £3.7 billion in additional funding for social care, doubled the disabled facilities grant and introducing the first ever fair pay agreement for professional carers, including minimum standards for pay. I gently say to the hon. Member that her party opposed the Budget that provides the money for the funding. They cannot keep asking for more spending and oppose a Budget that raises the money.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
The first constituent to reach out to me was a brave Bolsover mummy who had waited four years and five months, from rape to prosecution, with three postponements and multiple suicide attempts. I will do everything I can to use this Chamber to speak out for women who are being so badly let down. How will the Prime Minister support me to ensure that when these survivors—these formidable women—across the country come forward, they will get justice and there will be space in our prisons for the perpetrators?
The Prime Minister
May I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue so powerfully and for everything that she is doing on it? The case she has outlined is utterly shameful, and far too many victims are waiting too long for justice. We are delivering a record number of sitting days and reviewing criminal courts to speed up the hearing of these cases, and we have a mission to halve violence against women and girls.
My hon. Friend talks about the prison system. The Conservatives left the prison system on the brink of collapse and routinely operating at 99% of capacity, because in 14 long years they added just 500 extra places. We will deliver 14,000 new prison places so that the public are protected from these vile offenders.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Was it Kwasi Kwarteng that the hon. Gentleman replaced? Now he stands there to give lectures on economic prudence—you couldn’t script it! The difference between the Labour Government and the parties opposite is that we believe in properly costing our plans. Reform has £80 billion-worth of unfunded commitments—Liz Truss 2.0.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Blackpool’s own boxing champion, Brian Rose, uses his gym to tackle knife crime and antisocial behaviour and to give young people a safe space, demonstrating the significant impact of amateur gyms. Thousands of amateur gyms up and down the country operate on a shoestring and cannot afford to keep their lights on, and they are reliant on brilliant charities such as Maverick Stars, Empire Fighting Chance and Matchroom in the Community. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking those charities and praising the volunteers, and will he throw a haymaker behind these gyms, giving them the knock-out support they need to continue their vital work?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a great champion of how amateur boxing gyms can transform both physical and mental health, as well as confidence, in young people. The time given by selfless volunteers is inspiring, and we should thank them for it. England Boxing is investing £9 million in the sport and GB Boxing will also receive more than £12 million during the next Olympic games cycle, and I know that my hon. Friend will be looking forward to Liverpool hosting the inaugural world boxing championships in September.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I remind myself that the Conservatives left the NHS on its knees: the last Labour Government brought waiting lists down to record lows, and they drove them up to record highs; the last Labour Government had the highest possible confidence in the NHS, and they dragged it down to the lowest ever level. Because of the money that we are putting in, we have done 3 million extra appointments in the first year of a Labour Government—that is the difference that Labour makes in power.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
The Environment Agency predicts that 8 million homes—one in four in England—could be at risk of flooding by 2050. Despite this, the Conservative party presided over a tripling of the proportion of our flood defences that are deemed “not adequate”. By contrast, this Labour Government are investing over £2.6 billion in new flood defences, including on the Greenway in my Hendon constituency. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is a shame that not all parties share this Government’s determination to keep homes safe from flooding?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this issue, because the Conservatives left our flood defences in the worst state on record. It is prisons, it is the NHS, it is the economy, it is flooding—every single thing they touched, they broke. We are investing £2.65 billion to build and maintain flood defences, and that means 52,000 more properties will be protected by March of next year.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise this matter. Antisocial behaviour massively impacts on individuals and their communities, and that is why we are introducing 13,000 new neighbourhood police and giving them better powers—respect orders—so they can actually deal with what they see on the streets effectively. It is very important that we take this seriously.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
This time last year, Southend United football club almost went bankrupt, thanks to mismanagement by the former owner, but on Sunday they made it to Wembley for the national league play-off final. Despite being beaten by Oldham Athletic at the eleventh hour, it was like the phoenix rising from the flames to see them on the pitch. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Southend United on their outstanding recovery, and give me an assurance that the Government are doing all they can to make sure that no club ever again has to go through what our club went through?
The Prime Minister
Let me congratulate Southend on what was an incredible achievement; commiserations for the final result. One of the police officers on my team is an ardent Southend supporter, so I know all about the team—and the plans and the stadium—and what it means, but I should also congratulate Oldham, of course, on that victory.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member raises a really important issue that I am obviously aware of. It is right that victims of miscarriage can apply for compensation and appropriately do so, and I will take away what he says and have it looked at.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can the hon. Member for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) please find a seat? He cannot just stand there and have a conversation.
Jesse Norman
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This House and, indeed, the viewing public have just been treated to the very unfortunate spectacle of a Prime Minister who was completely unwilling to answer questions from the Leader of the Opposition—so much so that he entirely changed the subject. Instead of referring to the two-child benefit cap, he started referring to the Kremlin and Russia. I know that you, Mr Speaker, pay careful attention to the content of supplementary questions to make sure that they are within scope. Could you give us some guidance on whether you may be able to control answers when they are wildly inappropriate?
Mr Speaker
As somebody who knows how this House runs, the right hon. Member knows that I have no responsibility for the answers given by Ministers. He has put his point on the record, but I have been in this House since 1997 and I can honestly say—we both can honestly say—that the scope has always been that we have questioned the answers, whoever has been at the Government Dispatch Box; so nothing has quite changed, but the point is on the record.
Regional Growth
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
With permission, I shall update the House on the Government’s work to boost growth across the United Kingdom.
As the Prime Minister set out in the plan for change, economic growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government. It is key to achieving the Government’s goals: higher wages for working people; delivering economic and national security; and investing in our public services. We are already making progress. The most recent figures show that the United Kingdom was the fastest growing economy of any G7 country in the first quarter of the year and that real wages have risen more since July 2024 than over the first 10 years of the previous Conservative Government. But we are keenly aware that this progress must be widely felt in every part of the country. As such, our plan for regional growth will be hardwired into the spending review and infrastructure strategy, which will be set out in more detail in the coming weeks. This investment will be targeted squarely at the renewal of Britain and fixed on the priorities of working people, delivering on the promise of change and improving lives and communities across the country.
This morning, the Chancellor set out her next steps for nationwide growth in a series of speeches across the north and the midlands, and I am pleased to update the House on those announcements now. A key part of the Government’s growth mission is the view that growth relies on dynamic, interconnected city regions, creating clusters of activity where people can get around, communicate, share ideas, commute, find good work, and earn wages that flow back into strong local economies. As most Members know, the majority of our city regions have poor public transport systems, holding back growth and improvements to air quality and making it harder to get around. Stronger transport links are therefore crucial. They create opportunities for individuals to access a wider pool of jobs, for employers to access a wider labour market, and for businesses to expand the market for their goods and services.
If we were to increase the productivity of our largest city regions outside London just to match the national average, it would grow the economy by £86 billion. So I am pleased to say that this Government are making the biggest investment in intra-city transport connectivity that this country has ever seen. The spending review will allocate funding for ambitious local transport programmes across England, including the new transport for city regions fund launched by the Government today. This will give nine city region mayors a share of £15.6 billion in long-term transport for city region settlements running until 2032. The benefits and opportunities will be felt in the cities and towns across these combined authorities and by those who commute to work from outside those city regions.
The previous Government said that they would do some of this but, as was always the case, they never put the money aside to pay for it. As a result of our reforms to the fiscal rules and decisions to increase investment in the 2024 autumn Budget, this Labour Government are delivering.
The funding announced today will mean that the Mayor of West Yorkshire can now fully commit to delivering the West Yorkshire mass transit system, which will be fully integrated with cycling, walking, bus and rail, making journeys quicker, more accessible and more reliable across the region. The Mayor of the West Midlands can extend the metro from Birmingham city centre to the new sports quarter, unlocking more than £3 billion of private investment, and bringing benefits and opportunities to those living in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and all who travel there.
It will mean that the Mayor of Greater Manchester can grow and transform the Metrolink tram network, building new tram stocks in Bury, Manchester and Oldham, which will help drive up living standards for the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Frith), for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and for others in the north-west region. The Mayor of the Liverpool city region can deliver three new rapid bus routes linking up the city centre, John Lennon airport, the new Everton stadium on Bramley-Moore dock, and new homes built on the Central Docks redevelopment and Anfield.
The Mayor of the North East will now be able to extend the Tyne and Wear Metro, linking Washington with Newcastle and Sunderland, connecting those living in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) to new jobs and opportunities. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned for this project for years and years, and it is now being delivered by a Labour Government.
This investment will also mean that the Mayor of South Yorkshire can renew the existing and now publicly owned Supertram network with track replacements, overhead line maintenance, and rolling stock renewal, yielding a fleet of new vehicles by 2032, linking jobs and homes in Sheffield and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion).
We are backing the Mayor of the West of England’s plans for mass transit development across the region, with improved rail infrastructure to help unlock more services between Brabazon and Bristol city centre, meaning shorter journey times to Bristol Temple Meads across the wider area and providing greater opportunities for those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) and—declaring my own interest—in my own.
After years of the Mayor of Tees Valley trying to persuade his Conservative colleagues to fund these important projects, I am delighted to confirm today that this Labour Government are now backing the region to invest in, for example, the Middlesborough station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), unblocking local networks and increasing capacity on local lines. I pay particular thanks to my hon. Friends the Members in the Teesside region who have lobbied hard to see this investment in their region—now being delivered by a Labour Government.
The Mayor of the East Midlands can now forge the Trent Arc, linking Derby and Nottingham to create tens of thousands of new jobs and homes, connecting Infinity Park investment zone and the east midlands freeport with sites including Ratcliffe-on-Soar clean energy and advanced manufacturing and east midlands intermodal park—home of Toyota in the region—along the Trent Arc corridor.
This funding is substantial, marking a 2.4 times real-terms increase in spending on city region connectivity, funding the priorities that matter to hard-working people across the country. These announcements were only made possible today because at the autumn Budget 2024 the Chancellor took the necessary action to reform the fiscal rules to improve stability after years of chaos from the Conservative party, and to unlock investment. This means the Government can now provide greater investment in Britain’s economic revival as, for the first time, the Treasury takes account of the value of financial assets and not just the costs of investment. That has enabled us to increase investment by over £113 billion more than the previous Conservative Government, while keeping debt on a sustainable path—only made possible by the credibility of our fiscal rules, which require day-to-day spending to be funded with revenue.
It is more important than ever to have a robust fiscal framework. I am pleased to note that the Office for Budget Responsibility confirmed at the spring statement that the Government will meet their stability and investment rules two years ahead of schedule. In addition to her announcements today regarding transport for city region settlements, the Chancellor will set out further detail on this allocation of additional funding at next week’s spending review.
In January, the Chancellor announced a review of the Green Book, the Government guidance on appraising options for investment. Since then, we have consulted extensively with stakeholders from across the country, considering potential problems with the Green Book guidance itself and how the guidance is being applied in practice. I thank and pay tribute to many hon. Members across the House for engaging on this important issue.
We will publish the full conclusions of the review next week. It will mark a new approach to Government decision making that puts an end to siloed Whitehall thinking and takes account of the reinforcing economic effects of infrastructure, housing, skills and jobs to ensure that investment takes place in every part of the country.
These announcements reflect just a fraction of our plans to supercharge growth across the United Kingdom. We are focused on investing across all parts of the country to boost prosperity and deliver the change the British people voted for at last year’s election, and there is more to come. The spending review, which we will publish next week, will set out in further detail how an active Government will continue to deliver growth, empowering all regions and nations of the UK to reach their full potential and making working people across the country better off, no matter where they choose to live and work.
Unlike the Conservatives, who will tell us that they would have delivered on their false promises after 14 years of failing to do so, this Labour Government, in our first year in office, are delivering: a country that people will see is being set up for success that they can take part in. That is the change we promised, and that is the change this Labour Government are delivering. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
I think you missed a couple of railway stations out of your statement, Minister, but not to worry. I call the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his statement and for early sight of it. I will start with an area of agreement: it is a shared ambition to enable all parts of this country to participate in our growth and our future. Potential in the United Kingdom is everywhere, and it is right that the Government seek to unlock it with every means they have. Indeed, that was one of the guiding principles of the 2019-24 Conservative Administration’s levelling-up policy.
They always say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Now, we know that this Chancellor has a reputation for copying, so I thought I would have a look at the statement made in 2023 on Network North allocations, which I am sure the Chief Secretary has seen. I thought I would compare those allocations with the Government’s announcement today. I have the Conservative announcements in one hand and the Labour announcements in the other. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shout all they want.
Here we go. In 2023, the Conservatives promised the west midlands £2.64 billion—[Interruption.] I say to Labour Members that the Chief Secretary is also only making a promise. In 2023, we promised £2.64 billion for the west midlands, and the Government have announced £2.4 billion for the west midlands today. We promised £2.1 billion for West Yorkshire; today, the Government have announced £2.1 billion. We promised £2.5 billion for Greater Manchester; they have announced £2.5 billion today. We promised £1.45 billion for South Yorkshire; they have announced £1.5 billion today. We promised £1.581 billion for Liverpool; they have announced £1.6 billion today. We promised £1.84 billion for the north-east; they have announced £1.8 billion today. We promised £0.752 billion for the west of England; they have announced £0.8 billion today. We promised £978 million for Tees Valley in 2023, and Labour has announced £1 billion today.
I know the Chief Secretary is occasionally good with numbers, but does he not agree that what he is announcing today is essentially nothing more than a rounding error on the Conservatives’ plans from 2023? The only difference between the 2023 and 2025 announcements is that we would have spelt Rotherham correctly in our announcement.
The truth is, the Chancellor will go around the country rewriting history as frequently as she writes her CV, but nobody believes in her £22 billion black hole. What people do believe is that this Chancellor is open to change. She is going to roll back the issues on the winter fuel allowance, her botched welfare reform and changes to the two-child policy. Look at those on the Treasury Bench—they have not got a spine. If Labour Back Benchers have an issue in their constituency and want to stand up for their constituents, they should make a bid to this Chief Secretary, because he will back down and give them the money. That is what we know from Labour.
We also know that in the Government’s analysis of the Green Book, they are looking to change the assessments of the cost-benefit analysis. My question to the Chief Secretary therefore is—[Interruption.] I do have a number of questions. First, will he publish the cost-benefit ratios for each of the projects he has announced today? Will he state whether they have been evaluated on the existing Green Book rules or on new rules? Will he give an indication today of what those rules might be?
Secondly, as the Labour Government try to decide whether their commitment on defence is for 2%, 2.5%, 3% or 3.5% of GDP, with both those numbers and today’s investments stretching into the next period of government—whoever is in government—can the Chief Secretary confirm that it is this Government’s intention that the investments made today will be secure, whatever the changes made on defence expenditure?
The Chief Secretary said that he is able to make this announcement because the Government changed the rules, which has enabled £113 billion more of investment. But that is not quite right, is it? The Government can afford the additional investment only if people are prepared to fund it, and there are two sources for funding: taxpayers or the bond market. Can the Chief Secretary therefore advise whether he is going to look for additional funding from taxes or additional borrowing, if there is a shortfall?
The truth is, despite what the Back Benchers say, this Labour Treasury team are out of their depth. They are addicted to tax increases and to more borrowing. The Chief Secretary can republish as many press releases as he likes, but we know that because of their reckless mismanagement of the economy, come the autumn, this Labour Government will be back for more.
Darren Jones
I am pleased to see the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury back in his place today; I always enjoy our exchanges. I welcome the fact that he supports our plans and sees the good value in them. I will respond to one particular question, and then answer the rest in the round: all the Green Book details will be published next week at the spending review, so we will be able to share them with him and the House at that time.
The shadow Chief Secretary said that we were imitating the Conservative party’s promise to level up the country, but I think the British people voted and gave their verdict on the Conservatives’ success in delivering that at the last election. Whereas their version of levelling up was a set of false promises, this Labour Government are delivering real change.
The shadow Chief Secretary—rightly, given his role—asked how we will fund the announcements we have made today. As I explained in my statement to the House, it is because of the Chancellor’s decisions to amend the fiscal rules and invest in Britain, instead of continuing with decline, that we have been able to do so.
The shadow Chief Secretary and the Conservative party have not said what they would do differently. They were against the change in the fiscal rules, against our increasing of taxes on the wealthiest people at the Budget and against every single measure we have taken to be able to pay for today’s announcements. Whether it is the Conservatives, Reform or any other party, they need to recognise that the Conservatives’ false promises led to their decline and their unfunded promises are disrespectful to the British people, and that this Labour Government promised change at the election and we are delivering it. These are fully funded promises, unlike the unfunded promises of the Conservatives, which posed a risk to the economy and a risk to family finances. The sooner the Conservatives learn from their lessons, apologise to the British people, and come forward with some serious proposals, the better for the debate in this House.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I warmly welcome this investment in Britain, and I hope that the Treasury will be fully evaluating the impact of this vital transport infrastructure on growth in regions, which we know has always lagged, except for in London and the south-east. Although these figures are fully funded now, with all the global shocks we are seeing, it is important that we are aware that there could be additional costs on some of the raw materials being used, and any delay obviously adds costs too. Will the Chief Secretary tell the House the Government’s plans if costs do go higher—will the figures be fully funded regardless, or will they have to go back to the drawing board if there are challenges?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Treasury Committee rightly alludes to the fact that the Chancellor’s speech today makes the case for this Government investing in every part of the country and ensuring that growth is felt widely. My hon. Friend asks me about the supply chain and costs for building infrastructure. The House will know that Britain has unfortunately become a country where most of our infrastructure projects go over time and over budget as a failure of poor industrial and infrastructure policy and erratic decision making over many, many years. Alongside the spending review, we will be publishing the infrastructure strategy, at a slightly later stage, and that will answer many of my hon. Friend’s questions on Government policy, recognising the problem she has raised and the solutions that will be set out to support the supply chain to be able to deliver for Britain.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
We Liberal Democrats believe that when the economy is growing, every nation, every region and every person should feel and see the benefits, so we are pleased to see investment in public transport and public infrastructure, but I must ask the Minister: where is the plan and the money for rural areas? He will remember that, at the Budget, we Liberal Democrats supported and welcomed the Government’s changes to the fiscal rules that allowed for borrowing and more productive investment, and we are delighted to see that one of the beneficiaries of today’s announcement is the Metrolink to Stockport, which is a testimony to the hard work of the Liberal Democrats, who have been campaigning on this for far longer than the mayor and the combined authority have even existed. From Shropshire to the south-west, from Cumbria to Cornwall, and from Norfolk to Newton Abbot, rural areas once again feel as if they have been forgotten. Will the Government therefore bring forward a rural growth strategy?
May I also ask the Minister about Wales? We know that HS2 and the Oxford-Cambridge line have been designated England-Wales lines, as opposed to England-only lines. Can he explain to the people of Wales why that has happened and why they are set to lose out on Barnett consequentials?
There is one big piece missing from the puzzle. Many of us rightminded people want to see investment in infrastructure, but if we want to build stuff, we need skilled people to build it. Will the Government now fix the apprenticeship levy so that it can be spent on skills and training? When will the Government produce their skills strategy? Why has Skills England been set up as an executive agency of the Department for Education rather than having employers at its heart, as was promised? And why are the Government scrapping the level 7 apprenticeship when we know that it supports social mobility, including into engineering? We welcome this investment into transport infrastructure, but that transport infrastructure will not build itself; we need the people skilled to do it.
Darren Jones
I am pleased that the Liberal Democrats welcome today’s announcement, which is specifically about investment in city regions. The House will know that, at the 2024 autumn Budget, the Chancellor said that this Labour Government are choosing investment over decline, which is why we are increasing investment in every part of the country. Announcements outside of city regions will come next week at the spending review. To some of the hon. Lady’s broader questions on policy, I can tell her that we will debate the infrastructure strategy the week after that. She will have to bear with me, but she should know that there is good news coming, because Labour is delivering.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I very much welcome the commitment to city regions. Nationally, our city regions have underperformed on growth compared with continental cities. On South Yorkshire, I welcome the £1.5 billion to restore and renew our tram network and to improve our bus services, but I understand from the mayor that discussions are still under way about a tram-train project to link Stocksbridge in the north to Beighton and Woodhouse in my constituency in the south. That project will unlock sites for housing and employment growth. Will my right hon. Friend agree to give further consideration to discussions with the mayor to unlock that extra funding for those growth projects?
Darren Jones
As my hon. Friend has mentioned, the Mayor of South Yorkshire has been given £1.5 billion, which is in line with our commitment to devolution and to city region mayors. It is for the mayor to decide how that money is spent. As my hon. Friend suggests, the mayor has announced that some of this money will be allocated to the tram network, but it will be for the mayor and the combined authority to decide how to use the balance of this funding for other projects in the region. As always, I am very happy to meet him and the mayor to consider what options are available.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I recognise the importance of assisting the city regions to boost the economy, but my Brigg and Immingham constituency covers the south bank of the Humber, which is home to a cluster of energy businesses that are of particular importance to the renewables sector. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury outline what resources will be made available for that area to support improvements both in rail connections and also to the A180, which provides access to the major port of Immingham?
Darren Jones
The Government recognise the strategic importance of the hon. Member’s region to the UK economy. This will be reflected in the industrial strategy when it is published in the coming weeks, alongside our other plans. On his specific question, announcements for funding outside of the Transport for City Regions funding will be made at the spending review next Wednesday.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
Twenty years ago, when first standing for election, I was told to limit my ambitions with regard to campaigning to bring the Metro to Washington, but I persisted and now, thanks to this Labour Government and the new Mayor of the North East, my ambition is going to be realised. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that that is the difference that Labour in government can make and that what we are seeing is promise made and promise delivered?
Darren Jones
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her decades of campaigning for that project. I also welcome her suggestion that this is a Labour Government delivering the change that they promised to the country, but may I add to that and say that it is also the difference that brilliant Labour MPs can make in their constituencies campaigning for change for their constituents? I offer many congratulations to my hon. Friend, and I hope that she will be able to cut the ribbon when the lines are up and running.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Minister talks about regional growth, but in north-east Scotland we see only cost and decline under this Labour Government. Let us take the oil and gas sector. Labour policies will cost almost 35,000 jobs by the end of this decade, and £150 billion in economic income by 2050. The UK-EU deal will cost fishermen in Scotland £6 billion. Two thirds of Scottish farmers will be impacted by the family farm tax, with 48% of farms halting their investments, which again hits the rural businesses that would be supplying them? Can the Minister name a single policy that this Labour Government have introduced that benefits regional growth in north-east Scotland?
Darren Jones
I can reconfirm to the House that this Labour Government have delivered the largest real terms increase in funding for Scotland since devolution began. Furthermore, may I politely point her to the fact that the announcement today is about England, not Scotland. Further announcements on our commitment to delivering a new direction in Scotland will be coming next week in the spending review.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Labour Government’s delivery of £1 billion of investment for the Tees Valley, and particularly the £60 million for the third platform at Middlesbrough station. The money to increase the station’s capacity, which I hope will mean increasing the number of direct trains to London, will complement the recent modernisation works that have been completed, which I began campaigning on in 2018 with the then Middlesbrough Mayor, Dave Budd. There are many priorities in which this money could be invested, including the repair of the iconic Transporter bridge, taking buses back into control à la Andy Burnham, and electrification of our rail line. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out the importance of combined authority mayors consulting with local authorities and local communities and making best use and best value of this award?
Darren Jones
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this investment in his constituency. The key difference of course being that when he started campaigning for it, we were under a Conservative Government, and now, under a Labour Government, we are delivering. On his question about working with combined authority mayors, he is right to point out that the most effective combined authority mayors in England are those who work in partnership with their local Members of Parliament to ensure that every part of their authority area is heard and involved in decision making, and I encourage the Mayor of Teesside to do just that.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
People in Cumbria, North Yorkshire and Durham are deeply concerned to see no mention at all in the Chancellor’s announcement of the A66 dualling project, which is vital to boosting the economy of the north and, more importantly, to saving lives. There is not a penny for the northern two thirds of the north-west of England, so will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury allay Cumbria’s fears and commit now to the A66 upgrade?
Darren Jones
I think the hon. Member is slightly confused. The statement today is about devolved transport funding to mayors for intra-city transport. He is asking me questions on the broader spending in the Department for Transport, which will be announced in the spending review next Wednesday.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on an announcement that will make a huge difference to delivering the industrial strategy for this country—something that the Business and Trade Committee will report on later this week. I particularly commend him for the £2.4 billion for the east Birmingham tram, which I have been campaigning on for 15 years. It is crucial for connecting the impoverished part of east Birmingham to the extraordinary new growth opportunities created by HS2. Will he just confirm today that this is only the first piece of the tram, and that, in future, we will finish the job?
Darren Jones
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing that investment into Birmingham. I recently visited part of that development and saw the enormous potential that will come for his constituents from connecting Birmingham city centre with the new sports quarter. I am delighted to see how much private investment that investment is unlocking for his constituency and for the city. The funding allocations have been devolved to mayors. The announcements today are the announcements that mayors wish to make on some of the early allocations of the funding, and it will be for mayors to decide how they wish to allocate the rest of their funding. I encourage my right hon. Friend to work with the Mayor of the West Midlands, and I will help in any way I can to extend that and get the full benefit for his constituents.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I know that the Minister is drawing his parameters rather tightly today, but can he give us at least a hint of what impact the Treasury’s consideration anticipates for the defence investments in the regions resulting from the recent strategic defence review, given the closeness with which his Department was involved in the formulation of that review?
Darren Jones
I thank the right hon. Member for his question, which recognises the significant increase in investment in defence and security that this Labour Government are making. He has asked for a hint, but the only hint I can offer is that the answer will come next Wednesday at the spending review.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to Steve Rotheram, the Liverpool city region’s metro mayor, and Liverpool city region MPs, who jointly asked for pretty much what he has announced for the region in today’s statement. I also congratulate him on recognising the value that transport investment has for communities and for growth. In 2027 a new fleet of electric buses will arrive in my constituency as part of the expansion into the borough of Sefton. Can he confirm that today’s announcement covers the improvement in grid connections and infrastructure for charging that will be necessary to take advantage of the very welcome transition to electric buses?
Darren Jones
I congratulate my hon. Friend and colleagues from the Liverpool city region on securing £1.6 billion of transport investment. As he will remember, he and I were on a visit together looking at some of the potential for that money to be spent not long ago, including at a roundtable with local employers and workers at the Everton stadium. It was great to be able to see out the window of the office of the Liverpool city region mayor the potential that that investment will unlock in housing, jobs and great opportunities for people in the area. My hon. Friend asks about how the rest of this money will be spent on what sounds like very sensible infrastructure upgrades. As he will know, that is a decision for the mayor of the Liverpool city region.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Chief Secretary’s announcement on regional growth largely omitted the south-west region beyond Bristol. Will he therefore ensure that next Wednesday there is at least a nod to the region in which both he and I have our constituencies? Will he ensure that the signal that this Government sent to the south-west practically on day one by canning improvements to the A303 is corrected? Will he ensure that there is at least a nod to the much-needed Westbury bypass? Can we please have a little investment in the poor country cousin of the rail network in this country, which is the west of England line?
Darren Jones
Of course, the announcement today is on funding for combined authority mayors, which is why the west of England combined authority mayor has received two-thirds of £1 billion of transport investment for areas that are part of that boundary. We are still committed to investing in each and every part of Britain, and the details of that will come out in the spending review next Wednesday. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Government have said to other parts of the country that if they can get together and agree on a combined authority mayoralty, we will continue to support it in the same way that we support the existing mayors in the UK. It will be for local leaders in the region that he and I come from to decide how best to collaborate on these issues going forward.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
It is more than 30 years since I was the leader of Leeds city council and made the first proposal for a rapid transit system in that area of West Yorkshire, so I welcome today’s announcement, although it will be a couple of years before the building starts. During the 14 years of Tory Government, the average amount of money per head spent in London was three times larger than the amount of money spent per head on transport in Yorkshire. Of course we want a successful capital city, but that has left the coalfield communities that I represent in real difficulty, with low investment and low productivity. Our wages and salaries are £12,500 per head less than those received on average in the north of London. Will the Minister assure the House that we will look again at funding the regeneration of coalfield communities in the near future?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his campaigning over many years. As the Chancellor set out today in her speech on the funding for city regions, and as was set out in our review of the Green Book, we are purposefully tilting funding towards the north and the midlands after many, many years of those areas losing out, with a tendency for money to come more into London and the south-east. London and the south-east are still important, but we recognise the historical injustice in the distribution of investment across the country, whether it is low ratios in the east midlands, low funding in the south-west or decades of being overlooked in the north. That is why this announcement is really important. I reassure my hon. Friend that I understand from the mayor that work will begin on the projects announced today in 2028, with an ambition for the first services to be available from the mid-2030s.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I welcome the news about Metrolink coming to Stockport; it is an absolute tribute to all the residents, businesses and organisations that fought tirelessly to get that result. I thank Councillor Mark Hunter, the former leader of Stockport council and the former MP for Cheadle, who made it his life’s work to get this result. The Minister will know that we expect a train station in Cheadle very soon, which will be adapted for the Metrolink. Can he confirm that when Metrolink comes to Stockport, it will come through Cheadle as well?
Darren Jones
One of the many benefits of the funding announced today for city regions is the positive effect that it will have for communities along these transport lines and for people who travel in and out of the city regions. This may be funding for transport in particular places, but I hope that the benefit will be felt widely, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. It will be for the mayor to decide the programming and delivery of those projects, but the hon. Gentleman makes a strong case for Cheadle, and I am sure that he will be able to raise it with the mayor in due course.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. There is a shift from focusing funding on areas where it is easy to deliver in London and the south to focusing it on the midlands and the north, where there are left-behind areas like my constituency. I very much welcome that local mayors will take that decision. Some £2 billion has been given to my mayor to invest in the east midlands, which is absolutely welcome. I also welcome the Trent Arc proposal and the freedom that the mayor has to spend money in our area, such as in Bassetlaw. I am already in discussions with her about how that money can best be spent. My ask of the Minister is that that money is used to help to deliver the STEP—spherical tokamak for energy production—programme in Bassetlaw, which will change lives, create jobs and put us on the energy-efficiency agenda that we need for the future.
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her vociferous campaigning to ensure that we deliver on our promises to invest in left-behind areas across the country after years of failed promises on levelling up from the Conservative party. It is right that we find that money and invest it in her community. One important point to make is that this is not the total amount of funding that the Government are putting into her community; this is just transport funding devolved to the mayoral combined authority. There will be further announcements in the coming weeks in relation to energy infrastructure, industrial policy, skills, housing and public services in which we will be able to show very clearly the difference that a Labour Government are making, working in partnership with brilliant Labour MPs such as my hon. Friend to deliver the change that people voted for.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister is right in stating that modern growth relies on dynamic, interconnected regions and that stronger transport links are vital for businesses to expand their markets for goods and services. While he has announced £15.6 billion to improve transport links in other parts of the United Kingdom, his Government are spending £140 million on creating a border post in my constituency that disrupts the transport links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, costing businesses, slowing transport and dissuading some businesses from supplying to Northern Ireland. What will he do to improve the transport links between Northern Ireland and Great Britain for logistics? The current disruption is slowing growth and causing businesses to fail.
Darren Jones
The right hon. Member raises important points that my colleagues in the Department for Transport will no doubt have heard. I am sure that he is talking to them about the delivery of that project. The Government have put record investment into Northern Ireland, and we have reset the relationship. Under the last Government there was not even any conversation about Northern Ireland, whereas now I am in frequent communication with the Northern Ireland Executive, who, might I say, of all the colleagues I have had to negotiate with for the spending review, are the toughest? This Labour Government will be delivering a good deal for Northern Ireland, as we will for every nation and region of the country.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I really thank the Chief Secretary and the Chancellor for delivering historic investment that will make a reality of the plans of the Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, for an integrated transport network. I understand that it will be called the Weaver Network, to compete with the Bee Network on the other side of the Pennines. I have been actively campaigning for that along with other West Yorkshire MPs. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that funding is included for a new bus station in Bradford? Does he agree that the investment the Government are making in transport infrastructure in the north will improve connectivity for communities in the Shipley area and beyond, bringing social, environmental and economic benefit?
Darren Jones
I congratulate my hon. Friend on working so positively with the Mayor of West Yorkshire to secure this historic amount of investment in her community. She asked specifically if there will be new bus stations as part of the announcement. I understand from Tracy Brabin that there will be new bus stations at Bradford and Wakefield, as well as building out the West Yorkshire mass transit system. I understand from the numbers that there is still some more to spend, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be in touch with the mayor about that in due course.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I am disappointed that there are no SNP Members in the Chamber—[Interruption.] Nobody is here from the Scottish National party. I have to take issue with the Chief Secretary, because economic growth in any part of the United Kingdom affects not just England but all of the United Kingdom. I am sure that if SNP Members were here, their constituents, like mine in Edinburgh West, would want to know what consequential implications he anticipates for Scotland. Specifically, will there be Barnett consequentials from this investment?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member is encouraging me to get ahead of the statement and answer questions about next week’s spending review. All I can say for now is that the Labour Government are investing in every nation and region of the country. We are delivering on the promise of change in Scotland, where we know we need a new direction. She rightly alludes to the absence of SNP Members in the House—and, might I say, the absence of SNP leadership in Holyrood? At the election next year, we will have an example to show how two Labour Governments can deliver real change for people in Scotland, which will be underpinned by the significant investment we will announce next week in the spending review.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, his comments on the Green Book and, of course, the nearly £1.8 billion of investment for the north-east. We know that growth and opportunity should never be just for some areas; they need to be felt in every single part of the country. This is a clear demonstration from the Government that we understand that. Will this approach also shape future infrastructure decisions such as the road investment strategy, where projects such as the Moor Farm roundabout upgrade have the potential to unleash growth in my constituency?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for championing jobs and livelihoods in her constituency and the region, and for welcoming the historic £1.8 billion of investment announced today for transport infrastructure. As she rightly alludes to, the announcement is about transport infrastructure, but the Government are doing much more to improve lives, wages and communities in every part of the country. We will be setting out further information in the coming weeks in relation to other types of infrastructure as well as how, through the industrial strategy, we are supporting skills, jobs and training opportunities for people so they can get better jobs and better pay. I note that, of course, the transport funding announced today will serve one of the largest advanced manufacturing zones in the United Kingdom, which will be great news for her constituents and great news for the country.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Following on from High Speed 2, there is a new chapter in the great Welsh train robbery—I am sure hon. Members know where this is going. The East West Rail project between Oxford and Cambridge has been classified as an England and Wales project. I have lived in Wales all my life, and I have got to say that it is nowhere near the Welsh border. The last time I looked, neither of them were anywhere near Wales. Honestly, will the Chief Secretary explain why the Treasury has made the farcical decision again to deny Wales millions of pounds in funding, which we desperately need to transform our dilapidated, crumbling rail network?
Darren Jones
I think that the hon. Member and I can agree on one important thing, which is the failed promises of the last Conservative Government, who made decisions that undercut investment in Wales and deprioritised Wales. She will know that we have a brilliant group of Labour MPs now representing Wales who have been making their case strongly for the Government to invest in Wales. We will be setting out further details of that investment at the spending review next week.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
As Chair of the Transport Committee, I hugely welcome this announcement. These rail and mass transit schemes will link communities, generate growth and cut pollution and carbon emissions. In the context of finishing the job, which was mentioned earlier, can we hope that before too long there will be a similar announcement about linking northern cities with the south-east through the currently stalled HS2 project?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent work as Chair of the Transport Committee, which has shown on a cross-party basis why the announcements we have made today are good for the economy, good for jobs and good for constituencies across the United Kingdom. She encourages me to answer questions about statements that will be made next week. All I can say at this stage, I am afraid, is that there is not long to go.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
The Chief Secretary says that west of England funding will increase services between Bristol city centre and Brabazon. I have been pressing Ministers to extend the funding for half-hourly trains at Yate, which is due to end next year. That is vital to provide a service to the new Charfield station, which is due to open in 2027. Both places are, of course, in the city region. Will this funding support or even improve those services, or is this more about the city than the region?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for, I think, welcoming the nearly £1 billion of investment in transport for the west of England, which we know is a thriving part of the country. With the right investment in affordable housing, clean, renewable transport that works on time and is affordable to use will be great for people living in her constituency and mine, and great for the country.
One point to note is that the funding announced today is capital investment, not day-to-day spending. There will be further announcements in the coming weeks from the Department for Transport about issues such as bus subsidy and rail subsidy, but we are absolutely committed to supporting funding within regional combined authorities. This is not about particular places; that is why we have given this money to mayors, who will work with Members of Parliament like me and the hon. Member to ensure that we are delivering for the west of England and for the country.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I note that York did not feature in the Chief Secretary’s statement. However, I recognise the outstanding connectivity in York. Today is about creating jobs, and adjacent to York station, the York Central development—the gateway of the economy of the north—will create 12,000 jobs. Will he ensure that there is proper investment in York Central to unlock those jobs and give people in my city and the region the opportunities they deserve?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the historic level of funding in transport infrastructure. As she will know, this is a devolved pot of money and regional mayors will decide how to spend it, so I cannot answer her question. I encourage her to talk to the mayor about the opportunities in her constituency.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I thank the Chief Secretary for the statement. Giving money out to mayors to fix transport—there is nothing to disagree with in that. Kent, which as he knows is the UK’s strategic corridor to Europe, recently asked for a mayor and was rebuffed. Without a mayor, when will Kent get its money?
Darren Jones
The Government will be investing in every nation and region across the country. Further details will be published at the spending review next week. The announcements today are about particular investment in city regions with mayors, because we think that is an important driver for growth in those areas as well as for the wider regions in which they sit. I recognise the importance of the hon. Member’s region to the country, and there will be further announcements in due course.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement. It is quite wonderful to hear MPs buzzing about the investment in their constituencies, especially after 14 years of neglect by the Tories and their short-term, insufficient funding. Will the Minister reassure the House that, when the spending review comes next week, London will be recognised for its economic empowerment of the country and that there will be a different attitude to London spending that will help with infrastructure projects such as the docklands light railway and its Thamesmead extension?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for rightly recognising the importance to our country of its capital city, which has been at the centre of our engine of growth for many years. She also alludes to the fact that we have a brilliant Labour Mayor of London in Sadiq Khan, who strongly makes the case for investment in the capital. We will make further announcements next week that will bolster and strengthen London, and Sadiq’s leadership in London, to deliver for the whole country.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Chief Secretary will know that the benefits of the Cullompton and Wellington stations project would bring tens of thousands of people to the city, the metro region and the Cardiff-Bristol-Exeter corridor. Thanks to a cost-benefit ratio of almost 4:1, will he acknowledge the strength of the case for that project, as set out in the letter he received from his hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), for North Somerset (Sadik Al-Hassan) and for Exeter (Steve Race) and from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord)?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his campaigning and for welcoming today’s news of historic levels of investment into the west of England for transport. The best use of the money is to make sure that not only do we deliver infrastructure within our combined authorities, but that opportunities are unlocked for broader spending decisions on intercity transport, heavy rail, road investments, new house building and industrial policy spending. The review of the Green Book has been looking at this and further details will be published next week. However, I am confident that we will be able to unlock opportunities for areas outside the combined authorities, and the investment announced today makes a stronger case for doing so.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
May I welcome this Government’s £2.5 billion investment into the west midlands? It will allow our Mayor Richard Parker to make strategic decisions such as the extension of the tram, enabling my constituents in West Brom to get to east Birmingham, which is fantastic. Does he agree that that will drive growth not just in Birmingham, but in the Black Country and the entire west midlands?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming this historic level of funding from a Labour Government to our brilliant Labour Mayor of the West Midlands. I note that not only does the investment go to particular railway tracks or bus facilities in certain places, but it creates great opportunities for people who live and work in and around the region and delivers on the mayor’s priority that everyone should benefit from the economic growth that will come as a consequence of the investment. That is the difference between a Conservative mayor previously lobbying a Conservative Government that failed to deliver and now a Labour mayor working with a Labour Government to deliver these projects.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I warmly welcome the news that the tram is finally coming to Stockport. I have also warmly welcomed that announcement every time it has been made previously, so I am delighted that the Chief Secretary will deliver it. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) rightly acknowledges the sterling campaigning that has been done by businesses, residents and elected politicians over many years. This is how we get things done in Greater Manchester: on a cross-party basis. Will the Chief Secretary assure my local authority colleagues on Stockport council that the money is ready to go? They are as keen as mustard to crack on and deliver the project so we can get on with the next phase, which is a tram-train to Marple, from which my Hazel Grove residents will really benefit.
Darren Jones
The funding announced today is in the spending review timeframe—it will be available from 2026-27 onwards—while the money that we allocated at the Budget last year for this fiscal year will continue to be spent.
We are all exasperated by announcements being made by politicians and spades never getting into the ground. I am sure the hon. Lady is now experiencing a difference. Compared with the false promises of the Conservative party, which were made in the past and never delivered, not only have we found the money and allocated it, because of the Chancellor’s decisions, but the hon. Lady will see spades going into the ground and transport in her community being improved for real.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, making sure we see investment right across the country. Building on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) about the support for London, I am sure that the Chief Secretary will recognise that London’s transport infrastructure is vital to our young people when they start a career and to our vulnerable communities when moving around. London has three big transport infrastructure projects: the Bakerloo line extension, the DLR to Thamesmead, and the west London orbital. Backed by London boroughs, the mayor, businesses and Transport for London, those projects need additional funding. Will the Chief Secretary highlight how what he said about a regional plan will be hardwired into the spending review going forward and that that will include London?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her excellent work on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee looking at those and related issues. She is right to point to the London’s success and the potential for future success through investment in London. As the Chancellor said today, we are tilting investment to parts of the country that have missed out for many years. However, we know that by working with mayors such as Sadiq Khan in London and with private capital and other investors, we can also deliver for places as important as London, as our country’s capital city. We know that there is plenty of opportunity, and we can set out further details on that in due course.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
In the city of Brighton and Hove, my constituents tell me they need more and cleaner buses, and more reliable trains and stations without barriers to people with children, older people and disabled people. Will the Chief Secretary assure me that the wider review of Treasury rules will mean great value projects such as the ones I mention are prioritised in the south-east, and that our transport investment does not just consist of major, unnecessary road building and expanded international airports that will not help people’s daily lives?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member makes an important point about people’s lived experience of these types of policy announcements. We are trying to make it easier for people to use affordable, reliable public transport that is better for the environment and easier for them to use to get about in their day-to-day lives. We have seen that a lot in places such as London in the past, other places around the country have looked on in envy. The announcement today will mean that that is available to many people across the country. Announcements on funding for areas that do not have combined authority mayors will also come, but that will be next week at the spending review.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Meur ras bras, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thoroughly welcome the Treasury’s Green Book Review because the current funding formulae do not reflect the true cost of delivering services in remote coastal areas such as Cornwall. They do not account for the scattered nature of deprivation, the costs associated with seasonal surge in demand, the costs associated with the influx of retirees, or the higher per capita costs of transport, waste collection, coastal protection and emergency response during the holiday season. They simply do not reflect the lived experience of people in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle and across Cornwall, despite our massive economic potential. Will the Chief Secretary assure constituents in remote coastal communities such as Cornwall that there will be specific changes to reflect our specific challenges?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend and the wider group of Labour Members from Cornwall, who have campaigned vociferously on the Green Book. That may seem technical, but for the people at home it is important because it alludes to all the issues that my hon. Friend points out—not least because in the past, Government have made decisions about particular projects as opposed to particular places. That means that we cannot unlock the potential for growth and better livelihoods because of a failure of applying the Green Book and its rules.
The Chancellor announced today that the Green Book update will be published next week at the spending review. I can give my hon. Friend the guarantee that the detail of that, when it is published, will show that this Government will look much more widely at how spending across Government lifts the potential of places to deliver better jobs and better wages for people, and more secure communities.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Chief Secretary rightly says that stronger transport links are crucial for creating opportunities for jobs and economic growth, and it is great to see so many happy Labour MPs in the Chamber. I heard what the Minister said to my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) about being patient, but it feels like the Government, by trailing the spending review with this announcement, are prioritising spending on urban areas and in particular those with many fine Labour MPs. Will he therefore assure me and my constituents in South Devon, that the Treasury will remember next week that the west country does not end at Bristol? Indeed, many would say it starts there.
Darren Jones
As I have alluded to many times today, this Government are committed to investing in every region and nation of the country. Today’s announcement is about city regions and city region transport, but the spending review next week will show how this Government are delivering for people, irrespective of where they live.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Transport in the midlands has been historically underfunded, and today’s announcement is a welcome turn of the tide. Many Birmingham City fans in my constituency will also strongly welcome the metro extension, and this feels like a good opportunity to congratulate the Blues on their record-setting, promotion-winning season. This is yet more good news. We are also campaigning for upgrades to the Cross-City line, and in particular to the Kings Norton station works, to make the most of this new investment. Will the Minister confirm that he and his Department for Transport colleagues remain open to constructive representations, so that we can finally make this important project happen?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning for his constituency and for welcoming this historic funding of £2.4 billion today for the west midlands. He asked me about future projects. The good news is that the Mayor of the West Midlands has not spent all of this money yet, so there is definitely potential for lobbying him on how he might wish to spend the rest of that money in due course, and if there is anything I can do to help, I will be glad to do so.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The statement says that stronger transport links are crucial, and the Department for Transport has already paid, through the Union connectivity fund, for a feasibility study on the reopening of the Lisburn-Antrim rail line, which would connect to Belfast International airport in my constituency. Unfortunately, they have already told me that they cannot allocate funding until the next spending review is announced, so they have beaten the Chief Secretary to that answer. Given that the £15.6 billion that has been allocated today roughly equates to £450 million as a Barnett consequential, would he agree that investment in that Lisburn-Antrim-Belfast International line would be a good investment in Northern Ireland railways?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member rightly alludes to the fact that because the Labour Government are increasing investment here in Westminster for the whole country, the nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland benefit, both through Barnett and direct spending from this Government, to make sure we are investing in every nation and region of the country. We have already seen significant amounts of funding—I think the highest level of funding since devolution began—into Northern Ireland, as well as Scotland and Wales, and further details will be published next week at the spending review.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
In the east midlands we have been raging for over a decade against the inequality that has left our region at the very bottom when it comes to spending on transport per person, and it has taken a Labour Government to start to put that right and begin to unlock the economic potential and raise living standards. Would my right hon. Friend agree that this represents a considerable achievement of our Mayor Claire Ward and shows that, after years in the pit stop, the regions are finally being given the green light to grow?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the £2 billion of investment announced today for the east midlands. I have been on a number of visits to her region, including with Labour’s brilliant Mayor Claire Ward, who has made a very strong case for the investment being announced today. It shows the difference a Labour mayor can make. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend and her colleagues from her regional group, who have campaigned as vociferously here as Claire Ward does from her mayoral office in the east midlands?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers. Regional growth is an imperative for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I am pleased that he is expanding the horizons for areas considered for further funding. I am also pleased to announce in the Chamber today news of a previous scheme initiated by the Conservatives and delivered within the time of this Government for the Ards and North Down local council: the Queen’s Parade development. It was one of the regional schemes that were delivered, and £9.8 million was set aside by Westminster for that project. It was signed and sealed, and the project is going ahead. It is estimated that some £70 million of regeneration will come off the back of it, so whenever the Government spend money here, they can be assured that the benefits are significant. The Minister has also hinted at the possibility of other moneys coming through. What commitment can he give to ensuring that coastal communities across all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can apply to similar schemes to improve the beauty and tourist attractions of all our coastal towns and centres?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for continuing his work campaigning for Strangford and for Northern Ireland in general. As he knows, details of funding for the Northern Ireland Executive will be announced at the spending review next week, building on the back of significant increased investment. He is right to say that investment in transport projects opens up opportunities for new housing, new jobs and new livelihoods. I recognise that the Northern Irish economy is one of the best performing parts of the United Kingdom, and we want to continue to support that in the future.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
It was a pleasure to hear my right hon. Friend refer to Bury North in his statement, and I welcome the investment for trams and buses in Bury North; it comes hot on the heels of the announcement only this week of vital school and hospital funding. New buses and new tram stops are about connecting people and places to opportunity, and that opportunity can help rid us of poverty. Today’s announcement is about improving journeys to work and getting on in life, but does he agree that it is only by growing the economy that we will tackle child poverty, which is now at a shameful 42% in Bury North, and improve our children’s journey through life?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning for Bury, and for welcoming the investment today. He points to two issues that are really important. First, why is this happening now? It is because of the decisions taken by a Labour Government, after the failed promises of the Conservative party. He asked about child poverty. As he knows, this Government are committed to tackling child poverty, and the child poverty taskforce will report in due course. He will also know that for families who are experiencing child poverty, the best lever to alleviate the situation is helping into work those parents who are able to and want to work. We are investing in affordable, reliable public transport, alongside childcare support at school in the early years. We are not giving people false promises, which they were given in the past; we are giving them a path to being part of the success that we are setting up the country to deliver.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
It has been good to hear so much talk about left-behind communities today, but I have always hated that phrase, because my community was not left behind by the last Government; it was wilfully abandoned by them. The £1.8 billion for the North East combined authority region is hugely welcome. I welcome the campaigning by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) for the extension of the Metro to Washington, and the world-class Angel network that will be built by Mayor Kim McGuinness, but does the Minister agree that it makes no sense to have a fantastic new train line with fantastic new trains on it if they have to run under a crumbling flyover in the middle of Gateshead, and through an interchange that requires work? Will he work with me and the Mayor of the North East to deliver these additional critical infrastructure projects for the north-east?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is showing what brilliant Labour MPs can achieve through continuous campaigning and lobbying. He has made the case very strongly for his constituency, which of course will benefit from the record investment being announced today, but I know he wishes for more, and further details will come next week in the spending review.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
I welcome this Government’s funded commitment to making every community across this country better off after the failed promises of the previous Government. I represent an outer London constituency with the oldest trams in the country and pockets of deprivation. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give me and my constituents in Croydon East that next week’s spending review will recognise the contribution that London makes to our national economy, and will provide investment in communities like mine, which were failed by the previous Government?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for making an important case for the transport infrastructure that her constituents rely on. The case that she makes for her constituency in Greater London is very similar to those being made for other parts of the country. People need to be able to get to the opportunities that we are creating; those opportunities need to be made available to them. The Government are ensuring that by investing in every nation and region across the United Kingdom, including London. I look forward to further announcements in the spending review that will fulfil the promise of change that she and the Government made to her constituents.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I genuinely welcome the significant investment in city regions around our country that the Chief Secretary has been able to announce. Stoke-on-Trent does not have a combined authority, and realistically will not have one for many years to come, but my constituents’ aspirations for significant growth and investment are no different from the aspirations of those in other parts of the west midlands. My constituents would like the reinstatement of the number 40 bus from Mount Pleasant to Hanley, for example, and would like lifts installed at Longton train station, to make it accessible. I have absolute faith that the Chief Secretary is aware of the nuances of the difference between mayoral and non-mayoral areas, but will he give a commitment today that when announcements are made next week in the comprehensive spending review, investment in non-mayoral areas will match investment in mayoral areas? What mechanisms will be used to deliver the money to communities? When there is a fragmented local government base, it is quite easy for this money to stick around in pots and not be spent, because people cannot agree on how to spend it.
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for making the case for his constituency. As he says, the announcements today are for areas with combined authority mayors. The Government have said that if other parts of the country can get together and agree to have a combined authority mayor, they will be able to benefit from this type of announcement in the future. As for areas that do not have a mayor, this Labour Government are as committed to the people in those communities as to those in any other community across the country. We have already significantly increased funding through the autumn Budget 2024, including for road maintenance and pot holes, for maintaining a bus fare cap, and to support the extension of bus services, which he alluded to. We will continue to support those communities, and further details will be announced next week in the spending review.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I hugely welcome these investments, which will free up the great potential of the north, or at least a part of it. The Green Book review will of course create the conditions that allow us to release the rest of the potential in left-behind areas and small towns, including those in Rossendale and Darwen. As a colleague said, we want similar investment in non-mayoral authorities. What assurance can the Minister give the people of Lancashire that we will see similar benefits to those that city regions enjoy?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his continuous campaigning for his constituency. I think I am right in saying that every time I have seen him in the House he has mentioned the Green Book review to me. He has been one of our most forthright campaigners for ensuring that we build the rules and frameworks to deliver for every part of the country. As the Chancellor announced today, we will update the Green Book, and will publish the outcomes of the consultation next Wednesday. He will have to wait a few days for the detail, but I think he will be pleased with where we have got to.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I welcome the huge investment in the north-east under this Government. For a long time, rural Northumberland was ignored and held in contempt by the Conservatives. May I encourage the Chief Secretary to reflect on the growth opportunities in the rural north-east, to communicate them to devolved leaders, and to recognise the development and growth opportunities that rural communities offer our economy?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for the campaigning he undertakes for his constituents, and for rural communities. He touches on the important point that the funding we have made available to combined authority mayors today is not only for the combined authority, but the wider region. It is for mayors to decide how to spend the money we have given them, but we encourage them to ensure that people can benefit from the investment whether they live in a city, town or rural community. I know he will work with his mayor to ensure that.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for listening carefully to the representations of our Tees Valley Labour MPs, and for delivering fully the biggest transport settlement for our region. There is enough money here to deliver a safe crossing over the A689 in Wynyard, buses in Port Clarence, more trains in Billingham, and the restoration of our much-loved transporter bridge. Will he assure me that there will be sufficient governance to ensure that every penny is spent on the priorities of local people, and that the money will not be funnelled into the purses of property developers, which was a concern in Teesside under the previous Conservative Government?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend rightly raises the point that the best combined authority mayors are those who work with local Members of Parliament and their communities to ensure that money is spent in the best way to meet the needs of local communities. As he knows, measures are in place in Whitehall to supervise spending by combined authority mayors, and to audit where appropriate. Further measures are coming in due course. He is right to welcome this historic level of funding for his constituency and region, and we look forward to the money being spent well on his constituents’ priorities.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the east midlands, I put on the record my thanks to the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for their recent engagement on the potential of our region, which has resulted in the significant £2 billion investment announcement today. The east midlands region has been massively underfunded and under-invested in, as the data consistently shows, so I welcome the Treasury’s commitment to changing how the Government approach and evaluate the case for investing in regions. Will there be further positive announcements for the wider east midlands region at the comprehensive spending review, and in industrial strategy announcements later this month?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his leadership of the all-party group and for, alongside his colleagues and the mayor, making such a powerful case for investment in his region. There will be further announcements at the spending review next week, and in the infrastructure strategy and the industrial strategy, which will show how this Labour Government are investing in regions like his to improve people’s life chances, irrespective of where they choose to live or work.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I welcome the announcements today. Finally, we have a Government who are willing to match rhetoric with action when it comes to investment in the north and the midlands. The Network North so-called plan, announced under the Tories, was pitched as an attempt to compensate northern communities for the loss of High Speed 2. My constituents were somewhat surprised that there was not a single mention of Cheshire in that so-called plan. What assurance can my right hon. Friend give that towns outside mayoral areas, as well as city regions, will see the benefits of crucial infrastructure investment?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend rightly points to the frustration of his constituents with the failed promises of the previous Conservative Government. This Labour Government—working with him, the brilliant Labour MP for his constituency—are making a difference. At the Budget last year, the Chancellor changed the fiscal rules to tax the wealthiest, and we are investing money in transport across the country, which will benefit not only those in combined authorities, but those in the broader travel-to-work region. Further announcements for towns and villages will be made next week at the spending review.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The Mellor bus factory in Rochdale was the perfect place for the Chancellor to unveil this £15 billion investment in transport infrastructure today, and also to give a first taste of the changes to the Green Book and the Treasury rules, which for too long have held back places in the north and the midlands from getting their fair share of transport money. Does the Minister agree that investment in public transport is investment in local manufacturers like Mellor? Does this not show what a difference a Labour MP working with a Labour mayor and a Labour Government can make, to deliver the change that people voted for last year?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a brilliant campaigner for his Rochdale constituency, for welcoming this historic level of funding for his community. As he says, the Chancellor made her announcement in Rochdale today, and showed that the investments are not just in track, bus stops and trains, but in jobs, livelihoods and businesses across the United Kingdom. That will help us deliver renewal for Britain.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
After 14 years of talk about delivering for the north, it is refreshing that this Labour Government are delivering for the north. I am a passionate believer in devolution, but devolution must come with accountability. What steps can we take to ensure that the £1 billion we have just agreed for Tees Valley gets to every part of that region—and, most importantly, to Hartlepool?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for his constituents in Hartlepool, and I thank him for recognising the historic investment that this Labour Government are delivering, off the back of brilliant campaigning from him and other colleagues in the region. The best combined authority mayors are those who work with their Members of Parliament and the communities that they represent. I know that he will make his case to the mayor in his region. Checks and balances are in place in Government to ensure that things are done in the best way, and we will continue to work with him to ensure that this investment under a Labour Government delivers on the priorities of people in his constituency.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
For so long, Tipton, Wednesbury, Coseley, the Black Country and the whole of the west midlands have been an afterthought. Now our Mayor Richard Parker and the West Midlands combined authority will have £2.5 billion for transport, to unlock desperately needed good jobs and growth across our cities and towns. I hope that the mayor will look favourably on our need for a new roundabout at Great Bridge, to get the traffic flowing to our factories and jobs, as we seek the economic growth that we are prioritising. Does the Minister share my view that the statement starts to put right decades of under-investment in the west midlands?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming today’s historic level of funding into transport, which, as she rightly alludes to, will fix historic failures that other parties promised to fix over many years. She is also right to point to the fact that these transport investments unlock jobs and opportunities for people in the broader region, including in her area, as well as sports, leisure and creative arts opportunities. I know that she will work closely with our brilliant Labour Mayor of the West Midlands to ensure the money is spent on the people’s priorities.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
To build on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), can the Minister confirm that, alongside the investments announced today, London too will receive support to develop its infrastructure? Broadmead bridge is still closed and the Central line is creaking at the seams, and the spending review next week will enable our capital to unlock the housing it so desperately needs and allow London to remain a world-leading city.
Darren Jones
London continues to be a crucial engine for growth for the whole country and important to us all as our capital city. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to work with our brilliant Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan to make sure that investment is tackling the problems that he has raised.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
I welcome the recognition from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that investment in public transport infrastructure and improved services opens opportunities to work. In contrast, my constituency, part of the Glasgow city region, is experiencing cuts to bus and rail services, which are proving a big barrier to people getting involved in working opportunities and social activity. Will my right hon. Friend join me in making representations to the Scottish Government to ensure that at least some of the record settlement that this Government have passed to Holyrood is spent on transport infrastructure?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for making the case for her constituency. She is right that we have a shared view that investment in public transport is important for people’s livelihoods and their enjoyment of the communities they live in. Unfortunately, the SNP Government continue to fail to deliver on their promises, whereas in England we can show the difference a Labour Government make. I hope that in the future a Labour Government in Westminster and a Labour Government in Scotland will show what a new direction can mean for people in her constituency and across Scotland.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
As the shadow Chief Secretary was comparing the records of our Governments earlier, I was reminded of the moment when they made all these transport announcements, and it turned out that half had been delivered already and the other half were cancelled within 24 hours. They included the Leamside line in the north-east, so I am absolutely delighted for my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) that, after 20 years of campaigning, she has secured it, which is also great for growth generally in the north-east. As a champion for my community, I will keep banging the drum for the Weardale railway line and the West Auckland bypass. They will not be funded through this funding settlement, so my question is: will this be the only transport infrastructure spending this side of the next general election, or will there be future rounds that we can bid for?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for campaigning so well for his constituents and for welcoming today’s historic level of funding. He asked whether there would be other funding, outside of today’s announcement for city region mayors for infrastructure and other capital projects. The answer is yes, and the details will come in the spending review next week.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I hugely welcome the £2 billion investment in Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire that has been announced today, because the east midlands has consistently been at the bottom of the table on funding for public transport. Yesterday, along with other Derbyshire MPs, I was pleased to welcome representatives from Arriva, Stagecoach, Trentbarton and TM Travel to Parliament. I know that Mayor Claire Ward will put the money that is coming into the region to good use with those companies. Can the Chief Secretary to the Treasury say how this investment will help to unlock opportunities in the region and meet our net zero ambitions? May I also encourage him not to lose sight of the benefit of midland main line electrification? I know that is not a question for today, but it is very important to people in Derbyshire.
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his brilliant lobbying on behalf of his constituents and the east midlands, and for welcoming the historic level of funding for transport announced today. He is right to point out that this is about not just transport infrastructure but the communities in which people live, livelihoods and the opportunities for them and their families. I know that he will continue to work hard with our brilliant Mayor Claire Ward in the east midlands to turn these numbers into stories that matter for people in his constituency and across the east midlands.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call Jayne Kirkham to ask the last question on the statement.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the transport investment, which is needed in those city regions and spreads the wealth out. Cornwall also has ambitious transport plans, but does not have a large city region for 175 miles. It is very difficult to get public transport to our airport or a direct bus to our one acute hospital. I am also campaigning for a freight rail link for Falmouth, so I am heartened to hear that there will be more transport announcements in the spending review. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirm that that investment will go further down into the south-west? On investment more widely, he has talked about the National Wealth Fund, which we know is dealing in early-stage project development support in areas of the country. Will he confirm that those talks will also go wider than the city regions, so that places such as Cornwall that have political and business partnerships and a strong growth plan will be considered by the National Wealth Fund?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for championing Cornwall and the opportunities it presents to the country. She makes a strong case, alongside her colleagues in Cornwall, for renewable energy, mining and other important parts of our industrial strategy. She knows, and makes the case frequently, that those opportunities will be made available to people only if they can afford to live in places like Cornwall and get around them. That is why this Labour Government are investing in every nation and region of the country. I know that she will be looking forward to further announcements in the spending review next week.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
We are appalled by repeated reports of mass casualty incidents in which Palestinians have been killed when trying to access aid sites in Gaza. Desperate civilians who have endured 20 months of war should never face the risk of death or injury to simply feed themselves and their families. We call for an immediate and independent investigation into these events, and for the perpetrators to be held to account.
It is deeply disturbing that these incidents happened near the new Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution sites. They highlight the utterly desperate need to get aid in. The Israeli Government say they have opened up aid access with their new system, but the warnings raised by the UK, the United Nations, aid partners and the international community about these operations have materialised, and the results are agonising.
Israel’s newly introduced measures for aid delivery are inhumane, foster desperation and endanger civilians. Israel’s unjustified block on aid into Gaza needs to end. It is inhumane. Israel must immediately allow the UN and aid partners to safely deliver all types of aid at scale, to save lives, reduce suffering and maintain dignity. It must ensure that food and other critical supplies can reach people safely, where they are, across all the Gaza strip. Civilians and medical and humanitarian workers and facilities must be protected.
We will continue to be steadfast in our support for the UN and other trusted international non-governmental organisations as the most effective and principled partners for aid delivery. Our support has meant that over 465,000 people have received essential healthcare, 640,000 have received food, and 275,000 have improved access to water, sanitation and hygiene services. Just two weeks ago, the Minister for Development, my noble Friend Baroness Chapman, announced £4 million of additional funding to support the British Red Cross and enable the delivery of humanitarian relief in Gaza through its partner the Palestine Red Crescent Society. That was part of our wider £101 million of support this financial year. Aid must be allowed in so that support can continue.
Today, the UN Security Council is expected to consider a resolution for an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and the lifting of all Israeli restrictions on humanitarian aid, supporting delivery by the United Nations. We will once again use our vote in support of those goals.
Following our leadership in co-ordinating dozens of countries to address the humanitarian situation and the joint statement by the UK, France and Canada, as well as the actions announced by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 20 May, we will continue to convene international partners to increase the pressure and take further steps to address the catastrophic situation on the ground.
We will continue to strongly support the efforts led by the United States, Qatar and Egypt to secure an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. As the Prime Minister has said, a ceasefire is the best way to secure the release of all remaining hostages and achieve a long-term political solution. The Israeli Government’s decision to expand their military operations in Gaza and severely restrict aid undermines all of those goals.
We repeat our utter condemnation of Hamas and our demand that they release all hostages immediately and unconditionally. Hamas can have no role in the future governance of Gaza. A two-state solution is the only way to bring the long-lasting peace, stability and security that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve. We welcome France and Saudi Arabia’s leadership in chairing an international conference later this month. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
The scenes emanating from Gaza are harrowing and the suffering is intolerable. The current situation that we are all witnessing simply cannot continue. The level of humanitarian suffering and desperation continues to be unacceptable, as children, women and their families continue to suffer while desperately trying to secure food and humanitarian aid. The deaths and casualties near aid distribution centres should never have happened. Will the Minister inform the House what discussions have taken place with Israel about those appalling events, the status of any investigations and what action will follow?
Britain must use its influences at every level and bring all allies together. We want peace and stability in the region, including in neighbouring countries, as the current conflict is hurting civilians and a sustainable end to the conflict appears to have moved even further away. Are we working with our Abraham accords partners and regional allies who also want peace, such as Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Qatar?
Britain must leverage its considerable influence in the region to help stop the endless suffering that we are seeing, to get more aid in, to see the hostages released and to end the terminal situation with Hamas to achieve a proper, sustainable end to the conflict and, importantly, work towards a better future for the Palestinian and Israeli people. To that end, will the Minister explain how the Government plan to use the upcoming summit in New York to further those ends?
On humanitarian aid, the Government say that they continue to call for broader aid access. Of course, we support that, but are there practical and specific proposals for the opening of individual crossings and entry points? Have those been presented directly to the Government of Israel? The Minister will know that my noble friend Lord Cameron, working with our allies, previously secured commitments from the Government of Israel to open up the Erez crossing and the port of Ashdod to get aid into Gaza. He will also know that at that time Israel agreed to extend the opening hours of the Kerem Shalom crossing point, and we were able to achieve commitments to increase the number of trucks entering Gaza, which naturally led to an increase in vital aid supplies, including food and medical aid, for innocent Palestinians.
On British aid sitting in the region, the Minister has said in a written answer to me on Monday:
“Quantifying how much is awaiting entry into Gaza is difficult, due to the complex operating environment and limited real-time data.”
We appreciate that, but what more can he do to secure practical information about where UK aid is located, who we can work with to move aid to key locations and what more Britain can do to ensure that UK aid gets to those who are desperately in need of our support?
We know that multilateral institutions, including the World Bank and others, are working on serious plans to deal with immediate, as well as long-term, issues to support the recovery and reconstruction of the economy in Gaza and the west bank. What are the Government doing to support that work and what engagement has the Minister had with those organisations?
Some 58 remaining hostages have now been in cruel captivity for 607 days at the hands of Hamas. They must be released. We are aware of initiatives put forward by the United States and that the latest proposals have been rejected by Hamas. What pressure are the Government exerting on Hamas to get them to reverse their opposition to those plans?
On the west bank, the Government signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority on 28 April, which we debated in the House. Will the Minister update the House on the PA’s progress since that signing on reform and governance, because credible governance is required for long-term stability?
On settlements, the Conservative position is as it was in government and is well understood. Settlements are not helpful for achieving long-term peace and we urge Israel for its part not to take steps that could make a two-state solution more difficult, and to use its legal system to clamp down on settler violence. We support a two-state solution that guarantees security and stability for both the Israeli and Palestinian people.
Finally, we all want to lift people’s lives to a better future, for the Israeli and Palestinian people. To do so, Britain must actively bring our long-standing perspective and influence to bear in the region, with all our allies.
Mr Falconer
I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for her important questions. I confirm that we are working closely with our allies, both in the region and beyond, on this devastating situation. I saw colleagues from Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Qatar at the Madrid conference 10 days ago, and I will be continuing my consultations with them over the coming days, as will the Foreign Secretary.
The right hon. Lady rightly asks about the status of the ceasefire negotiations. I am sure that she is aware that on Sunday I called for Hamas to return to those negotiations. There have been some promising indications that they are doing so, but it remains a very delicate situation and I will update the House with more solid information when I am in a position to do so. We of course want those ceasefire talks to proceed with speed, we want a full release of all hostages and a permanent ceasefire, and we do not want Hamas in control in Gaza. That is the objective of this Government.
The shadow Foreign Secretary also asked an important question about where UK aid is and how much has gone in, and I am grateful for her understanding on those points. I fear much of that aid remains in many of the humanitarian distribution centres outside Gaza—blocked, as it was when I saw it with my own eyes in Egypt.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, but we have been here countless times before. Last week, Israel approved 22 further settlements in the west bank. Israeli Defence Minister Katz claimed it was
“a strategic move that prevents the establishment of a Palestinian state”.
What more evidence do we need to call this exactly what it is: a deliberate policy of annexation and genocide? Will the Government now take the long overdue steps that we have all been calling for for years—namely, the recognition of Palestine, sanctions on extremist Israeli Government Ministers, suspension of all arms sales and suspension of all trade? If we want to see a Palestinian state, we must do something now to prevent its erasure. The history books will not be kind to this Government unless we use every form of leverage at our disposal, and our grandchildren will ask why we effectively stood by while a people were eradicated by bombs, bullets, starvation and, no doubt, the further ethnic cleansing that is still to come. This should shame us all.
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for her question; of course, it was her request for an urgent question this morning that led to this statement. I do not agree with the whole premise of her question, but I assure her that we will continue to convene international partners, to increase pressure and to take further steps, as long as this catastrophic situation remains. We have taken steps since we were first elected; we announced further steps on 20 May, when the Foreign Secretary was at the Dispatch Box; and we will take further steps, which we were clear about in the joint statement between the UK, France and Canada, until the situation improves.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. I spoke yesterday with a British surgeon who has regularly visited Gaza to deliver emergency medical aid. He first reported cases of malnutrition 18 months ago and is deeply anxious about what he will find when he arrives at Nasser hospital in southern Gaza later this month.
People in Gaza are on the brink of starvation. Others are dying daily from gunshot wounds inflicted as they queue for food. The situation is intolerable, and it is deliberate. The policies of Netanyahu’s Government amount to an indiscriminate assault on the Palestinian people. We must get the aid in, we must get the hostages out and we must stop the violent forced displacement of Palestinians in Gaza and in the west bank. That is the only path back to a ceasefire.
The time for timidity is over. Liberal Democrats have consistently called for the Government to take firmer action, and they must do so today. We called for the sanctioning of the extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich 18 months ago. Will the Minister finally commit to implementing those sanctions, showing that we will no longer tolerate calls for Palestinian dispossession? Will the Government make it clear that unless the Israeli Government change course, the UK will expand sanctions to those Ministers and Members of the Knesset who support a continuation of the blockade and the current military action? Will the Government finally ban the export of all UK arms to Israel?
In his response earlier, the Prime Minister said that the Government were working with allies to get aid into Gaza. Can the Minister expand on what options are under consideration and when they could be implemented? Last week’s announcement of 22 new settlements in the west bank—the largest expansion in years—is intolerable. The UK should have no part in this, so will Ministers introduce legislation now to ban all UK trade with the illegal settlements? Will the Government use the conference later this month, together with allies such as France, finally to recognise the state of Palestine, showing beyond doubt the UK’s commitment to Palestinians’ right to self-determination and a two-state solution?
Mr Falconer
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson alludes to some of the commentary of some Israeli Government Ministers. I want to be clear that the UK Government’s issue is with Netanyahu’s Government—it is with the statements and actions of many of those Ministers. As Members will know, I will not discuss from this Dispatch Box sanctions that we might take, but what I will say is that we watch very closely the statements that have come out. We have condemned them repeatedly, and they have not stopped; they have continued. We keep this under very close review.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the International Development Committee.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is no such thing; it is a group of trigger-happy private security employees. Under international law, Israel, as the occupier, has a duty to the people in Gaza. The International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on 19 July 2024 stating that Israel’s
“policies and practices are contrary to the prohibition of forcible transfer of the protected population”
under article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention. The Government have still not given their response to this, and if I were to be very uncharitable—and, hopefully, very wrong—I would say that this has created a limbo whereby the Government are not using their full toolbox of sanctions, prohibitions and legal accountability to hold Israel and indeed Hamas to account. When will the Government act and acknowledge that they have duties under this advisory opinion?
Mr Falconer
We continue to consider the ICJ’s advisory opinion with the seriousness that it deserves. I want to reassure the House that the powers of the Foreign Office are not set by our views on an advisory opinion, which is just that: advisory. We abide by international law in all that we do and our options are not constrained by the fact that we have not yet pronounced a view on the advisory opinion.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
As the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) indicated, we are all frankly getting a bit fed up with the theatrics in this Chamber, and if I am honest with the Minister, it feels like the whole House is being played. He shows up and mouths the words, full of condemnation and saying he is appalled, and very occasionally the Government leak out just enough sanctions in order, frankly—I am afraid to say this, colleagues—to keep the Labour Benches from open revolt.
And yet, since the Minister last appeared here, as others have mentioned, 22 new settlements have been announced, and the Israeli Government have replaced the United Nations Relief and Works Agency distribution system with a shooting gallery—an abattoir, where starving people are lured out through combat zones to be shot at. If the situation were reversed, we would now, quite rightly, be mobilising the British armed forces as part of an international protection force, so here is my question: what is the difference?
Mr Falconer
I hope the right hon. Member will forgive me; he talks of theatrics, whereby I come to the House and provide an update and he delivers a speech saying that we should do more. I remind him and the House that the Labour Government have a profoundly different position towards these issues than the Conservative Government before us. We have taken a series of steps, most recently on 20 May—
Kit Malthouse
Not a single thing has changed—nothing! They are ignoring you now. I am sorry, but they are killing dozens every day—
Mr Falconer
We have taken steps, and we will continue to take steps. We have led the international community in the most recent of those steps. I am, and we are, under no illusion about the severity of the situation that we face.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s comments that Israel’s newly introduced measures for aid delivery are inhumane, foster desperation and endanger civilians. Indeed, in just eight days, 102 Palestinians seeking food have been killed, and 490 have been injured. What discussions is the Minister having with his Israeli counterpart about ensuring the protection of innocent civilians who are accessing lifesaving aid?
Mr Falconer
I regret to inform the House that there is a fundamental disagreement between the British and Israeli Governments about the nature of aid that needs to get into Gaza. We have spoken to them, and we have been clear that the United Nations is ready with a system that works and that is able to deliver aid at the scale required to try to address some of the horrific desperation that we see. The Israeli Government are clearly committed to the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, with all of the problems that we have seen over the last three days.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
The policy of successive UK Governments has been that the United Kingdom will recognise the state of Palestine when it is conducive to the peace process and the ultimate realisation of the two-state solution. Up to this point, I have accepted the argument that the Minister and his predecessors have made that that moment has not yet come. But has not the balance shifted decisively with a succession of moves to greater territorial change in the west bank by increased settlement activity and by increasingly blunt and frequent statements from members of the Israeli Government that they are going to restrict Palestinians to a sub-set of Gaza or restrict them from Gaza all together? That is what has changed my mind such that I now believe that it is necessary for the UK, hopefully in conjunction with others, to recognise the state of Palestine urgently. Why has it not yet changed the Government’s mind?
Mr Falconer
The right hon. and learned Member makes a very powerful point. One reason that the traditional positions of UK Government and many other Governments across the world has been that the recognition of a Palestinian state should come at the end or during a two-state solution process was the hope that we would move towards a two-state solution. Many minds have been changed, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s, because of the rhetoric of the Israeli Government—the clear statements by so many that they are no longer committed to a two-state solution. We see in the press many representatives of the Israeli Government criticising others for considering their position in relation to a Palestinian state. Exactly as the right hon. and learned Member says, it is the action of this Israeli Government that has made so many, including ourselves, review their position on these matters.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
The time has come for us to stop arming Israel in any way whatsoever. This collaborative pool of items that are gathered under the auspices of NATO seems to be a route by which Israel can be supplied. Is it not possible for us to withdraw the right for anything we supply to that collaborative pool to be passed on to Israel, or even to influence our partners in that pool to stop providing any form of weaponry to Israel via that route?
Mr Falconer
Let me first address my hon. Friend’s question about arms more broadly, and then turn to the F-35s. We have taken steps to ensure that weapons directly for use in Gaza have been suspended. As my hon. Friend has outlined, there is a provision in the F-35 programme for a global spares pool, the operation of which we do not control. I understand the argument sometimes made in this House that in fact we could control the final destination of those parts, but that is a point that we refute—it is being debated in the courts, and a judgment is forthcoming on the question of whether or not the final destination of F-35 parts could indeed be determined. I am afraid that I have nothing further to add on that point.
However, I want to be clear to the House—as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security was on Monday evening—that the arms suspensions that we have introduced are far-reaching. Some reports have suggested that we have not taken far-reaching action, and that significant arms are still reaching the Israel Defence Forces, but that is simply factually not true. The sale of items that are controlled by the arms licensing criteria continues, as we still judge that many military-grade items—for example, body armour for non-governmental organisations—are appropriate to be traded with Israel, because they will go to NGOs that are going in.
It is also true that we are trading components that will end up in use outside of Israel, in the arsenal of NATO allies. For example, of the £127.5 million of export licences that have been approved subsequent to our decision, £120 million of them were for components for a NATO ally, not for Israel. There is considerable confusion about that point, so I wanted to take the opportunity to clarify it.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Securing a ceasefire is vital, securing the release of the remaining hostages is vital, and getting aid through to the suffering people of Gaza is an absolute moral imperative. The Israeli Government need to ensure the safe delivery of that aid, and if they do not, the members of that Government should suffer immediate and severe consequences—no more prevarication. Will the Minister also make an assessment of what the impact of cuts to the United Kingdom’s aid budget has been on the ability to deliver aid in Gaza and elsewhere, and will he work with his UN colleagues to ensure that all the resources that this Government could possibly provide to the United Nations get through, so that aid gets through and stops the dying and the suffering?
Mr Falconer
To be clear, the issue with aid getting into Gaza is not the availability of aid. The cuts we have announced have had no bearing on whether or not aid can get into Gaza—I know that because I have seen our aid with my very own eyes in warehouses in al-Arish. We must remain focused on the central issue, which is neither the availability of aid nor the availability of partners, such as the United Nations, that are prepared to go in and deliver it; it is that the Israeli Government have effectively put in place a blockade. That is the central issue that must be addressed.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Almost eight months ago, the UN commission of inquiry found that Israel has implemented a concerted effort to dismantle the healthcare system in Gaza, and that the killing and disappearance of healthcare workers amounts to the crime of extermination. UK doctors in Gaza describe it as a “slaughterhouse”. With the growing mountain of evidence detailing war crimes taking place, and our diplomatic efforts being totally ignored by the Israeli Government, it is time to sanction Benjamin Netanyahu and the other murderous figures who are responsible. Words are not enough, so today—here, now, in this Chamber—I would like the Minister to give us a concrete date for when we can expect this Government to impose sanctions.
Mr Falconer
I hear the frustration of the House. I am sure that other Members will also raise the deeply distressing reports that there have been in recent days, and indeed going even further back, in both the west bank and in Gaza. Let me be clear, as the Prime Minister was clear with France and Canada: if Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions in this place. [Hon. Members: “When?”] I will not say from the Dispatch Box today when that might be.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I concur entirely with the views expressed by the two Privy Counsellors on the Conservative Back Benches who have already spoken, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). For weeks we have been listening to fine words from Government Front Benchers, and we have seen a lot of handwringing and a vast amount of inactivity. The question that everybody in this Chamber is asking of the Minister is “When?” Yesterday, as he knows, four of us tried to deliver a letter to Downing Street calling for the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine. We were not even allowed to deliver that letter. The time has come to act now. There is a route from Larnaca in Cyprus straight into Gaza—use it! Let us save these children.
Mr Falconer
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the force of his remarks. I hear so many colleagues say that they are fed up with my words, which is gentle, but on 20 May we announced concrete actions. I am telling the House this afternoon that further actions will come if there are not changes. [Hon. Members: “When?”] I will return to the House when I am in a position to do so. I hear everybody’s frustration, but let us not pretend that the UK’s position has not changed—that it has not continued to change. It will continue to change while the situation remains as it is.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
A genocide case against Israel is before the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants against Prime Minister Netanyahu and others. In its 2007 judgment, the ICJ made it clear that a nation’s duty to prevent genocide begins when it becomes aware that there is a serious risk. On Monday, in response to my written question, the Minister confirmed that almost all of Gaza
“faces a critical risk of famine”,
with half a million innocent people facing starvation. We know that is caused by Israel’s months-long blockade of aid, so has the Minister been satisfactorily notified that there is a serious risk of genocide occurring in Palestine, and will he ensure that the Government take all steps to meet our obligations to prevent genocide?
Mr Falconer
We abide by all of our international legal obligations and keep these matters under rapid review. My hon. Friend rightly highlights the risks of malnutrition and famine in Gaza, as identified by the integrated food security phase classification. We take very serious note of all of these reports as they come out.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I cannot help but feel that the Minister is treating Members with a significant level of contempt by telling us that something will happen, but not telling us what that will be or when it will happen. On a more acute point, can he perhaps clarify for the House why he believes it is consistent for his Government to condemn the Israeli Government for starving a civilian population while at the same time providing them with the component parts to bomb a civilian population?
Mr Falconer
I am surprised that the right hon. Member thinks that there is any question as to why Foreign Office Ministers might need to leave some degree of ambiguity about when they take actions, including all the ones that have been discussed this afternoon, such as sanctions. These principles of why we might want to do things without pre-notifying the House of each and every step are relatively well-established, I think, but I am happy to discuss in further detail why we do that. On the point about F-35 components, where we know that they are going to Israel, we are suspending that. It is only because we are not able to control the onward transmission of the global spares pool that this at least theoretical risk exists.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for all the work he is doing and the endless number of statements he has had to make on these horrific issues. I absolutely agree with him and support him in calling for both Israel and Hamas to make sure that all humanitarian aid is available and gets to innocent Palestinians, who desperately need it. The best way that we can solve this problem is through a ceasefire. Will he join me in expressing regret that after Israel accepted the Witkoff framework proposals for a ceasefire, Hamas decided to turn them down? We must put as much pressure as possible on Hamas to move forward with the ceasefire as soon as possible.
Mr Falconer
On Sunday I was clear that Hamas should engage in ceasefire talks, should return to the table and should release all hostages. A ceasefire is desperately needed and is the only route forward.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Studied ambiguity of what and when has had no impact on Israeli policy. We want to know, and Israel needs to know, precisely what the Government mean by “further steps”.
Mr Falconer
The right hon. Member will appreciate that in our private discussions with Israel we have been clear about the depth of feeling across the whole country, and indeed in this House, and we have been clear about the nature of further steps coming.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I am sure the Minister can sense the frustration across the House and from all parties. I support their frustration. We were at a meeting yesterday with the former UN secretary-general for human rights, Andrew Gilmour. He said that the lack of action that the international community is taking now on this issue reminded him of the lack of action during the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s. That is a lesson we all should closely heed. I will not ask the Minister everything that everybody else has asked about sanctions and recognition—he knows where I stand on that. I will ask him about the coalition of the willing for Palestine, as we have a coalition of the willing for Ukraine. How are we building up our international allies to ensure that recognition and everything else that needs to happen has an international consensus? Again, we are looking at days, not weeks and months.
Mr Falconer
I just want to acknowledge for my hon. Friend that we recognise that this conflict is being measured in hours and days, not weeks and months, and it is on those timelines that we seek to take action. On the question of a coalition of the willing, we are working with our allies, as I am sure she is aware. We convened the statement of 26 on humanitarian action and the leaders’ statement of three, to which I referred earlier in my statement. We will continue to work broadly. I can confirm that even today I have been working on those questions.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The UK Government have an obligation under international law to do everything possible to prevent genocide, yet we see genocide occurring in Gaza. The Minister assured the House a month ago that he was conducting a risk assessment on genocide in Gaza. Will he give me a clear, unambiguous, straight answer today? Will he publish his most recent genocide risk assessment without delay?
Mr Falconer
As this House has heard from me before, the question that we assessed in relation to international humanitarian law was whether there a real risk of a breach of IHL. That was the assessment we made when we first entered government. That is a considerably lower bar than the questions to which the hon. Member refers. We continue to make those assessments, which cover the entirety of international humanitarian law. We have updated the House on that initial assessment, which is at a rather lower bar than she is suggesting, and the assessment broadly remains in place. We will not provide further updates, but if the position changes, I will be sure to return to the House.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate the Minister coming back to the Chamber, but as he can see from the strength of numbers here, this is an issue that will not go away.
The Minister just outlined to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, that we are measuring this in hours and days, not weeks and months. There is only one kidney dialysis unit left in Gaza, and the World Health Organisation reports that the number of machines has decreased, with just 27 left in northern Gaza. My late mum had renal failure. She was on dialysis three times a week. It is not hours and days; it is minutes, Minister. People are literally surviving or dying within minutes.
Many people—women and children—are still buried under rubble. A number of us have spoken about the lack of aid going in, and the fact that aid is being used as a weapon of punishment. What more do we need to say for us to see concrete and more visible action from this Government? We are getting emails from our constituents. We need to see an end to some of the weapons going through, a process which the UK is still supporting. We need clearer guidance on sanctions, because Israel is not listening to us.
Mr Falconer
I recognise that when we talk in this Chamber about aid restrictions, it can seem like an abstract concept. My hon. Friend is right about what that looks like, person to person. There are terrible shortages of all kinds of desperately needed items that preserve life and dignity, and nothing about the last few days indicates that the new aid measures are doing anywhere near enough to try to avert that tragedy. We not only make our own assessments, but pay careful heed to the assessments of others. I was a diplomat before. The International Committee of the Red Cross is a sober organisation that is not prone to strong statements, and the statement that it has made in recent days about the conditions in Gaza is sobering reading. We are under no illusions about the urgency and the gravity of the situation. I was pleased to be with the Foreign Secretary on 20 May when he announced further measures. We have been clear that further measures will come. We are trying, as the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) has asked us, to persuade the Israelis to change course. If they do not, we will return to this House.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I listened carefully to the answer that the Minister gave to the right and proper question from the hon. Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) just now. Will the Minister not accept that simply calling for Hamas to go back to the negotiating table is nowhere near strong enough? For there to be accuracy in this debate, it must be publicly and clearly acknowledged that the only blocker to a ceasefire deal that will get the hostages out, and the bodies returned of those hostages who have died, is Hamas.
Mr Falconer
We have condemned Hamas. I have condemned Hamas repeatedly, and we will continue to do so. A ceasefire clearly requires two parties. We welcomed Israel’s return to the ceasefire negotiations. We called on Hamas to do the same. We are glad to hear that there seems to have been some progress. We will continue to press all sides on this point until we have a ceasefire.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Yesterday, the United Nations human rights chief, Volker Türk—this must have broken everyone’s heart in this place—said:
“Palestinians have been presented the grimmest of choices: die from starvation or risk being killed while trying to access the meagre food that is being made available through Israel’s militarised humanitarian assistance mechanism.”
I feel like a broken record. What concrete actions will we take in this place, so that the Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and does something to change Israel’s psyche so that it listens to the world?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend asks me to change the Government of Israel’s psyche. We have been clear with the Israeli Government about the extent of our disagreement. Anyone who has closely followed the communications between me and my Israeli counterparts will see that there is a profound disagreement in approach. We do everything we can to try to persuade our long-standing ally why the steps that it is taking are such grave mistakes—not just for the region and for the Palestinians, but ultimately for the Israelis themselves. Our disagreement is with the Government, not the Israeli themselves. It will be with regret if I return shortly to this House to announce further steps, but I will do so, given the strength of our feeling on these matters.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
As the Minister has acknowledged, Israel’s alternative aid scheme is dangerous, unworkable and profoundly insufficient. There is aid waiting on the border—UK aid that my constituents have paid for. You know the Palestinian people’s desperation. You have heard the desperation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady said “you” twice.
Monica Harding
The Minister has heard the Palestinian people’s desperation. He has heard the desperation in this Chamber. What new pressure will he bring to bear on Israel to open the aid routes? What is the alternative plan? The Minister has asked for an independent inquiry into what went on in Rafah. Will he insist that the Israeli Government let the BBC and independent journalists into Gaza so that we know what is going on?
Mr Falconer
The hon. Lady makes an important point about the lack of international media in Gaza and the hotly contested nature of events there. It is not just me who has called for an independent investigation; the UN Secretary-General has as well. That reflects the degree of concern within the United Nations system about enabling the media to their job.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
Minister, if we do not recognise Palestine, it will cease to exist, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker). Israel has approved another 22 settlement sites in the occupied west bank—the biggest expansion in decades. It violates international law. Minister, Louis Theroux’s incredible documentary “The Settlers”, which I will be showing today—he is in Parliament today—highlights the grim reality of the settlers’ mindset. Minister, you must agree that it is time that we have a strong debate. You cannot persuade—
Dawn Butler
The passion is overtaking me, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Minister, do you not agree that we need—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. People keep addressing the Minister as “Minister”. They should be asking their questions through the Chair. The hon. Lady should say, “Does he agree?”
Dawn Butler
Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Does the Minister agree that it has gone far enough, and that we must have this debate and say we will apply sanctions to Israel? No more arms should go to Israel. We must see the Palestinians as people and help them to survive.
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friends, who are just trying to make me, as a new Member of the House, feel that everybody makes mistakes. I am also grateful for that important question. As my hon. Friend knows, we have taken action against the settlers in the documentary and others. I recognise that the situation in Gaza and the west bank remains awful. We have condemned the 22 settlements that were announced over the recess. We have been clear that further steps will be taken, and I will be happy to return to the House when I am in a position to do so.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister says he hears the frustration of the House, but do the Government hear the cries of Gaza’s orphaned children and the cries of the children who have had their loved ones literally blown to bits in front of them, who will be maimed for life? I have been at many of these statements before. I am grateful for what the Minister said, and I also put on the record that I am grateful for what the shadow Foreign Secretary said, but the reality is that aid is not getting through. There were 400 UN stations before, but there are now only a handful. They are in combat zones, and people are unable to access the aid. Every single day, men, women and children are being impacted through a lack of food, access to aid, access to medical supplies, and access to fuel so that they can actually cook some of the food—some very practical issues. I do not support the new way of delivering aid—it should be done by the UN—but if that is going to be the case, what more can the Minister do with the Americans to ensure that there are more aid stations in more places so that more people can access aid, in order to save lives?
Mr Falconer
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s words. There are clearly profound issues with the new aid distribution mechanism. That is not just the view of the British Government; it is clearly the view of the GHF itself, given that it has suspended operations after three very bloody days. Exactly as the right hon. Gentleman says, there are insufficient aid distribution centres and very dangerous crowds, and we have seen terrible violence associated with the distributions. I would be very happy if there was a mechanism in place at this moment that could provide aid properly, but waiting on the outskirts of Gaza—in al-Arish and elsewhere—is a United Nations operation with more than 18 months’ experience of doing that and making sure that everybody gets the aid they need. We must not delay. We have both the aid and the delivery partners—we should let them in.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
The barbarism of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Government against the Palestinian people is beyond belief. We should not be negotiating trade deals with the Israeli Government, we should not have trade envoys on the ground, and we should not delay recognition of the state of Palestine. The Business and Trade Committee, backed by my hon. Friend the Members for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), is determined to get to the bottom of UK arms exports. I am grateful to the Business Minister for confirming last night that he will appear before the Committee before the summer recess. Can the Minister confirm tonight that a Foreign Office Minister will be alongside him?
Mr Falconer
I make it a habit not to confirm the schedules of my ministerial colleagues. Of course, it is the Minister for Europe—who has responsibility for the overall licensing regime—who has appeared before my right hon. Friend’s Committee. Let me be clear to the House: there is no effort to conceal our position on arms licences. We have set it out to this House on a number of occasions. The Minister for Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lothian East (Mr Alexander), set out some of the numbers on Monday. We have taken exceptional measures to try to show more transparency than is usual about the arms licensing regime. We are having that discussion not just in this place, but in the courts. There is no effort on the part of this Government to be anything other than transparent—not only with this House, but with the Israeli Government themselves—about the nature of our decisions.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
We can all see that a genocide is happening in Gaza, and it is about time that this Government called it out for what it is. We are witnessing the systematic dismantling of Gaza’s healthcare system, and the Red Cross has described the situation as “hell on Earth”. What are this Government doing to prevent Gaza’s healthcare system from being decimated further, and to re-establish hospitals and lifesaving medical services?
Mr Falconer
The truth is that while the aid blockade remains in place, there is very little that any outside partner can do to ensure proper health services in Gaza—I will not mislead the House by suggesting that there is. The aid that has come in from the GHF is far too little and far too geographically concentrated to be able to provide the kind of provision to which Gazans are entitled and that they should have, and it is a clear necessity under international humanitarian law.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
On 20 May, the Foreign Secretary informed this House that a free trade agreement with Israel was being suspended. Less than a week after that announcement, the UK’s trade envoy to Israel was in Israel. The Minister, in his opening statement, said:
“We call for an immediate and independent investigation into these events, and for the perpetrators to be held to account.”
We know who the perpetrators are. What evidence does he need from an independent inquiry? Why does he not take action by suspending the UK’s trade envoy to prevent him from going to Israel? Why does he not back the 800 lawyers, retired senior judges and academics who wrote to the Prime Minister earlier this week to ask for article 6 of the United Nations charter to be invoked, and for Israel to be expelled as a member state of the United Nations?
Mr Falconer
The call for an independent investigation began with the UN Secretary-General, given, as I said earlier, his concerns about aid provision. The UK supports the vital humanitarian role of the UN, and that is why we have echoed his calls.
On the question of the trade envoy’s visit, let me be clear that we suspended negotiations on a future free trade agreement with Israel, but we did not suspend all trade with Israel, as I think the House knows. The trade envoy had no scheduled meetings with Israeli officials, but made his visit as part of his regular duties, because trade continues between Israel and the UK. I am not sure it is entirely fair to link the visit of a trade envoy with the horrific events at aid distribution centres in recent days.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister will be well aware that Hamas have threatened to execute any Palestinian who dares to take aid from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. He will also probably be aware that there are strong reports that desperate Palestinians are breaking into Hamas-controlled warehouses that are stocked to the eaves with the aid we have provided. We all want to see the aid provided to the Palestinian people, so what plan does he have to convince the Israeli Government that if aid is flooded into Gaza, it will actually reach the people who need it, rather than be taken away and stockpiled by Hamas?
Mr Falconer
We are clear that, in our view, the United Nations and its partners have a clear mechanism to ensure that humanitarian need is met, and to prevent diversion to Hamas. We obviously condemn any credible reports of Hamas diverting aid, but those reports should not be a reason why aid is not provided to the Palestinian people. There are tried, trusted and credible mechanisms for distributing the aid that is waiting to get in, as it should.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
The International Red Cross chief has said that Gaza is
“worse than hell on earth”.
Is it any wonder that he did, when those children who have escaped bombs face death from starvation? The United Nations has said that one in five people in Gaza faces starvation because of the blockade. Does the Minister agree with me that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is clearly incapable of addressing the starvation in Gaza—that is now very clear—and that Israel should immediately hand over any aid operation to the United Nations?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. I think I have been clear on that point, but yes, the United Nations should deliver the aid, in the principled way that it has previously.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Ward Jalal is a six-year-old Palestinian girl who, last week, crawled out of a burning school, leaving behind her mother and two siblings, who burned to death. I mention Ward because she is Palestinian. Last month, there was Al-Haq’s case against the Government. By September 2024, 40,000 innocent Palestinian men, women and children, like Ward and her family, were killed. The Government reviewed 413 cases and found one possible breach of international law, which was the killing of volunteers at the World Central Kitchen. Do the Government have any regard for children like Ward and the Palestinian people?
Mr Falconer
Of course we have regard to and concerns for Palestinian people. The questions at issue in the assessment of risk are complicated legal ones. They are complicated because the corpus of international humanitarian law ends up relying a great deal on what is in the mind of a commander when they make a decision. International humanitarian law is tightly constrained, and it is difficult to make conclusions about what is in the mind of a commander who will not share their thoughts with us. That is why, when we make determinations, we consider other limbs of international humanitarian law. We are not saying that in all the cases, the action was proportional and necessary to meet the military objectives, but where we cannot determine that, we can look to other limbs. Those limbs include the obligations on an occupying power relating to the provision of aid and the treatment of detainees. Those are easier tests to meet, because they do not require knowing what is the mind of a commander.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I am planning to run this statement for a further 30 minutes, but Members should think carefully about how many of their colleagues they wish to help to get in, and ask short questions—and short responses, please.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Let us be short and frank, then. For many of us in this House, this is no longer complicated. Time has run out for claiming ambiguity of action. Since 20 May, we have seen 22 more settlements. It is deliberately made dangerous for people to access aid, and the Israel Defence Forces have declared the roads to the aid distribution centres “combat zones”. The Minister says that the Government have raised concerns and have called for immediate independent investigations, but those have not happened—not just in this incident, but repeatedly. He will not tell us what he will do. This is on the consciences of us all, so we have to ask him to be clearer. Will he tell us what is not on the table? Will he rule out things? He has told us that he is talking about the future, but will he rule out immediate recognition of Palestine, which many of us have been calling for, the sanctions that many of us have been calling for, and a final resolution of the F-35 farce? If he does, at least we will get sense of where this is going.
Mr Falconer
I will return to this House when I have further announcements.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Parishioners in the Matlaske benefice have raised over £3,000 to support the people of Gaza. They were visited last year by a priest from Bethlehem, who shared how this conflict is impacting people there. They hope for the return of the hostages, and for peace for the Palestinian people. I will not ask the Minister to repeat his answer to the question, “when?”, but will he confirm to them that the tools that he is considering using as a next step include sanctions against extremist Government Ministers, and formal recognition of a Palestinian state?
Mr Falconer
I pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member’s constituents. So many of our constituents, including mine in Lincoln, are doing so much to keep these issues in people’s minds, and to raise funds. I will not be drawn on what further steps may be taken. We were clear in the leaders’ statement that they could include targeted sanctions, so he can assure his constituents that that remains under review.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Members have tried to reach for the right words to describe what the Palestinians are facing. It is incredibly difficult to convey that within the constraints of parliamentary and diplomatic language. I will not go over any of the ground that colleagues have covered, but does the Minister agree that it is completely unacceptable on every level to pair aid with military objectives? Will he assure the House that when we as a Government consider where next we go on Israel, the unacceptability of those tactics will be taken on board?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend, who has raised these issues with me many times and is very focused on them. I completely agree with what he says. Aid must be delivered in a principled way. That is vital not just in the middle east, but across the entire world. We take these issues very seriously, and we raise them with force with the Israeli Government.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
In 10, 20 or 50 years, none of us wants to look back and say that we could have done more. As of December, there were 191 licences for the export of military equipment to Israel. Fewer than half of them were for the IDF and the Israeli Government. What comfort does the Minister have that the military equipment going to Israel is not being used to expand settlements on the west bank, is not being used by the civilian staff working at aid centres, and is not being used to worsen the situation for the Palestinian people?
Mr Falconer
I thank the hon. Member for that important question. We take these issues very seriously. Our arms export licensing criteria and systems are among the toughest in the world, and we work very carefully to ensure that the words that the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and I say at this Dispatch Box are followed all the way through, in every decision that we make. In some cases, it is absolutely obvious from the licence that the exports could not be used in the way that the hon. Member describes—for example, components for submarines cannot be used in Gaza—but we do take enormous care over these questions.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
A noble Friend from the other place reminded me of a conversation that she overheard me having with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) in October 2023. Israel had begun bombing the civilian population in the Gaza strip, and my hon. Friend asked, “When will they say something?” As I often do, I said the first thing that came to my mind: “When they level it to the ground.” I have to ask the Minister if that is the change that we are waiting for, because I have asked what our red lines are, and it seems that we have none. History will not look kindly on those who perpetuate genocide, or those who assist it, whether through the sale of arms or through sheer inaction. Does the Minister accept that this is now us? The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) pointed to actions that we might take; I have to ask: why are these actions not good enough for the people of Palestine? How many more people will have to die before we do something?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend asks me if I accept that this is us; I do not accept that this is us. We are in a very serious disagreement with the Israeli Government about the conduct of the conflict. That disagreement is ongoing, and is strongly felt. Their policy on Gaza and the west bank is not the British Government’s policy. Not only have I condemned it, but the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have done so repeatedly. I hear the frustration of the House about further measures, but let us accept that the British and Israeli Governments disagree profoundly on this question, that the disagreement between us is deeply felt, and that British policy is as it is, and is not what the Netanyahu Government are doing.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Hundreds of my constituents have written to me expressing their desperation and horror at the hellish scenes coming out of Gaza, so I speak here on their behalf. It is clear that the Israeli Government aspire to wipe Palestine off the map, as they expand their settlement ambitions with impunity. They do not care that Ministers in Whitehall are watching their statements. Until Palestine is recognised as a state, the dispossession of land and homes by Israel will continue. Why will the Government not stand up now and, alongside our allies Spain, Norway and Ireland, recognise Palestine as a state?
Mr Falconer
I recognise the concern of many constituents across the country, including in the hon. Lady’s constituency. We are obviously in close touch with our counterparts. I was talking to my Spanish counterpart on Sunday, and at the Madrid conference I was with my Irish counterparts, and those from the other nations the hon. Lady mentions—and from a whole set of states—that have recognised a Palestinian state. I recognise the desire right across this House, I think, for further steps in that area. Whatever we do, I am sure that this House will press me on the continued horrors in Gaza. In everything we do, we are focused on trying to make an impact on the scenes that our constituents are seeing. We are considering these matters, but we are focused on trying to reduce the suffering in Gaza today.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s update to the House, but he will know that we see not only the horror and inhumane violence of the Israeli Government in Gaza, but aggression on the west bank. I welcome the Government’s condemnation of the 22 new settlements, and look forward to hearing words about the forced transfer from Palestinian villages that we are seeing this week. The Minister recognises the anger and frustration in this House; what more would he need to see happen before we took further action on sanctions against extremist Ministers, and took action to recognise Palestine at the UN conference in coming weeks?
Mr Falconer
The 22 settlements are not only appalling but illegal. We put in place sanctions against individuals and organisations on 20 May. Clearly, that has not deterred Minister Smotrich and others from continuing to try to expand settlements on the west bank. The viability of a two-state solution, and of the two states living side by side, is being undermined, and we will continue to take action to avert that.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The Minister rightly called for an independent inquiry into Israel’s behaviour in denying food, medicine and vital aid to the people of Gaza. In the same spirit, would he welcome an independent inquiry into the British Government’s policies in relation to F-35 jet parts, for example, because this seems to be becoming ever more mysterious? Apparently they are sold into the global supply chain, but we have no control over what happens to them; they might end up in the hands of Israel, or they might not. Is he seriously expecting the House to believe that the manufacturers of these components do not trace them, do not track them, do not label them, do not identify them? I think the Government know exactly where those parts are going and exactly that they are enabling those F-35 jets to bomb Gaza and take part in acts of genocide. Does this not deserve an independent inquiry?
Mr Falconer
We have talked about these issues many times. They are in the high courts being discussed in a judicial review at the moment. I do not see that this could be any further scrutinised and litigated or what an independent inquiry on the position of the F-35 parts would achieve.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I was very proud to join thousands of protesters surrounding Parliament today, demanding to know what this Government’s red line is. Can the Minister tell this House what his red line is, and when he will stop arming Israel and stop F-35 bombers dropping bombs on schools and killing innocent children?
Mr Falconer
I think I have addressed most of those substantive points already. We are clear in our position: we have set it out repeatedly, privately and publicly, and no doubt I will be back in the House shortly.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Under the UK strategic export licence criteria, licences are prohibited when there is a clear risk that items would undermine peace and security or, under criteria 7, where the controlled items might be diverted for such uses. Can the Minister confirm that the export of all items, both those with licences and those that sit outside the rules or that have authorised exemptions, is being reviewed so that, for instance, drones for decoys and surveillance used against civilians and aid convoys will fall under the restrictions and not go under the radar?
Mr Falconer
I hesitate in my answer because there are quite a few clauses in the question and I do not want to get it wrong. The effect of what I have said in Parliament binds all our export licences. There is not an asterisk or footnote that allows some way around; this is a full-reaching approach that has been set out repeatedly in Parliament and has been scrutinised by the Business and Trade Committee and the courts. There is no attempt to fudge the position; it is as I have set out.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)
I recognise the Minister’s personal dedication to this issue and his efforts in achieving a ceasefire, but it is impossible to conclude that this is anything less than a genocide. On that basis, will he reflect the will of this House to the Foreign Secretary and the Cabinet that sanctions be imposed immediately on Netanyahu and his genocidal regime?
Mr Falconer
I know my right hon. Friend is committed to these issues. Determinations of genocide are for a competent court. I can confirm, as I did to the hon. Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), that we are considering further targeted sanctions in line with the three leaders’ statement of recent weeks.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Dr al-Najjar along with nine of his 10 children were murdered when an Israeli bomb hit their home. All this happened while his wife, another doctor, served at Nasser hospital. We all know, and we have all seen, the many thousands of men, women and children lined up in a cage for food shot as if it was some sort of hunting game. We know also that former President Biden’s spokesman, Mr Miller, said to Sky during an interview that he had no doubt there were war crimes but that he did not say so, even though he was aware of it, when Biden was in power. Does the Minister fear that he finds himself in the same position, and if he does not, why does he not do what the thousands encircling this Parliament have asked to be done and stop the arms to Israel?
Mr Falconer
With respect, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to these issues, it was not the badge or the protest that stopped the arms to Gaza. It was the Labour Government. That was the effect of voting for a Labour Government and having a Labour Government. [Interruption.] I hear the frustration of the House. I have set out what we have done so far. I have been clear that we will go further. The badge is nice, but action is what matters and that is what the Labour Government have done.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The president of the International Committee of the Red Cross has described the situation in Gaza today as worse than hell on earth, but the Minister has come to the House today with a message that is exactly the same as it was two weeks ago. He condemns the settlements, but settlement goods are still being sold in our shops. He supports a two-state solution, but he has not recognised a Palestinian state. He disagrees with the Israeli Government, but he will not sanction their extremist Ministers. It is clear that the Government of Benjamin Netanyahu are not listening to the Minister’s words. In the context of the slaughter and starvation we are seeing in Gaza, the Government’s position is, frankly, not good enough. When will there be further action?
Mr Falconer
I would not want the House to have the impression that Foreign Office Ministers and the whole of the Government were not focused on these issues during the recess. We made statements on Sunday. We are working closely with our partners. We made a clear statement—on 19 May, I think—to the Israeli Government that there would be further consequences should the situation not improve, and I will return to this House when I am in a position to make further announcements.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Can the Minister tell me how many more children must die before the Government finally ban the sales and export of all UK arms, including component parts, to the murderous Netanyahu Government?
Mr Falconer
I have seen children in Gaza. My Department was able to get two of them out of Gaza last week. [Interruption.] I understand the frustration of the House, but do not give the impression that what this Government are doing is not deeply focused on the fate of children in Gaza. I hear those on the Opposition Benches laughing; of course getting two children out of Gaza is not enough. We hear the reports across the House, but we are doing everything we can and we will continue to do so.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Minister referred to the joint statement with France and Canada on 20 May. Things have got worse since that point. Food distribution has been blocked entirely, hunger is being used as a weapon and innocent Palestinians are paying the price. If that statement is to hold up, will the Minister say what action he will be taking with France and Canada?
Mr Falconer
I cannot bind the French and Canadian Governments from the Dispatch Box, but we were clear that targeted sanctions would follow, among other actions, if there was not an improvement. I can commit to the House that that remains under review and I will return to this place to provide a further announcement.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The Prime Minister failed today to answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara). Do the Government believe Israel is committing a genocide—yes or no?
Mr Falconer
It is a long-standing position that that is for a competent court to determine.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
The approach of the so-called Gaza Humanitarian Foundation flies in the face of every established principle of humane and effective aid delivery, as has become quickly apparent. The head of the organisation has resigned and at least 42 Palestinians have been killed—killed—for simply trying to feed their starving families. That is an affront to all of us and to the basic principles of human dignity and respect. Does the Minister agree that there has to be full accountability for these atrocities?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend was an aid worker and she understands better than most the vital importance of those principles, not just in the middle east but right across the world. I join her and the Secretary-General in their calls.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Men, women and children in Gaza do not care that our Government have a profound disagreement with the Israeli Government. The Israeli Government do not care either, because they are continuing to act with impunity. It is quite simple: there is a genocide in Gaza being committed by the Israeli Government. We are complicit in that genocide. We have the power to act and we are not acting. What are we waiting for? Why have we not sanctioned Israel for its war crimes? Why have we not implemented a full arms embargo, including on F-35 fighter jet parts? Why have we not recognised the state of Palestine? We can do it, because rightly we did it for Ukraine. Why are we not treating Palestinian lives as equal?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. She mentions Ukraine. Our actions have consequences. I understand that the House may disagree about the position the Government have set out about the global spares pool, but it is the strongly held view of this Government, including the Ministry of Defence, that we cannot stop sales to the global spares pool without harming the defence of NATO allies. At a moment of critical vulnerability for European security, the Government have to act responsibly across all their interests. Where F-35 parts are going directly to Israel they are suspended, but we want the F-35 programme to continue not only for reasons of our own national security, but that of our allies, including Ukraine.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The horrific historic tragedy of the Palestinian people, and particularly the people of Gaza, is that they are at the mercy of two sets of extremists: the extremists of Hamas, but also the extremists of this Israeli Government. National Security Minister Ben-Gvir said giving aid to Gaza is
“a…mistake…delaying our victory.”
Finance Minister Smotrich said, “we are liberating Gaza” and “settling” it. The Minister talks about further steps. Surely, now is the time for us to sanction those individuals in the Israeli Government to prove that we do not endorse such extremism?
Mr Falconer
Let me be clear from this Dispatch Box: we do not endorse such extremism. I will not speculate about sanctions from the Dispatch Box, but it is clear that should the situation not improve, targeted sanctions will be considered.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I appreciate that, as Minister of State, my hon. Friend is limited in what he can say from the Dispatch Box, but will he convey back to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister the extreme disquiet and unease across the House, particularly on the Labour Benches, about the position the Government are adopting? Will he ask the Prime Minister to come back next week to update the Government’s position, tell us that more sanctions will be considered and that the recognition of the Palestinian state is also now on the agenda and will be forwarded?
Mr Falconer
The whole Government, from the Prime Minister down, know the extent of concern. I am not sure that they necessarily watch all these appearances, but do not be under any illusion: the whole Government understand the strength of feeling about these issues in this House, in our constituencies and across the country.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
As if this situation could not get any worse, we now have damning reports that Israeli fire is killing Palestinians trying to access aid at militarised distribution centres that are not sanctioned by the UN. It shows complete disregard for human life. Does the Minister agree that enough is enough, and that now is the time to take immediate, stronger, further action against the Israeli Government?
Mr Falconer
I share my hon. Friend’s concern over events at the Rafah crossing and beyond. The scenes from Gaza are intolerable. I will return to this House when I am in a position to do so.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is clear that this House has no confidence in the Government’s handling of the F-35 programme. I ask the Minister the following question: what is to stop the Government withdrawing from the programme and then bilaterally selling the parts to countries excluding Israel? This would ensure that we are compliant with international humanitarian law, and that no component manufactured in the UK is used to bomb innocent civilians in Gaza.
Mr Falconer
A unilateral withdrawal from the F-35 programme would have the effect of fully suspending the programme at a time it is required for global peace and security.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
It is a disgrace that the Foreign Secretary is not here, but it is unsurprising. The majority of the British public support a full arms embargo on Israel, yet this Labour Government have continued to supply arms exports, including components for lethal F-35 fighter jets, thereby enabling genocide. Those jets are not used in Ukraine, so Ministers need to stop saying that at the Dispatch Box. The Government have also defended this indefensible policy in court, claiming they have seen “no evidence” of genocide. The evidence is overwhelming—we know it, the Minister knows it and the Government know it. Does the Minister understand that through the decisions he makes every single day, he is personally complicit in genocide?
Mr Falconer
I would like to address the point about F-35s not being used in Ukraine. The importance of the F-35 programme to Ukraine is that the deployment of F-35s allows a redeployment of F-15s, which are used in the defence of Ukraine. Convenient though it would be to the House, it is not possible to divide up defence and national security in that way. I am confident in what I say from the Dispatch Box: the F-35 programme helps to protect Ukraine.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and his efforts, but he must sense our frustration at the inability to arrest the situation we are seeing in Gaza and the occupied territories. In the past few days, we have seen 58 people killed and many more injured in and around the GHF aid distribution sites. Those of us who have participated in UN operations in the past know that this should have been foreseen—it confirms all our fears about what happens when humanitarian principles are disregarded. Let us be clear: Israel is continually and deliberately undermining the institutions of international law, and we need to respond more strongly. Israel is not listening. When will the Government announce sanctions on Israel’s extremist Government?
Mr Falconer
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend, who served for a long time in the RAF, as well as in the United Nations. These issues are desperate. As he knows, we have taken actions against Israeli settlers and extremists, and we have been clear that if the Israeli Government do not change course, there will be further measures, including targeted sanctions.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is clear to all that the actions of the Israeli Government are morally abhorrent. I welcome the further sanctions announced by the Secretary of State two weeks ago, but I plead with the Minister now: we must go further on sanctions and consider trade measures. Like the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), I now believe it is time to recognise the Palestinian state. I was willing to accept the Government’s position on it, but I cannot any longer. I beg the Minister: come back to this House extremely soon—tomorrow, or next week—with further concrete measures.
Mr Falconer
I have heard the force of my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I recognise the feeling right across the House on the need to see the situation in Gaza change. It is an urgency that is felt by Government.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
It is increasingly accepted that Israel’s military operation in Gaza, having forcibly displaced and starved millions of Palestinians and killed tens of thousands, amounts to a genocide. The latest feature of that is its aid distribution process, which today does not deliver aid; instead, it is a dehumanising death trap that sees a child receiving treatment in a tent being shot in the head through the side of the tent. For the UK to end its complicity, it must pull all the levers to stop Israel’s military action immediately. There needs to be a shift away from condemnation and demands for Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law to a clear, unequivocal commitment that if Israel does not comply, it will be forced to comply by whatever means. Will the Minister make that commitment?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend has a long commitment to these issues, and we were discussing them through the recess. Clearly, the situation in relation to aid in Gaza remains absolutely desperate. We condemn those scenes—we did so on Sunday. We have been clear in our views about the new aid mechanism, but let us not escape from the fundamental position of the British Government, which is that we oppose this operation in Gaza. We are calling on all those involved to return to a ceasefire. That is what we are working towards.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
Colleagues from right across the House have expressed their frustration with the contradictory things that the Minister has said in response to our questions. We have heard that there will be a change when there is a change, and that there will be new steps when new steps are available, yet in the same statement he has outlined how Israel’s newly introduced measures for aid delivery are inhumane, foster desperation and endanger civilians. Surely, this week has shown that there has been yet another change, and that now is the time for action and for changing our response.
Mr Falconer
I do not think that what I have said has been incoherent. On 19 May, we announced leader-level statements, setting out our position. On 20 May, the Foreign Secretary came to the Dispatch Box to announce concrete new measures. I hear that Members would have liked me to come to the House this afternoon to announce further measures. We have been clear—at the level of Prime Minister, alongside our allies, as one of three with France and Canada and with 26 partners—about the need for change. I hear that the House would have liked further measures announced this afternoon. I have committed to return when I am in a position to do so.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I must take issue with the Minister, when he said that the people outside this place wearing badges and marching are not making a difference. All that members of the public can do is wear badges and march, whereas Ministers in a Government can bring sanctions, end arms sales and hold the war criminal Netanyahu to account. Quite rightly, this Government have labelled Russia’s actions in Ukraine as war crimes, and accordingly they brought in significant widespread sanctions. When will they do the same in relation to Israel? Otherwise, this reeks of double standards, and Netanyahu will see the Minister and this Government as a weak, weak, weak pushover and a joke.
Mr Falconer
Let me be clear: I was not seeking to disparage the efforts of activists or protesters. My hon. Friend asks when we will suspend arms to Gaza. We have suspended arms to Gaza. I hear the frustration of the House, but the Labour Government took steps, and I am proud of the steps that we have taken. I hear the frustration—that Members want us to go further—but let us not pretend that this Government have done nothing. The scenes in Gaza are deeply distressing. The Government have been clear, as I have been clear this afternoon, that we will take further steps if things do not change, but we have taken measures and we will continue to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is the end of the statement, which has been going on for about 90 minutes.
Kirsty Blackman
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have had an hour and a half of questions. It is very unusual for almost every Member in this House to be speaking with one voice. I wonder whether she could give me some guidance. When something is the preserve of the Executive, meaning that it is only the Government who can take action—for example, on international sanctions, on arms sales and on many of the points we have been discussing today in relation to Netanyahu or other Ministers in the Israeli Government—how can Members in this House, who have spoken with one voice today, ensure that actual change is made? In this case, it is the responsibility not of this House but of the Government, and they do not seem to be listening at the moment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The hon. Member has most definitely put her point on the record and those on the Treasury Bench will have been listening. It is not a matter for the Chair, but there are many opportunities that she can take up to put pressure on the Government; the Table Office can advise on that.
Gaza (Independent Public Inquiry)
Wednesday 4th June 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberGaza (Independent Public Inquiry) Bill 2024-26 View all Gaza (Independent Public Inquiry) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for establishing an independent public inquiry into UK involvement in Israeli military operations in Gaza; to require the inquiry to consider any UK military, economic or political cooperation with Israel since October 2023, including the sale, supply or use of weapons, surveillance aircraft and Royal Air Force bases; to provide the inquiry with the power to question Ministers and officials about decisions taken in relation to UK involvement; and for connected purposes.
In the aftermath of the Iraq war, several attempts were made to establish an inquiry surrounding the conduct of British military operations. The Government of the day spent many years resisting those attempts and demands for an inquiry. However, they could not prevent the inevitable, and in 2016 we had the publication of the Chilcot inquiry, which Sir John Chilcot had undertaken over several years. The report found serious failings within the British Government, who ignored the warnings of millions of ordinary people who had been protesting on the streets against the invasion. I was the leader of the Labour party when the report came out, and I apologised on behalf of the Labour party for the catastrophic decision to go to war in Iraq.
History is now repeating itself. Over the past 18 months, human beings have endured a level of horror and inhumanity that should haunt us all forever: entire families wiped out; limbs strewn across the street; mothers screaming for their children buried under the rubble; human beings torn to pieces; doctors performing amputations without anaesthetic; and children picking grass and dirt from the ground, thinking that they might find something edible. The survivors will face lifelong mental health consequences that will go on for generations. Home by home, hospital by hospital and generation by generation, we are not just witnessing a war; we are witnessing a genocide—this time being livestreamed all over the world. Today, the death toll in Gaza exceeds 61,000, and at least 110,000 people—one in 20 of the entire population—have been severely injured. Two Israeli officials are now wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity.
Britain has played a highly influential role in Israel’s military operations. First, Britain has been supplying weapons to Israel that are being used to bomb the people of Palestine. This, of course, started with the previous Conservative Government, but it has continued with the current Labour Government. In fact, between October and December 2024 alone, more arms export licences were granted than were approved by the previous Government for the whole of 2020 and 2023.
In September ’23, the Government suspended some licences but continued to allow the supply of F-35 components to the global pool. The Foreign Secretary has accepted the fact that F-35 jets are being used in violation of international humanitarian law, yet at the same time he admits that those parts go into the global supply chain and could therefore go to Israel. The Government know full well the implications. By justifying the continued licensing of those parts, our Government are admitting their complicity in what are, quite clearly, war crimes. I find it truly astounding that they are telling us loud and clear that their participation in this programme is more important than upholding international law and the convention on genocide. It is very simple: until this Government end the sale of weapons to Israel, they will remain complicit in the mass murder of Palestinians in Gaza at the present time.
Secondly, many of us have repeatedly asked for the truth regarding the role of British military bases in Cyprus. Since October 2023, military cargo has been airlifted from RAF Akrotiri to Israel. That cargo has often travelled to Cyprus from US military bases in other parts of Europe. Meanwhile, RAF Shadow aircraft have been conducting nightly surveillance flights over Gaza. When the Prime Minister visited RAF Akrotiri last December, he told troops:
“The whole world and everyone back at home is relying on you… Quite a bit of what goes on here can’t necessarily be talked about all of the time. We can’t necessarily tell the world what you’re doing.”
A recent report by the British Palestinian Committee said that the UK Government are “engaged in military actions without being subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and that these actions implicate its institutions and officials in the gravest breaches of international law.”
Over the past 18 months, our questions have been met with evasion, obstruction and silence, leaving the public in the dark over the way in which the responsibilities of government have been discharged. Transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of democracy. The public deserve to know the scale of UK complicity in these atrocities. Any meaningful inquiry would require the co-operation of both Governments—Conservative and Labour—involved in decision making processes since October 2023.
The inquiry needs to ask the following questions. What arms have been supplied to Israel? Which of those weapons have been used in Gaza and the west bank? Is the Government’s position that they cannot or will not bring the F-35 programme into line with the UK’s legal obligations? What is RAF Akrotiri being used for? Is it being used as a route for weapons that are being deployed in Gaza? How many US air force flights have flown from RAF Akrotiri to Israel since October 2023? Have Israel’s F-35 jets been stored and repaired at RAF bases, whether Akrotiri or anywhere else? What video footage do the Government have of the war zone from RAF flights? Will they release that footage? What intelligence has been passed on to Israel? What legal advice have the Government received over an assessment of genocide? When will they publish that advice?
I finish by reminding the House that in October 2023 many of us called for an immediate ceasefire, for the bombing to stop and for the release of all hostages. We condemned those attacks but expressed alarm over the wholly disproportionate nature of the response. We warned that we were witnessing the beginning of the total annihilation of Gaza and we pleaded with political leaders on both sides to call for peace. Today, some politicians have finally begun to backtrack a bit—perhaps they are frightened of the consequences and of their own inhumanity. If there was any integrity in this, all those who support the operation of the military there would weep for the 61,000 Palestinian lives lost, buried under the rubble, and the moral cowardice of politicians in this country and others who have allowed it to go on.
Today, we teach children about history’s worst war crimes against humanity. They are asked to reflect about how those crimes ever came about. Our future history books will report with shame those who had the opportunity to stop the carnage but failed to act to achieve it.
We will continue our campaigns in the House and outside because we are appalled at what is happening. Our demonstrations and the huge demonstrations in this country and all around the world are made up of people of all ages and all faiths, and actually quite a wide range of political opinion. They are united with the simple human request that we stop the bombing and save lives, and we will do that by no longer supplying weapons. We will continue to campaign for truth, for accountability and, most importantly, for peace and justice for the Palestinian people, who have been denied all that for far too long. If the Bill is agreed to—I hope that it will be—this will be a step forward in opening up the murky history of what has gone on, with murky arms sales and complicity in appalling acts of genocide.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The Question is, That the right hon. Member have leave to bring in the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say Aye. [Hon. Members: “Aye!”] And of the contrary, No.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind Members that vote must follow voice. A Member who opposes a motion by shouting “No” may not then vote in favour of it if there is a Division. I will give it one more go.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Jeremy Corbyn, Ayoub Khan, Mr Adnan Hussain, Shockat Adam, Zarah Sultana, Apsana Begum, Brian Leishman, Richard Burgon, Kim Johnson, Ellie Chowns, Ann Davies and Brendan O’Hara present the Bill.
Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 254).
Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]
Wednesday 4th June 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberProduct Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 4 June 2025 - large print - (4 Jun 2025)
17:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 171 / Noes: 274 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:52 - The House divided: - Ayes: 100 / Noes: 339 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 164 / Noes: 273 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:40 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 264 / Noes: 99 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Requirement to inform customers about changes to prepackaged products—
“(1) A supermarket must inform customers if—
(a) there has been an increase in price per unit of measurement in any prepackaged product sold by the supermarket; and
(b) this increase has resulted from a decrease in the quantity of the goods included within the package.
(2) The requirement to inform customers must include a statement attached to the product, or placed alongside the product.
(3) The statement must—
(a) include the amount the quantity has decreased by and the amount the price per unit of measure has increased by;
(b) be the same font size as the unit price of the product and must be visible and legible; and
(c) be in place from the date of the change in unit quantity and remain in place for the following 60 days.
(4) In this section—
‘prepackaged product’ is a product that has been wrapped or placed in a container before being made available for retail;
‘quantity of goods’ includes, but is not limited to—
(a) weight of goods;
(b) volume of goods;
(c) number of units;
‘supermarket’ is a store with a sales area greater than 400m² of which 50% or more of the products sold are food products.”
This new clause would place a requirement on supermarkets to inform customers when the quantity of goods within the product had decreased resulting in a price increase per unit of measurement.
New clause 3—Reviews of potential country of origin labelling for meat products—
“(1) The Secretary of State must undertake a review into the feasibility, benefits, and potential impacts of requiring food service businesses employing over 250 people to display the country of origin of beef products sourced from the United States on menus.
(2) The review must consider—
(a) the potential public health, environmental, and animal welfare concerns related to beef production standards in the United States compared to those in the United Kingdom;
(b) the practicality of creating regulations for the labelling of beef for food service businesses equivalent to the Beef and Veal Labelling (England) Regulations 2010;
(c) consumer demand for country of origin information in relation to beef products; and
(d) the practicality and cost implications for the hospitality sector.
(3) The Secretary of State must, in undertaking the review, consult with representatives of the food and hospitality sectors, the National Farmers Union, food safety bodies, animal welfare groups, and any other stakeholders deemed relevant.
(4) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review before Parliament within 6 months of the passing of this Act.
(5) Within 6 months of laying the report under subsection (5) the Government must undertake a further review into the feasibility, benefits, and potential impacts of requiring food service businesses employing over 250 people to display the country of origin labelling for any meat product from any country with reference to the outcomes of the report under subsection (5).
(6) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the review under subsection (6) before Parliament within 6 months of the launch of that review.”
This new clause requires the Government to undertake reviews into the feasibility of requiring food businesses to disclose the country of origin of meat products on menus.
New clause 4—Labelling for UK-produced or manufactured products—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a voluntary labelling system to indicate when a product has been produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom.
(2) The label must be—
(a) displayed clearly on the front-facing packaging of applicable goods;
(b) standardised in appearance, including a nationally recognised symbol or wording indicating UK origin; and
(c) legible, visible and no smaller in font size than the unit price display or equivalent information on the product.
(3) A product qualifies for the label if—
(a) it is wholly or substantially produced, manufactured, grown or reared in the United Kingdom; and
(b) it meets any additional criteria as set out by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State must consult food producers, retailers, consumer groups and relevant trade associations before setting the criteria for qualifying products and the design of the label.
(5) The Secretary of State must undertake a promotional campaign to ensure consumers are aware of the new labelling system.
(6) Regulations under this section must be made within 2 months of the passing of this Act.
(7) In this section—
‘product’ includes food, drink and manufactured goods available for retail sale;
‘produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom’ includes goods where the final significant production process occurred in the UK.”
This new clause would require the Government to introduce a voluntary labelling system, clearly marking goods produced or manufactured in the UK, helping consumers make informed choices and supporting domestic producers.
New clause 5—Support and Guidance for Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises—
“(1) The Secretary of State must produce and maintain guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises on how to comply with any provisions made by regulations under this Act.
(2) The guidance must include—
(a) a summary of the key provisions of the Act relevant to SMEs;
(b) practical advice on compliance requirements;
(c) information on any available financial, technical, or advisory support; and
(d) contact details for further enquiries or assistance.
(3) The first version of the guidance must be published on the day this Act is passed.
(4) Each time regulations are made under this Act, a revised version of the guidance must be published on the day the regulations are made.”
This new clause would ensure that guidance and support for SMEs on the impact of the Bill should be available 60 days before implementation.
New clause 6—Review of access to testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs)—
(1) The relevant Minister must undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in relation to the requirements of this Act.
(2) The review must include consideration of—
(a) the typical costs incurred by SMEs in meeting relevant testing and certification requirements;
(b) the availability and capacity of accredited testing providers serving SMEs;
(c) any barriers to market access arising from testing and certification obligations; and
(d) potential non-financial measures to support SMEs in meeting compliance requirements.
(3) The Minister must publish a report on the findings of the review, including any recommendations, within 12 months of the commencement of this section.”
This new clause would require the Government to undertake a review into the accessibility and affordability of independent product testing and certification for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in relation to the requirements of this Act.
New clause 7—Liability and redress for unsafe or defective products—
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for—
(a) the extension of liability for unsafe or defective products to online marketplaces and any other persons within the scope of section 2(3);
(b) the disclosure of evidence in relation to claims for compensation or other rights of action in law for harm caused by unsafe or defective products and presumptions of liability that may arise accordingly;
(c) proceedings, including collective proceedings, to ensure redress for consumers or other individuals suffering harm as a result of unsafe or defective products made available in breach of requirements imposed under powers given by this Act.”
This new clause allows the Secretary of State to make regulations providing for liability of online marketplaces for defective and unsafe products, and to ensure that those suffering harm from unsafe or defective products can obtain redress.
New clause 8—Alignment with EU law—
“(1) Where equivalent or similar EU law exists in relation to relevant product regulations, the Secretary of State must, when making provision under section 1, update Parliament on whether the Government proposes to vary the regulations from alignment with EU law.
(2) If the Secretary of State believes divergence from relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this divergence, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.
(3) If the Secretary of State believes alignment with the relevant EU law to be in the interests of the United Kingdom, they must arrange for a statement to be made in Parliament on the benefits to United Kingdom business to be achieved by this alignment, at least fourteen days before the relevant regulations are laid before Parliament.
(4) The statement under subsection (2) or (3) must include the date by which any such regulations will be reviewed, which can be no later than 36 months after implementation.”
This new clause provides greater regulatory certainty for UK businesses by requiring scrutiny of all decisions to diverge or align with EU regulations and a process for Parliamentary scrutiny and review, whether Ministers determine that divergence or alignment from such regulations would be in the best interests of the UK.
New clause 9—Inclusion of lithium-ion batteries as a priority product category—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make regulations under this Act to include lithium-ion batteries as a specified product category subject to relevant safety, performance, labelling, environmental, and end-of-life requirements.
(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must include—
(a) provisions for minimum safety and performance standards for lithium-ion batteries placed on the UK market;
(b) requirements for clear labelling, including information on capacity, cycle life, and safe handling;
(c) obligations for manufacturers and importers relating to fire safety, product recalls, and end-of-life disposal or recycling;
(d) powers for market surveillance authorities to take enforcement action in relation to non-compliant lithium-ion batteries.
(3) In this section, a ‘lithium-ion battery’ means any rechargeable battery containing lithium compounds as a primary component of the electrochemical cell.[KM1]
(4) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the following stakeholders—
(a) representatives of the battery industry,
(b) environmental groups,
(c) consumer safety organisations,
(d) fire services, and
(e) any other person whom the Secretary of State considers to be relevant.”
This new clause would ensure that Lithium-ion batteries are included in the Bill.
New clause 10—Duties of online marketplaces—
“(1) Without prejudice to the generality of any other powers or duties conferred by this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about requirements that must be met by a person mentioned in section 2(3)(e), including regarding duties—
(a) to operate an online marketplace using effective systems and processes designed to monitor for, and identify, products presenting risks to consumers or other individuals and prevent such products being made available on or through the online marketplace;
(b) to cooperate with relevant authorities, with other persons mentioned in subsection 2(3) or any other relevant persons, to facilitate any action taken to eliminate or, if that is not possible, to mitigate the risks presented by a product that is or was made available on or through their online marketplace;
(c) to ensure that information regarding the identity and activities of persons marketing products on or through online marketplaces to consumers or other individuals is obtained and verified;
(d) to remove products presenting risks to consumers or other individuals from availability on or through an online marketplace as quickly as possible if alerted to their presence or becomes aware of it in any other way.
(2) Within 3 months from the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a statement that sets out how the Secretary of State is exercising, or expects to exercise, the powers under subsection (1) regarding the proposed duties that must be met by a person mentioned in section 2(3)(e).”
This new clause provides a list of duties that must be imposed upon online marketplaces by regulations, and for a statement by the Secretary of State to be made to Parliament within 3 months of Royal Assent regarding the exercise of the duties conferred by this section.
New clause 11—Product recall—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make regulations on product recall processes.
(2) The regulations must include provision to ensure—
(a) the creation and maintenance of a publicly accessible, government-hosted online database of all active product recalls affecting the UK market;
(b) clear obligations on manufacturers, importers, and distributors to notify the appropriate enforcement authority and upload recall notices to the database promptly upon identification of a safety risk;
(c) that recall notices include details of the affected product, risks identified, corrective action to be taken, and information on how consumers can claim a refund, replacement, or repair; and
(d) minimum standards for direct communication to affected consumers, including by email, SMS, or postal notice where reasonably practicable.
(3) The regulations must establish consumer rights entitling individuals to—
(a) a full refund, suitable replacement, or repair of a recalled product within a reasonable timeframe;
(b) access to support and guidance through the recall process, including where a product is no longer in production.
(4) The Secretary of State must consult with consumer protection organisations, trading standards bodies, manufacturers, and other relevant stakeholders before making regulations under this section.”
This new clause would ensure that a centralised Product Recall Mechanism is established to protect consumers.
New clause 12—Local weights and measures authorities: review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a review of the funding and capabilities of local weights and measures authorities to carry out in an effective way their enforcement responsibilities under the regulatory framework provided by this Act and other trading standards and consumer protection laws.
(2) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult regulators and other persons likely to be affected by the review, including such representatives of consumer and business organisations as they consider appropriate.”
This new clause provides for the Secretary of State to carry out a review of how the funding and capabilities of Trading Standards authorities affects their enforcement activities, to consult appropriate bodies and stakeholders and to lay the review before Parliament.
New clause 13—International agreements—
“(1) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under section (1)(2) or section (2)(7) that will disadvantage the United Kingdom or its trade under—
(a) the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership,
(b) the Japan Economic Comprehensive Partnership Agreement,
(c) the UK-Canada Continuity Trade Agreement,
(d) The UK-Australia Free Trade Agreement,
(e) the UK-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, or
(f) any other trade treaties to which the United Kingdom is, or becomes, a signatory, including any free trade agreement with the United States of America and India.”
This new clause would prevent the Secretary of State making regulations to align with EU standards which would damage the UK’s current or future trade agreements.
New clause 14—Review Panel—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish an independent review panel (“the Panel”) no later than 2 years after the day on which this Act comes into force.
(2) The Panel must—
(a) carry out a review of all regulations under this Act corresponding to, similar to, or making references to, the requirements of relevant foreign laws under section 2(7), with a view to establishing—
(i) their effect on economic growth;
(ii) their effect on trade in the product concerned on a global basis;
(iii) their effect on the relevant industry or industries within the United Kingdom;
(b) prepare a report of the review, and
(c) lay a copy of the report before Parliament, no later than 12 months from the date of the Panel’s creation.
(3) The Panel must consist of—
(a) at least one person with expertise in economics;
(b) at least one person with expertise in trade policy;
(c) at least one person with expertise in domestic regulation of business.”
This new clause would ensure a review and report to Parliament of any regulations aligning UK regulations with those of other countries or territories.
New clause 15—Consultation on committee to examine changes to product regulations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commission a consultation on the creation of a committee on changes to product regulations.
(2) A consultation under subsection (1) must consider the suitability of current scrutiny mechanisms for assessing regulations created through the powers created or amended by the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025.
(3) A consultation under subsection (1) must consult—
(a) the Chair of the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee,
(b) the Chair of the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee,
(c) the Chair of the House of Commons Liaison Committee,
(d) the Chair of the House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and
(e) the House of Commons Commission.
(4) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after receiving a report of a consultation under subsection (1), lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) a copy of the report of the consultation, and
(b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to that consultation.”
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on the establishment of a House of Commons committee that would examine all changes to product regulations which are made by the powers granted by this legislation.
New clause 16—Regulations: requirement for certification—
“When laying regulations to be made using the regulation making powers in this Act, the Secretary of State must certify that their effect is not to undermine the resolve of our constitutional arrangements to honour the choice of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by means of subjecting the United Kingdom to the same law as the European Union so it could subsequently be argued that the United Kingdom should rejoin so it has a voice in making the legislation rather than adopting legislation that has already been made by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers.”
New clause 17—Brexit good faith statement—
“When laying regulations to be made using the regulation making powers in this Act, the Secretary of State must provide a statement (a “Brexit good faith statement”) setting out how in the development of the regulations it has sought to honour the decision of the people of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union by developing, through the regulations, a legislative framework that intentionally seeks to exploit the opportunities afforded by Brexit to develop competitive and other advantages for the United Kingdom compared with the European Union in the global marketplace.”
Amendment 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (1).
This amendment seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State under product regulations, when defining and regulating risks and determining what constitutes efficient or effective product operation.
Amendment 10, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations about the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom which corresponds, or is similar to, a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products.
Amendment 11, page 1, line 9, leave out “also”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 32, page 1, line 10, leave out “the United Kingdom” and insert “Great Britain”.
Amendment 25, page 1, line 11, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”.
Amendment 12, page 1, line 13, leave out “(1) or”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Amendment 7, page 1, line 14, at end insert—
“(3A) Further, the Secretary of State may only make regulations under subsections (1) or (2) if satisfied that making the regulations will not result in reducing the necessary levels of consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products, with reference where applicable to equivalent product regulations or standards in force at the time.”
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from making regulations unless satisfied that the regulations will not reduce consumer protection and regulatory standards in relation to products.
Amendment 8, page 1, line 21, at end insert—
“(4A) The Secretary of State must also by regulations make provision aimed at promoting investment, fostering innovation, and encouraging economic growth in relation to the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom.
(4B) Regulations under subsection (4A) must support—
(a) the creation of economic incentives for businesses that contribute to economic growth, and
(b) the alignment of product regulations with the strategic aim of positioning the United Kingdom as a global leader in innovation.”
This amendment ensures that the regulations in the Bill prioritise economic growth and the United Kingdom’s role in innovation and economic expansion.
Amendment 26, page 2, leave out lines 12 to 18 and insert—
“‘relevant foreign law’ means law of one or more of the United States of America, Canada, Japan, the European Union, Switzerland, Australia, or New Zealand relating to standards, the marketing, or use of products in those markets, which are in force on a specific date and only that date, as specified in regulations;”
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
“(2A) Product regulations must include requirements in relation to an environmental impact assessment, and provisions related to the right to repair and the circular economy.”
This amendment guarantees that future regulations under the Act will include provisions which relate to the circular economy and granting consumers the right to repair products.
Amendment 3, page 3, line 21, at end insert—
“(fa) a person involved on behalf of a person mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f), in product marketing or the use of products, including storage, transportation, packaging, labelling or disposal;”.
This amendment closes a potential loophole in the Secretary of State’s powers to ensure that, whatever their legal status or location, all relevant organisations in the supply chain, including fulfilment houses, can be held accountable by regulations to protect consumers from non-compliant goods.
Amendment 16, page 3, line 39, leave out subsections (7) and (8).
This amendment removes the ability for product regulations to provide that product requirements are met if the requirements of relevant EU law are met.
Amendment 27, page 3, line 41, leave out “EU” and insert “foreign”.
Amendment 14, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
“(7A) Any regulations under subsection (7) which specify a relevant foreign law must specify that the foreign law referred to is that which is in application on a particular date, which must be specified.”
This amendment prevents the Bill enabling ambulatory references or dynamic alignment to relevant foreign laws, and only enables alignment with laws as they stand on a particular defined date.
Amendment 15, page 4, line 2, at end insert—
“(7A) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (7)(a), a product requirement of relevant EU law must not be treated as met unless regulations are made by the Secretary of State to incorporate them into United Kingdom law.”
Amendment 28, page 4, line 5, at end insert—
“(8A) Before making provision described in subsection (7), the Secretary of State must make a statement in Parliament if the provision relates to relevant foreign law of only one of the markets listed in the definition of ‘relevant foreign law’ in section 1(7).”
This amendment, and Amendments 25, 26 and 27, open up the possibility of defining product regulations by relation to the laws of countries other than the European Union, and require the justification of decisions to limit any such reference to the laws of one territory only.
Amendment 29, page 4, line 5, at end insert—
“(8B) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant foreign law under this Act shall be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and must not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.
(8C) The enforcement of any provision of relevant foreign law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and must not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to foreign law, notably that of the EU, from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or the CJEU).
Amendment 13, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
“(10) The provision described in subsection (7) may only be made if—
(a) a Minister of the Crown has laid before each House of Parliament a statement explaining the necessity of aligning with relevant EU law, and
(b) the updated provision had been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament when aligning with EU law, and for Parliament to approve that provision before aligning with EU law.
Amendment 17, page 4, line 6, at end insert—
“(10) The final meaning or interpretation of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be made exclusively by the Secretary of State or by a court or tribunal of the United Kingdom, as appropriate, and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.
(11) The enforcement of any provision of relevant EU law under this Act must be undertaken exclusively by the authorities of the United Kingdom Government and may not be delegated or conceded to any other authority within or outside the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would prevent the interpretation or enforcement of any regulations referring to EU law from being undertaken by any authorities other than those based in the UK (for example the European Commission or CJEU).
Amendment 21, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
Amendment 22, page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment 23, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment 24, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (9) to (11).
Amendment 6, in clause 12, page 11, line 37, at end insert—
“‘circular economy’ means that products are manufactured to minimise waste and maximise the use, reuse, and recyclability of products;”.
This amendment clarifies the meaning of “circular economy” and is consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 4, page 12, line 21, at end insert—
“(e) provision described in section [Product recall].”
Amendment 1, in clause 13, page 13, line 4, leave out from “Act” to “may” in line 5.
This amendment would make all regulations under this act subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
Amendment 2, page 13, line 8, leave out subsections (4) and (5)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 1.
Amendment 30, page 13, line 8, at end insert—
“(za) provision described in section 2(7);”
This amendment would ensure that the affirmative parliamentary procedure will apply to regulations under Clause 2(7), that is, any regulations which include referenced to relevant foreign law.
Amendment 31, page 13, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) Any regulations made under section 1(1) or (2) which correspond to, are similar to, or make a reference to the requirement of relevant foreign laws under section 2(7), expire at the end of four years from the date on which they come into force.”
Amendment 18, page 13, line 24, at end insert—
“(6A) Regulations that amend or replace primary legislation must be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(6B) Before making any regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must—
(a) conduct a consultation for a period of no less than six weeks;
(b) publish a statement outlining the purpose and necessity of the proposed regulations, the expected impact on businesses, consumers, and enforcement bodies, and the outcome of the consultation.
(6C) Within six months of any regulations made under this section which amend or repeal primary legislation, the Secretary of State must publish a review of the effect of that regulation and lay it before Parliament.”
This amendment requires that any regulations made under the Act that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Amendment 33, page 13, line 24, at end insert—
“(6A) Where the regulations are for the purpose of applying to Great Britain regulations already applied to Northern Ireland by the European Union, Northern Ireland must also be involved in the said consultation on an equal basis with the rest of the United Kingdom.”
Gareth Snell
I wish to speak briefly to new clause 1, which is a probing amendment that seeks to establish a couple of facts. I will start, however, by thanking the Minister for his time yesterday and for engaging with me on the matter. I know that he takes the matter of how we protect ceramics in the UK, and indeed how we can enhance that protection, as seriously as I do.
New clause 1 is a short amendment that simply asks the Government to explore and consider how we can better protect ceramics from counterfeit production, ensuring that when we buy something that purports to have been made in the UK, that is in fact the case. Most ceramics have something called a backstamp. If we turn over any piece of tableware or giftware in the UK, we normally see a stamp showing the company that made it and the country of origin. Most notably, for most pieces it states either “Made in England” or, even better, “Made in Stoke-on-Trent”.
Gareth Snell
Yes, that is in Staffordshire, as my hon. Friend says. There are factories in Newcastle-under-Lyme as well.
We are, however, seeing a proliferation of companies that seek to pass off material not made in the UK. Its firing will have taken place overseas and it will then be imported into the UK, with the decorating and final glost firing or hand-decorating stage happening in the UK, and with simply the word “England” put on to it. That way, the consumer thinks that the thing they are buying is a UK-made product, when in fact it is not.
There are many great companies in Stoke-on-Trent, which I know hon. Friends will reference in their speeches. I will speak briefly of Duchess, Churchill, Steelite, Emma Bridgewater and the companies that proudly put “Made in England” on the back of their products, because everything they do is made in England. The clay is first moulded, first fired, glazed, decorated, second fired and sold in the UK. It is a genuinely British product, and there is value in that product. We know from the export markets to South Korea and America, in particular, that those customers want to buy products that are made in the UK.
There are some companies that quite honestly import from overseas and they are very clear about that. Plates made by some companies in my constituency, such as Portmeirion, quite clearly state that they have been made in China, but they sit alongside products made in the UK. The company is very up front about that; it does not seem to hide it or to try to confuse the consumer. It is clear about the fact that it imports some of its ware from overseas.
Some companies, however, simply seek to put the word “England” on the back of their products. That will be because the company is probably English registered, or it is one of the UK’s historical brands that have a long affinity with Stoke-on-Trent, even if the manufacturing processes no longer takes place there. A consumer will turn that product over and see the name of one of our historical companies and a date, normally from the 1700s or 1800s, and they will see the word “England” underneath it. It is completely and utterly understandable for them to look at that and think, “This is a product made in England”, but often it is not.
New clause 1 asks the Government to come forward with an investigation to consider whether there is merit in protecting things that are made in the UK by having that country of origin stamp, specifically for ceramics. I know that the Liberal Democrats have tabled a similar amendment today that would do this for a whole host of products. I am glad that we are using similar language on this, because whether it is food or any other products unrelated to ceramics, if they have been made in the UK they should clearly say so. My new clause specifically looks at ceramics, and I will not deviate into the speech that I am sure will come from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Another aspect that the Minister graciously made time to discuss yesterday is the companies, particularly Chinese companies, that now seek to copy the backstamp. We have some great examples from a company called Dunoon in Staffordshire that makes excellent ware. If a consumer buys an item from the company’s shops, it will have “Made in the UK” written on the bottom, and little stickers on it that say “Made in the UK”. I have in my office some Chinese copies that have copied the “Made in the UK” sticker and the “Made in the UK” backstamp. These are sold through drop-shipping companies online, so tracing where they actually come from is very difficult.
Any consumer who collects that sort of material would be forgiven for thinking that they were buying something online that had been made in the UK. It will have a “Made in the UK” backstamp and sticker, and all the design elements match almost perfectly the ones that are made in the UK, but the consumer will have no idea where it was made. They will also have no idea whether there are elements of mercury and cadmium in the glaze that has been used, whether the pigments used to decorate it meet the standards we have in the UK, or whether it meets the food contact regulations that are required in the UK for items used for drinking or eating off. The consumer will have no idea about the quality of the clay, or what has been added to the clay before firing. Sometimes, in products that are imported into the UK from less good manufacturers, the clay will have been mixed with material that can have a harmful effect on the consumer.
New clause 1 simply asks the Government to consider the merits of a country of origin marking scheme for ceramics. It does not commit the Government to bringing forward such a scheme. I have a ten-minute rule Bill, which is currently waiting for a free Friday, when it can get an airing and we can discuss that in more detail. This is about trying to establish the principle that there are things that are made in the UK that we value, and that if we know they have value because they are made in the UK, we should do all we can to try and protect that.
Adam Jogee
I am pleased to have put my name to the new clause tabled by my neighbour in Stoke-on-Trent Central. Does he agree, notwithstanding his comments, that much of this is also about pride? It is about pride in our people, pride in the skill of our people and pride in the vital ceramics industry, not just in Stoke-on-Trent Central and Newcastle-under-Lyme but in many other parts of Staffordshire, as he has noted.
Gareth Snell
As always, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We in Stoke-on-Trent can talk at length about that pride, but I will not do so today, I promise, although we can talk about our pride that is associated with our industrial heritage.
Rob Flello, who once served in this place and is now the chief executive of Ceramics UK, told me when I first met him that in Stoke-on-Trent people think we have slip in our veins—slip being the wet clay used for mould casting. That is because the ceramics industry in the city is intrinsic to who we are. It is an incredibly important part of our heritage, but it is also a really important part of our future. We can make industrial ceramics, including those strategic ceramics that go into nuclear submarines and into joints for hips and elbows, as well as some of the technical ceramics that are needed in steel and glass making in the UK. Steel and glass cannot be made in the UK without ceramics; a refractory-grade ceramic is needed, because it can withstand heat that would ordinarily melt glass or metal. I know the Minister is well versed on this, because I have bent his ear on the subject on more occasions that he may have cared for.
The ceramics sector is having a tough time, but there is hope on the horizon; I am sure that the industrial strategy will give some relief on energy costs. We are keen to encourage people to buy British-manufactured goods with pride, in order to support jobs in the localities where the industry is dominant. New clause 1 simply asks the Government to consider the merits of country of origin marking.
In my constituency, there is pride in every piece made. In fact, in some factories, people who make and decorate a piece put their initials on the bottom along with the company stamp. Quite often, they can identify their own work in shops because their way of painting and applying transfers is unique to them; it becomes a fingerprint. New clause 1 encourages people to buy British, as my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) have been doing—[Interruption.]—and the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), of course. When people go out and buy that piece of tableware or giftware, and are trying to do their bit to support our industry, if they turn it over and see “Made in England” or “Made in Stoke-on-Trent”, they should have absolutely confidence that what they are buying is made in those places.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I agree and endorse what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said. He makes logical and coherent points, and the Bill could be used as a vehicle for his suggestion. I therefore support his new clause 1 and new clause 4, which is of a similar ilk.
However, aspects of the Bill are democratically dangerous, because it gifts to Government unbridled capacity to make regulations, with virtually no oversight from this elected House, on matters which touch on not just the sanctity of our product production, but the sovereignty of this nation. This Bill, with little attempt at subtlety, enables a Government, if so minded—this one, I fear, might be—to sabotage Brexit in many ways. I stand to be corrected, but I do not think a single member of this Government voted for Brexit, which was the settled and declared will of the people greatest number of people who ever participated in a democratic vote in this nation. Yet in the Bill, we have the capacity, particularly through clause 2(7), to dynamically align all our regulations with those of the EU, without having recourse to this House, at the whim of the Executive. Whatever the subject matter, that surely is a most unhealthy situation.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The hon. and learned Member is making an important point, which is why I will support the Opposition amendments in this vein today. Does he agree that the reports from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the House of Lords are important in bringing to light just how skeletal the Bill is, and is that not a reason why we should pay attention? We should not always leave it to the House of Lords to do our work for us. We should have those debates about the future on the Floor of this House, rather than having things done by ministerial diktat.
Jim Allister
I agree, absolutely. The House of Lords has done some very informative and useful work on the Bill. I only hope that it is not wasted on this Government, but that is my fear.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Has the hon. and learned Member had time to look at amendment 13, under which, if there was any backsliding by the Government, the matter would be brought back to this House for determination? I suspect that he, like me, would not accuse Ministers of being capable of abusing Henry VIII powers at the moment, but those in some future Government might. That is why we need amendment 13, particularly to ensure that retained EU legislation, a third of which the previous Government binned, canned, and got rid of, does not start creeping back over months and years, taking us back to where we began prior to 2016, and effectively taking the public for fools.
Jim Allister
I agree, absolutely. No Member of this House should glibly pass over clause 2(7), because it expressly and emphatically sets out that regulations, which can be made without recourse to this House, can provide that
“a product requirement is to be treated as met”
if it meets the relevant EU regulation. That is indisputably a bold platform for dynamically realigning this United Kingdom, in all its regulations, with the EU, so that we become rule takers. That is what I fundamentally object to in the Bill.
This House’s lack of scrutiny powers on these matters is made worse by the fact that we no longer have the European Scrutiny Committee. If we had that Committee, we would at least have that opportunity for scrutiny. That is why I welcome new clause 15, which would require the authorities of this House to explore and hopefully ultimately establish a Committee to scrutinise the regulations being made. Surely the minimum expectation of anyone democratically elected to this House is that we should have the capacity for oversight, challenge and scrutiny of laws being made in the name of those we represent, although made exclusively by the Executive, without the consent or processes of this House. That seems so fundamental to me that it would be a very sad commentary indeed on the intent behind the Bill if new clause 15 was not acceptable to the Government. If it is not, they are saying that they want unbridled, unchallenged, unchallengeable power to make whatever regulations they like, despite and in the face of this House.
Mr Holden
The Government have said throughout the passage of this legislation that it is not about the European Union, yet as the hon. and learned Member makes clear, it is only the European Union that we can align with through regulations made under it. Does that not fundamentally undermine the Government’s entire argument, and show why these amendments are so vital to protect this House?
Jim Allister
Absolutely. The Government tell us, “When we make trade deals, we may be able to ensure the requisite alignment,” but this Bill provides for alignment only with the EU, which rather lets the cat out of the bag. The Bill is not about facilitating international trade, so that we could, in the relevant circumstances, align with the United States, Japan or whoever we are making deals with, because it is exclusively and singularly focused on alignment with the EU. I suspect that is because the purpose of the Bill is to advance, at the speed of the Government’s choosing, and without the restraint of this House, down the road of dynamic alignment. To me, new clause 15 is very important.
Amendment 16 is key, because it will pull the teeth of clause 2(7) and protect us from the intended course of action. I strongly support amendment 16, because it would rein in powers that need to be reined in, and would remove the threat—indeed, the allegation—that the Bill is about realignment with the EU. A couple of weeks ago, we had the so-called reset with the EU, but the reset is as nothing compared with this Bill. This Bill is the legislative vehicle whereby Brexit can be sabotaged. That is why it is important to address the core issue in clause 2(7).
If the Bill were not about securing dynamic alignment with the EU, there would be Government support for amendment 25, which would make a reference to “foreign” law and not “EU” law. That amendment would put to bed the concerns of those of us who believe that the Bill is a subterfuge to secure realignment with the EU. However, I fear that the Government will not support that amendment.
The legislation is a Trojan Bill. It has a very clear direction of travel, which is to be secured by ignoring the question of what powers of scrutiny this House should have, and by affording to the Executive alone the right to realign dynamically with the EU at a pace and time, and on the content, that they alone approve of. The Bill needs these radical amendments, including the surgery that amendment 16 would do. At the very least, it requires the semblance of oversight that new clause 15 would provide.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It gives me huge pleasure to call our resident metrology expert, Adam Thompson.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Once again, it is a great honour to speak about the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. Today, we are focused on the amendments proposed following the Public Bill Committee, on which, in common with the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), I was honoured to serve; I was the resident metrologist.
In Committee, we heard extensively from Members of the Opposition. They described in great depth their concerns about the Bill’s implications for international alignment of regulations; we have just heard some of those concerns from the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Today, those concerns have once again been presented to the House through various amendments to the Bill. I will explain, with reference to state-of-the-art metrology, why those issues should not be a significant cause for concern for right hon. and hon. Members.
Mr Holden
The hon. Member and I served on the Bill Committee together. I think he misses a slightly important point that this is not about international alignment, as is put forward in the amendments tabled by the Opposition, but alignment with the EU, and that is why there is such concern from the Opposition parties.
Adam Thompson
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. As I discussed extensively during the Bill Committee, there is a misunderstanding here of exactly what the Bill is doing, so I fundamentally disagree with the point he makes, but I will go into more detail on it in my speech.
One of the first things one learns about as a budding metrologist is the concept of perfection. In his book “Exactly”, Simon Winchester writes of what he refers to as “the perfectionists”, detailing the evolution of the science of metrology through time and how precision engineering has been used to create the modern world that we inhabit. It is a great read, covering the history of my science in the popular mindset. However, I do not necessarily agree with Winchester in his core thesis; he talks about metrology as the science of perfection, whereas it is more accurate to think of it as the science of the good enough. I will elaborate on that shortly.
In the early days of a metrologist’s training, we learn that with more money and more time, a precision engineer can almost always achieve a more precise and accurate result, whether a straighter line, a smoother surface or a better piece of legislation, but that striving for true perfection—the absence of any fault—is always folly. Our resources are never infinite, and in the real world it is always more appropriate to strive for the good enough as opposed to the perfect. Good enough is the core of modern engineering and the fulcrum on which our world balances.
I am, as many colleagues will know, by trade a metrologist, but within the broader field, I am a surface metrologist. Surface metrology revolves around the measurement and characterisation of surfaces—surface texture and surface topography. I am the one who decides whether the leather steering wheel feels right. I am the one who ensures that car engines distribute and hold oil in all the right places to keep them running smoothly. I am the one who ensures that tyres keep us firmly planted on the road as we round corners.
Becoming a surface metrologist involves gaining an intimate acquaintance with the very concept of perfection. Always in engineering I hear people asking for a product to be made perfectly—for the angle of the corner of the table to be exactly 90° or for the surface of the microscope to be infinitely smooth. Let me put it on record that there is no such thing as perfection in reality.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Despite what everyone was thinking, I am not going to suggest that I am perfection, but as a mathematician, may I ask my hon. Friend to accept that the reason perfection is not achievable in that instance is to do with the infinite—the infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 1.1, for instance, or the infinite amount of numbers between 1.1 and 1.11?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I accept that we have some experts in the Chamber, but I remind Members that speeches and interventions must relate to the business at hand and the amendments.
Adam Thompson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—it was perfect. He is absolutely right, and I will leave the perfection to the mathematicians. To illustrate my point, I hear people in engineering asking for products to be made perfectly—for the angle of the corner of the table to be exactly 90° or the surface of the microscope to be infinitely smooth. To study metrology is to understand the concepts of imperfection and uncertainty and apply those to everything. If one zooms in close enough, the angle is never exactly right, and the surface is never perfectly smooth.
On Second Reading, I made reference to the optical mirrors used in the James Webb space telescope. They are incredibly smooth, yes, but to examine them at the atomic scale, one would find deviations from the nominal plane that mirror those in the Grand Canyon. Being an engineer involves accepting these deviations within the context of the work we undertake towards our goal of constant improvement—be that in the creation of, say, aerospace engines or, indeed, national legislation.
My expertise within surface metrology was in the development of X-ray computed tomography for measuring surfaces. Alongside my good friend Dr Andy Townsend at the University of Huddersfield, who made similar discoveries at the same point in history—a phenomenon that is common across science—I was among the first to be able to use X-rays to measure the interior surface of parts that were otherwise hidden to both the eye and the machine. X-ray computed tomography had never previously been good enough to measure surfaces, with the imaging resolutions achievable lagging significantly behind those required to separate measurements from noise. Previously, such measurements were not really needed, as to manufacture a surface, one generally had to access that surface with a machine tool, so one could similarly access it with a measurement tool.
However, with the birth of industrial additive manufacturing—often called 3D printing—we could suddenly make things with hidden internal geometries that did not need tool access and could not be measured. Without measurement, though, we cannot verify that the parts we make will function as we require them to. As such, new technology was required to allow us to create additively manufactured parts, be they novel, much lighter aeroplane parts or new joint replacements finely customised to suit the individual. Alongside our colleagues, Andy and I solved this problem by demonstrating that X-ray computed tomography had become good enough to measure those surfaces.
This Bill mirrors that “good enough” paradigm. Current legislation places us at risk of falling out of alignment with the rest of the world, which in turn risks our ability as the British to maintain our position at the forefront of international science. In its current, unamended form, the Bill grants the Secretary of State the necessary authority to keep pace with the guidance of relevant experts. The amendments proposed by the Opposition would only hinder our ability to stay aligned with the continuous advancement of progress.
Jim Allister
In lauding the Henry VIII powers in this Bill, as an elected Member of this House, is the hon. Gentleman at ease with the fact that the Bill could see criminal offences created without any scrutiny or input from this House? Is he at ease with the fact that the liberty of our constituents—which I think we would be interested in protecting—could be jeopardised by criminal offences created by the Executive alone?
Adam Thompson
I thank the hon. and learned Member for his intervention, but I disagree with his assessment. This Bill is about providing the Secretary of State with the powers necessary to ensure that we remain at the forefront of science. Opposition Members have incorrectly claimed that the Bill hands over authority to foreign powers, or overly centralises it in the hands of the Secretary of State. This is not a matter of ceding control to external entities; rather, it is about maintaining the United Kingdom’s position at the forefront of scientific and regulatory innovation. It is about ensuring that the British scientists who follow in the footsteps of Newton, Franklin and Hawking can continue to lead the world in their fields.
These Opposition amendments appear to stem from a fundamental misunderstanding—or perhaps a complete lack of understanding—of what metrology and standards frameworks entail and why they are vital. I urge all Members to vote against them and support this Bill through its Third Reading.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I remind Members that they are speaking to the amendments. There are 33 to choose from, so please keep your contributions appropriate.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I rise today in support of new clause 1, which deals with a country of origin marking for ceramic products and which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) so eloquently introduced. My constituency is home to “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, based in the wonderful Gladstone Pottery Museum in Longton, and I am so proud to have many great pottery firms in my constituency. Those include Wedgwood, which is famed for its iconic blue jasperware, and Duchess China, which has factories in Longton and Newstead that I was honoured to visit recently. There, I met Jason Simms, who is a 100-mph visionary for the future of ceramics in Stoke-on-Trent and the world. It was a really interesting visit.
Duchess, founded in 1888, produces the tableware used in the House of Commons. It is proud of the fact that its products are made in the UK, from clay to table. People buying products produced by Duchess, for example, will see that they say on the bottom, “Fine bone china made in Staffordshire”. The phrasing is deliberate; it clearly informs the purchaser not only of the product’s country of origin, but the precise part of the country that it comes from. Most of our ceramic products contain these backstamps to mark authenticity, and many include a reference to Stoke and Staffordshire. As I have before, I invite all colleagues to join the “turnover club” and check the backstamp on the chinaware here. They will probably find it was made in Stoke.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Just for the record, some of the tableware in the Members’ Dining Room is in fact German. I hope everyone will get behind a campaign to replace it.
Dr Gardner
I thank my hon. Friend for that timely and right intervention. I join him in his campaign.
We do not always have the level of detail needed in this country, and we need to address that nuance so that consumers know exactly what they are buying. That is important, because the pottery industry is at great risk from cheap imports, which are undermining our British-made products and creating unfair competition for our better-quality products made in our own country. This china-dumping of products often falsely pretending to be made by our Staffordshire firms—Dunoon being one example—must be stopped. We must back our British industry and our British workers and do what we can to resist such unfair competition.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Having Stoke tableware in my home, I completely understand the argument that the hon. Member is making, so will she join me in the Lobby in voting for new clause 4, to support UK labelling for manufactured products? That is for not just Stoke tableware, but further afield, too.
Dr Gardner
The hon. Member is right to point out that Stoke and Staffordshire are not the only places that produce wonderful ceramic and other products. I understand that new clause 4 is broad in scope. I am speaking today to new clause 1, which relates to ceramics. I hope he will indulge me.
A few months ago, I was proud to meet GMB representatives for the British pottery industries here in Parliament, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). That included the formidable Sharon Yates, who is one of my constituents. They have real pride, real passion and real skill in what they do.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. She is eloquently outlining the real skills and talents of our people who make world-class ceramics. I echo her support for new clause 1, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Recently I met the GMB union and workers who had sadly been made redundant at the iconic Moorcroft pottery in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove. Collectively, the 30 people in that room had more than 800 years of honing skills and expertise. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must do all we can to protect our pots, including backstamping our ceramic products, as outlined in new clause 1?
Dr Gardner
I commend my hon. Friend for his outstanding advocacy, in particular for the workers of Moorcroft. I know how hard he has been working for them, and I agree that they are a testament to the great skilled craftsmen and women in British manufacturing.
Stoke-on-Trent, the Potteries and Staffordshire are globally renowned for our chinaware and tableware. We stand tall among the likes of Limoges in France and Delft in the Netherlands, and we must ensure that we protect that status. We are celebrating Stoke-on-Trent’s 100th anniversary this year and working towards UNESCO creative city status. I hence urge Ministers and the Government to demonstrate their pride and support for this globally renowned industry by supporting new clause 1.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow my colleagues from Stoke, who have so powerfully advocated for their local communities. It is also an absolute pleasure to be part of a debate with my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who I genuinely believe should be knighted for his services to explaining what metrology is to all of us. At the very least, he should have some kind of BBC Four series, possibly with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) as his sidekick.
I am here because I have tabled new clause 15, which has cross-party support. It is designed to be a probing amendment—I hope the Minister is reassured about that—because these are important parliamentary matters. I agree with Opposition Members that this Bill is an important piece of legislation, although I come at it from a different perspective, because I see it as being at the sharp end of Brexit.
To me, Brexit is paperwork, because there are multiple regulatory regimes. Our constituents, and particularly small businesses, must deal with the reams and reams of paperwork that have come from leaving the European Union in the way we did, and we know that has had an impact on them. We know that over 16,000 small businesses have given up exporting to the European Union because of all the extra paperwork, that one in eight small exporters had temporarily or permanently stopped selling to the EU, and that another 10% were considering doing so, because it had become more complicated.
Mr Holden
As the hon. Lady appreciates, we come at this Bill from different angles. We have tabled some amendments, including amendment 13, which would require the Secretary of State to come to this House and make a statement. As the hon. Lady says, small businesses are seeing regulatory change happen so swiftly that they cannot keep up. One issue with the Bill is the fact that it will be possible for regulations to be changed even more quickly, at the stroke of a Minister’s pen. That could lead to small and medium-sized enterprises being disadvantaged compared with very large businesses, which can align much more quickly.
Ms Creasy
The right hon. Member had the luxury and benefit of being on the Public Bill Committee. I did not have the ability to ask the questions that he is asking, but I look at the evidence under the previous Administration. When there was the ability to diverge, what actually happened? The reality is that very little divergence happened, because it is not in our national interest. We can, and do, fight many things in this place —indeed, in British politics—but geography really is not one of the things that it is worth our time arguing about.
Given that we do five times more trade with our European Union neighbours than with America, China and India put together, it obviously makes sense to have a regulatory regime that makes that trade as friction-free as possible, which is where this piece of legislation comes in. Indeed, under the previous Government, there were only five cases of active divergence—the sort of changes that the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) is worried about—that might affect small businesses. That is with good reason, because if we have a sensible regulatory regime, it makes sense to be aligned. The Prime Minister has talked about that, and it is also what businesses want. The Engineering and Machinery Alliance, which represents over 1,600 firms from 11 different trade associations, puts it very simply. It says that our businesses
“are trading in European markets and are part of European value chains. They have European customers and suppliers. For companies operating in highly specialised, high value markets, the UK is unlikely to provide the mass needed to develop and successfully market their products. They need to be international and that means working to international standards—the EU’s being, almost always, the most appropriate.”
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the Tory/Reform Brexit has been a complete disaster for our economy?
Ms Creasy
I cannot even look you in the eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know I should not be tempted into quite that level of analysis. Very practically, we are trying to deal with the fallout of Brexit. The hon. Member will have heard me say that we need a salvage operation, because of the consequences seen and the damage done as a result of the way that our leaving the European Union was conducted. I see this Bill as part of that salvage operation. We used to be part of writing such regulations with our colleagues in Europe, which we do not do any more, but we need a process to maintain them because of the reality of the supply chains, of how we do business and of where divergence has hit small businesses—and it is small businesses, in every single constituency, that have paid the price for this version of Brexit.
Ms Creasy
The hon. Member can take it as yes, but he will know that I am sticking very closely to the amendments, because I want to come on to how we make such decisions.
First, though, we need to be clear that this legislation will affect the lives of our constituents. Let me give one example. I am a child of the 1980s; I remember the Glo Worm. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for looking surprised—I hope it is a look of surprise, but perhaps you are remembering the Glo Worm yourself. The point is that the Glo Worm turned out to be quite a dangerous toy because of the chemicals it contained. Regulations help to keep us safe, so when we are talking about sharing regulatory regimes and being able to promote markets, there is a good reason why we are seeking high standards. I hope that everyone will hold the Glo Worm as an example—it has now been reissued without those chemicals in it, thank goodness, so that children of the 2020s can enjoy those squidgy toys.
What matters is how we make decisions about such regulations, and the debate on this Bill heralds a bigger conversation that we need to have in Parliament about how we can be involved in those decisions now that we are not part of the European Union. Obviously, agrifood and sanitary and phytosanitary goods are not included in the Bill, but the Government have now committed to dynamic alignment with EU rules for a very common-sense reason. As the Prime Minister has said,
“we are currently aligned in our standards, but we do not get the benefit of that. We want to continue to have high standards; that is what the British public want”.—[Official Report, 20 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 894.]
I hope that is the ethos we take in how we use the powers in this Bill. It is certainly what businesses would like us to do.
Mr Holden
The hon. Lady makes an important point, but on the broader issue of dynamic alignment, are there not some issues—for example, animal welfare, which is not covered by the Bill—on which, if we want to maintain higher standards, we will want to go further than our EU allies, not dynamically align with them?
Ms Creasy
The right hon. Member seems to believe the regulatory regimes we had were a ceiling rather than a floor. There was nothing to prevent us from having higher standards; they were about maintaining standards. He and I are on different sides of the debate about nutrient neutrality, but the concern was about the high standard when it came to protecting our rivers and seas from algae that was at risk under the previous Government.
The right hon. Member is right, though, to raise the question of how we maintain standards, which is where new clause 15 comes in. It is about the concept of how we take back control—which, frankly, was at the heart of all the Brexit debates. I am sure the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) is surprised that I have become the stopped clock for him: this is one point in his political career that I may be right.
There is a challenge here that we need to address, and those of us who came to the Brexit debate from different directions can all agree that it is good and healthy to have such a discussion. I also want to say, as a parliamentarian, that the Government should be directed to do something that has consequences for Parliament as well. That is where new clause 15 is coming from. It is a probing amendment to raise a more general concern about how we make good legislation.
At the beginning of this Parliament, the Government decided not to re-establish the European Scrutiny Committee, which had existed since 1973, to scrutinise European documents that affected UK policy or law. In the debate, the Leader of the House said that
“the principal job of the Committee—to examine the documents produced by the EU institutions that the Government would automatically take on board—is no longer required.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1272.]
The challenge for many of us is that this Bill, and indeed the deal we now have with the European Union, means that that test is being set again. There is now a need for some form of dedicated scrutiny mechanism, with specialist expert staff to consider relevant EU laws and rules. That is not confined to the issues arising from this Bill; it is a broader point about what is happening now.
The ESC worked primarily by examining proposals from the European Commission and giving an opinion on their implications and when they would affect
“matters of principle, policy or law in the UK”.
I recognise that since that Committee was abolished, some work on these issues has been done by other Committees, and that is welcome. However, with this Bill and the reset deal, we are moving to a volume of European law and regulation with such technical complexity that we in this place would be best served by having that specialist expertise. Let’s be honest: many of these things are beyond our individual pay grades and we will want some expert assistance.
Put simply, if PRaM is passed in its current form, where the Government choose to recognise EU product regulations there will again be documents produced by EU institutions that the Government would automatically take on board. The Government’s dashboard of assimilated EU law shows that there are 155 items in the area of product safety and standards that derive from European law and could, under PRaM, be influenced by proposals of the European Commission to update EU law. Clearly, 155 documents alone would likely mean we exceed the ability of any one individual departmental Select Committee to devote sufficient time to the required level of scrutiny given their other priorities.
Many of us had run-ins with the previous Member for Stone. For some reason he never quite welcomed my interest in his work, but my interest and concern in scrutiny in this place is genuine and heartfelt, because I do think that at our best we can help Ministers, although I know that some on the Front Bench—maybe on both sides of the Chamber—will be raising an eyebrow at that suggestion. Aside from the democratic merits of parliamentary scrutiny in its own right and the cry to take back control, there are a number of benefits to the Government of ensuring that regulations derived from EU laws are scrutinised closely, not least because if those regulations deriving from EU law were later the subject of judicial review, the quality of parliamentary scrutiny of the relevant secondary legislation would be factored into a court’s thinking on the adequacy of the Government’s decision making. We might also pick up things in the process that have been missed.
It is indeed the question of perfection, as my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) said, to argue that any Government or any individual scrutiny process through a statutory instrument could ever be perfect. I do not believe we should set that standard. As a psychologist, I believe in competing opinions and views; there is always merit in having a second pair of eyes. That is what this process is getting at—that is how we get closer to perfection, if I have understood my lessons in metrology correctly.
The point also fits within the broader debate about how, as we reset our relationship with Europe, we make sure that we show the British public our homework. That is ultimately what good scrutiny does: it defeats the naysayers who claim that there is a backroom fix; it allows the disinfectant of sunlight to be poured on every single document to its dullest degree.
As the Prime Minister told the House in presenting the European deal, we will be taking co-operation with Europe “further, step by step”, and alignment will be an important part of that. I welcome that because it is in the interests of the British public. We are already committed to dynamic alignment on the SPS deal, to free us from those dire border checks and all the extra paperwork that means that there are trucks stuck at Sevington, food inflation has increased and our constituents have paid the price.
We are also looking at dynamic alignment on emissions trading to allow us to remove energy tariffs in key industries including steel. That means that when those deals are completed, there will be much larger volumes of EU rules that directly affect UK law and policy. That will probably be a good thing but it is right for this place to be able to debate, discuss and scrutinise how that works.
I hope the Minister will recognise that every single political party in this House has supported new clause 15 because they want not to batter the Government but to engage with the Government on these issues, and that he will talk about how we can see the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny in this piece of legislation. I recognise that not many pieces of legislation will be affected by the PRaM proposals directly, but there is that broader point about how we take back control—how we have that conversation about the way in which we, at our best, can assist the Government to get the best out of regulations so that our businesses can keep trading, our consumers can keep buying and our Glo Worms can keep glowing.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this debate; I was not sure that I would, depending on timings of the business of the House. I had the pleasure today of welcoming Doreen and Eric Moyse to Parliament. This year they both celebrate their 90th birthdays and I am sure colleagues will join me in sending our best wishes to them.
There are five MPs from north Staffordshire and we are all here, proud members of the Turnover Club and champions of our ceramics industry. We have all contributed to the debate both through making speeches and in interventions, and I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance on the 33 amendments and for reminding us to speak to them.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I just want to make sure that all five Members from north Staffordshire make their voice known on the record. I support him wholeheartedly in his speech.
Adam Jogee
That is my kind of friend. I am very grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention, which speaks to the cross-party support for our ceramics industry. I grateful to her for placing that on the record.
Chris Vince
It is an honour to speak in this debate on the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, and in particular the amendments tabled by the Public Bill Committee. I was not on the Committee—some might say I did not measure up. [Interruption.] My parliamentary assistant has asked me to point out that I wrote that joke, not her.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson). Following his contribution on Second Reading, I did take away his slides on metrology and found them particularly interesting. As a former maths teacher, I am sure he will recognise that without maths there would be no metrology.
I wish to speak to a number of amendments, as is our role in this House. I will briefly touch on new clause 1, because I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell)—every time the ceramics industry is mentioned by anyone in the House, I know there is an intervention coming. In all sincerity, his passion in standing up for the ceramics industry in Stoke should be respected by Members across the House. Businesses claiming that they make their products in England or in Stoke when they do not are not only dishonest; they also damage the industries that do make their products there.
We all want to support our local industry wherever possible. Sadly, I do not go around buying a lot of fibre optic cables—although if I did, I would do so proudly, as the fibre optic cable was invented by George Hockham and Charles Kao in my constituency of Harlow.
The Bill is an important piece of legislation that will update the UK’s product safety regulation and metrology framework. Some were sceptical on Second Reading, but clause 5(5) points out that it will not stop me having a pint—or, for my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), 0.56826125 cubic decimetres of beer—at The Willow, The White Admiral, or any of the other moth-related pubs in Harlow.
Regulation is only effective with enforcement, so I welcome the inclusion of the clause on enforcement. I would also welcome a little more detail from the Minister in his summing up, if possible, on the regulation and how we will ensure it is effective. I would also be grateful if the Minister could touch on cost recovery, which is obviously important for the relevant authorities to impose these regulations.
I will briefly touch on new clause 15, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) advocated so well. She was correct to say that stability is hugely important for UK businesses, and she was also right to say that we do five times as much trade with the EU as with any of our other trading partners. As I said in a recent Opposition day debate, businesses in Harlow would absolutely welcome a breaking down of those barriers to trade with the EU. I also welcome my hon. Friend’s comments on the importance of scrutiny by this House. I joked with Mr Speaker yesterday that I do come to this Chamber quite often to talk about things in my constituency—believe it or not—but one of the most important roles of elected officials, whether on the Government or Opposition Benches, is scrutiny. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) knows how much I scrutinise legislation.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. What we have in common is that he will stand up for his businesses in Harlow, and I will try to stand up for my businesses in Epping Forest. Much of the debate today and some of the amendments touch on scrutiny; the hon. Gentleman is moving on to the power of this House to scrutinise regulation. Small and medium-sized businesses in our country are facing huge pressures, and not just with regulation but with the economic climate set by this Labour Government through the jobs tax. Measures such as new clause 13 are seeking to rein in some of the powers that the Executive are trying to take on board, which will enable them to change regulations on a whim and then create more uncertainty for businesses. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that these sensible amendments would enable more scrutiny from this House and actually make the climate better for the businesses that we really want to champion?
Chris Vince
I thank my neighbour for his intervention. We both recognise the importance of championing businesses in our constituencies, although I am sure he would recognise that businesses in Harlow are better than those in Epping Forest. That was a joke—apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Chris Vince
I will pre-empt the point of order: businesses in Epping Forest and in Harlow are equally very good and very successful. I will now move on.
I disagree slightly with the hon. Gentleman on the reasons for the economic challenges. When I have spoken to businesses in Harlow, it is clear that we need to break down the barriers to trade with the EU that have been created. However, as I also said in a recent debate, I do not intend to rehash the same old arguments we have had over Brexit. It is about how we work with where we are at the moment, and I think the trade deal that the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary have secured on that is really positive. This is part of that alignment, and I think it is very positive.
Just to finish, I will welcome the response from the Minister on some of the points that have been raised today. I have absolute confidence in the Secretary of State to ensure that he gets the best for British businesses—businesses in Epping Forest and in Harlow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a real pleasure to take part in this debate on product regulation and metrology, not least because it gives me the opportunity to highlight the work done by my former colleagues at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, which is the UK’s home of metrology. I would like to set the mind of the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) at rest. He is still, as far as I know, the only metrologist with whom I have worked in a finance department, but, nevertheless, as a non-scientist, it gave me a real admiration for the work of scientists in this particular area. In Teddington they are setting the standards. They are developing and maintaining the primary measurement standards for the UK and across the world.
What I would like to say to the Chamber this afternoon and to my constituents in the neighbouring constituency of Richmond Park is that if they have been inspired by the hon. Member for Erewash and have had a fire ignited in them for the science of metrology, the National Physical Laboratory is having its open day this Friday, 6 June, and everyone should go along.
Adam Thompson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. It is lovely to hear of her experiences. I was aware that she was previously at the National Physical Laboratory. Indeed, I recall how excited my field was when she was first elected. I would just like to place strongly on the record how much I agree with her colleagues’ excellent contributions to science.
Sarah Olney
Following that hymn of praise to metrology, I will now turn to the amendments.
The Liberal Democrats welcome many of the measures proposed in the Bill. The legislation seeks to balance consumer safety, economic growth, and regulatory flexibility, ensuring that UK laws can keep pace with technological advancements. We support enhanced consumer protection for those products that pose a safety risk to consumers, as well as the importance of corporate responsibility for businesses operating in online marketplaces.
The Liberal Democrats support the need to update the regulatory framework and we are glad that the Bill takes steps to address this. However, steps must be taken to level the playing field between online and high street businesses, and to protect consumers. As such we have tabled new clauses 7, 10 and 11 and amendment 3, which work toward that aim.
Equally, the Liberal Democrats remain concerned by the Bill’s reliance on secondary legislation and the overuse of Henry VIII powers, giving Ministers excessive discretion to repeal or amend primary legislation through regulations. All product and metrology regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure and we seek to ensure that the Bill is ambitious in providing proper parliamentary scrutiny. There should also be greater engagement and consultation requirements, meaning that key stakeholders may not be adequately considered in regulatory changes. This lack of consultation feeds more broadly into our apprehensions about the burdens that some measures will place on small businesses, and as such we have tabled new clauses 5 and 6, which acknowledge this and would provide support to small and local businesses.
I wish to speak in favour of new clause 2, which would place a requirement on large supermarkets to inform customers when the quantity of goods within the product have decreased, resulting in a price increase per unit of measurement. Research by Compare the Market found that products such as digestive biscuits have become 28% smaller, yet the price has risen by 65% compared with a decade ago.
Sarah Olney
It is outrageous, yes.
Similar situations have been seen with popular household items such as Coco Pops, butter and crisps. We were glad to see that, while the Bill was in the other Chamber, the Government accepted a Liberal Democrat amendment, preventing changes to the pint as a recognised measurement for beer, cider and milk through regulations under the Bill. However, I hope the Government will go further and expand this safeguard to protect consumers by accepting this amendment.
I also wish to speak in favour of new clause 3, which would require the Government to undertake reviews into the feasibility of asking large hospitality businesses to disclose the country of origin of meat products on menus. The farming industry has been pushing for clearer labelling of the origins of food for some time. Previous research by the National Farmers Union has shown that 65% of consumers are more likely to visit a venue that claims that its ingredients are sourced from British farmers, and almost 70% of consumers agreed it was important that the sourcing of food in venues is transparent. Farmers across the country are grappling with the punitive family farm tax introduced by this Government, and continue to cope with the challenges imposed by trade deals under the last Conservative Government. Better labelling of British produce on the menus of larger restaurants would give crucial support to farmers and their businesses, and I hope that the Government will support this new clause as a step towards achieving that.
Gareth Snell
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about the amendment and the work that my colleagues are doing. My only point is that the final paragraph under subsection (7) of new clause 4 would allow such labelling
“where the final significant production process occurred in the UK”,
but that is one of the things that we are trying to clamp down on. In ceramic production, products that are bisque fired outside the UK then brought into the UK for gloss firing are passed off as being made in the UK. We argue that this should not be the case; the full process, from clay to table, should take place in the UK. While I have absolute sympathy with her on her new clause, that subsection unfortunately would not address the issue—in fact, it could do further damage to our industry. If she is happy to, we could discuss that outside this place. I am sure that there are areas of commonality, on which we could work together.
Sarah Olney
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further information about the ceramics industry, which I now feel so much better informed about. He makes a valuable point. When we talk about things being “made in the UK”, what exactly does that mean? How can we use that valuable designation to best support our domestic industries? I thank him for that further clarification.
Liberal Democrats support the need to update the regulatory framework for the UK marketplace to reduce trade friction and give businesses and consumers confidence in their products. We are glad that many of the measures in the Bill will have that effect, but we remain concerned about the excessive ministerial discretion in this legislation, and the reliance on secondary legislation. We will continue to push the Government to strengthen scrutiny mechanisms, and for fairer regulation for online marketplaces. Crucially, I hope the Government will take this opportunity to support British businesses by supporting new clause 4, giving consumers greater transparency and British businesses the boost that they need.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
May I say what an interesting debate this has been? I have a huge amount of sympathy for the case that has been put for new clause 1, which was made in a very coherent way. I also have great sympathy for the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and her proposed new clause 15. I will explain how our amendments would address some of the issues she has spoken about. The Liberal Democrat amendments, and new clause 4 in particular, make a great deal of sense. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled a range of amendments that cover points made in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s amendments, which I will come to.
We should ask ourselves why this relatively small and technical Bill has attracted nearly 50 amendments on Report. It is because, as was said, it is a Trojan horse Bill. We tabled our amendments because the Bill does a lot more behind the scenes than appears on the surface. When, in 2016, the voters of Britain—on an 80% turnout—voted to leave the European Union, it created an opportunity for the country to tailor our regulatory regime to best fit British industry, and to set a global standard, so that it is easier to do business. The UK’s product regulation and metrology, as we heard from our resident metrologist, the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), once set the standard for the world, and indeed has the chance to do so again. When in government, the Conservatives started the work of capitalising on that opportunity. We see the Bill as a terrible step back and a Trojan horse, because it will tie us to EU red tape on which we have no say.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) spoke about his hopes for businesses in Harlow. Through this Trojan horse Bill, Labour will restrict Britain’s innovators with over-burdensome regulations, meaning that British industry will fall behind international competitors. As we heard the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), say when speaking to her amendments, it is a prime example of a skeleton Bill. There are two major areas of concern for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition: the use of sweeping Henry VIII powers; and the ability to dynamically align by the back door with the European Union. I will speak to the amendments we have tabled to address those concerns.
When the Bill started its passage, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place found that the powers in the Bill, particularly in clause 1, were excessive, and it recommended that they be removed. Many of our amendments address those elements of clause 1. In the other place, the Government watered down the Bill following those criticisms, but afterwards the Bill was still described as a skeleton Bill that shifted powers “to an unacceptable extent”. As recently as 21 February, the Committee in the other place said that the amendments made in the other place were
“limited changes that do not address the fundamental concern we have about the skeletal nature of this Bill…The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill. It remains the case that the Bill provides for almost all of the substance of the regulatory regimes for product safety and metrology to be provided for by Ministers in regulations.”
While we acknowledge that the current Secretary of State may act responsibly, we do not want to put things on the statute book that future Ministers might treat differently.
We all agree that strong, consistent product safety rules are needed, and we acknowledge the risks from online marketplaces and unsafe imports, but we do not think that the Bill is the right way to deal with that. We also think that Parliament must retain proper oversight, so amendments 9, 11 and 12 seek to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State in clause 1.
Clause 3 is of equal concern, because it grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to create new criminal offences, creating new complexities in our criminal justice system. It also allow Ministers to create civil sanctions for non-compliance with product and metrology regulations through secondary legislation, reducing parliamentary scrutiny of an issue that is incredibly important for our constituents’ freedoms. The clause also allows the Government to introduce new penalties, and even prison sentences; new powers of entry; and new fines on businesses, which will drive up the cost of doing business. Our amendments seek to change those elements. We believe that such serious offences should be subject to considerably more parliamentary scrutiny. That is why amendment 24 seeks to ensure that new criminal offences that could have consequences for the Ministry of Justice and the criminal justice system are not created through new product regulations under the Bill.
Jim Allister
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is quite astounding that among the criminal offences that are anticipated being made by the Minister without parliamentary scrutiny are indictable offences, which could result in people losing their liberty for whatever period is specified in the offence? Is that not a retrograde departure from the standards of oversight that any citizen would expect Members elected to this House to exercise?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I agree. We all know the types of people being let of prison by this Government. It is a total scandal that suddenly a person can be imprisoned for perhaps inadvertently having products in stock that have not followed a dynamic alignment process that has not been very visible to Parliament. That is why I hope that the whole House will support amendment 24 in the Lobby.
Amendments 21, 22 and 23 seek clarification of the functions that may be conferred on a relevant authority, and the powers that may be granted to inspectors. The phrase “relevant authority” is used throughout the Bill, and it is not entirely clear what all such authorities might be.
In clause 13, we once again see Henry VIII powers being used, despite the concerns raised in the other place. Amendment 18 would therefore add to clause 13(6), and require that any regulations made under the legislation that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure all parliamentarians will want to support that amendment.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I am sure the Minister will come back on that point and say, “You can trust us, and you can trust this Government.” Does the shadow Minister agree, however, that this Government may not always be in power, and that the powers they are creating for themselves may be handed down to someone less responsible in future?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
I wholeheartedly endorse that. It is the principle; we do not know what Executive we will hand this power to in future. The current Executive is asking for the power, but we are a democracy, and the Executive can change at every single election. It would be wrong for Parliament to give away its powers in the way that is proposed in this legislation. That is why I hope that everyone will support our amendments.
Dr Hudson
I remember sitting through many debates on Bills in the last Parliament, in which Members of the Labour party, then in opposition, talked about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendments tabled by His Majesty’s Opposition are all about improving and bolstering parliamentary scrutiny, and that Government Members have nothing to fear by giving more powers to this House?
Dame Harriett Baldwin
My hon. Friend is so wise and so insightful. In fact, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade himself said in opposition,
“We must bear in mind that the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive, which is not something the Opposition could ever support. Rather, it is our duty at this stage to check the powers of the Executive and ensure that we are not giving them carte blanche to change the balance of power permanently in their favour.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]
That is exactly what they are asking for in this Bill, and why we urge Members to support our amendment.
It is not just the Secretary of State who says this. Let us listen to what our friend the Attorney General of this great United Kingdom, Lord Hermer, another member of His Majesty’s Government, has said on Henry VIII clauses, skeleton legislation and delegated powers. He says that they strike not only at the rule of law
“but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”
And yet we are being asked this evening to allow criminal sanctions and the possibility of imprisonment to go through using those powers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I thank all hon. Members for contributing to the debate—my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), for Harlow (Chris Vince), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the shadow Minister the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin). I will address many of the points they raised during the debate.
I welcome the Liberal Democrat spokesperson to her new role. I do not know whether it is a promotion or demotion, but I welcome her all the same. As always, it was a pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash and his great technical insight. Indeed, we have our own Professor Yaffle in his House—those of a certain age will know who I am referring to. His expertise was greatly appreciated in Bill Committee and again today.
Amendments 9, 11 and 12 would remove clause 1(1) from the Bill. Of course, that is the central power to keep consumers safe and our product regulations updated. As I said in Committee, our product regulation framework is extensive. We have hundreds of often technical regulations. Removing clause 1(1) would freeze our regulations in time. We would be unable to respond to new risks, products or business models. I cannot accept an amendment that would stop us from protecting consumers and businesses from product-related harm.
Mr Joshua Reynolds
The Minister talks about protecting consumers. That is exactly what new clause 2 would do by making them aware when a product gets smaller but the price remains the same—shrinkflation—so will he work with us and get that clause into law?
Justin Madders
I will address new clause 2 in due course. That is a more a consumer-related issue than a product safety one, but I understand the intent behind it.
We have heard a lot of concerns—many of them misplaced—about the breadth of powers contained within the Bill. In the other place, we did increase the measures that will be subject to the affirmative procedure. We removed several Henry VIII clauses and added a statutory consultation requirement. We also published a code of conduct, available in the Library of the House, which sets out exactly how the powers under the Bill will be used. I now believe the Bill strikes the right balance of appropriate parliamentary scrutiny without clogging up parliamentary time with highly technical product regulations. Gutting the Bill by removing the central power would leave consumers unprotected.
Amendments 10, 14 to 17, 25 to 29 and 32 all relate to EU law. I want to be absolutely clear yet again that the powers in the Bill give the UK the flexibility to manage its own product regulatory framework. Part of that is, of course, ensuring that the UK can respond to relevant developments in EU law. It does not mean that the UK is beholden to EU changes, and all regulations will be subject to Parliament’s oversight. I also wish to reassure the House that the Government remain committed to our obligations under the Windsor framework. The reason the Bill explicitly references the EU rather than other jurisdictions is that most of our product regulation is, of course, inherited from EU law. The UK continues to recognise certain EU product requirements—a policy that was, of course, enacted under the previous Government only 12 months ago.
The Bill’s powers allow us to continue or end such recognition based on the UK’s interests on a case-by-case basis. Decisions on whether to diverge or align will be made as they come along and will only be implemented by laying a statutory instrument in Parliament. Recognition of EU product requirements would be stated in UK law and could only be enforced by UK authorities. The Bill does not grant jurisdiction to foreign courts. I find amendment 15, which would prevent CE recognition, an odd amendment to be pushed by the Conservatives given that they introduced regulations only a year ago that did the absolute opposite.
New clauses 8, 14, 16 and 17 and amendments 13, 31 and 33 deal with themes of EU law, parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. These amendments duplicate the robust safeguards already in the Bill and the statutory and non-statutory controls that we have published in our code of conduct. Those include the statutory requirement for consultation and assessments under the better regulation framework. The Government value Parliament’s role in scrutinising legislation, so we will continue to consult all the devolved Governments as appropriate to ensure that regulations work for the whole of the UK.
Let me turn to amendments 1, 12, 18 and 30, on parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill as introduced already applied the affirmative procedure in key areas, including the creation of criminal offences—contrary to what has been said this afternoon—and amending primary legislation. However, in response to matters raised by the DPRRC, we have added additional areas, which are set out in clause 13(4). For the avoidance of doubt, I can confirm that the affirmative procedure applies to the following: the creation of criminal offences; the first use of regulations covering online marketplaces; the first time duties are imposed on a new supply chain actor; regulations conferring powers of entry, search or inspection; regulations to disapply requirements in response to an emergency; regulations covering the sharing of information between persons; regulations on cost recovery; regulations amending or repealing the Gun Barrel Proof Acts; consequential amendments to primary legislation; and regulations amending the definition of online marketplaces.
Dr Gardner
Does the Minister agree that online marketplaces should have a greater responsibility to ensure the safety and authenticity of the products they sell, just like a retailer on our high streets?
Justin Madders
I absolutely agree, and that is one reason why the Bill has been introduced. We absolutely need to keep up to date with developments in the online marketplace world, which is why we have introduced this legislation. It is not, as has been suggested, an unbridled use of powers; it sets out a clear set of principles and provides for the use of the affirmative procedure in most cases. There are already a number of regulations that will be transposed as they stand—there are about 2,500 pages of product regulations, including to do with noise levels emitted from certain types of machinery and the ergonomic design of personal protective equipment. Increasing the list of regulations subject to the affirmative procedure to cover such matters risks miring Parliament in a level of technicality that I think only my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash could follow. I do not think that is a good use of parliamentary time, and I believe the Opposition used to think that too, which is why the powers in the Consumer Protection Act 1987, which is similar to what we are dealing with today, remained in place under successive Governments.
I will deal now with new clause 15, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow. She raised some important points, and I thank her for setting out the rationale behind her new clause so clearly. First, I reassure the House that we are not looking at the same level of regulatory change that was necessitated when we left the EU. We anticipate no more than half a dozen uses of the powers a year. That is because the fundamentals of the regulatory framework are already in UK law—thousands of pages, as I have referred to, and many of those provisions have been through previous scrutiny processes. The majority of future changes using the power in the Bill will be smaller and technical.
I recognise the concerns raised, though. When we were a member of the EU, directives enacting major regulatory changes were regularly transposed into UK law using the negative procedure. Our Bill contains many more safeguards than were in place before, meaning that the affirmative procedure will be used far more often, as I have set out. Careful consideration was given in the development of the powers to ensure that we struck the right balance between good use of parliamentary time and the processing of highly technical changes. We listened to the concerns raised by members of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and went further, broadening the areas requiring scrutiny, as I have set out.
As Lord Pannick said, the practical reality is that technical regulations of the breadth and complexity that will be produced cannot sensibly be enacted by primary legislation. If we used primary legislation every time we wanted to do something on product safety, we would have little time for anything else. However, to provide maximum transparency in this space, we also published a code of conduct setting out the statutory and non-statutory guardrails in place before regulations can be made. That included a statement on how we will engage and consult with a wide range of stakeholders to ensure that their views are considered. We will continue to review and update the code of conduct, and of course we will be happy to take suggestions on how we can be clearer about Parliament’s role in the scrutiny of regulations.
Given those assurances, I believe we have struck the right balance between scrutiny, the appropriate use of parliamentary time and the flexibility needed to keep our product and metrology regulations up to date. I hope that gives my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow some reassurances.
Ms Creasy
I thank the Minister for setting that out. It is incredibly helpful and reassuring to many of us to hear that in this instance just a handful of regulations would be affected. I hope that Business Ministers have heard the wider call for us to look at the issue across the piece; in fact, I am sure that the Minister will want to feed that in. What he said is very welcome and I am sure that all hon. Members who supported my new clause will be reassured accordingly.
Justin Madders
I am sure that Ministers across Government will have heard the important points that my hon. Friend has made today.
Amendment 7 on consumer protection could have unintended consequences as product safety is not one-dimensional; it requires consideration of multiple risks and consumer and business needs. For example, we are undertaking a significant programme of work considering furniture safety and the balance between fire risks and the possible effects of exposure to chemical flame retardants. Were the amendment adopted, we would be open to challenge by any interest groups unhappy with how regulations balance those factors. Indeed, when I gave that example in Committee, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson), said that it was a compelling reason for not accepting the amendment, so I hope the hon. Member for Richmond Park will not move that amendment.
Gareth Snell
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Labelling for UK-produced or manufactured products
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a voluntary labelling system to indicate when a product has been produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom.
(2) The label must be—
(a) displayed clearly on the front-facing packaging of applicable goods;
(b) standardised in appearance, including a nationally recognised symbol or wording indicating UK origin; and
(c) legible, visible and no smaller in font size than the unit price display or equivalent information on the product.
(3) A product qualifies for the label if—
(a) it is wholly or substantially produced, manufactured, grown or reared in the United Kingdom; and
(b) it meets any additional criteria as set out by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State must consult food producers, retailers, consumer groups and relevant trade associations before setting the criteria for qualifying products and the design of the label.
(5) The Secretary of State must undertake a promotional campaign to ensure consumers are aware of the new labelling system.
(6) Regulations under this section must be made within 2 months of the passing of this Act.
(7) In this section—
“product” includes food, drink and manufactured goods available for retail sale;
“produced or manufactured in the United Kingdom” includes goods where the final significant production process occurred in the UK.”—(Sarah Olney.)
This new clause would require the Government to introduce a voluntary labelling system, clearly marking goods produced or manufactured in the UK, helping consumers make informed choices and supporting domestic producers.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill will help to preserve the United Kingdom’s position as a global leader in product regulation, supporting businesses, protecting consumers and ensuring a fair and level playing field across our economy, whether on the high street or on online marketplaces. It is designed to future-proof our approach to product regulation and metrology, ensuring that we can respond effectively to emerging technologies, tackle modern-day safety challenges and create the conditions for safe innovation and sustainable economic growth. By strengthening the system that underpins confidence in our goods market, we are reinforcing one of the core pillars of a productive and competitive economy.
As hon. Members will know, the majority of the UK’s product safety and metrology laws have their roots in EU legislation developed over the past 40 years. That framework served us well in many respects, but, of course, we have left the European Union, so we have a responsibility and an opportunity to tailor our rules to the UK’s own needs, circumstances and ambitions.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
We have heard arguments today, as we did in Committee, that this measured Bill is some mysterious route back into the EU. Does the Minister agree that, far from discovering a Trojan horse, the Opposition are trying to flog a dead one and that their arguments have been made up on the hoof?
Justin Madders
I give my hon. Friend 10 out of 10 for ingenuity. I have heard so many references to horses during the passage of the Bill that at times I felt I was at the Aintree racecourse. We can be clear that the Bill will not lead to dynamic alignment by default.
Chris Vince
We have heard a lot of myths about the Bill. The other myth that has been parroted is that the Bill will see the end of the great British pint. Does the Minister agree that actually it secures the great British pint? I look forward to enjoying one with him in the next few months.
Justin Madders
Indeed, the Bill does secure the great British pint; thanks to an amendment in the other place, it will hopefully be enshrined in law. I look forward to joining my hon. Friend in enjoying one at some point in the not-too-distant future.
The pace of change in both consumer behaviour and product innovation is only accelerating. From connected devices and artificial intelligence to new materials and manufacturing methods, the nature of risk and regulation is constantly shifting. We must ensure that our regulators are equipped with the right tools to act quickly and proportionately so that we can both manage and harness the hazards and the economic potential of new technologies. The Bill provides the powers to do just that. It gives Parliament the ability to update and strengthen product regulation and legal metrology in a coherent, consistent way.
Adam Thompson
Does the Minister agree that the Bill is instrumental in keeping the UK at the forefront of science internationally?
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention—he has certainly got the measure of this Bill. [Hon. Members: “Oh.”] I will not give up the day job—and we will not have a Division on that, either.
This is a framework that supports businesses by reducing unnecessary burdens, supports consumers by keeping dangerous goods off the market and supports the UK economy by making our regulatory system more agile, more responsive and more transparent. In short, the Bill will help to ensure that every product on the UK market, whether made in the United Kingdom or imported from abroad, meets the expectations of safety, fairness and quality that the public rightly demand.
Gareth Snell
The Minister rightly points out that the Bill will allow for new regulations to come on board to keep us safe, but the safety element of that comes about through the enforcement of those new rules. Can he say a little about the conversations happening across Government to ensure that our enforcement agencies are properly resourced to enforce the new regulations that are so vital?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will be primarily responsible for enforcement at the local level, but the Bill also increases the powers of local trading standards to enforce measures.
The Bill affects the whole of the UK. We have worked closely and constructively with devolved Governments on policy development through regular engagement and throughout the Bill’s passage at both ministerial and official level. I therefore thank the devolved Governments, Ministers and their teams for working so constructively with us.
In Committee, we tabled an amendment that placed a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to obtain the consent of the devolved Governments where regulations contain provisions within their devolved competence. We believe that provides for the most effective and appropriate role for the devolved Governments in a way that respects the individual devolution settlements. I am pleased to report that the Senedd passed a legislative consent motion for the Bill yesterday. I have also had constructive discussions with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and both have recommended legislative consent to their respective legislatures. We will continue to work collaboratively with those bodies to develop product regulation that best supports businesses and consumers across the whole of the UK.
I will provide a quick recap of some of the changes made to the Bill by the Government since it was introduced last year, in addition to the devolution amendment, because there has been some misconception about what the Bill does and does not do. We have added a statutory consultation mechanism to ensure that stakeholders can shape product and metrology regulations. We have extended the affirmative procedure to parts of the Bill to further boost parliamentary scrutiny; for the avoidance of doubt, they are detailed in clause 13(4). The affirmative procedure therefore now applies to: the creation of criminal offences; the first use of regulations covering online marketplaces; the first time duties are imposed on a new supply chain actor; regulations conferring powers of entry, search or inspection; regulations to disapply requirements in response to an emergency; regulations covering the sharing of information between persons; regulations on cost recovery, which I have already referred to in my response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central; regulations amending or repealing the Gun Barrel Proof Acts; regulations on consequential amendments to primary legislation; and regulations amending the definition of online marketplaces. As Members will be aware from the responses on Report, there were a number of reasons that we want flexibility with regard to online marketplaces, which we believe will develop in ways that we cannot predict.
I can confirm that aviation safety products are exempted from the Bill as they are covered in existing legislation.
The Government have published a code of conduct that sets out the statutory and non-statutory guardrails to ensure that regulation made under this legislation is proportionate and well designed. It is also worth addressing the criticism that this is a skeletal Bill and pointing out that the proportion of skeletal Bills tripled in 2016-2023 compared with 1991-2015. Indeed, in the former period, some 19 separate Bills were described as skeletal by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that, far from being a skeletal Bill, this legislation provides an adaptable framework for product regulation and consumer safety?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is right; indeed, this goes well beyond the measures in place when we were in the EU when it comes to parliamentary involvement. I will briefly refer to contributions made by hon. Members during the passage of the Bill.
I thank my counterpart in the other place, Lord Leong, for shepherding the Bill through the Lords, with support from Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I also thank the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, who has been alongside us throughout the passage of this Bill in the Public Bill Committee. The hon. Members for Wokingham (Clive Jones), for Chippenham and for Richmond Park, who represented the Liberal Democrats in Committee and in the Chamber, are a trio that we will never forget. I hope that the short passage of this Bill is not a reflection of the high turnover in Liberal Democrat spokespeople—they have engaged with the Bill in a constructive manner.
I thank hon. Members who engaged in the Bill Committee and the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz), who chaired that Committee with great expertise. It is probably worth mentioning my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central again. He has championed the ceramics industry both today and on Second Reading, and we recognise his great contributions.
Finally, I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), who, as the first elected metrologist to this House, has brought a deeply technical and knowledgeable perspective to our debates, which we all appreciate—although I do not think we could ever be asked to take a quiz on the finer details of his work.
Adam Thompson
On that point, could the Minister elaborate on how the Bill supports the advancement of British science?
Justin Madders
I suspect that my hon. Friend would be far better at doing that himself. His speech on Second Reading was a fantastic example of how we explain legislation matters and practice. It is important that we have certainty and consistency in how we measure things and that we have a clear legislative framework for the measurements that underpins all science. He gave us a historical sweep of those issues when he spoke on Second Reading.
It is important for me to pass on my gratitude to all those officials who have supported us in the passage of the Bill, as well as the parliamentary staff who have enabled it to come through swiftly and smoothly. It will return to the other place for consideration of the amendments we have made in this place, and I am confident that—in the spirit of constructive scrutiny and co-operation that has characterised its progress so far—it will continue on its way. This legislation is an important step in strengthening our domestic regulatory regime and ensuring that it is robust, future-facing and fit for purpose in a post-Brexit economy. I look forward to working with colleagues in the other place to ensure that the Bill finally reaches the statute book as swiftly as possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Let me place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) and for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for their work in holding the Government to account on this Bill.
On Second Reading, I said that the Bill was the archetype of everything that is sometimes wrong with Westminster, but now, after months of debate in both Houses, I fear that it is even worse. In 2017, the now Prime Minister said that his party would respect the outcome of the referendum in which 17 million people voted to leave the European Union. Britain has now fallen victim to Labour’s EU surrender summit, giving up our fishing rights and our ability to make our own laws. I am happy to concede that this is no longer a Trojan horse of a surrender Bill, because it is now in plain sight. It is absurd that any Government would give up the power to shape our own regulations and meet the needs of our own consumers, electors and businesses. Those economies that will succeed in the future are those that are agile, that can adjust dynamically to events and that can tailor their own rulebook to their own particular needs.
While this Government’s track record is frankly disastrous, I still give them the benefit of the doubt when they say they wish for growth, but for the benefit of Labour Members—who I rather suspect have not read the detail of this Bill; they have been whipped into supporting it—let me spell out what it does. The dynamic alignment clauses in the Bill would mean that every time the EU tweaked its standards—shaped by the interests of 27 other states with their own different mix of businesses, often in competition with ours—Britain would have to follow suit. There would be no more bespoke trade deals around the world, as the Prime Minister and his team would be lame-duck negotiators, with the EU President holding the real strings. The Government boast of three trade deals in three weeks, but that is a hollow boast when not a single one is backed up by any detail. The Trade Secretary, who is noticeably absent today, is no doubt trying to make true what his Prime Minister has already announced. The Paymaster General confirmed to me in a written answer this afternoon that British businesses, exporters, travellers and tourists will not benefit from e-gates, as we were promised. Yet the Government, in all their naivety, are legislating to hand control of our product regulations back to Brussels.
At every stage of scrutiny, this Bill has been found wanting. The mild-mannered Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place delivered an uncharacteristically scathing rebuke, branding it a skeleton Bill that grotesquely shifts legislative power from Parliament to Ministers. It shackles British businesses, already bleeding out, to EU standards, stifling innovation. It is a solution in search of a problem, and under the Bill—under the measures being brought forward by the Government today—there is no room for the sort of robust scrutiny that we were sent here by our constituents to do, and no accountability. It is all in the hands of Ministers who keep breaking their promises.
Let us be clear: Labour’s pattern of broken promises does not just set Britain back; it erodes the trust that people have in politics. This House has a duty to restore faith in our democracy, to protect our hard-fought sovereignty and to say no to the overreach of blank-cheque ministerial powers, such as those in the Bill. This House must tonight reject the Bill, as we will seek to do, to stop the Government from forsaking Britain’s ability to carve and determine its own future.
Question put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?
Business without Debate
Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Today, my constituent Isla presented her petition, which has over 200,000 signatures, to No. 10 Downing Street. It calls for more investment in, and political will for, the early detection of pancreatic cancer. She and her brother Tam started the petition the night before he died, just weeks after his diagnosis. I am presenting this petition on behalf of Isla and the hundreds of thousands of others who lose loved ones because of the lack of early detection.
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the resource needs in relation to the research and development of tests for the early detection of pancreatic cancer, and ensure the appropriate tools are available to General Practitioners across the NHS”,
and across the UK.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that there are life-threateningly few tests for early detection of pancreatic cancer therefore reducing the availability of life-saving early treatment to patients.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to consider the resource needs in relation to the research and development of tests for the early detection of pancreatic cancer, and ensure the appropriate tools are available to General Practitioners across the NHS.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003080]
Street Parking on Estates: Bracknell Forest
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate on an issue that might not be right at the top of the political agenda, but affects the lives of hundreds of people in my constituency every day: street parking on residential estates in Bracknell. It is a topic that comes up on the doorstep perhaps more than any other, particularly in parts of Bracknell where we have older estates. It is a real challenge for people; it affects not only their ability to get around our fantastic community, but in some cases their safety.
One of the core challenges we face is the mismatch between older estate design and modern car ownership. Bracknell is an older new town. It celebrated its 75th birthday last year, and while it was designed with an excellent active travel network, which is built into its DNA, it was also designed around the car. It is an easy place to get around by car. We are lucky that we do not see massive issues with traffic jams and the like, but people still rely on their cars, as is the case in many towns across the country. The challenge is that many estates across Bracknell, particularly in Wildridings, Great Hollands and Easthampstead, were built when households typically had one small vehicle, if that. Now, many households have more than one car, and the cars are larger to boot. Also, because of the nature of the housing market, we increasingly see more generations living in the same family home, which only further compounds the issue.
The garages built alongside the estates that I am talking about in Bracknell Forest were built for a different kind of car. They are narrow, and many no longer fit cars of the size that people drive today. The obvious conclusion to all this is exactly what we see: vehicles spilling out on to roads, verges and pavements. Where households do not have a driveway, it causes a huge challenge around space.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I think he is about to describe the incredible pressure that many residents feel because of parking problems, whether that is difficulty parking near their home, difficulty walking along a pavement because of pavement parking, or one of many other problems. It drives people absolutely crazy. There is real pressure on communities up and down the country, in my experience. Does he agree that, to help ease some of this, the Government should have a new look at existing regulations, at further refining residents’ parking schemes, and at the more tricky issues, such as cases where one person or a group of people parking again and again on an unrestricted road? In my constituency, I have had issues when people commuting to work have parked on the same road time and again, which can be frustrating for residents. As my hon. Friend says, the basic problem is that there are many more vehicles nowadays, and it is difficult to accommodate parking needs, but we must try.
Peter Swallow
I thank my hon. Friend for that insightful intervention. In Bracknell Forest, we have few permit parking zones, because they simply would not work for our community. The point that he makes is absolutely correct, and I will come back time and again in this debate to the need for local areas to come up with local solutions to these local problems. Ultimately, communities like his in Reading and mine in Bracknell Forest know best what the solutions are to some of these endemic issues.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for the speech he is making. This issue plagues residents in my area, too. Two particular problems are: parking around school pick-up and drop-off—I wonder whether he has found the same—and, in unadopted estates, real difficulties with enforcement when there is dangerous parking. Does this issue need to be addressed by local authorities, as well as the Government?
Peter Swallow
Absolutely. My hon. Friend’s point about the challenge around schools is well made. We all want to see more young people and families walking and cycling to school, but in some communities, that just is not possible. Also, we have to be realistic: in some communities, it just does not happen. The end result is what we often see in streets such as Staplehurst in Great Hollands, where there is a lot of conflict between those going to pick up their kids from school and the families who live there, who just need to get out without having their movements dictated by the timings of the school day. It is a real challenge. In those situations, local solutions need to be the vehicle that takes us forward, if the House will pardon the pun.
Enforcement is a really important part of the puzzle. On some streets in Bracknell Forest, at any hour of any day, a traffic warden could litter all the cars with tickets. Frankly, if there is not the parking infrastructure to allow cars to park, enforcement can only go so far, so although it is absolutely part of the solution, it is not the only part.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way, and congratulate him on securing this Adjournment debate. As he knows, Binfield in my constituency is part of Bracknell Forest. An issue in Binfield is commercial businesses being run from residential properties, which often creates increased demand for parking. I really support the hon. Gentleman’s call for localised support and action to target this issue. Would he like to work together with Bracknell Forest and me to come up with a solution?
Peter Swallow
That sounds like an excellent campaign. I have to say that I have not necessarily identified that issue in my part of Bracknell Forest, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could have a further discussion in the Tea Room on that very important issue.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I spoke to the hon. Gentleman before the debate, and I congratulate him on bringing forward this issue. In my constituency of Strangford, which is very similar to his, there are estates where the houses were built in the ’60s and ’70s. The roads are narrow and were never built for households with two or more cars, and the situation is aggravated when young people learn to drive. The Department back home came up with the idea of enabling those who have driveways to have a white line put across them, so that cars cannot park in front. That is okay in theory, but it does not work, because cars have to go in and out, and there is a problem when cars park beyond the line. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that leads to frustration, anger and fisticuffs, and to neighbours falling out. If there is to be an initiative from this House—we look to the Minister for that—it has to start with legislation or direction from this place. Then councils can have responsibility for taking it to the next stage. Again, well done to the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue. There is not one of us in this House who does not agree with him.
Peter Swallow
May I say what an honour it is to be intervened on by the hon. Member? I will take his suggestion and flip it on its head. I feel that local solutions are the best way to tackle what are often local issues, and part of the reason for that is exactly what we have heard today from Members across the House: in every community and on almost every street, different issues cause the parking woes to which the hon. Member so powerfully refers. Parking is perhaps the greatest example of an issue that must be tackled from the bottom up, and this place can empower local leaders to come forward with common-sense answers and strategies to address these very real issues in our communities.
In Bracknell Forest, there are estates where a large number of homes without driveways were once council houses. They are now in private ownership, but the estates themselves have been transferred to the social housing association Abri. That makes the issue even trickier to address. Bracknell Forest council is working hard to tackle this issue in exactly the proactive and practical way to which I have referred, and it has been undertaking a scheme to convert grass verges into additional parking spaces, almost road by road. The council is identifying underused grass verges and converting them into usable and safe parking bays, and that is being done in partnership with Abri. It is an excellent example of what can be achieved when councils and housing associations work collaboratively to address shared challenges. That has not always been easy, and it has involved complex legal issues around transferring ownership from social housing providers to the council, but I thank both the council and Abri for working proactively together to address the concerns. I also make it clear that this is not a silver bullet. Such schemes are making a real difference in parts of Bracknell Forest, but I am fully aware that this is not enough and challenges remain.
It would be fantastic to see Government take more action to support local authorities to work with social housing providers in delivering such small-scale, locally targeted infrastructure improvements. It is not about massive investment or a complex solution but an obvious, common-sense one: unlocking existing local potential by simplifying the process. Of course, I recognise that converting grass verges may be anathema to some. Let me be clear: I support access to green space, and I do not want to see every corner of Bracknell Forest tarmacked over.
Matt Rodda
Again, my hon. Friend is making an excellent point. May I remind him that there is a great deal of underused brownfield land that can sometimes be made available for parking? In my constituency, I worked previously as a councillor on a scheme to tarmac an unadopted road, which my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) mentioned, and unadopted roads and other areas of hardstanding that are not formally used for parking can be converted without any loss of green space.
Peter Swallow
That is a fantastic point, and it again reinforces the local need for finding solutions. As in Bracknell Forest where cars are already parked on grass verges because of the lack of parking spaces—tearing up the grass and in some cases causing safety concerns such as blocking blind corners—it is also common sense to convert some of the verges in a safer way into proper parking spaces. Rather than taking away valuable green space, it ensures that we better protect the grass verges that we do need.
Another growing pressure on our estates, which is very much on the Government’s radar, is the need to transition to electric vehicles. As things stand, EV charging on housing estates with roadside-only parking is almost impossible for many residents. Without driveways or off-street bays, there is nowhere to install a home charger. Charging cables trailing across pavements are a serious safety concern for pedestrians, wheelchair users and families alike. Bracknell Forest council has been leading the way in installing charging infrastructure in council car parks, and there is good coverage for those who need to charge.
However, there is a challenge. It cannot be right that households with a driveway, who are more likely to be affluent already, can access cheaper and easier EV charging at home without paying VAT, while households without a driveway struggle to access charging at home and have to pay above the odds at rapid charging stations. It is not just a Bracknell issue; it is a national challenge. It is a critical barrier to equitable access to EVs, particularly for those living in older estates.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising these very important issues, and his constituents will be delighted that he is doing so on their behalf. In Ealing, electric vehicle charging points have been a major concern for the council to ensure they meet the need. There are currently 900 electric vehicle charging points throughout the borough, but we need 1,800 by 2030. The council has been consulting on an electric vehicle roll-out strategy to take a strategic approach to the issue. Does he agree that other areas would benefit from taking a similar strategic approach to the roll-out of electric vehicle charging points?
Peter Swallow
Absolutely. That again goes to the point about local solutions being important. I thank the Government for their work on reforms set out by the National Energy System Operator to improve the speed at which EV charging infrastructure can be added to the grid. I will press on because I am conscious that we are fast approaching the witching hour.
Another technical but very real issue that makes it harder for local authorities up and down the country to introduce parking restrictions is that even simple localised restrictions can cost up to £1,000 in advertising fees because of the requirement, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to publicise them in a local newspaper. That is money not going towards tarmac or signage, but simply to advertising costs. As a result, residents can wait for months for a minor change that could immediately improve safety and accessibility.
Finally, I shall touch on pavement parking, which I know is a divisive subject. Many Members have argued that it should be illegal to park on pavements, and I understand why they hold such a view. I recognise how difficult it is for people with pushchairs as well as disabled people, especially blind people, to navigate pavements when cars are parked. I have also met and heard from a fantastic charity, Sustrans, on this issue. But the reality is that if we enforce a total ban on pavement parking in Bracknell Forest, there will simply be nowhere left to park. On many narrow estates, pavement parking is the only way the road can remain passable. That is why I support giving local authorities the powers to decide where to ban pavement parking based on local needs and knowledge. Again, this is about local flexibility. Councils know their communities best and communities know what is best for them. Let us trust them to make the right calls and empower them to tackle this really significant issue facing so many families in Bracknell Forest and across the country.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for raising this important matter with the Government, and congratulate him on securing this debate. I have heard his concerns regarding the inadequate provision of parking across his constituency, and I recognise the issues he raises on the accessibility of parking. These are important issues which have a direct link to the welfare of local communities and the economic prosperity of our towns. Let me cover some of the main points raised in his remarks and other interventions.
As my hon. Friend will be all too aware, competition for parking spaces, especially for accessible street parking, across this country is already substantial. The Government recognise the provision of accessible and reliable parking is particularly important outside of the major metropolitan areas, where public transportation is often limited and where people need to be able to drive to access basic services and economic centres. Although the Government understand the benefits of private car use for individuals up and down the country, with many across our communities relying on private vehicles as a key part of their lives, I also recognise that many estates are simply not equipped to deal with the number of cars on our roads. That is most keenly felt by residents in older estates.
This problem has been exacerbated by the fact that modern cars have grown not only in number but in size, as my hon. Friend rightly referenced in his remarks. As a result, the growing demand for the provision of parking risks becoming unmanageable. That will not only be frustrating to residents who own vehicles, but can also lead to irresponsible or even dangerous parking in prohibited areas.
My Department is aware of the complaints many residents of Bracknell Forest have raised about parked vehicles preventing the flow of traffic, and I welcome the measures the council has now put in place to prevent this. While the Government recognise the importance of adequate provision of street parking for local communities, in line with the Government’s position on localism, parking is ultimately the responsibility of local authorities and it is for them to determine what is appropriate in their area, and local authorities already have powers to implement and enforce parking restrictions.
The Government understand that Bracknell Forest council has acknowledged the pressures with street parking in the community and is in the process of implementing a parking strategy with the objective of supporting the provision of parking in the borough. I note the concerns my hon. Friend raises regarding the council’s progress to date; however, it is right that local authorities have autonomy over the nature and scope of parking policies within their local area. As he rightly recognised when he spoke about local solutions, local authorities are best placed to balance the needs of residents, emergency services, local businesses and those who work in and visit their area.
Of course, the Government are committed to investing in local communities and improving local transport infrastructure. The Department for Transport recently allocated £203,000 to Bracknell Forest council from the local transport resource funding scheme. Under the scheme, local transport authorities can use this funding to build their capability and capacity to develop ambitious transport schemes, develop and update local transport plans, deliver local delivery plans, fund individual projects and retain the transport expertise to do this.
On pavement parking, I well understand that this can be a real problem for pedestrians, wheelchair users, those with prams and buggies, and especially people with mobility or visual impairments. We are mindful of the concerns many people have raised about inconsiderate pavement parking.
As my hon. Friend is likely already aware, the Department for Transport held a consultation back in 2020 on the complex problem of pavement parking. This Government intend to publish a formal response to that consultation later this year, which will summarise the views received and announce the Government’s next steps for pavement parking policy. In the meantime, highways authorities may introduce specific local pavement parking restrictions using their existing TRO-making powers—traffic regulation orders—and these can be enforced by councils using their civil parking enforcement powers.
My hon. Friend also raised the topic of electric vehicle charging on housing estates with roadside parking. The Government are committed to making EV charging infrastructure more affordable and accessible, particularly for those without off-street parking. Most electric vehicle drivers charge overnight at home, which is often the most convenient and cost-effective option. To support those without on-street parking, the Government offer a grant for homes to purchase a charge point when paired with a cross-pavement charging solution. The Department is aware of at least 26 trials and hundreds of individual installations of cross-pavement solutions across the UK. The Government are also working with local authorities to encourage this technology. In December 2024, the Government published cross-pavement guidance to help local authorities understand what they need to consider for the roll-out of cross-pavement solutions. That includes relevant planning permissions, minimum existing standards, responsibilities and case studies of trials.
For private land, such as the residential estates my hon. Friend mentioned, the landowners or private car park operators are responsible for parking provision and enforcement. I am pleased to hear that Bracknell Forest council is working with local landowners, including housing associations, to deliver more parking capacity across the community. Housing associations are private bodies and must make their own decisions on how they run their business, but the neighbourhood and community standard is clear that providers must co-operate with partners to promote social, environmental and economic wellbeing. The standard includes a specific expectation that housing associations co-operate with local authorities to support them in achieving their objectives. However, the regulator of social housing does not dictate how individual housing associations demonstrate how they comply with this duty. I welcome the co-operation my hon. Friend mentioned. I am glad to hear his local authority is working collaboratively with Abri, the housing association in question, and I am pleased by Bracknell Forest council’s commitment, through its parking strategy, to work with housing associations generally to help alleviate the pressures on parking.
To conclude, I thank my hon. Friend once again for raising this matter with the Government. We recognise the significant concerns many communities, particularly those residing in older estates, face regarding the accessibility and availability of parking. This essential resource is under increasing pressure, and we fully support local councils in their endeavours to mitigate the challenges. As I said, local councils are best positioned to lead the initiatives, as they possess the intimate knowledge of their areas and can effectively consider factors such as traffic flow capacity, road safety and the diverse needs of residents, visitors and businesses, but I hope I have given my hon. Friend a sense of what the Government are doing to support them.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am grateful for the Committee’s time this afternoon. Financial services fulfil a vital role for people and businesses across the UK. The Government are committed to ensuring high standards of both consumer protection and financial inclusion. The regulations form part of that commitment by strengthening protections for customers, including individual consumers, businesses and charities, when their bank accounts or other payment services are terminated by their provider.
While terminations of services are generally considered commercial decisions, customers must be treated fairly. Concerns have been raised in that area over recent years, including concerns about services being terminated on the basis of customers’ lawful beliefs and political opinions. The Government are unequivocal that customers should not see payment services terminated on grounds relating to their lawful freedom of expression.
There are clear protections in law that already prohibit providers from discriminating against UK consumers based on protected characteristics and their lawful beliefs and political opinions. However, in other areas, existing legislation does not always provide appropriate protection and is not sufficiently clear. Currently, payments legislation contains no obligation on providers to explain why they are terminating services, and the existing two-month notice period is not always long enough, meaning that customers do not have the information and time they need to understand providers’ decisions, rectify issues or make a complaint.
The statutory instrument before us today addresses those issues. It would increase the amount of notice that providers must give to at least 90 days and introduce a new requirement that customers be given an explanation that is sufficiently detailed and specific for them to understand why the contract for their payment service is being terminated. Providers would also be required to advise customers on how they can make a complaint to their provider and on any right they may have to take their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
The SI clarifies ambiguities in existing legislation to ensure that the new rules are applied consistently. There are some exceptions to the new requirements in the SI, as Members will see, mainly so that providers can continue to meet their other legal requirements. The strengthened rules would take effect from 28 April 2026 and apply to the termination of payment services contracts that are concluded for an indefinite period and entered into on or after that date.
The regulations would make crucial changes that would ensure that customers are treated fairly while respecting providers’ rights to make commercial decisions. The reforms will increase transparency, ensuring that customers understand providers’ decisions and have the time and information they need to bring a complaint or find an alternative provider. I thank the Committee for its attention and welcome any questions from the shadow Minister or other Members.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Mundell. Congratulations on your tennis match this morning; I am glad it went well. Lawn tennis—you can’t beat it.
This SI started its life in the previous Government and has come through more or less untouched. It is almost as if the general election never happened—it is extraordinary; we seem to have swapped sides somehow. On the basis that the SI was started in the previous Government, the Opposition will support the new rules.
It is absolutely right that people and businesses have access to bank accounts. While the Farage-NatWest scandal brought the issue of debanking into the national spotlight, the statistics show that the scale of the problem is far wider. Nearly 400,000 bank accounts were closed last year, according to figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph via a freedom of information request. Many of those closures will of course have been for legitimate reasons such as financial crime, fraud or dormant accounts. For people and businesses that are impacted, often unfairly, the new rules will be very helpful. These are sensible steps that will improve transparency and give customers more time to find alternatives if their accounts are closed.
However, the deal does not include a statutory review clause, which is possibly a mistake, and there has rightly been feedback. David Hamilton, a partner at Howard Kennedy, warns:
“If customer exits are more onerous in terms of disclosures and potential FOS challenges, it may give banks pause to consider whether they want to onboard certain types of customers at all.”
In other words, there is a real risk that the banks will simply become more cautious at the account opening stage, and they could make it harder for those perceived as higher risk, such as politically exposed persons—everybody in this room—or certain business sectors, to access basic banking services at all, which brings me on to my next point.
The new rules on politically exposed persons have not yet been publicised. The Financial Conduct Authority’s consultation on the issue closed in October 2024. Its initial findings asked banks and financial institutions to do more to ensure that UK lawmakers and their families are not treated unfairly. It is essential that the new rules on debanking and PEPs are aligned and implemented at the same time to give both customers and banks clarity and consistency.
Although we support the new rules, I would like the Minister to address the following key questions. First, why has the statutory review clause not been included in this SI, given the risk of unintended consequences for account holders? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the impact on people who may now find it harder to open a bank account in the first place? Thirdly, when will the new rules on politically exposed persons be published? Will the Government commit to aligning their implementation with the debanking reforms? Also, how will the Government monitor the impact of the changes, particularly on small businesses and vulnerable customers, and what steps will be taken if there is evidence that banks are becoming more risk-averse and excluding legitimate customers from the banking system?
As I said, access to bank accounts is a basic necessity in modern Britain. Under the previous—might I say brilliant?—Government, we made it a fundamental right to have access to basic banking services. These rules are a step forward, but it is vital that we remain alert to making sure that they do not become another barrier put in place to stop businesses and consumers accessing banking services. The Minister might not have enough time to get an answer to my questions, but if she could perhaps write me a letter, that would be fantastic. As I said, we will support this measure.
Emma Reynolds
It started so well—I am slightly confused by the hon. Gentleman. On one hand he says it is as though nothing changed, and did we need a general election to get to this point? On the other hand he calls into question the provisions of the SI and what impact they might have. I will come to his questions in turn. First, there has been a big change since the election. I was not here in the last Parliament, so there has been a welcome change from my point of view and on the Labour side of the House, where we have a quite hefty majority, in case he had not noticed.
The reforms were consulted on and thought about in the last Government—the hon. Gentleman was right to make that point. We consider, as did the previous incumbents in my role and the Conservatives in government, that the current notice period of 60 days is simply not adequate for customers who have their accounts closed to either make a complaint or seek an alternative provision, and that is bad for individual customers, but particularly bad for businesses. As he set out, it is crucial that businesses and individual customers have access to bank accounts.
We do not think, although I can write to him with more evidence, that this measure will make banks more reluctant to open bank accounts in the first place. The balance that we are striking in this statutory instrument is on the one hand enhanced consumer protection and on the other hand ensuring that we do not place unnecessary and disproportionate burdens on banks and other providers—it is not just about banks; it is about other payment providers, too. We have not included a statutory review clause, but that does not mean that we cannot review the legislation. We do not judge that this provision will make banks more reluctant to open bank accounts for people in the first place.
The shadow Minister asked more broadly about access to banking services, which is something that we are monitoring. As he said, that is crucial to both the operation of a business and customers. In our financial inclusion strategy, we are looking at access to banking and the relationship between financial exclusion and digital exclusion. We are doing broader work in this area to understand not only the root causes from providers but why individuals have perhaps had their accounts closed and not sought alternative provision.
We are doing broader work on financial provision, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and we will produce a strategy by the end of the year on this vital issue. I know that many of my hon. Friends will welcome that, as well as other Members across the House, because financial inclusion is something that we all care about and this Government are very committed to. I believe that I have answered all the questions.
Emma Reynolds
Sorry; could the hon. Gentleman remind me of the specific question?
Mark Garnier
It was to do with the assessment being done of the impact on politically exposed persons. When can we expect that report to come out?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the shadow Minister for that question. As he will know, changes were brought into force in January 2024 under the previous Government that ensured that domestic PEPs, as they are called, were not deemed to be on the same level of risk as non-domestic PEPs. That SI was introduced under the last Government and FSMA—the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023—committed to bringing forward that legislation.
It also committed the FCA to doing a review of so-called PEPs and debanking. That review concluded that banks were not necessarily taking the wrong approach, but it said that there needs to be more proportionate application of rules. Therefore, the FCA will bring forward updated guidance on this issue, and I am happy to write to the shadow Minister in more detail on the timing of that and what will be included.
Question put and agreed to.
Windsor Post Office
Traffic calming measures around The Oval School in Garretts Green
Licensing Hours Extensions Bill
Wednesday 4th June 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesLicensing Hours Extensions Bill 2024-26 View all Licensing Hours Extensions Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
I have a few preliminary reminders. Please switch off electronic devices. No food or drink—milk included—is to be consumed during the sitting, except the water that is on the tables. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes. If you wish to speak, please bob to catch my eye.
My selection and grouping list for the sitting is available in the room, as you will have seen. No amendments have been tabled; we will have a single debate on both clauses. This should be a straightforward matter, but of course one expects the normal scrutiny from all members of the Committee.
Clause 1
Procedure for making licensing hours orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I am pleased to bring the Licensing Hours Extensions Bill before the Committee.
Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003 enables the Secretary of State to make an order to relax licensing hours in licensed premises in England and Wales for occasions
“of exceptional international, national, or local significance”.
I am sure we all agree that pubs and other hospitality venues hold a special and significant place in our communities. They often sit at the very heart of them. They transcend generations, help to combat loneliness and bring us together. When moments of national importance emerge, many people gravitate towards them to share those moments.
Not only does relaxing licensing hours ensure that communities can mark such special occasions together, but it reduces unnecessary and time-consuming bureaucracy for local authorities and for the hospitality industry. Currently, the relevant legislation requires the affirmative procedure to be followed to implement such extensions. The Bill proposes a simple change that will enable them to be brought about via the negative procedure, thereby freeing up valuable parliamentary time.
What will change? As the Committee will be aware, the affirmative procedure requires that we debate any order to extend licensing hours in both Houses. The Bill will remove the mandatory requirement for such debates. Instead, hon. Members will be able to pray against an extension if they consider it appropriate to do so, which in turn may trigger a debate. Previous orders to extend licensing hours in such circumstances have passed unopposed and with overwhelming support. The Bill will reduce the burden on parliamentary time and resources, while still allowing concerns to be expressed.
The criteria for making an extension will remain unchanged. The Government remain committed to using the power only on a limited basis. The ability to make an order to extend licensing hours lies with the Home Secretary; all such decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. In practical terms, the hope is that the Bill will ensure that the next time we see the next great sporting or other occasion that justifies a relaxing of hours, no pub or hospitality venue will miss out on the chance to open its doors to its local community a little earlier or later and to enjoy everything that comes with such an occasion.
Clause 1 will permit the Home Secretary to make such extension orders when they are deemed appropriate, without having to go through unnecessary parliamentary hurdles. Clause 2 will simply mean that the Bill comes into force on the day of Royal Assent and extends to England and Wales only. As no amendments have been tabled, my hope is that the Committee will agree to both clauses of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham on promoting a Bill that has been greeted so warmly by the House, and on laying out the case for it so clearly and succinctly today.
This is a Government-backed Bill that will cut red tape and claim back valuable parliamentary time while bringing benefits in the form of increased revenues for businesses and reducing burdens on licensing authorities. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, who has been working on the Bill; I am speaking in her place, as she is unable to be present.
The Bill will make an amendment to the Licensing Act to allow licensing extensions to be made more quickly and simply. Furthermore, it will make it possible to extend licensing hours for significant events at short notice even when Parliament is not sitting. Under section 172 of the Act, the Secretary of State may make an order that relaxes licensing hours in England and Wales for
“an occasion of exceptional international, national, or local significance”.
Decisions to extend licensing hours in such circumstances are considered on a case-by-case basis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham mentioned. The Government will continue to use the power sparingly.
Currently, the affirmative parliamentary procedure is mandatory—my hon. Friend made that point effectively—in the making of such an order, meaning that it requires the approval of both Houses before coming into force. The Bill will make a very simple alteration to the Licensing Act so that the negative resolution procedure is used instead, allowing extensions to licensing hours to be processed without using up valuable parliamentary time. There has always been agreement across the House that we should move forward in such circumstances, for the reasons that my hon. Friend outlined: it benefits all our constituents when they can come together on very special occasions and spend time in pubs and restaurants in our communities. Objections may still be made, where applicable, under the negative resolution procedure, so Parliament will still have a role.
The negative procedure also has the benefit of allowing licensing hours extensions to be made in the rare event that they are needed during parliamentary recesses or at short notice. Following the affirmative procedure is problematic when an order needs to be made at short notice, such as during a sporting event, when the gap between one of the national teams qualifying for the later stages of the competition and the next match is likely to be only a matter of days. In 2021, an emergency order had to be rushed through Parliament at extremely short notice when the England men’s football team reached the final of Euro 2020. In 2023, when the England women’s team progressed to the world cup final, it was not possible to temporarily extend licensing hours, because the House was in recess.
Licensing hours have previously been relaxed for significant royal occasions, such as the platinum jubilee of Her late Majesty the Queen, and for events of significant national importance, such as the recent VE Day 80th anniversary, as well as for major sporting events. Those extensions received cross-party support in both Houses, as was particularly evident during the recent debate on the VE Day extension, which was warmly welcomed by both Houses.
Extending licensing hours for such occasions means that communities can come together in collective celebration, businesses can reap the benefit of increased revenue and local authorities can be spared the burden of processing high volumes of single extensions. We can all appreciate the welcome boost that that will bring to our local economies: we estimate that it could be up to £500,000 on each occasion.
For businesses, taking advantage of such blanket extensions and remaining open for the additional hours is, of course, optional. The Government will continue to plan ahead for such events as much as we can, not least because it is important to ensure as far as possible that the public can have their say through consultation and that key partners such as the police are engaged and have adequate time to prepare.
The Bill is a simple and modest measure that aims to give back valuable parliamentary time and will undoubtedly benefit our businesses, our local authorities and the communities that they serve across England and Wales; it will be for Scotland and Northern Ireland to bring in their own measures. Keeping our pubs open for longer on such occasions will give people the opportunity to join in celebrations and to raise a glass collectively, as a community. The Government therefore fully support the Bill. I hope that it will continue to have a straightforward passage through the House, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing it.
Andrew Ranger
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her remarks, the Government for their support for the Bill, all members of the Committee for their attendance, and officials in the House and in the Home Office for their assistance in getting the Bill to this point. I think we have covered it in sufficient detail. Thank you for your chairmanship, Sir John.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill 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
Disadvantaged Communities
(3 weeks, 2 days 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
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Colleagues can look around the room and see how many people are seeking to participate in this debate. I am giving you warning that after the opening speech, there will be a time limit of two minutes. I am sorry that it is so short, but we have the alternative of not accommodating everybody, and Mr Speaker likes everybody to be accommodated.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for disadvantaged communities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the Minister for taking the time to come and listen to us, and we can see by the attendance today that this issue truly resonates in all our communities across the country. It is a tremendous honour to lead this important debate on a subject that resonates deeply with many of us here who represent places that have faced long-term social and economic challenges, including my constituency of Wolverhampton North East.
Whether we live in Low Hill or Bushbury, Heath Town or Park Village, New Invention or Short Heath, these stories will be familiar, but let me be clear from the start: I am fiercely proud of where I come from. I have said it time and again: I am not just a Wolverhampton girl; I am an Ashmore girl. I grew up in a community on the Ashmore Park estate, and I started my own family in Park Village—the very kind of neighbourhoods that we are here to discuss. Too many of our neighbourhoods—not just those in Wolverhampton, New Invention and Short Heath, but around the whole country—have been left behind and left to decline, as communities that are no longer a Government priority, where children and young people have nowhere to go, and there is rising antisocial behaviour, theft and burglaries, while the number of good, secure jobs has declined.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
In Stoke-on-Trent, £11 is spent per young person per year on youth services. In inner London, the figure is £111. Meanwhile, Staffordshire police is one of a handful of forces that has fewer police on the beat than it did in 2010. Does my hon. Friend agree that when this Government look to invest, they must understand the starting point of our communities in order for any investment to have a meaningful impact?
Mrs Brackenridge
I certainly agree. Communities like ours have borne the brunt of these cuts, and we see this playing out on our streets, in our schools and, unfortunately, in the criminal justice system. This should never have happened. It cannot continue, and it must never happen again. That is why I am calling for a project of national renewal for our neighbourhoods, designed to work with communities.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Lady is quite entitled to give way, but where Members choose to intervene, it will affect my judgment on where in the batting order they are called.
Luke Akehurst
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that we should pay tribute to the work of the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods, led by Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top? Based on its detailed statistical research, the commission has identified 613 of the most left-behind neighbourhoods around the country—one of which is South Stanley in my constituency—where funding is essential if we are to achieve the Government’s five missions. If investment is not made in those neighbourhoods, we can never achieve our national targets.
Mrs Brackenridge
I agree. Hon. Members will hear more about ICON’s work in my speech, because it paints a picture of our communities.
This is a project of national renewal that is designed to work with communities, to rebuild from the ground up and to restore hope and dignity to our places. It is a strategy about the huge importance of cultural capital and social infrastructure for social connections. What makes those communities special? They are resilient, largely because they have had to be. They have felt the brunt of 14 years of austerity. They have been disproportionately affected because they disproportionately rely on good public services, which were stretched to breaking point under the last Government.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that it is important to recognise the interconnected barriers in such discussions? The dearth of post-16 education and poor transport connectivity blunt young people’s ambitions and further entrench the disadvantages of which she speaks in areas such as my constituency.
Mrs Brackenridge
I absolutely agree. I signpost hon. Members to yesterday’s meeting of the Education Committee, where we heard from a representative from the National Union of Students about the clear link with the barriers that certain young people face to get to college or school. I beg hon. Members to look at that.
What makes those communities special? As I said, they have borne the brunt of 14 years of austerity. They saw Sure Start snatched away, cuts to neighbourhood policing, record NHS waiting lists, the decimation of youth services, a crisis in special educational needs and too much more. But our communities are full of potential; they are close knit and packed with people who graft and work hard.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Child poverty rates in Florence in my constituency have reached over 60% in recent years—the highest rate across Stoke-on-Trent, which routinely scores highest for infant mortality rates. Does my hon. Friend agree that as we publish the child poverty strategy in the autumn, Stoke-on-Trent South needs sustained investment to tackle high rates of child poverty?
Mrs Brackenridge
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who is clearly a champion for families and children in her constituency.
Our communities are burdened with deep-rooted barriers—obstacles caused by poverty, economic inactivity, inequality, educational disadvantages, poor access to healthcare and years of systematic under-investment. The scale of the challenge is clear: Wolverhampton North East ranked 73rd out of 543 constituencies in England in the index of multiple deprivation. One in three people in my constituency lives in one of the highest need neighbourhoods in the country, and they are not alone. Across England, 345 of 543 constituencies contain at least one neighbourhood in the most deprived 10% nationally. Those left-behind places are not isolated pockets; they are widespread.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a tremendous speech. Does she recognise that some of our most deprived communities are right next to areas where we are seeing rapid growth? It is vital that a test of our £113 billion investment—a once-in-a-generation opportunity for infrastructure—must be its impact on our most deprived communities.
Mrs Brackenridge
Investment has to go where it is most needed. Hon. Members feel strongly about that, which is why we see such representation in this debate.
Child poverty in Wolverhampton North East tells a clear story. In 2014-15, 22% of children were living in absolute poverty. That figure now stands at 31%, which should shame us. More than that, however, it must galvanise us. Nationally, the situation is no better. In 2023-24, 18% of people in the UK were in absolute poverty after housing costs. According to the Resolution Foundation, another 1.5 million people, including 400,000 children, will fall into poverty by 2030 unless bold action is taken. Those are not just statistics on a spreadsheet; they are real lives. They are children going to school tired and hungry. They are young people who are poorer now than their parents’ generation, with less hope of buying their own house. They are families stuck in insecure housing or waiting years for mental health support. They are opportunities lost and represent an injustice at the heart of our society.
That is why the work of the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods—ICON—has been so vital. Under the leadership of Baroness Armstrong, ICON has helped to shine a light on what is really happening in the most disadvantaged areas of our country: mission-critical neighbourhoods. It reveals what people are facing, how they feel about Government and what can be done differently. Its recent polling in partnership with Public First is a wake-up call. Just 5% of adults in England believe that the Government care about “neighbourhoods like mine”: a damning verdict on decades of decisions made too far from the people they affect.
It is not just a question of neglect; it is a fact of inequality. Nearly seven in 10 people believe that the Government care about some neighbourhoods more than others: the wealthier ones, the connected ones, the places where voices carry weight. They have lower crime, higher economic activity, higher intergenerational wealth and higher life expectancy.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
On life expectancy, in my constituency, the lives of men and women in the most deprived neighbourhoods are nine years shorter than in the more affluent ones. Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the strategy has to be around narrowing those health inequalities?
Mrs Brackenridge
I absolutely agree. If I drive 10 minutes in my constituency, the life expectancy increases by more than seven years, which is shocking. This is not the politics of envy; it is the reality after the politics of inequality. This is about restoring people’s chances to participate in Government, making it something that is done with them rather than to them.
There is cause for hope. In January, I had the pleasure of welcoming Baroness Armstrong to the Scotlands Estate in the Fallings Park ward of my constituency. We visited the Big Venture Centre, an anchoring institution in the neighbourhood. It is an inspiring community-focused project that is changing people’s lives every single day. From the pink ladies—and men—who volunteer there to the WV10 community chefs who support healthy eating education, to the community shop helping with the cost of living, that is what every neighbourhood deserves. It was a chance to see how the findings and principles behind ICON’s work can be implemented in practice and, with the right support, that those places can thrive.
We have the insight and the evidence; action is what we now need. What we have had has clearly not worked. Let us look at education. In 2024, only 46% of disadvantaged pupils met the expected standard at key stage 2, compared with 67% of their peers. A growing divide that has set in by year 6 continues to widen in year 11 at GCSE.
After school, it gets worse. Disadvantaged young people are 65% more likely to be NEET—not in education, employment or training. If they leave school with fewer than five GCSEs they are 131% more likely to be NEET. Meanwhile, nearly three quarters of people in destitution are in receipt of social security. That tells us everything we need to know about how broken the safety net has become.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s call for a project of national renewal; I think that is absolutely excellent. I also welcome her comment that these communities are special—they are, and we need to focus our attention on them. Does she agree that the closure of Sure Start centres, including in my constituency, had a significant impact? They changed people’s lives. We have heard from so many people who have done well as a consequence of having access to those services, so it is essential that we revitalise them.
Mrs Brackenridge
I thank my hon. Friend. I speak from personal experience, and I will always champion the excellent work that Sure Start centres did. They were there for me, my neighbours and my community. We must learn lessons from the past.
We need strategic, neighbourhood-based investment, not competitive bidding pots that lead to the most disadvantaged areas often losing out due to a lack of capacity. So how do we respond? The Government’s recently announced £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods is a welcome step. In the words of Baroness Armstrong,
“This is a good first step in the right direction”,
but it must not be the last step. That is why I am calling today for a £1 billion neighbourhood renewal fund in this Parliament. It should be strategic, long term and locally led. We must have no more fragmented, competitive pots that pit community against community, and no more centralised decision making that misses the mark.
People in my constituency know their neighbourhoods and what they need. We need to trust them, back them and invest in them. This is a defining moment. The public are asking not for favours but for fairness. They want clean, safe streets, decent, safe homes, good schools, secure jobs and pride in the places they call home. We must turn neighbourhood renewal from a slogan into a mission. I call on the Minister to take the evidence from ICON as a road map for delivery. I call on the Government to give every community, no matter its postcode, the respect, resources and responsibility that it deserves.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. If hon. Members intervene, injury time is added, which means that not all Members will get called. If you look at the clock and the number of Members who want to intervene, you can do the sums for yourselves. It is up to you whether everybody gets called or not. If we stick to two minutes, we should be able to get everybody in. I hope that is clear.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for setting the scene and for her enthusiasm and energy about the subject, which was evident in her speech. I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), Sir Roger, but I will keep within two minutes and not take any extra time.
There are areas across the UK that are undoubtedly disadvantaged and that must be urgently addressed. Northern Ireland still faces complex challenges across many areas of life, including health, education and poverty, not to mention underlying historical factors, so it is great to be speaking in this debate. Poverty rates in Northern Ireland are a massive problem: the Department for Communities states that 14% of working-age adults are in relative poverty and 12% are in absolute poverty.
Among pensioners, poverty increased from 13% in 2020 to 16% in 2022. I say this with kindness to the Minister: the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment grieved us greatly. There are also health and education inequalities, where outcomes are lower in disadvantaged or deprived areas.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On lower educational attainment areas, does my hon. Friend agree that young men in particular find it difficult to go back to education after leaving school, and that apprenticeships can be used to address poverty in the areas that he is describing?
Jim Shannon
I am happy to endorse what my hon. Friend says, and I hope the Minister will do the same.
There is no doubt that the environment in which a child is raised has an impact on the opportunities available to them and where they choose to go in life. Housing infrastructure is a huge problem.
To conclude, in a world where millions of people live in poverty, we have the means in Westminster, and therefore across all the regions, to support our people. It is important that we do that and that we also support the agencies that already do it.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with your Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) on securing the debate. Poverty has affected the work that I have done over the last decade, and I probably would not be in the House today had it not been for some of the things I have witnessed over the past 10 to 15 years.
While I was researching for the debate, I found a report on child poverty dating back over a decade. The foreword reads:
“In the UK today, millions of children”
and
“adults are daily experiencing the crushing disadvantage that poverty brings. They are living at the margins of society, unable to achieve their aspirations and trapped”.
The report goes on to say that that is unacceptable in “today’s” society—obviously, it was written over a decade ago. It is not usual for me to quote the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), but those comments are particularly pertinent. In 2013, when the report was written, poverty in Nuneaton stood at around 18%, but it is now 33%—almost double—and in some communities it is over 50%.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
On the question of barriers to opportunity, the potential for growth in some areas is high, but access to funding and education—particularly further education—can be difficult, as it is in Cornwall. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as a result, the people who live in an area cannot always take advantage of that growth potential?
Jodie Gosling
I thank my hon. Friend for her valuable intervention, and I absolutely agree. One challenge is under-skilled children who have left school without the right qualifications. As a result, they experience a lag in getting qualified and being able to access opportunities.
In one of my wards, Chilvers Coton, over 65% of households—two out of three—live with one marker of deprivation. The majority of them are defined as living in deep poverty and destitution, and they are not able to meet basic needs. That is not my understanding of the word “eradicate”, and it appears that the strategy that was laid out over a decade ago actually perpetuated significant poverty, rather than eradicating it.
Poverty eats into every corner of people’s lives. It drains people and grinds them down, and it makes every aspect of life harder. The physiological and psychological impacts are profound. As poverty has soared, we have seen healthy life expectancy fall by over four years, with cardiopulmonary conditions, diabetes and preventable death statistics among those affected by poverty well above the national average. Poverty strips people of their dignity and their power to shape their lives and livelihoods and those of the people they love.
Living in poverty is a full-time job, as people juggle making sure that they can pay their debts, get their kids out, do the daily shopping—which involves having to look for the yellow stickers in the aisles—and deal with the chaos of managing arrears, evictions and sleepless nights, as they worry about how to just get through tomorrow. Despite that, the vast majority of Nuneaton households in poverty still work, with over 60% of affected households having at least one working adult.
Poverty is also wasteful. It is expensive; it costs more to live in poverty because people cannot access cheaper supermarkets and might not have the data to order online—
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I sincerely thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) on securing this debate on behalf of communities that have been left behind across Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Too often, rural disadvantage is overlooked, but in Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe it is a daily reality. The constituency is grappling with the legacy of deindustrialisation and the drain of rural depopulation. The Government’s proposed changes to personal independence payments risk deepening that disadvantage, making it even harder for many to live independently, let alone escape poverty.
A parliamentary question tabled by the Liberal Democrats revealed that 90% of people in Wales receiving the standard rate of PIP for daily living are at risk of losing that support. One of my constituents, Karen Harris from Ystalyfera, put it plainly in one of my constituency surgeries, when she said that most disabled people would love to work, but that there is just no suitable work locally. She is certainly right. Across the coalfields in south Wales, we have only 44 jobs per 100 people of working age. That is why the Government must reverse their course on changes to PIP and introduce an industrial strategy that focuses on bringing good jobs to every corner of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for securing this debate. I started my career working for Oxfam, whose mission was to make poverty history.
Across the country, including in my constituency, we have seen what over a decade of neglect looks like: community centres gone, local shops shut down, public services underfunded and overstretched. In Tamworth, youth centres were left to crumble—they were not repaired; they were closed—so young people lost a safe space. That is what happens when investment dries up.
Since 2012, more than 760 youth clubs have shut nationwide. That is not just a number; it is a message that says, “You don’t matter.” That is how it feels in places such as Glascote Heath, Belgrave and Stonydelph. The Government promised levelling up but the most deprived areas have seen little support, and some none at all. How can we talk about levelling up while cutting back support for the people who need it most?
We are the sixth-richest country in the world but, I ask, rich for whom? In my constituency, as a union organiser for over 11 years, I saw people working long hours and relying on in-work benefits. Disabled people are now worried that their support may be stripped away while they face rising bills and shrinking safety nets. I ask the Government to rethink their approach in this area.
This issue is about more than just poverty; it is about inequity and exclusion, and how they breed division. Last summer, we saw unrest in Tamworth, communities divided, and tensions that had been building for years. Work must now get under way to rebuild, with the local authorities and the support that goes with them. Let us be honest: inequality cannot be patched over with slogans; it is fixed by investing properly in schools, housing, the NHS and jobs that people can build a life around.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. When I was a child, my hometown was thriving, the high street was teeming and there were places to go and things to do. The British Insulated Callender’s Cables factory was at the top of my street, and employed perhaps 1,000 people. In contrast to my thriving hometown, the inner cities were in an awful state, with botched town planning, derelict street corners and subways that people did their best to avoid.
If we fast forward 30 years, things have changed utterly. In my hometown, the factory closed and the workers were all made redundant. The factory site became a retail park and took trade away from the high street, leaving the town centre having seen better days. The youth clubs are gone. The library that helped me to learn to read has been demolished.
Such places look depressed because they are depressed, but the cities are transformed. They are places of economic activity, cultural events and a huge amount of residential living. They are teeming with life. The domestic challenge is to bring up to that standard the hundreds of smaller conurbations that have seen better days—to work to reopen the youth clubs, to invest in our neighbourhoods and to bring back a sense of pride in place for the vast majority of our people.
In too many places, there are obvious, visible manifestations of austerity, but the rot goes deeper than that. State investment has fled our towns, and street drinkers and rough sleepers have arrived. In my constituency, there is one youth club in a town of 85,000 people and there are too few places for people to go to socialise, whether they are 18 or 80. It falls on this governing party to do for our towns what previous Governments did for our cities. The British public are fair and they will give us a chance to put it right, but they will not give us too many chances. If we do not put it right, they will be unforgiving in their assessment of us.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
The very premise of my values and beliefs is that where we are born should not determine our future, yet unfortunately that is still the case in many communities across the country, including my constituency of Sherwood Forest, where even the difference between being born in the south part of the constituency compared with the north is the difference in how long someone lives. Places such as Ollerton, Rainworth and Clipston in the north of my constituency face poorer health outcomes, particularly for mental health, and lower opportunities for skills and decent and secure jobs. They are battling with long-term social and economic decline.
Other equally important areas in my constituency include Hucknall, Bilsthorpe and Blidworth. These former coalfield communities, previously decimated, are still some of the most deprived areas in the country. Almost one in 10 people in coalfield communities are in poor health, and nearly one in five are economically inactive.
For too long, disadvantaged communities have been forgotten by previous Governments, often leaving it to the communities to step in for themselves. For example, the Social Action Hub in Rainworth has made it its mission to improve the life chances of, and increase sustainable opportunities for, the most deprived and marginalised in our society.
If we are to tackle child poverty, it must start in the most disadvantaged communities, and it starts at the very beginning of a child’s life. It has a huge impact on where they go in life and how they make it out of poverty. We must go back to an early intervention strategy that runs through every single children and young people’s service.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I was not expecting to be called to speak, Sir Roger, as I made an intervention, but I will make some additional points.
I have already paid tribute to ICON, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) having reinforced the point about mission-critical neighbourhoods. Given the level of deprivation in neighbourhoods such as South Stanley in my constituency, which is ranked 41st most in need out of 34,000 super output areas in the Government’s growth mission, it is unsurprising that my constituents tell me that they feel left behind and that our area is not getting the targeted investment it needs.
I welcome today’s announcement about major investment in transport infrastructure, but we need to recognise the limitations of that when it comes to deprived communities that are more isolated and away from major conurbations. Too often, big infrastructure projects benefit the core cities, not isolated towns and villages like those that make up North Durham.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I am proud to represent wards such as Newgate, Carr Bank and Ransom Wood—mission-critical neighbourhoods as identified by the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods—and I welcome the signs that the Government are increasingly focused on those places. Does my hon. Friend agree that the spending review must make mission-critical neighbourhoods an absolute priority?
Luke Akehurst
I absolutely agree. We need investment in social infrastructure, such as parks, leisure centres and community centres, that will deliver rapid economic improvements and change how communities look and feel. Communities need to be at the heart of the decisions, cutting through the bureaucracy and red tape, and they must decide themselves what will make a real difference in their areas.
After the recent local council election results in County Durham, I spoke about people feeling impatient for change, including economic regeneration, good-quality jobs and the new local infrastructure that they have needed for not just years but decades. The Government are starting to deliver many great things through the plan for change, but we will deliver on their missions faster if we target deprived and mission-critical neighbourhoods —areas with the most concentrated problems in economic activity, health, educational achievement and crime. It is economically, fiscally and morally right to target those neighbourhoods, and it would be a clear demonstration of this Labour Government’s social democratic values.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Disadvantage comes in many forms, and today I want to talk about child poverty. I grew up in poverty caring for two disabled parents. It took me a very long time to say that, and every time I do my mum will text me afterwards to say that she loves me, she is sorry and she did her best. No mum should ever have to text their son that. Enough is enough, and I want this Labour Government to stamp out child poverty.
There are five quick solutions that we could take forward. The first is nothing less than the resurrection of Sure Start. We know the benefits and impacts: a recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report found that access to a Sure Start centre significantly improved children’s educational outcomes and reduced hospitalisations; children with Sure Start access in their early years were less likely to have depressive and anxiety disorders in their later years; and the impacts were remarkably long lasting.
Let us do as the 1998 comprehensive spending review did and commit to 250 Sure Starts in the most disadvantaged communities, within a pram push of a person’s home. Let us resurrect our town and district centres by, wherever possible, filling empty shops with spaces where we can co-locate and integrate services once and for all.
Let us think again about our libraries. Some 800 have closed in recent years and the number of librarians has been slashed. Let us reinvigorate our libraries as a place for the imagination to develop and roam, and let us centre Sure Start right there.
Let us involve the integrated care boards. They have a duty to tackle health inequalities and can do that work. [Interruption.] Time is short; I am going to be fast.
We need to invest in playgrounds, which are more likely to have been cut in deprived areas. We need to tackle the two-child benefit cap. I am glad to see that the Labour Government are looking at that again; it would have a significant impact overnight. We need to consider bus travel for children and younger people. Let them have free bus travel so that they can access opportunities. Let us, once and for all, stamp out child poverty.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger.
State failure can come in many different forms. When he was Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister said,
“we must restore the sense that this is a country that can rectify injustice, particularly when carried out by institutes of the state.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2024; Vol. 750, c. 668.]
He was referring to the infected blood scandal, but lack of investment is a different form of state failure, and the sentiment therefore still stands. The state has failed so many of our communities. We must restore the sense that this is a country that can rectify injustice.
This is not a new idea. In 2009, the Labour Government launched the Total Place initiative to improve the delivery of local public services and to increase the focus on communities. Frontier Economics analysis shows that a £2 billion investment in mission-critical neighbourhoods would deliver £2.4 billion in fiscal benefits to the Treasury. We reduce the cost of failure by investing in these communities.
I am the chair of the coastal parliamentary Labour party, and co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on coastal communities, alongside my good friend and ally, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). The ICON report highlighted yet again the need to invest in our coastal communities. Of the 613 mission-critical neighbourhoods in the report, almost half are on the coast. The 25 neighbourhoods identified with the highest need in all of England are all coastal—every single one.
Part of the reason why we have missed out on funding in Thanet and in other coastal areas is that the deprivation in coastal communities is often hidden by the upper-tier local authority statistics—forgive me for being a bit of a data nerd on this. East Thanet is one of the most deprived areas in the south-east, but because it is in Kent it is lumped in with Tunbridge Wells and Sevenoaks. The existing Treasury orthodoxy has meant that coastal communities have often missed out on vital funding.
I was encouraged by reports that the Green Book is being reformed in ways that will allow communities that have been overlooked for investment for decades to finally share in funding. If done right, that could be transformational for unlocking potential and economic growth in coastal communities.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Order. I notice that the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) is standing. Under the rules, I am afraid we are not allowed to call Members who were not here at the start of the debate. That is not a criticism; I fully understand that Members quite frequently have good reason for coming in late. Now the hon. Member has been here for long enough, I am more than prepared to allow him to intervene on another Member, should he choose to do so.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
I have sat through many similar debates about communities that have challenges. They are often cathartic but also a Top Trumps of misery in which we each seek to parade around the acute nature of the challenges we face in our communities, not because we want to say how challenging things are in our communities, but because the funding situation the last Government implemented basically meant that unless we could demonstrate that we were the poorest of the poor, the most disadvantaged of the disadvantaged, or in some way an outlier from statistical norms, we got nothing. The barrel was left empty or, as described by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge), we had to go through the ignominy of begging bowl politics.
We were put into competition with our nearest neighbours, and ended up trying to deprive them of what they needed so that we could get a little more of what we needed. That often led to a lack of joined-up working among communities whereby we could have had structural and societal change in the places we all call home and love and represent. Instead, we ended up trying to demonstrate why Stoke-on-Trent should get something and Derby should not, because we are slightly poorer than Derby is. That has to fundamentally change, because the systemic problems that we face in our communities—which derive from poverty, if we are being entirely honest—are going to be solved only if we are able to come together collectively, with a national programme of investment that targets the root causes of those problems and allows communities to have the skills, resources and opportunities to build themselves up.
There is a catalogue of concerns in Stoke-on-Trent: we are first for fuel poverty, routinely in the top 10 for child poverty and food bank usage, and in the last year our Lord Mayor had to raise £50,000 to pay for kids to have beds in our city. That is a symptom of a struggling society—one that was let down by the last Government and one that I hope, under the leadership of the Minister and the new Labour Government, we can start to turn around. We owe it to a generation to tackle poverty head on, so that we do not have more debates about how disadvantaged we all are.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for her impassioned speech, which I very much associate myself with.
Salford is the 18th most deprived authority in England, and that deprivation is juxtaposed against immense growth: gleaming tower blocks, the highest productivity in Greater Manchester and 11,000 businesses—an 85% increase since 2010. So why is the growth that we have created not benefiting everyone? The Government should ask themselves that question.
Although many of the strategies the Government have outlined so far—from housing through to our employment rights programme and the neighbourhood plan—are all very welcome, the Government can take immediate measures now, while they are waiting to develop their anti-poverty strategy, to help to alleviate the suffering that many families in my constituency face. First, it is welcome that the Government have suggested they will look again at the cut to the winter fuel allowance, but the detail must be fleshed out urgently to avoid the anxiety that many pensioners face in my constituency.
On child poverty, only this week a report by Loughborough University showed that at least a quarter of children are in poverty in two thirds of areas across the UK. Experts found an extremely high correlation between child poverty and the two-child benefit limit. It is clear that the Government’s priority must be to scrap the two-child benefit cap and, ultimately, lift 470,000 children out of poverty overnight.
Thirdly, on disability poverty, although it is welcome to have programmes to assist people into work where it is possible, cutting people’s support is not the way to incentivise that. It will push 250,000 people into poverty, and I urge the Government to rethink their proposals.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) on securing this debate. I appreciate the points that she raised, but I have to say that I have concerns about the outcomes of the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods.
I speak today as the Member of Parliament for Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, but also as a voice, alongside other MPs, for the people of Cornwall’s remote coastal neighbourhoods—communities that are proud, resilient and hard-working but all too often overlooked. If we are truly to succeed in our mission to fix the foundations of left-behind neighbourhoods, we must start by recognising the unique challenges faced by places such as Cornwall.
The commission identified 613 neighbourhoods across England that are at risk of falling behind on the Government’s five missions for national renewal, yet only one of those is in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, despite my constituency’s profound socioeconomic deprivation. I worry that the commission’s conclusions do not reflect the levels of poverty in remote coastal areas such as Cornwall. Without targeted support, these communities risk being left behind in terms of health, education, housing and economic opportunity.
Our neighbourhoods face deep-rooted, overlapping challenges, and we see that every day. Wealthier pensioners who retire to Cornwall from up country are masking underlying deprivation, while at the same time increasing the pressure on health and social care. The housing market is severely lacking in affordable homes and is distorted by second homes, Airbnbs and migration from people moving from up country, pricing out local families and workers.
There is a chronic workforce shortage in essential services, from teachers to care workers, as a result of our remoteness and high cost of living. We also have a seasonal economy that stretches public services beyond breaking point for four months of the year, with no recognition in funding to meet our needs. This is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet; it is about the future of our towns and communities, and our shared manifesto commitment that no neighbourhood should be left behind.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
My constituency has enormous potential, but it has been held back by the last 14 years of austerity. That represents a shameful neglect of not just my community, but the country. It is the duty of this Government to fix that. The industries that sustain reliable work for so many have long disappeared, with nothing to replace them. Without investment in communities like mine, the Government cannot meet their missions. Crucially, that investment needs to make a difference now.
It is not good enough to pump more money into just the cities in the north of England; our towns need support too. It is certainly not good enough for the headlines about Government plans for growth and investment to be dominated by plans to expand airports in the south-east of England. Blackpool North and Fleetwood deserves better. The Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower is the right one, but it must mean investment in places like Blackpool North and Fleetwood.
Fleetwood, once a thriving port, has been the victim of a managed decline over many years. We can take advantage of the offshore wind in the Irish sea, providing operations and maintenance for decades. Like so many of the country’s ports, ours needs investment to rebuild its capacity. We have one of the highest tidal ranges in the world, giving us the opportunity to harness the power of the sea to generate clean electricity. A tidal barrage would also work as flood defences, stopping flooding on farmland, and supply us with a much-needed access road, which would benefit the whole Fylde coast.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Nowhere is this issue more stark than in my constituency, where we have 34 critical neighbourhoods—more than any other constituency. They cover every part of the town, with 98% of its population living in them, including my own family. Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact of this issue is felt daily across Blackpool, in my constituency and hers? Does she also believe that this Labour Government finally have a chance—and have a responsibility—to turn the tide for coastal communities like ours?
Lorraine Beavers
I do.
We have a disused railway line. Were it to be reopened, it would finally give Fleetwood the connectivity that it has so badly lacked for decades. I am heartened by reports that the Chancellor will be rewriting the rules that have diverted investment away from constituencies like mine, but the effect needs to be felt by my constituents here and now.
I hope the Government will do what 14 years of the Conservatives failed to do, and give towns like mine hope once again. That is what I stood to do. That is why we are in this place. We came here to serve our people and rebuild our communities. Let us get on with delivering the future we promised.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
People in Rumworth, Farnworth, Little Hulton, Great Lever, Walkden, New Bury and Kearsley are proud and hard-working, but they have been left behind. Rumworth is the 10th most deprived ward in the United Kingdom.
These problems resulted from 14 years of Tory austerity. We have seen youth centres shut, local services disappear and councils stretched to breaking point. Despite that, local groups are helping young people to build their futures, and faith groups and charities are running food banks, warm spaces and support services. Groups such as Urban Outreach, Wharton and Clegg’s Lane church, and Farnworth and Kearsley food bank go beyond handing out food; they help with debt, benefits and homelessness and even help ex-offenders.
The challenges that the people face are all connected: a lack of childcare and transport, homelessness and many other issues. That is why I support ICON’s call for, first, a national neighbourhood renewal strategy with local voices at the centre and, secondly, a commitment in the spending review to fund areas such as Rumworth, Farnworth and Little Hulton. Farnworth is receiving investment through the Government’s plan for neighbourhoods, which is very welcome, but we also need to rebuild local services that were lost through austerity. People in Bolton South and Walkden are not asking for a handout; they are asking for fairness.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
I welcome the Government’s renewed focus on place-based policy through their plan for neighbourhoods, and the commitment of £1.5 billion to tackle deprivation through long-term investment, rather than bungs and short-term sticking-plasters. The plan rightly recognises that some communities have borne the brunt of economic decline for far too long, and that we cannot deliver growth unless we uplift those places too.
I welcome the transparency and accountability of a data-led, mission-based approach, and I have long believed that trust is built when policy is not simply delivered to people, but brings them along with it and explains why we are doing what we are doing. However, although I am greatly encouraged to see 11 mission- priority neighbourhoods identified in my mid-Cornwall constituency, I am concerned that none is classified as mission critical.
Anyone who spends time in Cornwall knows that, beyond its picture postcard beauty, parts of our region still suffer from some of the lowest living standards in western Europe. For example, St Austell, although not a crime hotspot by national standards, faces severe deprivation and challenges, from antisocial behaviour, weak public transport, poor per pupil funding, poor investment in healthcare, poor integrated care board funding and 10-year lower life expectancy than in other parts of the UK.
Cornwall has a crucial role to play in our clean energy ambitions and in helping Britain to become a clean energy superpower, but that potential will fall flat without real investment. I therefore urge the independent commission to do two things: be more transparent about how scoring decisions were made, particularly when certain neighbourhoods were not deemed mission critical, and reflect better in the methodology the rural disadvantage that colleagues have described. Rural deprivation can be just as entrenched in areas like Cornwall as in urban areas.
Finally, I urge the Government to unlock more investment to ensure that that mission-priority status transforms into targeted funding, turning Cornwall’s once-in-a-generation promise into progress.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for securing this important debate; she is a huge champion for disadvantaged communities in her constituency.
I am proud to represent the beautiful constituency of Scarborough and Whitby. However, away from the tourist lens, we have deprivation. My constituents suffer high rates of chronic illnesses like heart disease, and have lower life expectancies. In Scarborough, life expectancy for people living in Ramshill, where child poverty is prevalent, is 10 years less than it is for those living in Ayton, a mere 10-minute drive away.
Despite that, my constituents struggle to access healthcare, and even emergency care, in a timely manner. Since the closure of Scarborough hospital’s stroke service in 2020, patients suffering strokes are sent directly to York, which is well over an hour away—if they have access to a car. Hon. Members will know that the first 60 minutes after a stroke occurs is known as the golden hour: the faster someone can be treated, the more likely they are to survive and recover. Despite that, one constituent told me that their partner’s emergency journey to York, in a blue-lit ambulance, took 90 minutes. That is the everyday reality for people in disadvantaged coastal communities.
The chief medical officer warned in 2021 of a crisis in coastal healthcare, but we still have no national strategy to combat it. So this is my plea to the Government: we need a cross-departmental strategy to deliver better access to healthcare in our disadvantaged coastal communities, and we need it now.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for securing this debate. I will focus specifically on the urgent need for more social housing and on the duty of both national and local government to ensure that there are safe, decent homes for vulnerable people in deprived communities, such as those in Cann Hall and Cathall in my constituency.
Far too many of my constituents live in unsafe, overcrowded and unsuitable conditions. One family—a father, his wife, their four children and a baby on the way—are stuck in a one-bedroom flat riddled with mould. The children sleep on the floor. The family have been bidding for a home for years, but in Waltham Forest the wait for suitable housing can stretch for over 14 years.
A single mother in my constituency, who is caring for neurodivergent children, lives in a flat with no safety locks on the windows or the front door. Her youngest once tried to climb out of the window and was hospitalised. The mother is now suffering with exhaustion; the stress is relentless. Another family, raising a disabled child, are dealing with persistent mould, noise and antisocial behaviour in temporary accommodation. There is no outdoor space, no stability and no long-term solution.
These are not isolated cases; they are the result of a chronic failure to build and maintain decent housing, especially for those who need it most. I welcome the Government’s commitment to raising standards through the Renters’ Rights Bill and the decent homes standard, but without proper funding our councils cannot meet their statutory duties. Outdated funding formulas fail to reflect multiple occupancy or the real population pressures in outer London.
We all want to see the biggest expansion of social and affordable housing in a generation, so let us start with communities such as Avenue Road and Montague Road in Waltham Forest, where 465 new social homes have been promised and not yet delivered. The upcoming spending review must prioritise housing as critical national infrastructure. Behind the statistics are real people and real families who have been failed by a decade of inaction.
Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)
Congratulations. As a result of everyone’s self-discipline, we have accommodated 19 Members and an additional eight interventions. That must be something of a record. It also means that the Front Benchers now have adequate time to respond properly to the debate. Well done.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
I think we would all agree that it is a basic human right to have a decent place to call home, a neighbourhood where one feels safe, an opportunity to earn a decent living, access to healthcare and a clean environment. If people have those things, they can thrive and, together, form communities that then flourish. If we empower people to take decisions locally, those communities will make choices that lift up the people in them and protect their local environment.
However, under the last Government, it was made harder for communities to take those decisions. Their resources were slashed and they were forced to compete with each other, with towns set against each another in bidding wars through short-term, race-to-the-bottom policies. The Liberal Democrats are disappointed that the Labour Government plan to take decisions away from communities, using the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to remove local authorities’ power to have a say in planning. We are worried about how proposals for local government reorganisation may move decisions on local services further away from people and their neighbourhoods.
The proposal to provide three-year settlements for councils is reassuring, but only if the funding covers the true cost of providing the services people need—not knowing three years out that the council will be forced to reduce its services is not helpful. Although the 2025-26 settlement offered some additional funding, in many councils—particularly those with high levels of social care spending—the Labour Government’s jobs tax, which increased employers’ national insurance contributions, was not fully reimbursed. The same was true of the packages for fire authorities, and the issue was particularly problematic where high levels of on-call firefighters were on the payroll, meaning that those authorities were seriously disadvantaged.
Turning to the mission-critical neighbourhoods, it is absolutely right that there is a Labour focus—sorry, a laser focus, although I appreciate that there is a Labour focus—on lifting them up and drawing them into every part of society, not just to improve people’s lives, but because if those places are economically active, healthy and safe, the rest of us benefit too.
I want to focus on two main issues for communities: housing and transport. We all know that, for years, people around the country—and not just in those neighbourhoods—have given up. They have given up on the chance of owning a home or of even renting a decent place to call home. They have given up on the opportunity to bring up children and have a meaningful career.
In many rural areas, which may not make up the most deprived areas, there are pockets of extreme poverty that are completely forgotten. There are farmers whose children underperform in schools and are loaned their school uniforms; they live in homes that have not been updated for 60 years.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
My hon. Friend talked about communities being overlooked because they are contained within wealthier communities. My constituency is in the outer London borough of Sutton, which, by London standards, is on the wealthier end. We have two distinct communities in St Helier and Roundshaw, and those estates absolutely need more support, but they consistently get overlooked because of the way that local government funding works. First, it is on a borough-wide basis, so when the deprivation scores are added up, they are not entitled to much. Secondly, the indices used are extremely outdated and fail to take account of the true cost of housing.
Housing prices in London and the south-east have skyrocketed over the last 10 years, and the indices do not take that into account, which means the average Londoner is now worse off than the average person in many other regions of the country, once we take housing costs into account. Does my hon. Friend agree that whatever reforms we make to better target resources at disadvantaged communities, we must ensure that local government funding formulas take housing costs properly into account?
Vikki Slade
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—there are micro-communities within communities that look wealthy from the outside, and I will come on to some local examples.
In rural and coastal areas, employment opportunities are incredibly limited, as the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) said, with seasonal jobs in limited sectors of agriculture and hospitality. The homes have been snapped up by those fortunate enough to own two or more properties, as we heard from Members representing various areas of Cornwall. That is why the Liberal Democrats want to see the loophole closed on holiday lets, to ensure that they pay council tax, and it is why we want to see the introduction of a separate planning use for both holiday lets and second homes in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, so that we can secure the homes we need for our teachers, carers and police officers, and our farmers are better able to use their assets on their properties to support agricultural workers, so that we can provide food security.
The Government’s move away from the rural services grant has been devastating for so many communities and needs to be urgently rethought. As stated by the Dorset Community Foundation last year in its “Hidden Dorset” report:
“On the face of it Dorset is a beautiful, vibrant county but scratch the surface and underneath there are areas that are among the most deprived in the UK.”
There are 17,100 children in Dorset living in absolute poverty—not relative, but absolute poverty—and I am sure the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) will know where some of those communities are. This is in a place that is not considered a mission-critical area.
The plan for 1.5 million homes is laudable, but the Government must refocus on having the right homes in the right places. The lack of focus on social homes is deeply disappointing, especially for a Labour Government, and I encourage the Department to commit to at least 150,000 homes for social rent, as the Liberal Democrats have. We already have a large number of homes lying empty—1.2 million—and the Liberal Democrats have heard little about what is being done to bring them back into use.
Today’s announcement on transport is great news for some communities, but many are still being forgotten. People living in most of the south-west—and it would appear from the latest announcement that the south-west stops at Bristol—have no access to trains, and where they do have a bus, it only comes a couple of times a day. How exactly are those who cannot afford a private car supposed to get to work? Those aged 16-plus cannot get to school or college. One constituent in Bere Regis in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole had to give up an apprenticeship because there was simply no way to get there. Families living on the minimum wage cannot spare the budget to pay for driving lessons—of course, it is not possible to get a driving test either—or insurance, which can run into thousands of pounds.
Will the Government correct the injustice created when the age of participation was increased by ensuring that home-to-school transport is funded to 18 and accepting Lib Dem proposals to create a young person’s bus card, giving under-25s significant discounts on bus fares? Rural areas are most in need of the bus fare cap, so we hope it will be extended, as journeys are often long and require two or more routes to be used, not just in England but across the United Kingdom—including rural Wales, where, oddly, a project between Oxford and Cambridge was badged as an England and Wales project, potentially costing Wales millions of pounds.
Finally, I want to align myself with the comments made by my neighbour, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East. We must eradicate child poverty. I share the frustrations of others that the strategy has been delayed, and I hope this means that we will have a much more meaningful document which includes the removal of the two-child benefit cap. These children have done nothing to find themselves in the position of having multiple siblings, and I hope the Government will grasp the nettle and deliver real change for our forgotten neighbourhoods and our next generation.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure, once again, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) on securing this debate and bringing in many Members, who have articulated clearly their concerns about a variety of issues across their constituencies.
We all recognise that relieving poverty is one of the oldest and most central functions of our country’s local authorities; it has been enshrined in their duties since their inception. Many Members have referred to programmes of the past—under the last Labour Government, the coalition Government and the Conservative Government —and this debate, fundamentally, is about how we tackle this most effectively. There is no view that these issues are not important; it is simply a question about the most effective way of bringing about that relief, which we all wish to see. Indeed, levelling up, which was fundamentally about all these issues, was a key policy priority for the last Conservative Government, although it was one which, I have to acknowledge in all humility, we did not succeed in delivering in all the ways we wished to. None the less, there were some successes.
When we debate these issues in a political context, we always need to remember that it is not simply a matter of funding, as important as that is. In Wales, for example, the Government have had the benefit of an £1,800 premium over the rest of the UK in public spending. Wales has had a Labour Government for 25 years, and these issues are consistently worse in Wales—where I grew up—than they are in England. So how we spend the money to address these issues is almost as fundamental as the quantum of that spending.
Gareth Snell
I have always found the hon. Gentleman to be a diligent shadow Minister, and I appreciate him taking this intervention. He mentioned levelling up, and Stoke-on-Trent was one of the cities that genuinely got one of the larger allocations. The challenge was that it was mainly capital, so it allowed us to build things, but it did not allow us to have the revenue stream to staff those things to provide services. Would he welcome any move by this Government—I suspect that this is coming—to put more into revenue funding to support communities, rather than giving them the capital for big shiny things that look nice but do not actually improve the lives of people in our communities?
David Simmonds
That is a really good example of where the “how” matters. The theory, which was certainly built into the funding formula under the last Conservative Government, and indeed, the coalition Government, was that growth in housing numbers, which many Members have spoken of as important, came with the new homes bonus. So that was additional revenue funding coming into the local authority as a result of that growth. The theory was that the infrastructure spending would be followed by growth in revenue as a result of those locally made decisions. Clearly, I understand that the Minister’s Department has taken the decision to cancel that as part of the funding formula, and she will no doubt set out what the Government’s new strategy will be. But what the hon. Gentleman describes is a really good example; it is no good having one without the other.
When we look at the ICON report and other consistent reports about this issue over the years, they highlight the significance of businesses as the backbone of any local community. The availability of work, in particular, is critical not just to the economic wellbeing of a community, but to the physical and mental health of those who live there. There is ample evidence, from the UK and all around the world, of the benefits that that brings. As we all know, it is a statistical fact that no Labour Government have ever left office having reduced unemployment—it is always higher when they leave office than when they take it—and the early-warning signs so far are not good. None the less, I hope that the Government will succeed in that agenda.
Tom Hayes
This Labour Government have seen 500,000 people added to employment since the election in July, which is a point that we should reflect on. But does the Conservative party commit to ending child poverty? Is that an explicit goal of the Conservative party under the current leadership?
David Simmonds
Ending child poverty has been a long-term commitment of the Conservative party. Reference has been made, positively, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the work that he did with the Centre for Social Justice, which enshrined that as a policy agenda during the years of the coalition Government. Again, this comes back to the question of how we most effectively achieve that. Evidence from across the country shows that growing up in workless households is one of the things that creates intergenerational poverty. The opportunity to grow up in a household where somebody works, even if it is only part time to begin with, is a fantastic boost to a child’s life chances. There are many other points within that.
Ms Billington
Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to accept responsibility for the significant increase in child poverty caused by the two-child benefit cap that was introduced by the last Tory Government?
David Simmonds
As Government Members are discovering, having voted to retain the two-child benefit cap as part of the Budget process last year, government is about making very difficult choices. The question becomes: is it fair for those who do not have children and who work in lower-paid jobs to pay additional taxes to cover the costs of other families? All of us who are parents need to face that choice, and I wish the Government luck with resolving that issue as they begin to think about it.
When we look at how Government resources are deployed across the country, it is very clear in our public spending figures—I commend the House of Commons Library for the excellent research papers that it produced on this—that spending is overwhelmingly focused on the relief of poverty. I commend the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Chris Webb) for his contribution. We see in health and social care, for example, that Blackpool has around £2,000 more per capita in public spending than Yorkshire. Governments and local authorities of all parties have prioritised those issues, and that is reflected in spending on all manner of public services. However, we also need to acknowledge that government is about choices and how we go about allocating resources. What we prioritise and the way we spend that will make a significant difference.
On creating opportunity and supporting the long-term delivery of healthcare, I ask the Minister to reflect on whether the cancellation of the level 7 apprenticeships programme, which is what trained specialist nurses for the NHS, has been a good step in creating opportunity for adults who can train to do more higher-paid work, or whether that will—as the NHS and other bodies have highlighted—result in a significant negative impact on the pipeline of specialist nursing and medical staff. Will the Minister reflect on whether the national insurance contributions increase, which leaves councils a net £1.5 billion worse off—a £1.5 billion cut in local government spending by the Labour Government—will contribute to addressing the agenda that many Members have set out?
The winter fuel payment has been touched on. The Prime Minister has hinted that a U-turn is coming; it is clear that many Government Members will welcome that. The same applies to the two-child benefit cap and the Government’s plans around disability. Under the previous Government, there was a programme, which I think the current Government are continuing in a different form, to enable those with a disability who want to work more hours to have that opportunity. But we will all have seen in our inboxes the level of concern that has been triggered among members of the public. Ultimately, it is for Members opposite to decide how they deal with pensioner poverty, the impact of cuts to disability benefits and the impact of the two-child benefit cap, as they are now in government.
There is the fact that rough sleeping has seen a remarkable increase, particularly in England and in London specifically, under this Government—there has been a 27% increase, according to St Mungo’s, since they took office—and there have been widespread reports about the impact of a significant reduction in house building under this Government. Building 1.5 million new homes was always going to be a challenge—I think we acknowledge that across parties—but a recent Guardian investigation highlighted that there has been a collapse in house building since this Government took office.
We are seeing the implementation of all these other policies, which are a choice made by Labour Members and their Government. Will all of those choices help to address and ameliorate the issues that Members have so passionately and eloquently set out? I would argue that that is not the case, and that the negative downward trends in the economy will see more households and families facing significant challenges. I would also argue that the fact, as widely reported, that all of the growth in the UK economy is due to rising household bills—in particular, higher energy costs under this Government—will be a significant headwind for the reduction and addressing of poverty, and that the toxic combination of rising unemployment, debt and taxes will create significant headwinds when it comes to addressing the issues that Members are rightly and passionately concerned about.
Alison Hume
The shadow Minister is speaking quite eloquently about the failings, as he sees them, of the Labour Government, who have been in power for 10 months. Does he not accept that the communities that many hon. Members have talked about are disadvantaged because of the profound failure of the past 14 years?
David Simmonds
In a word, no. I do not accept that. I do not believe for a moment that we address challenges of long-term poverty and disadvantage in a short-term way, but the purpose of this debate is to ask whether the decisions being made are taking us in a positive direction of travel that will benefit those we are here to talk about or whether they will have a significant negative impact.
I have set out the evidence: the loss of the winter fuel payment, the cuts to disability support, the two-child benefit cap, and the measures in October’s Budget, which all Government Members voted for, that saw every single Department except the NHS receive no extra funding for the duration of this Parliament. Our councils are net £1.5 billion worse off as a result of the unfunded rise in national insurance. All of that will bear down on the capacity of our public sector and public services to respond.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) talked passionately about housing. I will share an example. My local authority has seen a significant impact, in that 20% of applications for housing are now from approved asylum seekers and Chagossians displaced to the UK by the Government’s deal. All these decisions—I have set out quite a small subset of them—have an impact in the real world in our communities, and it is my contention that that impact is now pushing poverty to a greater degree and making life more challenging for many people in our country.
I will finish with this point—
David Simmonds
I note your look, Sir Roger.
Much was made in last year’s Budget of a supposed £22 billion funding gap, which was swiftly debunked by those more expert in that field than I am. That is about 1.6% of total spending by the British Government; it is a very small amount in the national figures. I am sure Government Members will have noted that the Government borrowed £20 billion last month alone, to fund the amount by which their spending is exceeding their capacity to raise money. That is £20 billion added to debt by this Government in a single month. I am sure Members will accept, having seen the impact that debt has in local communities, that that is not taking our country in a positive direction.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for securing this important debate on a topic close to my heart. The impassioned speeches from hon. Members show their commitment to tackling disadvantage across our country.
In my role as Minister for homelessness and rough sleeping, I am constantly reminded of the challenges faced by those who face multiple disadvantage. Poverty remains a persistent barrier, affecting not just incomes but, as we have heard, life expectancy, educational outcomes and overall wellbeing. There is a gap of more than 18 years for both men’s and women’s healthy life expectancy between the most deprived and least deprived areas in England. Many residents in the most disadvantaged communities also experience insecure housing and homelessness, poor physical and mental health, and limited access to high-quality public services.
It is a scandal that we inherited more than 127,000 households, including over 160,000—now 165,000—children, living in temporary accommodation. It is also a scandal that 4.5 million children were in poverty in the year to April 2024. Just to remind the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), that was the culmination of 14 years of Conservative government and leadership—or lack of leadership—on this agenda. Those outcomes are the consequence of austerity and economic mismanagement under the previous Government.
We have heard impassioned speeches from hon. Members, but we had to sit through a shocking and disappointing speech by the shadow Minister, who is in denial about the failures of his Government. I remind everyone that during his party’s time in government we saw five Prime Ministers, seven Chancellors and economic mismanagement. We saw the Liz Truss mini-Budget fiasco crash the economy, interest rates go up, people’s living standards go down, and double-digit inflation. The shadow Minister has amnesia about the 14 years of Conservative government. I had hoped that in this debate we could build alliances to tackle the multiple disadvantage that people face in our country; instead, he fails to face up to what his party did in government.
Our Government’s mission, and our commitment to the British people, is to put this country back on a path to success and to support the most disadvantaged in our country. When we talk about breaking down barriers to opportunity, we mean ending the scandal of children being held back by poverty before they have even begun. When we say we will build an NHS that is fit for the future, we mean making health equity a reality, not just an aspiration, so that someone’s postcode or income does not determine their life expectancy. And when we commit to delivering economic growth, we are committed to creating jobs and driving up productivity in every part of the country.
Our mission to break down barriers to opportunity is rooted in the belief that every child, no matter where they are born and no matter their parents’ income, should have the chance to thrive in life. Millions of children are growing up in poverty, and in classrooms around the country children are turning up hungry. That is not by accident; it is because of the failure of the previous Government over 14 years. It is shameful that the shadow Minister talked down this country and spoke about Labour, which has been in government less than a year, rather than taking responsibility for failure under his Government.
Yasmin Qureshi
The Minister is making an excellent speech. She said earlier that we had had five Prime Ministers and seven Chancellors—I think there were about 10 Lord Chancellors. Does she agree that the reason for all the problems is that the past 14 years were always about the Tories’ own psychodrama, as opposed to running the country?
Rushanara Ali
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. Furthermore, billions of pounds were wasted in personal protective equipment scandals, contracts for donors and much else.
We are determined to address the issues affecting people across the country. We are building family security. It is essential to ensure that every child has a safe and loving home, and that is why we are committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable homes and to delivering 1.5 million homes. Earlier this year, we committed to injecting £2 billion from 2026-27 to build up to 18,000 new affordable and social homes by the end of this Parliament.
Rushanara Ali
I would like to make some progress, because I want to make a number of points about what this Government are doing.
We believe that everyone deserves to live in a safe and decent home. We have already invested in homelessness funding, which the Budget increased by £233 million to a total of £1 billion. That was a recognition of the mess that was left behind after 14 years of Tory government, when homelessness and rough sleeping skyrocketed. The previous Labour Government cut homelessness and rough sleeping by two thirds; the Tory Government increased it. We are having to clean up their mess.
We are investing in post-16 education, because children and young people from deprived backgrounds have been left behind and we are determined to tackle that. We are also introducing a youth guarantee for all young people aged 18 to 21 in England to ensure that they can access quality training and education opportunities to help them find work. We will publish an ambitious child poverty strategy, working across Government through an inter-ministerial group of which the Deputy Prime Minister and I, along with other colleagues, are members. We are taking action to make work pay and ensure that people are earning more; we have already increased the minimum wage.
Truly addressing the unique challenges faced by the most disadvantaged communities requires targeted and sustained support. My Department’s recently launched plan for neighbourhoods will turn the tide on decades of decline in our most deprived communities. It provides £1.5 billion of funding to 75 communities across the UK to tackle deprivation and turbocharge growth, ensuring that every area joins the decade of national renewal that we committed to in our plan for change. That funding will help revitalise local areas, support growth and fight deprivation at its root by zeroing in on three goals: thriving places, strong communities and taking back control. We will also unlock investment opportunities in every region through local growth plans. The interventions and investments developed through them will build on local sector strengths to boost productivity.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East, I thank Baroness Hilary Armstrong for continuing to make the case for our most disadvantaged neighbourhoods and communities. I remember her work in the last Labour Government, and I agree wholeheartedly with her that our plan for change must be rooted in neighbourhoods.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East for securing this debate. This Government are taking action to support the most disadvantaged communities as part of our long-term plan to deliver a decade of renewal by investing in our healthcare system, helping people get into employment and fixing the mess that the previous Government left behind. I look forward to working with colleagues across parties to take further action to tackle the disadvantage faced by people across our country, particularly in the most deprived communities. I know how much devastation is caused by those who face multiple disadvantage, because my constituency in the east end of London has the highest child poverty in the country. I am committed to working with colleagues to address these challenges and I am grateful for their commitment to tackling this issue, which is demonstrated by the excellent turnout at this debate.
Mrs Brackenridge
I thank every Member who attended the debate. I am sure the Minister will heed our voices, because we speak for and serve our communities.
It is really disappointing that not one Conservative Back Bencher attended the debate. I will not get drawn into the denial that I heard from the shadow Minister. We have heard powerful voices from post-industrial towns, proud coastal communities and struggling rural communities. They are full of pride but desperately in need of targeted intervention. That is why I am calling for a project of neighbourhood renewal.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Environment Agency: East of England
(3 weeks, 2 days 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
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the performance of the Environment Agency in the East of England.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I have secured this debate to highlight concerns about the operational performance of the Environment Agency in the east of England. This reflects both my time as the Secretary of State overseeing the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the run-up to the general election and numerous interactions with it in my capacity as a constituency MP.
As we are meeting the week before a comprehensive spending review, it is perhaps prudent to start with the usual excuse given by organisations for poor operational performance: a lack of people or funding. According to the Environment Agency’s own annual outcomes, its full-time equivalent staff increased in the last Parliament by 21% from 10,791 in 2019-2020, at the start of the Parliament, to more than 13,000 in 2023-24. Over the same period, its expenditure has gone up from £1.4 billion to £2.2 billion, so it has significantly more people and funding, while at the same time showing a remarkable lack of transparency or accountability to Ministers or Members of Parliament, and a remarkable lack of willingness to take enforcement action against those causing the worst levels of environmental damage.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman. It is an absolute scandal: the Environment Agency seems happy to pursue farmers and landowners with a zest and enthusiasm, yet big businesses and other people seem to be left to the side. Is it not time that the Environment Agency supported farmers and helped them when they need it, rather than chasing them and not others?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point, and he is correct. It seems that the Environment Agency is very happy to go after what it may perceive to be easier and more law-abiding targets, but as the most serious environmental harm is caused by serious criminal gangs, there is often a reluctance to take on those organisations in the way that it does an individual farmer. That is why this also points to a need for a much more fundamental reform of the Department’s relationship with its arm’s length bodies, as well as its accountability to Ministers, regardless of which Government is in office.
This debate is focused specifically on the east of England, and I want to give three examples of where that operational performance really illustrates concerns across the boards with environmental damage being caused. Before doing so, given that I have been the Secretary of State, I thought it relevant to touch on a national example to show that this is not simply a constituency or local issue. With that in mind, let me inform the House about Hoad’s wood, which is a site of special scientific interest and an area of outstanding natural beauty that has been covered—as you probably know, Sir Roger—in more than 35,000 tonnes of illegal waste.
We might have thought that a SSSI would be a priority case for the Environment Agency, and one where it would be most certain to take action. However, so concerned was I as a Minister that I had to take the very unusual step of issuing a ministerial direction. No ministerial direction had been issued in the Department in the preceding seven years before I arrived as Secretary of State, so this was an unusual but necessary step to compel the EA to take action on a SSSI. Again, I think that speaks to some of the issues. Even so, the situation has dragged on, with contractors not appointed until November last year, work not beginning until March and completion not expected until at least 2026. That points to some of the issues with the most valuable sites, never mind more routine sites.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I will give another example from Kent. In Tunbridge Wells in my constituency, the River Grom often has very high levels of ammonia due to sewage being dumped in the river. When that is reported to the Environment Agency, it claims a lack of funds, does not send its own investigators and often passes the matter to Southern Water, which is perhaps to blame for the problem in the first place. Does that not contribute to a lack of democratic oversight of our environment?
Steve Barclay
The hon. Member absolutely catches the point raised earlier about the lack of accountability and transparency, and the highlights fact that, although the EA has had more money and resource, it is not targeting priority cases or long-standing issues, while often telling Members of Parliament that they are priorities. I will come on to that, because there is a wider issue of which the Minister needs to be aware: the slowness to act and lack of accountability.
Turning to the east of England, and my own constituency in particular, let me give three examples that cover a range of scenarios. The first is the dumping of more than 122,000 tonnes of waste at Saxon Pit in Whittlesey between October 2017 and February 2018. The EA’s initial response was to say that it was totally unaware of 122,000 tonnes of waste being dumped—but, regardless of whether the EA had been asleep at the wheel, we would expect it to then act. In its initial response, the EA said that the operator must dispose of all the non-conforming waste by 10 October 2018; yet seven years on the waste remains in situ. The EA also promised prosecutions, because this was such a serious case. I will quote just one of many letters that I exchanged with the EA over this period. In 2021, the then-chief executive Sir James Bevan promised that
“Saxon Pit is being treated as a priority”.
The EA’s investigation took a further 14 months to complete, but in June 2022 it said that a
“final set of interviews…will take place shortly”.
In October 2022, the chief executive asked me to,
“be assured that my teams are prioritising this work over other competing criminal inquiries”.
Three years ago, the EA said it was prioritising this serious case, with more 122,000 tonnes of waste, over other cases. It was a priority case. Yet three years on, and seven years on from the incident, we still have no prosecutions. To go back to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said a moment ago, what cases is the EA prosecuting with its additional resource, if it is not prosecuting at Saxon Pit?
I thought that the Minister might reflect, “Perhaps that was simply an issue of the past Government. Perhaps things have changed—the Environment Agency has perhaps changed its approach.” I therefore thought it would be helpful to give a second example, from the last year: a very serious pollution incident at King’s dyke, in Whittlesey, the same town as Saxon Pit. I have seen internal papers from the Environment Agency that show that it described the problem, and reported it to the Department, as a category 1 pollution incident. For those not familiar with the term, a category 1 pollution incident is the most severe level, involving a
“serious, persistent…or extensive impact…on the environment, people…or property”.
The BBC reported that an estimated 900 fish were killed in close vicinity to an Anglian Water overflow pipe, and that the pipe had discharged for 23 hours due to a suspected pump failure. When I spoke to Anglian Water and the Environment Agency, no other credible reason was given for the serious incident. I was then told that water samples had been taken and would be quick to establish whether the overflow pipe was the cause of the category 1 incident. I was told on 10 October 2024 that the lab tests were under way, that it would take a week for them to determine the cause, and that an internal decision would be taken on enforcement in November.
November then became December. December became January. We kept chasing, and we were told, “No, it’s no longer January; it’s May.” We chased again in May, and were told September. This is an issue that Ministers say—and I do not doubt for a minute their sincerity—is an absolute priority for the Government. We have the most serious level of pollution incident, a category 1, which happened in September, yet the Environment Agency says it will not tell the public of Whittlesey the cause of it for at least a year—even though I suspect that, internally and within the Department, it is already known whether Anglian Water was the cause and whether, therefore, a criminal investigation should follow. I do not believe that is a sufficient level of transparency or accountability.
Let me give a third example. As a former Minister, I thought I would try to pitch these examples in a way that is constructive across the House. One debate that the Minister may recall was led by one of her parliamentary colleagues, the hon. Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker). In it, he raised cross-party concerns—indeed, there were a number of the Minister’s colleagues present, though it was one of her colleagues on the Front Bench—around the environmental damage of incinerators. That is something that many charities usually more closely aligned with the left of politics, such as Friends of the Earth, have raised concerns about, but it is also an issue that many on the Government Benches have highlighted, and one that I have consistently raised myself.
We now know that DEFRA’s own analysis suggests that there is enough national capacity for incineration. As more waste is recycled, the requirements for incineration come down. A BBC report highlighted the serious damage caused by these incinerators and by waste being burned because of anaerobic digesters. Most of that is now plastic, and it is the dirtiest way to generate power. No one would have thought a Government committed to the environment would want to see more incinerators being built. Incineration is on a par with coal as the dirtiest form of energy generation, yet we still do not have clarity from the Government on whether environmental permits will remain in force for incinerators that have not yet been built.
One of those is in Wisbech. To put this incinerator in context, it is so big that one half its size in the neighbouring constituency was turned down—so they doubled it in size to make it a national scheme and take it outside local planning. It is sited 700 metres from the largest school in the district, accessed solely by single carriageway roads, with a chimney bigger than Ely cathedral in the flat landscape of the fens. The Environment Agency, in issuing a permit, says it does not consider any of the environmental harm of transporting waste from six different counties to this small market town, because the permit only applies to the curtilage of the site itself. I simply ask, given the cross-party support on this issue, whether that decision by the Environment Agency is fit for purpose.
I will add one further point. Is it not very odd that the decision to grant an environmental permit was made during the general election purdah period, a time when organisations are not supposed to take controversial decisions? I hope the Minister will follow up on that, because I know that many of her own Government colleagues are concerned. Where incinerators have not yet been built, we should not be embedding the environmental damage that so many charities and environmental groups, and so many of our own colleagues have expressed concern about.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
The right hon. Member represents North East Cambridgeshire; as the Member for South West Norfolk, I share a border and very similar geography with him, and I recognise many of the concerns he raises about pollution. Does he share my concerns about the EA’s performance on the time taken to issue permits, licences and other permissions? In our part of the world, that is a real barrier to growth and prosperity for businesses, because the performance is so poor—it takes months, if not years, for businesses to get approvals from the EA.
Steve Barclay
I do share them. Just for the Minister’s benefit, the hon. Gentleman’s constituency will be materially affected by the Wisbech incinerator in terms of transport; when the developers doubled its size in order to take it out of the local planning process, they created a different problem of how to get sufficient waste to run it. Therefore, it has to take in waste from further and further afield. As Wisbech is a market town, accessed by single carriageway roads—the A47 is single carriageway into Wisbech—bringing waste through my neighbour’s constituency will cause huge traffic there, as it will in many other constituencies across the eastern region.
A BBC report highlights the severe environmental damage that would be caused by the proposed incinerator, but the hon. Gentleman also highlights a wider point about lack of transparency. As in the King’s dyke fishing example, as a constituency MP one chases on behalf of constituents to get them some answers, yet organisations feel they are unaccountable.
That brings me to my final point. It will not surprise the Minister that, as a member of the last Government, I quite frequently raised my constituency concerns—before I was in the Department—with relevant Secretaries of State, and I know that they raised those with the EA; yet, as we see with Saxon Pit, it still failed to take prosecution action over seven years while saying to people locally, “It is a priority case.” As Secretary of State myself, I found the organisation so unresponsive that I had to take the unusual step of issuing a ministerial direction. In fact, I issued two in my six months in the Department, where none had been issued in the seven years before. I fear that Ministers now need to look at the accountability to democratic control of not just the Environment Agency, but Natural England—not least given the three interventions we have heard from colleagues across the House.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I have an issue in my constituency down White Stubbs Lane, where we have raw sewage going over the road. The Environment Agency is unaccountable, hardly wanting to meet with MPs or engage. It told me during the purdah period, “We can’t meet with you, because there is a local election going on,” which is absolute nonsense. It should engage with MPs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is completely unaccountable and needs fundamental reform and change?
Steve Barclay
It does need fundamental reform. I became Secretary of State very close to the general election, but one of my first acts was to issue an instruction to take more rigorous enforcement action more generally on water pollution. I know that current Ministers want to see a more robust set of actions.
I come to my final point. Not least given the Government’s majority and where we are in the parliamentary cycle, there is an opportunity to look at the Department’s relationship with its arm’s length bodies. The Department of Health and Social Care is going through that exact process with NHS England. I encourage the ministerial team to reflect on that, not least for when in some years’ time they are explaining how, if there is lack of action, that sits with some of their priorities. Irrespective of that, as we heard in interventions from across the House, the EA’s lack of transparency and accountability on its operational performance needs to be addressed. I encourage the Minister to focus some time in her busy schedule on doing that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) for securing today’s debate and everyone else who has contributed to it. Listening to all the points that the right hon. Gentleman made about serious issues in his constituency, I wonder from the outset if it might be helpful to have a meeting with the EA area director to go through each of them in turn. I was told by the EA ahead of this debate that it is very happy to meet him, and me.
I welcome the mention of the increased funding that we have given the Environment Agency. We have increased the budget for environmental protection by £17 million, and the charge income has increased to £513 million for this year. Each week, I get an operational briefing on some of the major significant issues around the country, and Hoad’s wood has been mentioned. I have been told that waste removal should start this month. If that does not happen, I am more than happy to pick up that point.
More generally, on regulation, regulators and how things work, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that when we came into government, we commissioned the Corry review to look at all the different regulators within the environmental space and see where there is potential, where there has been overlap of responsibilities, how effectively they are working and what might need to change. Just yesterday, Sir Jon Cunliffe published his interim report on the water sector and how it works. It is really interesting; there is a whole section on how regulation works or does not work effectively in some areas, and there is a genuine call for all Members of Parliament from all parties to feed back on that interim report before the final recommendations. The right hon. Member may be interested in that chapter on regulation.
I find the people I work with at the Environment Agency to be really keen to do well and passionately committed to their jobs. The people who deal with this mess on the frontline are really committed. When the Secretary of State did the water investment tour, he visited Cambridgeshire to attend a water scarcity roundtable on 13 March. Hopefully, we will both be visiting the area again soon.
In my role as Minister, I meet Environment Agency representatives every month, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows from his time in the Department. I talk to them about things that are happening nationally, and our priorities and how they fulfil them. I also ensure that the agency is equipped to carry out its functions effectively.
Ahead of this debate, I asked for an update on what is happening on Saxon Pit. I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration about the amount of time that criminal investigations take. I know that from my time in opposition as well as my time in government that these things can feel protracted, but as it is a criminal investigation, it might be helpful to have a more confidential meeting about it. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept my being vague.
The right hon. Gentleman is right to point out that dealing with water pollution, such as the category 1 incident at King’s dyke, is a serious and important issue for the Government. At DEFRA, looking at how we deal with such incidents is a priority, which is why we have increased enforcement funding. I have been told that the situation at King’s dyke is progressing well, but we can have a more detailed conversation about both incidents with the area director, given that they involve criminal investigations. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to take me up on that, I would be happy to have that conversation.
The Environment Agency generally publishes its progress on different aims. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and I have spoken before about his concerns about sewage in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and I have had similar conversations. There is a lot to sort out and a lot to clean up, but I am always happy to pick it up if the hon. Member for Broxbourne does not feel that he is getting the engagement that he needs from the Environment Agency. Whenever I talk to EA representatives, they tell me that they are really keen to meet MPs, especially new MPs, and to build a relationship with them, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to take that up. If he does not feel it is forthcoming enough, I am more than happy to pick that issue up.
The right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire will have to forgive me, because waste incinerators are not in my brief and I have only a vague knowledge of them. To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, I understand that he had to recuse himself from any involvement in the decision making, which I completely respect. Once I talk to a ministerial colleague, I can give the right hon. Gentleman a more detailed briefing on waste incinerators.
We are setting clear conditions for new energy-from-waste plants; they must be efficient and support net zero and our economic growth mission before they get backing. We are keen to make DEFRA a driver of growth and to ensure that it is not seen to be holding up planning permission and consents. I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying in relation to this particular incinerator, and I will get back to him in more detail. As Minister, my general feeling from speaking to Environment Agency colleagues has been positive. I know that there is frustration with processes and bureaucracy—we all know that, especially the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire from his time in government. The wheels can sometimes feel like they move quite slowly.
Terry Jermy
The Minister and I have talked on many occasions. I do not envy the scale of the challenge that she has, particularly in relation to pollution. She and I have talked about internal drainage boards, which is another issue that is shared across constituencies. In relation to permits and licensing, we are proud to have a growth agenda as a Government. Does the Minister recognise that focusing on encouraging the EA to improve its performance in that regard could help to unlock growth in many areas in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk and improve growth opportunities for businesses? I appreciate that there is an awful lot to do in the Department, but can that issue be given some focus as well?
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, one of the things that comes up in our monthly meetings is how we can improve the issuing of permits and make it quicker. He is completely right, and I hear not just from his constituency but right across the country that there are problems with how quickly permits are issued. I completely hear and accept his point.
We are committed to working in collaboration with the Environment Agency, and with all hon. and right hon. Members, to continue to advance its performance in the east of England and across the rest of the country. We want to continue to support communities in protecting them against pollution and against the horrific example of Hoad’s wood and the other two examples that the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire gave. As I say, I am happy to have a more detailed conversation about those two particular issues from his constituency.
Lewis Cocking
The Minister speaks warmly about having meetings with the Environment Agency. It is all well and good having a meeting, but I do not want to go into a talking shop. I feel like the Environment Agency uses the meetings to say, “We’ve ticked that box and we’ve met that MP; that issue is done,” but it does not action anything. We want to see real action for our constituents because they are really fed up with these issues, which take a terribly long time to solve.
Emma Hardy
I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he is completely right: constituents want to action when they see pollution incidents. Of course, if he is not satisfied with the outcome and he feels that action has not been taken to the standard that he wants following the meeting, I am more than happy to pick that up. I will finish on that point.
Question put and agreed to.
Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses
(3 weeks, 2 days 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
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of changes to business rates relief on high street businesses.
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am deeply privileged to have secured this debate.
When we think about the communities that we represent, we so often think about the centre of those communities—the town, village or city centres that truly define the communities that are our constituencies. That is certainly no different in my constituency. Even in some of the very small villages such as Salt or Great Chatwell, the main centre is sometimes the pub, which is the hive of community interest—I would recommend any of the pubs in my constituency to the Minister, if ever he wanted to visit them. They bring the community together. The larger towns and villages, such as Stone, Great Wyrley, Cheslyn Hay or Penkridge, have thriving high streets and centres that are vital for the people who live there. Centres give towns density and, critically, create employment for so many people in my constituency and all our constituencies.
The Government’s changes to business rates relief have already had a significant impact on so many businesses, not just in my constituency but right across Staffordshire, the west midlands and England itself. The change in relief, which was 75% but has been reduced to 40%, has had a material impact on the way that people run their businesses.
We are all aware that the initial rates relief was introduced at the height of the pandemic to help businesses. However, businesses, especially on our high streets, have taken time to recover from the pandemic, which saw a shift in the way that many people buy their goods, in people’s shopping habits and in the way that we use our town, city and village centres. The rates relief was vital to so many businesses, shops, pubs, hotels and people in adjusting to the new reality that they found themselves living in.
In my constituency, the hospitality industry contributes £70 million in gross value added and employs just short of 3,000 people. If it was a single employer, we would be talking about it all the time, but of course it is not one employer—it is many small family businesses. They may be individuals employing two or three people. They may be limited companies, although often they will be sole traders or partnerships. They are the backbone of England and of our economy, and they are feeling the pain of the changes that the Government introduced.
Many people in my constituency and across the country listened when Labour said, in opposition, that relief would be coming and that there would be changes, but they were not expecting those changes to cost them more money. Let us look at the analysis of the impact on a typical shop in terms of business rates. A typical shop has seen its bill climb from £3,589 to £8,613. For a typical restaurant, the bill has climbed from an average of £5,051 to £12,122. I appreciate that, in the Treasury’s view, those are not even rounding errors—they are not something that it should be concerned about or even think about—but for a business or an individual trying to work out how they will pay their employees’ wages, order in more stock or pay themselves a wage that month, that really matters. It impacts those who are in business and dampens the aspirations of those who wish to start one.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
April’s retail, hospitality and leisure relief reduction left Samantha, a shopkeeper from Langport in my constituency, with a £2,000 business rates bill, on top of a £5,000 bill, despite the fact that she was potentially eligible for exemption. She consequently faces losing her shop. When I spoke to her recently, she told me that the system has ended her livelihood. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we need to reform rates and exemptions to boost local high streets’ viability?
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we need reform. Such closures affect her constituent and many others, but these are not just businesses; they are someone’s hopes, dreams and aspirations to create something better and build a better life for themselves and other people. According to the Campaign for Real Ale, 125 pubs have already closed since 1 April. That is 125 communities that have lost something that they may never get back. It is 125 families—and many more, if we take into account the families of the many people working in those pubs—who have seen their livelihoods disappear.
We cannot just dismiss this problem. I thank the Chamber engagement team, which, in preparation for this debate, did a number of surveys asking for the views of people from across the country about the impact of business rates on their businesses. It is interesting to hear those stories. Lorraine, who has a hospitality business, said:
“It is time our industry had some real help. We had nothing left to give. I predict even more closures in the next two years.”
Karen, who runs a salon and health club, said:
“The rates are more than my rent and with the wage increases and massive hike in rates, I can’t survive. I’m on borrowed time.”
This is about not just those people, but the many people they employ. Rachel, who has a beauty salon, said:
“I used to employ 18 people and now only employ four, so it’s effectively made me shrink the business.”
James, who runs a hospitality business, said:
“The reduction in relief has led me to reduce my workforce by 33%.”
There are business out there that last year were perhaps thinking about expanding—maybe taking on another pub or opening another shop—but that is no longer viable. Most business owners—who, like the people employed, are working people—are the last ones to get paid. They take the risk, and the Government do not seem to want to encourage them, let them grow or give them the opportunity to succeed. They just make it harder.
This issue is not just about businesses; it is also about communities. Although there can be no finer high streets than the ones in my constituency—[Interruption.] Now we are getting into a real debate, but I will stand firm. However, there is nothing sadder than seeing an empty shop that was previously occupied. That is not just about the demise of a particular business; it brings down the whole high street.
We see so many businesses being impacted in multiple ways. We see the impact of the changes in business rate relief; we see the impact of the changes in national insurance, and not just in terms of the rate but in terms of when it starts to get paid; and we see the cumulative impact of changes to employment law. We want businesses to take on people and to make it as easy as possible for them to take on new starters. Sadly, it is becoming harder and harder for them to do so.
The reality is that young people are some of the most impacted. Almost half of those working in hospitality in my constituency are aged between 16 and 24. I appreciate that the Government may take the view that their jobs are not important ones and that they will go on to something else, but I think that it is vital that we provide opportunities for young people at the start of their careers. Hospitality and retail are vital for that, whether the jobs are full time or part time. The impact of the changes to rate relief means that fewer young people are in a position where they can get the jobs they need to get on in life.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The right hon. Member is making a very important point. This issue is important across the whole socioeconomic spectrum. I had a relatively privileged upbringing, but my first job was washing dishes in a hotel. That job taught me what hard work is. The lessons that we learn in those types of jobs last throughout our lives.
Sir Gavin Williamson
The hon. Member makes a very valid point. This issue is about ensuring that there is as much opportunity as possible for all people, whatever their background. We should not be dismissive of such jobs—I am sure that the Minister is not—but they are the jobs that have been squeezed out by the changes to rate relief.
The Minister knows that I am one of his biggest fans; indeed, I am a great admirer of him. I see him as a rising star. While the Chancellor hides, he is wheeled out. He is truly an impressive figure at the Treasury. I am not sure whether it is due to the diminished status of the Chancellor that he is looking taller, but he is certainly one of the rising stars of the Labour Front Bench. I actually enjoy reading some of his many comments. He is a very thoughtful and accomplished Minister. I imagine that he is a joy to work with and that his civil servants value him greatly.
However, I will just read out some of the things that the Minister has said in the past:
“As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has set out, if Labour were in government, we would scrap and replace business rates, and shift the burden away from hospitality and retail businesses on the high street, which continue to shoulder a heavy burden compared with those that operate primarily in the digital economy.” —[Official Report, 31 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 318WH.]
I do not think that there is a Member in this Chamber who would disagree with the Minister on that. I think everyone in the debate today would say, “All power to the Minister’s elbow, and we look forward to him announcing how that will be done.”
Most businesses I have spoken to have found that they are paying more today than they were just a year ago. When in opposition, the Minister was busy making many comments, including:
“A Labour Government will help to breathe new life into our high streets by calling time on the outdated model of business rates, so that British businesses in all parts of the country can play their part in creating economic growth and the jobs of the future.” —[Official Report, 13 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 262WH.]
Sadly, at the moment, the Government are doing quite the reverse. Every small business in my constituency has been impacted by higher rates, not lower ones.
There is concern about what this will look like in the future. There is nervousness that even the reduced reliefs that have been put in place will have gone altogether. I very much hope that when the Minister responds, he will be able to give us every assurance that efforts are being made to deal with the impact of the change in business rates relief on businesses not just in Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, but across England. I hope he will give them some comfort that the Government do not just say things in opposition, but do them in government.
We have a sorely outdated model of billing businesses. I know the Treasury loves nothing more than the rates system, because it is one of the easiest ways to collect tax, but there are concerns that, whether or not under pressure from President Trump, when it comes to changing how digital services taxes will be done, the Treasury might come for more money from small businesses, the high street and family companies. I hope the Minister can clearly set out that that will not be the case. I appreciate that he will not wish to steal the Chancellor’s sandwiches for any future statements, but I hope he can say clearly that there will be help coming for so many businesses right across the country, and that we will support those job creators.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate, and ask them to keep their speeches to within four minutes so that everyone can get in.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine; I believe this is our first time together in this situation, and I hope it is the first of many. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing this important debate. All of us in the Chamber today agree that high street businesses are at the heart of our communities. They not only offer goods and services, but provide valuable jobs, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. They support local families and create vibrant and connected town centres, yet they are under unprecedented threat. Across the country, businesses are being quietly but relentlessly squeezed out of our once-thriving town centres.
My constituency of Surrey Heath is often perceived as affluent, but that perception has arguably bred a dangerous complacency. Recently, I hosted a meeting of local businesses—a cross-section of local business owners from the health sector to hospitality, retail and financial services. The message I received was absolutely clear: the current business rates system, and particularly the changes to business rates relief, is creating considerably anxiety and uncertainty. The scaling back of business rates relief is compounding the pressures that businesses already face: rising national insurance, increased wage costs and inflationary pressures. Removing or reducing relief schemes at this time risks an existential tipping point for many high street retailers, especially smaller, family-owned and not-for-profit businesses.
In market towns such as Camberley in my constituency —and I am sure this is shared across all the constituencies represented today—the strains on the high street are already visible, with boarded-up shopfronts, dwindling footfall and declining confidence among business owners. As these local businesses close their doors, the risk is that residents will lose further faith in town centres and high streets and turn increasingly to online alternatives, accelerating the decline that I think all of us here wish to stem. While some exceptional businesses continue to thrive despite those challenges and headwinds, and they deserve recognition for that, many more are struggling under the cumulative weight of financial burdens, with reduced business rates relief tipping the balance from viable to vulnerable.
Business rates are paid in good faith, with the expectation that they will support the local environment, funding clean streets, better infrastructure and stronger town centres, but the reality is very different. To use the example of my constituency, in 2025-26 businesses in Surrey Heath will contribute over £30 million in business rates, yet less than £1 million of that—only 2.5% of all the business rates levied—will be retained in the local area, as a result of the tariffs charged by central Government, leaving local high streets without the investment they desperately need.
We need a reformed system that reflects the economic realities of all the regions of our country—not just the most deprived, but also those that may appear prosperous on paper but face deep-rooted structural challenges. I urge the Government to rethink not only their approach to business rates relief but the system of business rates altogether. It cannot be right that struggling local councils such as mine in Surrey Heath, which are teetering on the edge of section 114 notices, are expected to levy rates from local businesses, with local residents and business owners reasonably expecting that those funds will be used to enhance the local community and business environment, only for 97.5% of those funds to be spirited away by national Government. Even if we accept the need for some redistribution, surely that cannot be right, fair or just.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing this really important debate.
I have previously spoken in the House about my background as a small business owner—specifically, a furniture retailer—and I know that business rates represent a massive percentage of the cost of running a small business. For many years, I have thought that we should get rid of business rates. It is a very outdated model, preferred by the Treasury because it is an easy model for collection, but it is destroying our high streets. When I was a retailer, we had an online presence. Post pandemic, more and more people are used to buying online, which means the heart and soul of our communities is being hollowed out. What was once a vibrant high street where people came to do their weekly shop and interact with one another is now somewhere to make a quick trip for necessities.
I have spoken before about my views on parking charges, which differ from those of the Lib Dem-run councils in my constituency. Parking charges are part of the formula for a successful high street. I will continue to feed in my view that we need to incentivise the best behaviour possible, with free parking for an hour for the high street, so that people can have their coffee or tea, pick up their dry cleaning, speak to their friends and pop into the library to return books. Those are the intangible things that we risk losing from our communities.
Taxes have been discussed. I will be a little bit political, because I know the Minister is well versed in politics in support of high streets. When we are discouraging entrepreneurs from creating businesses, we are fundamentally damaging the structure of the tax base. It is all well and good supporting employees, but we are still waiting for the definition of an employee. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge said, business owners are employees as much as employers. We should support them by saying, “We want you to take the risk of setting up a business with your life savings,” to employ people and give someone that first job, and I fear this Government are failing in that. We all look forward to the spending review and future Budgets that will hopefully not U-turn but nudge policy positions in a way that supports wealth creation.
I am lucky enough to represent the great constituency of South West Hertfordshire. I have some really amazing high streets, such as Rickmansworth, Kings Langley, Chorleywood, Croxley Green, Leavesden, South Oxhey, Moor Park, Abbots Langley and many more. But what I have seen over the past five years, especially post pandemic, is an increase in vacancies, and it is taking longer for those vacancies to be occupied. That deters shoppers in my community from going to their local high street, and instead they click and buy from online retailers for convenience, which I am as guilty of doing as anyone else.
My plea to the Minister is to create the policies that incentivise great and best behaviour. He will have support from across the House for being brave. With the majority that this Government command, they can start the tax system again with a blank sheet of paper and ask, “What is it that we are trying to achieve?” One of the frustrations that I had when I first got elected in 2019 with our 80-seat majority was that we could have carried out a once-in-a-generation reform of our tax system, especially business rates. If the Minister works closely with the Chancellor to do that, he will have my support.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing what is probably the most important debate we could have to rejuvenate our town centres. As some hon. and right hon. Members have touched on, town centres are not just a series of business transactions but the centres of our community, where people go to meet friends or to be part of a place where they can do familiar things. It is the social glue that is created by town centres that is so important; once that is lost it does not come back.
In every town centre there is a mix of retail, leisure and hospitality. We have to get the balance right between those three things, because often someone will come in for one of the legs of the stool, as it were, but stay to do something else—thus they stay longer and have more touchpoints with their community. Business rates are the foundational tax rate that affects those three things. If business rates are not right, we are not incentivising the right mix in the community—because business rates affect those three things slightly differently—and we are undermining the support that those three things give to the idea of the town centre being a social glue. I am not going to talk about all three things, but I will talk about hospitality.
I start with Fuggles bar, which is around the corner from my house in Tunbridge Wells. Fuggles is great; it is run by Alex and has an extraordinary selection of craft beers, including local ones brewed in the constituency, and a number of gins, so I occasionally visit. Alex employs about 18 people. A number of Members have spoken about business rates relief being cut from 75% to 40%. That single change, announced at the Budget, has pushed up the cost of Alex’s business rates by 50%. To that we must add a number of other costs that have risen at the same time, such as national insurance, and before that, energy costs.
An independent bar that employs 18 people, many of them part time—as we know, the NI increase hit many businesses that were employing part-time people in particular—finds it really hard to stay afloat. Alex is a member of the Tunbridge Wells hospitality leaders forum, which I meet regularly. His story is the same as the rest of the members of the forum’s. We were so concerned that together we submitted a submission to the Treasury’s consultation on business rates, and I implore the Minister to look that up and read it.
I will not go through everything in the consultation, but there are two things I will focus on. The first is investment. The current business rates formula penalises investment. If someone invests in their premises, the rateable value goes up and their taxes go up—it is a tax on investment. The other is online. Amazon pays about 0.37% of its retail sales in business rates. Fuggles pays 3%. That is the exact opposite of what a tax system should do. I implore the Minister to look up the Tunbridge Wells hospitality leaders’ submission to the Treasury’s consultation. There are a lot of good ideas in there, and I hope that he takes them on board.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) on securing the debate.
There are 1,400 small businesses with a rateable value of less than £50,000 across my constituency. Today, we are discussing only the changes in business rates, but a lot of other Government decisions—particularly on employers’ national insurance and on energy costs not coming down—will affect our high streets as well. The cumulative impact of all that is devastating for our high streets.
Lots of businesses I speak to in my constituency are horrified that rates relief dropped from 75% to 40%. When I go out and about across Broxbourne and speak to business owners, a lot of them now say, “What’s the point? What’s the point in me coming to work, trying to run a small business in the town centre, creating growth and employing people?” A Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that it is the Government that create growth. Well, let me tell the Government that it is not the Government that create growth; the Government’s job is to create the right environment for entrepreneurs and businesses to create growth.
Business owners go to work day in, day out, and work incredibly long hours. The Government should try to derisk that process. If we want people to open shops on our high streets, the Government should cushion them from some of the risks. When someone starts their own business at home—from a desk, garage or whatever—upscaling that business is incredibly difficult, and lots of risks are involved. Given that the Government are changing business rates relief and slapping more taxes on businesses, particularly in our town centres, why would someone do that?
A couple of weeks ago, I went to a secondary school in my constituency to speak to A-level students who are doing a business T-level. They all want to become entrepreneurs and create businesses, but we are not creating the right environment for people to become entrepreneurs. In the general election campaign, we heard a lot about how Labour would be the most pro-business Government ever to take power in the United Kingdom, but every decision the Government have made since being in office has slammed down growth and made it harder for businesses.
My constituency has the business improvement districts Love Hoddesdon, Love Cheshunt and Love Waltham Cross, and business owners constantly tell me that, whichever way they turn, things are incredibly difficult and the Government are not making them easy. Even when they go through the business rates appeals process, they have to pay the higher bills while the process takes place, and that process takes months. They do not get any response from the Treasury, and it is difficult for them to appeal and submit information. That is simply not good enough.
As I said, lots of people are starting to wonder, “What is the point in me doing this?” We should be pro-growth in this country. The best form of welfare is a well-paid job, but we are not allowing entrepreneurs to go out there, invest in their businesses, create job opportunities and keep our high streets afloat. We all want to see successful high streets up and down the United Kingdom, but this Government’s policies are killing the high street. They are absolutely killing it.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I suggest that England is in an extraordinarily lucky position, because in Scotland we are not getting business rates relief. There is none for retail or leisure; there is some for hospitality, but only up to a point. The hon. Member should thank the Lord he lives in England.
Lewis Cocking
The SNP needs to come up with some relief, because things are hard enough in England, even without what the hon. Gentleman has just outlined in Scotland.
The OECD has today downgraded its growth predictions for the United Kingdom. The Government need to start acting on their rhetoric from before the general election. They said they would be pro-growth, but no policies have come forward to support our high streets or promote growth. The Government really should stop trying to kill our high streets.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for calling this important debate and giving us a chance to raise issues on which we largely agree. Businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, the foundation of our communities and the building blocks of our country. I am proud to stand as a pro-business, pro-enterprise, pro-innovation Member of Parliament.
The changes introduced by the Government, notably in the autumn Budget, to reduce the retail, hospitality and leisure relief introduced by the previous Conservative Administration from 75% to 40% will decimate the support available to independent small businesses, and will undoubtedly lead to closures, higher prices for consumers and less footfall across our vibrant high streets and shopping centres, particularly in my constituency.
The examples that stand out for me in Fareham and Waterlooville include national retailers. Following the announcement in the Budget, Sainsbury’s in Waterlooville announced the closure of the café, as part of 3,000 job losses across the country. There is also the Canvas Printing Company, which stood proudly in Fareham high street for 16 years. It recently announced its closure, citing online shopping, reduced footfall and, particularly, business rates and staff costs as having contributed to that decision. Whether we are talking about a large business giving jobs and opportunities to local people to earn a living, or a small business where people have scrimped, saved and sacrificed for decades out of a passion to provide a service and generate revenue, those are devastating examples.
However, I want to talk about a larger project in my constituency: the regeneration of Waterlooville shopping centre. I am sure everybody here knows about Waterlooville, but for those who do not, its history is so rich. British soldiers returning from Waterloo are said to have stopped at an inn called The Heroes to celebrate their victory at that famous battle. Legend has it that many of those soldiers later settled in the area; it was originally called Waterloo, but to avoid confusion, it changed its name to Waterlooville. That is why we have a fantastic local pub called The Heroes, which stands proudly in Waterlooville. However, I should say that whether it is The Red Lion in Fareham, The Chairmakers in Denmead or our cherished Heroes in Waterlooville, our pubs are struggling under this Government as a result of the national insurance rise and the punitive changes to business rates.
We are working on the regeneration of Waterlooville shopping centre. The town has a proud history, and it is the largest town in the Havant borough council area, but it needs investment. There is a masterplan, and we are pleased to have welcomed new developers recently. On Wellington Way, for example, a company has refurbished the first floor for residential accommodation, and new commercial enterprises are going in on the ground floor. We have seen new companies, such as The Exchange, Babyccinos Play Café, Mini Town, Jolly Jellies and the dance school.
I recently visited the Waterlooville Business Association, which is thriving and working hard to bring a more visible brand to the area. We are urging Lib Dem-controlled Havant borough council to proceed swiftly with adoption of the masterplan. Businesses are waiting for it to be adopted, so that they can have the requisite level of confidence to bring investment to Waterlooville. I am sorry about the Government’s changes, but I will continue to champion the regeneration of Waterlooville shopping centre.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson). He outlined the attractions of his constituency, and I will do something similar. There will then be a choice for everyone here: which is better? I jest—the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency is lovely.
In a world of online convenience, the role of the high street is ever evolving, but the need to ensure that it is worth while for a business to retain a high street presence has remained. The fact is that the costs of energy, heating and lighting a premises, water and insurance—all those hidden costs—are rising and profit margins are steadily decreasing. The rise in national insurance contributions has put additional pressure on businesses that hire staff, which many can simply no longer stand.
I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. He is a very convivial man, and he never puts across his point of view in a way that offends anyone. I congratulate him on that, and I know that he will try to answer our questions on this issue. High street businesses and business relief are incredibly important.
I am very fortunate to have represented Strangford as an MP since 2010, as an MLA before that and, going back to 1985, as a councillor. I have seen many changes in the high street—lots of things happening and new businesses coming—but one of the cores we have is family businesses, which the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge referred to. I will mention some of them for the record. Wardens has been there for 125 years. We also have Knotts, another family business. We have local family butchers like Carnduff’s and Mawhinney’s, which have been there for the best part of my life, and local bakeries. The clothes shops are all family-owned. There are very few businesses like KFC and so on—those are all out of the town. The town centre is perhaps unique.
We are fortunate to have a number of restaurants and pubs. The Parlour pub and restaurant dates back to 1860—not many restaurants or pubs date back that far, but we have one. We also have Roma Hamill’s and Rice’s—again, family pubs and restaurants in the centre of town—and we have developed a coffee culture. There is only one thing we are missing in Conway Square in Newtownards, where everything looks idyllic: if the sun is there, Ms Jardine, you could be forgiven for thinking you were in the Mediterranean, but if it is not there, you might have a different opinion—as the rain belts down on you and reminds you that we are probably one of the wettest places in Europe.
I am thankful that businesses have evolved. Excel, for instance, has increased its online sales but committed to retaining its high street presence. That is the point I want to make. Older shop owners have moved on, and their families have decided it is no longer viable to have a shop on the high street and have gone online. Online is good, and I want to see it, but I want to have family businesses on the high street. Excel is a family business. Some 65% of their trade is online, but 35% is in the shop.
It has never been harder to have a shop. Bills are rising, and many in Northern Ireland cannot order things from the mainland. Retail NI has highlighted these concerns. It has said that increases in the cost of business in April are the perfect storm. Some 74% of Retail NI members indicate that they will reduce their number of employees, 86% say that they will cut back on their expansion plans and 96% say that more must be done to support local business and to deliver.
We need our local heart back, and the Minister is the perfect man to make sure we get it. We look forward, with expectation, to his answers and to hearing how he will ensure that our high streets are saved right across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this debate. It would be remiss of me not to mention my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman); as a rifleman, it is great to hear Waterlooville spoken about. The 95th Rifles fought there, and it was one of our battle honours. Every day is a training day.
This hugely important debate is relevant to every constituency up and down the country. I firmly believe that small businesses are the backbone of the UK economy. We must do as much as we can to release them from red tape and to reduce taxes, in order to see the great growth that will support our high streets.
After the autumn Budget, I set out across South Shropshire to speak to as many businesses as possible. I launched my small business campaign, which I was delighted to see Ludlow Nutrition win, and which showed me how much love there is for small businesses across the constituency. I recently held a roundtable with the chamber of commerce, which I thank for its work in bringing businesses together across the constituency to hear about the highs and lows and to hear what is working and what is not.
I wanted to go further, so I partnered with Love Bridgnorth and launched a local high street campaign. When it is finished, I will be delighted to share the results with the Minister so that he can see what local residents have said about high streets. What encourages them to come to the high street? What are the problems? What would they like to see from the Government? I have put those questions to thousands of people, and I look forward to seeing the results.
I want to talk about two core areas. One is retail shops on the high street, and the other is hospitality and local pubs, of which South Shropshire has some of the best. Local businesses are facing uncertainty because of the impact of the national insurance rise and the change to business tax. They are tending to do one of a few things: stopping recruiting, not investing in expansion to go for growth, or putting up prices, which can be inflationary. Those are all things that they do not want to be doing.
Earlier in the year, I got many of the local publicans together in Ludlow. The Minister has heard me talk about this before, but I really want to push Ludlow as the fine food capital of the country. The publicans told me what was working, what was not and what was hard. If Ludlow, with all its great pubs and its fine food festival, is struggling to make a profit, that is a concern. Some of those pubs have been trading for 20 years. They have the same footfall and the same turnover, or sometimes even more, but they cannot make a profit. It is not like covid or a financial crash; it is an ongoing situation that they are finding it exceptionally hard to deal with. They are not asking, “How do I survive?” They are saying, “I don’t know what the future looks like.”
I have spoken openly about how I have been teetotal for 13 years, because I used to drink way too much and had a problem with alcohol. So why am I talking about pubs? In South Shropshire, a constituency of 700 square miles, they are a lifeline. They are community assets. People would otherwise be sitting at home on their own come to them, because that is where their friendship groups are. They are a hub for much of our constituency. The other day, I enjoyed going to the George and Dragon at Much Wenlock. There is also the Mill at Leighton and great food at the Mytton & Mermaid in Atcham, where I have taken my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge before now.
I will not push my time limit, but I ask the Minister to look at reducing VAT to 12.5%, as we did through covid, to help out pubs and small businesses. I also ask the Government to reduce business rates back to 75% until we know what the new rates will look like.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing the debate. I agree with nearly everything he said, with one notable exception: the constituency with the finest high streets is, of course, Bromley and Biggin Hill.
High streets matter. They are the economic heart of our cities, towns and villages, supporting local jobs and serving as a social hub for communities, as my right hon. Friend said. When they are in decline or struggling, communities feel it: not only are there fewer jobs and less cohesion locally, but there is a deep sense of loss. Shuttered shops and empty streets shatter civic pride. While too many communities have seen their local high streets decline, we avoided mass closure during the pandemic, thanks to generous public support.
Retail, hospitality and leisure relief, under which firms were initially offered 100% relief on business rates with a cap of up to £110,000, was one such pivotal measure. It was a lifeline for many businesses, and it remained a lifeline through the energy crisis and the subsequent inflation. Although it was intended as a temporary measure, that tax break remains crucial to the recovery of high streets and to local growth. It is not yet time to rapidly reduce it. That is why the Government’s decision to reduce the relief from 75% to 40% is a huge blow. The change effectively doubles the business rates bill for retail, hospitality and leisure firms, and it comes on top of the high energy costs and above-target inflation that are squeezing businesses.
In my constituency we are fortunate to have successful high streets, from Bromley town centre, which is home to more than 700 businesses and supports 20,000 jobs, to the smaller parades in Hayes, Biggin Hill, Coney Hall, Bickley and Keston. However, they remain under pressure from rising costs, inflation and high energy prices, and the same challenges are squeezing consumer spending. It is precisely the wrong time to rapidly reduce the business rates relief. For an independent pub in my constituency with a rateable value of £98,000, the changes to the relief and the increase in the standard multiplier will mean an increase of nearly £20,000 in its tax bill.
It is especially reckless because this is not the only Government policy with an impact on our high streets. In one swoop, Ministers have also hiked the minimum wage, created swathes of new employment red tape and introduced a substantial increase in national insurance contributions. The Government have mixed an expensive, anti-business cocktail for our high streets that few businesses can afford. It will mean fewer jobs, less investment and closures, at a time when we want to grow our local economies.
The Government’s boast at last year’s tax-hiking Budget was
“a penny off the pint”.—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 820.]
But behind that lacklustre announcement, they have not been honest about the collective impact of their policies, which are costing high street businesses an absolute fortune. If the Government are serious about securing investment and growing the economy, they need to rethink their decision to rapidly reduce this critical relief, before they hollow out Britain’s high streets and pull down the shutters for good.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this important debate.
Our high street shops and pubs are at the heart of our communities, yet many are threatened by big increases in business rates. Our high street businesses are already contending with Labour’s new tax on jobs. The hike in national insurance makes it more expensive to employ someone who works in a shop or a pub on our high street. The Employment Rights Bill will further increase costs, hitting small businesses with new regulations that make it harder and more expensive to operate. In that context, the decision to cut the retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief from 75% to 40% is wrong.
I met recently with Mr Paul Davis of Styles Menswear in Bridgwater. His business rates have gone up from £3,000 a year to £9,000 a year. That new cost, before we can even consider Labour’s new jobs tax, puts his livelihood at risk. He will not be alone. Paul’s business has the double misfortune of being based in Eastover, where he has had to contend with extensive and lengthy roadworks. In Liberal Democrat-controlled Somerset, we have had a particular problem with various roadworks being scheduled at the same time and harming local businesses. It seems that the Liberal Democrats know little and care less about the damage that they are causing.
The roadworks in Eastover started in October with a partial road closure. As if that were not bad enough, the council then decided to impose a full road closure in January, which is now set to continue until at least September. Ironically, it is on the council’s “celebration mile” project, although to date there has been very little for local businesses to celebrate. The project has proved a hammer blow to many local businesses, which have seen footfall collapse: footfall in Bridgwater is down 400,000 in the past 12 months, mostly caused by the incompetent way in which Somerset council has handled the project.
I believe that those businesses deserve our support. Businesses disproportionately affected by council actions should have the right to claim rates relief. Will the Minister consider that proposal? The situation in Eastover is now desperate, and I fear that in the coming months we will see more shops and businesses closing their doors for good.
It seems that this Labour Government, with the able assistance of Liberal Democrat councillors in Somerset, are set on destroying those businesses. The truth is that, despite the Government’s claim to be going for growth, everything that they are doing appears designed to achieve the opposite. I say to the Minister, “Businesses in Bridgwater are suffering. They need your help now.”
Mike Martin
On a point of order, Ms Jardine. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is confused and in the wrong debate. This is a debate about business rates, but he spent his entire time talking about local government sequencing of traffic works.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
That is not a matter for me at the moment.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson)—that’s the hardest bit of the speech out of the way now—on securing this important debate.
When we reflect on our communities, it is often our town centres that we think about. Whether it is our own communities, which many hon. Members have spoken about with great love, or others that we enjoy visiting, it is often the town centre at the heart of it that we truly love. However, the challenge that we have faced over recent years is the strange death of our town centres, whether that is a result of out-of-town shopping, online shopping or, more recently, the failure under the Conservatives to reform the business rates system. We now need the new Labour Government to step up to the mark and ensure that reform happens.
As many hon. Members have noted, it is clearly not just about business rates. The problem has been exacerbated by the national insurance hike, which has had a massive impact. Many businesses tell me that they are comfortable with the increase in the minimum wage, but the double whammy of national insurance hikes and the lowering of the levy has had a major impact on them. The worry for many Opposition Members, I am sure, is that the current Government see business as a cash cow. If they bleed the cow too much, it will die. That is a real challenge. I ask the Government to reflect on that.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about Hatchers department store in Taunton? It was founded in 1775, but because of the combined effects of the change in business rates and the revaluation, it has seen its business rates go up by 144% in one year.
Steve Darling
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I congratulate him on coming from the glorious county of Somerset, where our Liberal Democrat colleagues have had to pick up the pieces after the disastrous Conservative-run council effectively ran it into the ground for many years.
Sarah Dyke
As my hon. Friend alluded to, the previous Conservative administration in Somerset was a disaster; indeed, it oversaw an irresponsible record six-year freeze on council tax. Does he agree that the Liberal Democrats in Somerset are now delivering a successfully run administration after a very difficult run of Conservative irresponsibility?
Steve Darling
My hon. Friend makes some very powerful points. In my experience, the Conservatives in county councils are more interested in painting the grass greener than in actually getting on and sorting out people’s services.
Back to the main point, we need to be reimagining our town centres. In my constituency of Torbay, a Merlin cinema has appeared where there used to be a department store, and there is an NHS diagnostic offer in our town centre. That reimagining of what the town centre should be about is essential. We have also seen a really popular new pool hall appear in the last few weeks. That is what we need to do to our town centres. Will the Minister do the right thing and undertake a root-and-branch reform of the system to drive the positive change that we want to see?
A couple of businesses have told me about their challenges. A photographer says that he sees no benefit in the doubling of the rates and has had to let a member of staff go due to the national insurance hike. Another business—a gaming café particularly for the LGBTQ community—told me that it is really challenged and is on a knife edge due to the business rates increase; it remains extremely worried.
The Liberal Democrats would like to see a commercial land value levy, which would ensure that we look at the value of the land rather than what is developed on the site. That would lead to a major rebalancing across the United Kingdom and significantly reduce land values in some of our more deprived communities, such as mine in Torbay, driving the productivity and regeneration in our town centres that we desperately need. The only saviour for the Labour Government would be growth in the economy, because that would get us out of the rut that we are in.
I would welcome any assurances the Minister can give us that we will have a root-and-branch reform of the system, rather than tinkering. An element of the Government’s scheme is a cap of £100,000 on what chains pay, and I fear that the books will be balanced on the backs of the poorer independents in our town centres.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this important debate. I would thank Members from across the House for their contributions, but one main party has failed to show up—apart from the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, of course.
High street businesses are not just shops, restaurants, pubs, banks and other firms; they represent jobs and investment, but above all they represent identity and a sense of place. Business rates have long been a source of concern for retail firms. That is inherent in their nature as a fixed cost that does not flex to profitability, business cycles or sales.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) spoke of his direct experience as a retailer. There is a case for reform but, as with everything—particularly with this topic—the devil is in the detail. The action that the Government have chosen to take means that shops and others will pay higher bills this year. That comes with consequences, and hon. Members have set out what has happened in their constituencies.
When we were in government, we understood the value of our high streets. That is why we doubled the small business rates relief to £15,000 and almost trebled higher-rate relief to £51,000. That took a third of properties out of business rates completely. We also provided long- term support through things such as the towns fund and the long-term plan for towns, which King’s Lynn in my constituency is benefiting from; it is making a difference.
Of course, in 2021 retail relief was set at 100% to reflect the realities and extraordinary pressures of the covid restrictions. In 2022, retail, hospitality and leisure properties were eligible for a 50% discount, and that was increased in 2023 to 75%—a tax cut worth £2.4 billion, which was then extended to 2024. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge rightly said, that was to help the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors adjust and continue to recover.
That approach is a far cry from the 40% discount that the Government are offering now, almost doubling bills. The Exchequer Secretary was talked up by my right hon. Friend, and if he has his backing he is sure to go far. He is a consistent man, so he will likely claim that there are no plans to extend the 75% relief. However, if people look at our track record, they will see that we consistently provided relief and backed our high streets, and we would have continued to do so—I and my hon. Friends would have made sure of that.
The Government’s decision to cut relief from 75% to 40% will leave many high street businesses facing increased costs. Some 250,000 businesses will be worse off, to the tune of £925 million. According to the British Independent Retailers Association, a shop with a rateable value of £60,000 will pay nearly £20,000 this year, up from only £8,000 in 2024. The average pub will have to pay £5,500 more annually. As we have heard, pubs are at the heart of our communities. Kate Nicholls, the chief executive of UKHospitality, has said that when Wales reduced relief to 40%, closures in Wales were a third higher than they were in England.
Any Member who talks to businesses every week, as I do, will know how difficult things are out there due to the choice that this Government have made to increase costs for our high streets. Under the Government’s plans, from next year there will be higher business rates for properties over £500,000. That will not only hit online retailers. The British Retail Consortium has expressed concerns that it will hit 4,000 larger stores in England, many of which are the anchor stores on high streets that help to drive footfall and support nearby businesses—more unintended consequences from this Government.
As we have heard, high streets and local businesses are indispensable to our economy. Retail alone comprises 5% of GDP, providing 3 million jobs directly and 2.7 million more in the supply chain. Hospitality is the third largest employer in the UK, with 3.5 million people working in the sector, and it contributes £93 billion annually to the economy. Beyond their economic value, high street businesses form the heart of local communities, providing accessible services and so much more.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating Robin’s Nest coffee shop in my constituency, which has just celebrated its first birthday. In the year that the shop has been open, its owners have seen their business rates double, and they have written to me to say that they might not make it to their second birthday. Does he agree that business rate reform cannot come soon enough and that it would be a crying shame to lose such high street businesses?
James Wild
Absolutely. That is the sort of risk taking and job creation that we want to see across all our constituencies around the country, and it is that opportunity that the Government are crushing through their decisions.
The hon. Lady’s example illustrates that the impact of these changes is already being felt, but we have been warned that worse is to come. The British Property Federation has found that business rates changes could cause a £2.3 billion hit to the economy, jeopardising 20,000 jobs. When businesses face higher costs, the alternatives open to them are higher prices, job losses or closures—boarded-up shops become inevitable—and young people and, in particular, part-time workers lose out on opportunities as a result.
The Local Government Association has also raised concerns about the financial impact that these reforms could have on local councils. It has urged the Government to introduce a transitional mechanism to ensure that local council services are not put at risk. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond directly to the LGA’s concerns.
Sadly, these are not stand-alone reforms; they come on top of the £25 billion jobs tax; the Employment Rights Bill, which will add £5 billion a year to costs; and the family farm tax and business tax. As if it were playing a game of Buckaroo!, Labour is loading cost after cost on to businesses and there will be a reaction. Half the major retailers surveyed by the British Retail Consortium said that the Employment Rights Bill will lead to job cuts. How does the Minister expect companies to absorb these much higher costs on top of business rates and higher national insurance?
Last month, the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), visited Beales, which was holding a “Rachel Reeves closing down sale” as it wound down its business after more than 140 years. That is just one of 200,000 businesses that have closed under this Government.
The future of our high streets should be a priority for any Government. Policies should be designed to help them to thrive, rather than burdening entrepreneurs and job creators. Extraordinarily, the Prime Minister said earlier this week:
“I don’t think you can tax your way to growth.”
Yet that is precisely what the Government have done with the £25 billion jobs tax. They are choking growth, costing jobs and hitting businesses that our communities rely on.
Before the election, the Labour party promised that it would scrap business rates completely. In power, it simply ditched that pledge—another broken promise. It is little wonder the British Independent Retailers Association said:
“For all the government’s rhetoric about supporting small businesses and revitalising high streets, their actions do precisely the opposite.”
It is time for the Government to start listening to businesses and change course.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. I thank hon. Members for their warm welcome.
I want to extend my thanks, as many others have, to the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this debate—and, indeed, for his kind words about how I am doing my job. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for bringing perspectives from their constituencies to it. Although we have had a fair dose of politics, there have also, in fine Westminster Hall tradition, been moments of cross-party agreement and a desire to find a way forward to support high streets in all our constituencies.
As Members of this place, we all know how important high streets are to our constituents as centres of economic activity and places where people come together. I was glad to hear healthy competition in the claims about who has the best high street and local pubs in their constituency. [Interruption.] I am seeing further bids from the other side of the room. We all know as MPs, and indeed as members of the public in our own right, how high streets unite people. They sustain jobs and are central to the identity of the areas that we represent. That is why the Government are protecting the high street by transforming the business rates system so that it supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. I welcome this opportunity to set out our approach to making that transformation a reality.
As many hon. Members have said, retail, hospitality and leisure businesses are the backbone of our high streets—our shops, pubs and cinemas—but they are contending with changing consumer habits and have faced a series of economic headwinds in recent years, including the pandemic. Online services are undeniably convenient and offer great variety, but it is high streets that bring people together. The problem, as many hon. Members have set out, is that business rates fall more heavily on property-intensive sectors, so it is a priority for the Government to ensure that the burden is permanently rebalanced and that high street businesses are protected.
We inherited a situation in which protection for high street businesses through retail, hospitality and leisure relief was set to end altogether in April this year. That continued a pattern that had become normal under the previous Government; ratepayers would rightly complain that the fact that RHL relief ended every year by default created an annual cliff edge for RHL businesses. What was supposed to be a temporary, stopgap measure was extended year by year following the pandemic by Conservative Governments, who made no attempt to fix the system and give businesses the certainty and stability they need.
That is why at last year’s autumn Budget we announced our intention to change how this is done, by introducing permanently lower tax rates for RHL properties with rateable values below £500,000 from 2026-27. That will give much needed certainty and support to the high street, improving investment and growth in places across England. We intend to introduce two lower RHL multipliers to mirror the existing national small business and standard multipliers. The new small business RHL multiplier will apply to RHL properties with rateable values below £51,000, and the new standard RHL multiplier will apply to RHL properties with rateable values of £51,000 and above, and below £500,000. Those lower multipliers will apply to all RHL properties with rateable values below £500,000. We will have no cash cap per business as the previous Government’s relief had, meaning that all relevant properties will be able to benefit from our approach.
Under our Government, any tax cut must be paid for. We saw what happened when the previous Government ignored that rule. That is why we intend to fund this tax cut by introducing a higher rate for properties with rateable values of £500,000 and above. Those properties represent less than 1% of all properties, but include the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by the online giants.
The Government recognise that business rates form a significant part of the costs of some businesses, but we must make difficult choices to ensure that our plans to support the high street are sustainable. That is why we are asking those occupying the most valuable properties to contribute more to support the vitality of the high street.
The rates for new multipliers will be set at the Budget 2025, so that the Government can factor in the upcoming revaluation outcomes and broader economic and fiscal contexts into the decision making. The Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2025 gives Government flexibility in the creation of the new multipliers and their rates within appropriate guardrails, so that the Government do not have unfettered powers. The rate for any higher multiplier cannot be more than 10p higher than the national standard multiplier, while the lower RHL multipliers cannot be less than 20p lower than the national small business multiplier. I emphasise to Members that those are only guardrails, not the intended rates, and the final decisions on the multipliers will be made at Budget in the autumn.
The Government recognise that RHL businesses need support in 2025-26, ahead of the permanently lower tax rates being introduced for 2026-27. Hon. Members today have spoken about the impact of changes to RHL relief on high street businesses in their constituencies, but it is worth emphasising again that without any Government intervention, RHL relief would have ended entirely in April 2025. To avoid that happening, our Government decided to provide a 40% business rates discount to RHL properties up to the cash cap of £110,000 per business in 2025-26.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Will the Minister assure us that, given the cross-party agreement in the Chamber today, he will go back to the Treasury and make representations to see if that could be increased to 75% for the intervening year? It would be a great relief not just on finances but on the mental worry of so many businesses if they knew that someone in the Treasury was battling for the return of that 75% relief.
James Murray
The permanently lower tax rates will come in in April 2026, so the intervening year is the year that we are currently in. That rate has been set by the Chancellor. The Chancellor makes announcements about rates at fiscal events. The autumn Budget is where she sets out those rates, in the same way that she agreed, at the autumn Budget last year, what the rate would be for RHL relief for the current year, 2025-26. At the autumn Budget this year, she will set out what the permanently lower rates will be thereafter. I would say to businesses looking at their finances this year that from April ’26—from the next financial year—the permanently lower rates will come in. Indeed, it will benefit a broader variety of shops on the high streets, because we are not continuing the cash cap of £110,000 per business.
Mr Mohindra
One of the likely consequences of the Minister’s proposals is that tenants will look to change their rateable value. Can he assure the House that the Valuation Office Agency will have sufficient resources to ensure that any appeals are done as quickly as possible to give the certainty that our high street retailers and hospitality deserve?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of the VOA. Its performance is very important for businesses across the country. I am sure that he will have seen our recent announcement that, this year, we are bringing the VOA into His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, rather than it being an arm’s length body. Part of that is to save on administration costs—to protect the public finances—but it is also to ensure that we can work with it to improve its service as much as possible, to give the best and quickest possible service to businesses involved. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that VOA performance is very high on our agenda.
Hon. Members raised the impact of RHL relief on pubs, which is understandable, given the particular importance of pubs in all our local communities. Indeed, we had a competition for who has the best pub in their constituency. I will just about resist the temptation to list the pubs in my constituency, as I am here as a Minister rather than with my constituency hat on, but hon. Members should pop into the Duke of Kent if they are ever in Ealing North. To put this in context, the extension of RHL relief for this year under this Government is saving the average pub with a rateable value of £16,800 more than £3,300. That is a real, meaningful difference to pubs across the country. The Government have, of course, frozen the small business multiplier for this year as well. Taken together with small business rates relief, more than 1 million properties have been protected from inflationary increases in their bills this year.
Some hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge, have argued that the RHL relief in this year should be higher. However, given the Government’s fiscal inheritance, it was not fiscally sustainable to continue the 75% relief, which cost £2.4 billion a year. Crucially, to repeat remarks I have made several times now, our approach from April 2026 will mean no more use of an indefinite stopgap measure. Our approach will instead offer permanently lower tax rates and the stability that those bring for businesses.
The Budget announcements and the changes I have just described reflect the Government’s first steps to support the high street. We want to go further, and modernise the business rates system. At the autumn Budget last year, the Chancellor therefore announced the publication of a discussion paper that sets out priority areas for reform.
Suella Braverman
The Minister says that he cannot afford the £2 billion price tag of maintaining the relief introduced by the last Conservative Government. How, then, is he paying for the £30 billion surrender deal in which this Government are giving up sovereign territory, the Chagos islands, to Mauritius?
James Murray
I would challenge the right hon. and learned Lady’s use of language, but that issue is rather outside the scope of a debate on business rates.
As I was saying, we published a discussion paper at the Budget last year, which invited the industry to help us to design a fairer business rates system that supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. Since publishing the paper last autumn, my officials and I have met more than 250 stakeholders across a range of sectors, including RHL and local government, and have received submissions from a range of businesses, including those from the constituencies of hon. Members present today. We are analysing the responses in detail, and the data and views shared by businesses will inform the business rates policy development process. In the summer, we will publish an interim report that sets out a clear direction of travel for the business rates system, with further policy detail to follow at the autumn Budget 2025.
It is worth my briefly drawing hon. Members’ attention to the fact that, beyond the business rates system, the Government are taking other steps to rejuvenate our high streets. We are introducing high street rental auctions to revitalise our high streets and tackle empty properties, which we know can fuel a spiral of decline in town centres. Through the English devolution Bill, the Government will introduce a new community right to buy to help communities to safeguard valued community assets. That will empower local communities to bring assets such as empty shops, pubs and community spaces into community ownership, helping to revitalise our high streets and eliminate vacant properties.
Alongside that, the new £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods programme will deliver up to £20 million of funding and support over the next decade to 75 communities across the UK, laying the foundation to kick-start local growth and drive up living standards. As part of the programme, local partnerships will be able to fund interventions focused on revitalising high streets. The Government will announce further plans to support high streets in the small business strategy later this year.
As we have heard, hon. Members are rightly concerned about the high streets in their constituencies. We are all passionate about the places where we live and that we represent, and we want them to thrive. As I have set out, the business rates system that this Government inherited has been failing to give high streets the long-term, certain and stable support they need, instead providing only stopgap help through RHL relief that has kept changing and has been repeatedly extended ahead of an annual cliff edge.
This Government are fixing the foundations of the business rates system, and that starts with permanently rebalancing the burden of RHL properties through introducing permanently lower tax rates from 2026-27.
Stuart Anderson
I really like the idea of permanently lower tax rates. Can the Minister confirm that that is for all businesses, and that no businesses will receive tax rises?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. As I set out, the new lower multipliers of RHL properties will apply to all RHL properties with rateable values below £500,000. There will be a standard RHL multiplier and a small RHL multiplier for properties with rateable values of £51,000 and below. The definition of an RHL property will broadly follow the definition by which RHL relief is currently allocated. That will be set out in guidance, but hon. Members can expect that to operate in a similar way.
The advantage of our approach of permanently lower tax rates and multipliers is that they do not have a cap in the way that the previous Government’s relief did, of £110,000 per business. All properties within the RHL definition with rateable values of less than £500,000 will be able to benefit from this support, helping all the shops that contribute towards high streets across the country.
Beyond the changes to the RHL multipliers, I have also had the chance to set out some of the wider work that we are undertaking to transform business rates over the course of this Parliament and create a fairer, modernised system that is fit for the 21st century. I thank the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge and all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.
Sir Gavin Williamson
A lot of businesses will be worried that when they get rates bills in the future, even under a reformed system, that bill will have not gone down, but actually gone up. I thank the Minister for his comments, but there is a real worry that the Treasury will end up trying to balance the books on the backs of small and family businesses. I urge the Minister to do what he can, because these businesses are the engines of our economy. They are where the jobs are created and where so many young people will get their first opportunity. I urge him to do everything he can to protect opportunities for the future and their ability to create jobs and wealth, because the people who are running these businesses are working people as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of changes to business rates relief on high street businesses.
Prosecutions for Violence against Women and Girls: West Midlands
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. Before I call the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West, I remind hon. Members that they should not refer to any court cases that are currently active and are therefore sub judice. Hon. Members will also want to be careful about raising matters that might prejudice ongoing police investigations or a future court case. I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton West for his courtesy in consulting with the Table Office prior to the debate.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for prosecutions relating to violence against women and girls in the West Midlands.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Justice Committee, and my wife is a senior Crown prosecutor in the west midlands dealing with rape and serious sexual offences cases. Violence against women and girls is a global problem and remains one of the gravest social challenges that we face. In the United Kingdom, offences involving violence against women and girls account for approximately 20% of all police-recorded crime.
Although it is undoubtedly a national crisis, the problem is particularly acute in the west midlands. In the year ending March 2023, West Midlands police recorded more than 81,000 domestic abuse-related crimes, which is the highest rate across all police forces in England and Wales. In my constituency of Wolverhampton West, violence and sexual offences have consistently represented the most reported crimes over the last three years, totalling to more than double that of the next highest category. Across the west midlands, an incident of violence against a woman or girl is reported every 30 seconds.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree that with a call to police every 30 seconds—that is over 100 people reporting domestic abuse every hour—more resources need to be given to the police? Given that under 3% are convicted of rape or sexual assault, more time needs to be given to investigate, these perpetrators need to be held accountable and tougher sentences need to be given.
Warinder Juss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was about to say that I was so shocked to hear the statistic I just cited that I had to ask my parliamentary assistant to check the figure again, because I could not accept that it was so high.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing the issue forward. I spoke to him beforehand to seek his permission to back up the evidence base that he is putting forward so clearly. This is happening not just in Wolverhampton West, but all over the United Kingdom. For example, Ulster University did research in Northern Ireland that said that 21.4% of women who experienced violence reported it to the police, and, further, 77.4% of those who did report found the response unhelpful. There is a clear, huge issue of under-reporting and women must feel that they will be taken seriously. Does the hon. Member agree—I am sure he will—that the police have a lot more to do to reassure women who are subjected to violence and sexual abuse?
Warinder Juss
I agree with the hon. Member. It is quite surprising that, despite the scale of the crisis, fewer than 40% of women and girls who have suffered violence actually seek help, and even when they do, the outcomes are consistently inadequate.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and Black Country colleague on securing this important debate. The Office for National Statistics reports that it takes 158 days from the police referring a rape case to the Crown Prosecution Service to the CPS authorising the charge. That compares to 46 days for other crime. Does my hon. Friend agree that urgent reform is essential for victims to get the justice that they truly deserve?
Warinder Juss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and as I go through my speech, her question will be answered in more detail.
In the west midlands, the police recorded 7,744 reports of rape or sexual assault, yet only 217 actually resulted in either a charge or a conviction. That is a charge or conviction rate of just 2.8%, which is clearly unacceptable. The court backlog for adult rape cases in the UK is at a record high, with more than 3,500 individuals awaiting trial. Each case represents a survivor still waiting for justice, unable to move on with their lives and begin any healing process. If justice delayed is justice denied, we are consistently allowing our court system to deny justice.
I am pleased that this Government have begun to take significant steps to transform the policing response to these heinous crimes. That includes announcing Raneem’s law, which will see domestic abuse specialists placed in 999 control rooms, together with the roll out of new domestic abuse protection orders, with independent legal advocates for rape victims to be rolled out next year.
However, delays in our court system can expose victims to the risk of further harm. One of my constituents, who had suffered several incidents of domestic violence, had to repeatedly chase for an extension to her domestic abuse protection order because there were delays in the court providing a non-molestation order to protect her from contract from her ex-partner. That resulted in her having to move from her home, and she felt completely let down by the whole system.
It has to be said that the legacy of chronic underfunding left by the previous Government has sent our justice system into crisis. Between 2010 and 2023, the justice budget for England and Wales fell by 22% in real terms, and since 2010, 43% of our courts were closed. That mess was unfortunately left by the previous Government for this Government to clear up.
The average time it takes for an adult rape case to make the full journey from report and investigation to a verdict is over six years. In early 2024, 61% of police investigations into rape and sexual assault were closed because the victim withdrew their complaint. Last year, more than 280 rape prosecutions collapsed because the victims pulled out after a charge was laid. Even when victims choose to go ahead with the trial, 21% of rape trials are postponed at the last minute.
As a former lawyer, I have to say that one of the problems with the justice system is a critical shortage of legal professionals. The Criminal Bar Association recently reported that 64% of prosecuting barristers and 66% of defence barristers are unlikely to reapply to go on to the lists to be instructed for RASSO cases because of poor legal aid fees and the impact that these cases have had on their wellbeing. In 2023, 139 sex offence trials were postponed because there was no prosecution barrister, and a further 113 were postponed because there was no defence counsel.
One in four trials now does not go ahead as scheduled. That is totally unacceptable; survivors are being left in limbo as trials are delayed by months or even years, and cases are increasingly abandoned, destroying victim confidence in our justice system and fundamentally undermining the rule of law.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. In my constituency we have high levels of deprivation and crime, especially domestic violence, rape and sexual assault. Talking about the criminal justice system, I know as a member of the Bar and a criminal defence barrister that a lot of young wannabe barristers are deciding to go to other professions purely because the funding is not there. Does the hon. Member agree that there is no point having extra court sitting days without the support mechanisms of lawyers? What more could the Government do to support that?
Warinder Juss
I agree, and I will go on to mention some of the steps that the Government are taking.
There has been a recent surge in the volume and complexity of cases coming before the Crown court, which has further contributed to the backlog. We see more of those cases coming through at the highest level since 2014. The guilty plea rate for rape cases sits at just 15% on average, compared with 66% across all other crimes. That means that rape cases are harder to prepare for and more time-consuming for victims and lawyers. I am pleased that West Midlands police have taken the initiative of having a violence against women and girls strategy that rightly places justice at the heart of its mission, prioritising investigation and evidence.
To answer the question put by the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan), the Government have provided additional funding of £24 million for criminal legal aid and an extra £92 million annually for criminal legal aid solicitors. They have also increased magistrates’ sentencing powers, in addition to a new commitment to increase Crown court sitting days, which are all positive steps. Following the sentencing review and as part of the Government’s safer streets mission, there will now be increased tagging for perpetrators of violence against women and girls. I also welcome the Government’s drive to recruit approximately 1,000 judges.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for holding this important debate. Research from Greater Manchester shows that women and girls who have experienced abuse are likely to face multiple disadvantages, such as living in poverty, homelessness, mental illness or addiction, which adds complication in accessing the correct services. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must better understand the multiple disadvantages and needs of survivors to improve confidence and trust in the policing of this violence?
Warinder Juss
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and note his point. We need to ensure that the justice system is there for everyone, regardless of circumstances.
As I was saying, the Government have started a drive to recruit approximately 1,000 judges and tribunal members across all jurisdictions annually. There are 16 Nightingale courtrooms across seven venues being used to hear cases. The Crown Prosecution Service launched a domestic abuse joint justice plan in November last year to improve the working relationship between the police and the CPS, which will hopefully have an impact. It has resulted in a 7% increase in the volume of prosecutions and a 12% increase in convictions for domestic abuse in the west midlands.
The CPS commitment to improve communication and support for victims through the victim transformation programme is a positive step forward. It means that there will be a dedicated victim liaison officer in every RASSO team, with the offer made to meet the victim before the trial to answer questions.
We need to go further. The Labour election manifesto committed to establishing specialist courts for rape and serious sexual offences at every Crown court location in England and Wales, in order to fast-track rape cases. While we eagerly await the Leveson review of the criminal courts, I hope that that commitment can be delivered as soon as possible. By introducing other measures such as having separate waiting areas in court buildings and improving the submission of evidence remotely, we can offer victims the dignity, support and reassurance they deserve during what is often an incredibly distressing process.
We also need a dedicated, adequately funded cohort of specialist lawyers supported through ringfenced legal aid funding, better remuneration, and appropriate wellbeing and mental health support for those working in the most distressing and complex situations. Above all, we must centre victims in every aspect of the system. That means having access to sexual violence advisers and domestic abuse advocates to ensure that survivors are guided and supported as they travel through the legal process, so that they have proper access to justice.
Justice for women and girls simply cannot wait. If we are serious about tackling violence against women and girls, we must overhaul our broken justice system with urgency and compassion. Everyone in our society deserves the support and opportunity they need to secure the justice they deserve.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for securing this debate. I am aware of his extensive knowledge of and passion for this subject.
Violence against women and girls is a national emergency, rather than the inevitability that previous Governments treated it as. We are sick and tired of seeing women and girls facing the same threats of violence and abuse, generation after generation. I wholeheartedly support this Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls, but that can happen only if the Government support police forces and the criminal justice system to prosecute perpetrators.
In 2021, Warwickshire police had the lowest rape conviction rate in the country. Fewer than 2% of reported rapes ended with a charge, and just 1.3% led to a conviction. In 2025, Warwickshire police became the best performing police force in the country for charging cases of adult rape. Its charge rate is now 13.4%, compared with a national average of 7.1%. But let us face it: conviction rates are still woeful and would not be tolerated for any other offence.
Let us look at what Warwickshire police changed, in the hope that other forces will adopt the measures and move in the right direction. It created a dedicated team of detectives investigating only rape and high-risk domestic abuse, trained frontline officers to respond to reports of rape, and involved the Crown Prosecution Service early in investigations to ensure a joint approach. The importance of the change in charge rates, from 2% to over 13%, cannot be overestimated. There is rarely an opportunity to talk about hope when discussing violence against women and girls, but the fact that Warwickshire police’s transformation was accomplished in less than five years gives me hope for victims.
Of course, a national average charge rate of 7% is still shockingly low. Women are not safe in a society in which more than 90% of rapes reported to the police go without charge. How are women meant to feel confident in the criminal justice system? I thank the Government for the action they have taken so far, with new measures to tackle stalking and introduce Raneem’s law. I truly believe that we can halve violence against women and girls if we treat it as the national emergency it is. I hope that the example of Warwickshire police demonstrates that this is a possibility. We have a very long way to go, but I believe that ending violence against women and girls is a priority of this Government.
The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I start by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for securing this important debate, and indeed for contextualising its seriousness in our minds with his informative and very insightful opening remarks. He highlighted the gravity of violence against women and girls. I also extend my thanks to those who have contributed to this debate.
This Government were elected with a landmark mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, and we have been explicit in our prioritisation of tackling this deeply harmful form of offending. We have heard clearly in this debate about the wider issues in the criminal justice system, including the record court backlog and counsel shortages that we inherited from the previous Government. To effectively reduce violence against women and girls, it is important to apply a regional lens that takes into account the nuances specific to different areas across our country, as we are doing today. I am particularly aware of the challenges that my hon. Friend raises when it comes to the west midlands, for reasons I will go into.
As my hon. Friend said, and as other hon. Members have made clear, the Crown Prosecution Service plays a vital role in helping to deliver this Government’s VAWG mission, through the prosecution of offenders and by securing justice for victims. As Solicitor General, it is my role to guard the CPS’s prosecutorial independence, so that it is wholly free to prosecute offences independently of any interference. It is also my duty to help to ensure that the CPS is delivering on our agenda to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
I will talk briefly about the specific actions that the CPS is taking in the west midlands, before I go on to cover, again relatively briefly, Government action on VAWG more broadly. The CPS has invested extensively in improving its response to VAWG through a number of initiatives, the impact of which is already visible in the west midlands. I recently met with Siobhan Blake, who is the chief Crown prosecutor and head of CPS West Midlands, as well as CPS national lead on rape and serious sexual offences, to discuss exactly that. I will see her again on Friday this week.
Last year, CPS West Midlands rolled out the joint national action plan and complementary national operating models with policing to improve outcomes for victims of rape. The impact of that is visible in the west midlands, where there has been an increase in the volume of adult rape-flagged cases resulting in a charge. In 2022-23, there were 168 charges for adult rape-flagged cases in the west midlands, and in 2023-24, there were 204 charges. In the rolling year to date, we are again seeing increases.
Although we are pleased to see more cases in the system, this clearly has a knock-on effect on caseloads, which have grown significantly in recent years, despite the CPS increasing resourcing in its RASSO units by around 100 prosecutors over the past five years. I am personally aware of the pressure that this can place on staff, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West will be aware of that, too. The CPS national operating model has provided the framework to respond to this workload issue, and includes a wellbeing offer for all RASSO staff to ensure that they get the support they need.
I have talked about rape, but I turn now to domestic abuse. The CPS launched the joint justice plan, which similarly focuses on improving working relationships between police and Crown prosecutors. Just weeks ago, West Midlands police and the local CPS met to continue discussing this shared commitment to better joint working, and again the impact on local performance is already visible. In the west midlands, the plan has led to a 7% increase in the volume of domestic abuse-flagged prosecutions, and from quarter 2 to quarter 3 2024-25, there was a 12% increase in convictions.
Timeliness is a key priority under the joint justice plan, as we recognise the importance of domestic abuse victims and their families being able to get their lives back on track, without a trial and its associated pressures, as quickly as possible. The CPS continues to look for innovative ways to improve timeliness. A pilot is now under way across three CPS areas to improve the timeliness of investigations and the efficiency of charging decisions in domestic abuse cases. The impact of that is being monitored closely.
I want to explicitly acknowledge honour-based abuse. The CPS held a multi-agency conference in Birmingham—the very first of its kind—that I attended alongside the Minister for safeguarding, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips). We engaged directly with local and national groups to set clear directions for combating these extremely harmful practices. At the conference, I shared my experience of overturning an unduly lenient sentence of a perpetrator in the east midlands—the first person in the country to be convicted of conspiracy to commit female genital mutilation. Having reviewed the facts of the case, I referred it to the Court of Appeal, which then increased the offender’s sentence to a total of seven years.
The CPS’s ongoing work across different aspects of violence against women and girls will be unified through its forthcoming VAWG strategy, which is to be launched internally. Work has already begun to deliver that activity from 2025 through to 2030. Our cross-Government VAWG strategy will set out the blueprint for halving VAWG, encompassing prevention, early intervention, responding to offences and supporting victims.
Prevention and education are fundamental to this approach, and we will tackle those crimes at their root, including by supporting our education system to teach children about respectful and healthy relationships and consent. I am especially dedicated to that as a member of the Government’s Young Futures board, chaired by the Department for Education, where I have raised the growing prevalence of child perpetrators in sexual offences. Our cross-Government strategy will unify work to address offending that disproportionately impacts women and girls, together with the existing changes that the Government are driving to strengthen the law and the criminal justice system to improve the prosecution of these crimes.
In the limited time I have left, I want to focus specifically on victims and the work being led across Government by some of my esteemed colleagues, such as the Minister for safeguarding and the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice—both are Members for the west midlands.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West rightly pointed out, earlier this year, West Midlands police became one of five forces to pilot Raneem’s law—a new Government-led initiative established in memory of Raneem Oudeh and her mother, who were murdered by Raneem’s ex-husband. It embeds domestic abuse specialists within 999 control rooms, who will be on hand to provide expert advice, specialist support and to identify missed opportunities to properly safeguard victims.
Last year, pilots of new domestic abuse protection orders began in three police forces, enabling them to provide longer-term protection for victims. There have since been multiple convictions for breaches of those orders, with some perpetrators already behind bars. We are also taking action on stalking by extending the reach of stalking protection orders so that they can be imposed by the courts upon conviction as well as acquittal. That will be backed by other measures, including statutory guidance to empower the police to release the identities of online stalkers, and conducting a wider review of stalking legislation to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Those are just some of the actions being taken by the Government to help protect women and girls from violence and abuse, and to deliver on our commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade.
I should say, in closing, that it is very important to be frank, as all contributors to this debate have been, about the challenges facing the criminal justice system. Court backlogs across the country, after a lack of action by the previous Government, mean that victims are waiting far too long to see justice, which is leading to rising levels of attrition when it comes to victims, as has been adequately covered.
We must strain every sinew to improve victim support. It is important that we respect victims’ wishes, and we must also ensure that, where they feel able to, victims remain engaged in the criminal justice process. Ultimately, our success will be measured by more victims coming forward and a sustained reduction in VAWG offending. To achieve that, we need more reporting, more cases being seen through to trial, better support for victims and improved public confidence in the criminal justice system as a whole.
Question put and agreed to.
Swimming Facilities
(3 weeks, 2 days 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
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for swimming facilities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I am very pleased to have secured this important debate on Government support for swimming facilities. I will start with the importance of swimming and public facilities, and then move on to the responsibility for maintaining those facilities, as well as some of the challenges faced by providers and operators. I will then finish with the support that has been received historically, and with my asks and considerations for the Government.
Swimming remains one of the most popular activities in England, with around 12.5 million adults going swimming each year—that is around 27% of the population. Participation levels are higher than for hockey, football, rugby and tennis combined. Seventy-two per cent of schools use public pools to deliver their statutory responsibility for learning to swim, and 85% of young people learn to swim in a public pool, with almost 2 million children learning to swim outside school through Swim England’s “Learn to Swim” programme each year. Seventy-five per cent of grassroots sports clubs use leisure facilities to deliver social and sporting opportunities to communities. And 66% of NHS cancer rehabilitation services take place in leisure facilities. Swimming helps to save our NHS around £357 million a year. The number of people with a limiting health condition or disability taking to the pool has grown from 15% two years ago to 24% more recently.
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on an issue that affects so many of our constituents. I recently gave medals to members of Larkfield swimming club in my constituency, and it was obvious that swimming is helping the health and fitness of so many young people, as well as teaching life lessons of leadership, teamwork, discipline, respect, how to win and how to lose. It was the club and the swimming—it all helped. Does my hon. Friend agree that swimming is a force for good, and that it is very important for our local authorities to be aware of the major benefits for mental health and physical health? They need to support the funding of these facilities.
Joe Robertson
I agree that swimming is hugely important for young people and for the mental and physical health of the nation, for all these different reasons. We rely heavily on local authorities for ensuring that these facilities remain open to the public and, crucially, accessible to less well-off people.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. I learned to swim as a boy at Tain Royal Academy in my hometown of Tain. A new school is being built, and the old school, complete with its pool, will be shut shortly. Alas, plans have fallen through to build a new pool, so my hometown could be without a swimming pool for at least a year.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that in Scotland as much as in England and Wales, it is crucial that local authorities get to grips with this? For my community to be without a swimming pool for that length of time is a joke, and it has upset people massively.
Joe Robertson
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Sadly, his town will not be the only town in the United Kingdom with a pool unavailable for a period of time or possibly forever. I agree that local authorities across the United Kingdom have responsibility, but I also believe the Government have some responsibility to support local councils.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and he is being very generous with his time. My constituency has six swimming pools. Much has been made of the health benefits, but does my hon. Friend agree that, for those of us who represent coastal communities or constituencies with large rivers, being able to swim is an important life skill?
Joe Robertson
Absolutely. I also have a coastal constituency, and swimming is a life skill that, one day, someone may rely on to save a life. I agree with my hon. Friend on that.
Councils are generally responsible for supporting the provision of both formal and informal opportunities for communities to be active. They spend £1.4 billion a year on sport, leisure, green spaces, parks and playgrounds, making local government the biggest public funder of sport and leisure services. Local government is directly responsible for 2,727 public leisure facilities, including almost 900 swimming pools. There are 4,000 more pools in England controlled or provided by other operators.
The sport and leisure infrastructure provided by councils is relied on by residents, schools and voluntary sector organisations, none of which could provide their assistance without public swimming facilities. I acknowledge the work of the Swimming Alliance, which is a collaborative group of more than 25 leading national organisations united to address the urgent and systemic challenges facing swimming participation. I will come on to the challenges that swimming facilities are facing.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Before my hon. Friend comes on to those challenges—and I am mindful of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont)—can he tell us whether he is as disturbed as I am by the increasing number of tragic events in which people drown as a result of not being able to swim? There were more deaths in the last four years than there were previously, and most of those deaths were among young people. Learning to swim is more than recreation; it is something vital. I am delighted that a Conservative Member has secured this debate, but Members across this Chamber are of one mind on this matter.
Joe Robertson
The statistic provided by my right hon. Friend could get worse if the number of public swimming facilities declines any further, because of that lack of swimming skills. It seems fairly obvious that, if someone is in trouble in the water, their best chance of surviving is if there is somebody nearby who can swim.
Two of the biggest costs for swimming facilities are energy and staffing, and the cost of both has increased in recent years, putting huge pressure on pools. Post-pandemic, energy is twice as expensive as it was four years ago, and according to Swim England, national insurance contribution increases in the last Budget are costing operators across the country tens of millions of pounds.
Since the pandemic, 206 pools have closed either temporarily or permanently, but local authorities are generally squeezed for funding and there is no prospect of that significantly changing in the next few years as far as I can tell. They are not in a position to substantially divert funding from core services, such as social care, to swimming facilities. Operators have already had to dip into reserves, and Community Leisure UK reports that its members across England are currently in deficit.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He is spelling out the challenges that local councils face. Does he agree that we have a particularly big challenge coming down the road—albeit one that is already in front of us—in new towns? In Sherford in my constituency, a swimming pool and a leisure facility were part of the plans. People have bought into living in those new towns based on that promise, but given the lack of funding and the increased costs of running leisure facilities, there is a battle over who will deliver them. This means the facilities are kicked into the long grass, and residents like my constituents are left waiting and hoping for the facility to come. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to ensure that, as they pursue their housing plans, they are minded to fund leisure facilities so that new towns have them as required?
Joe Robertson
It is very disappointing to hear about the situation in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Yes, I do think there is a role for the Government, and I will come to that in more detail. I hope she agrees with what I am suggesting.
There is also a significant problem with ageing swimming pools. Generally, they have a life expectancy of around 40 years—the average age of a pool closing due to age is 38 years—but 30% of pools in England are more than 40 years old. This means they are close to the end of their lifespan, and there is no identifiable source of funds to deal with that issue. There is considerable and growing demand for capital investment because our pools are ageing. Swim England says that, by 2030, 73% of local authorities could have a shortage of at least one swimming pool.
On the importance of swimming pools for children, currently only 72% of children leave primary school able to swim 25 metres, but the figure is just 45% in the country’s most deprived areas. If our ageing pools are not upgraded or replaced, it seems obvious that those figures will only get worse.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
In my constituency, Sonning Common primary school is fighting to keep its pool open. The school’s bursar spends every waking hour applying for grants but hits a dead end time and again, often precisely because schools are not eligible for grants. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should make provision to support school swimming pools, where they exist, to ensure the continuity of swimming education?
Joe Robertson
I agree, and schools often also rely on public swimming pools. Wherever schools need those facilities, I ask the Government to provide support. There is no other obvious support, as school and council budgets are already overstretched and must be used for other statutory duties.
Swim England’s “Value of Swimming” report showed that swimming generates £2.4 billion of social value each year and improves wellbeing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) said. A 2014 Department for Culture, Media and Sport study valued swimming the highest of all the sports it included.
The Isle of Wight is representative of the challenges faced across England. Pricing for swimming activities has become less inclusive as there are cost pressures for providers, so some of the concessionary rates that benefited those who are less well off or older have been discontinued. On the island, we have the challenge of four ageing facilities, built in 1974, 1978, 1980 and 1993. In 2010, Isle of Wight council withdrew support for Ryde swimming pool, but thankfully the local community saved it through the formation of the Waterside community trust. That pool continues to operate today, albeit without any ongoing funding from the council.
In 2023, Isle of Wight council faced a £1.2 million hole in its leisure and sports development budget, and there were concerns about the continued provision of the two remaining facilities. It is my clear view that our small unitary authority cannot be expected to fund the ongoing costs of those facilities, given that energy prices and the cost of employing staff, due to national insurance contributions, are so high, and particularly when it comes to the capital investment that is needed.
Facilities on the island have benefited from Government support in recent years. I now turn to the historical funding that swimming facilities have received. The last Conservative Government created the swimming pool support fund, with £80 million of funding for swimming facilities. That was £60 million direct from the Treasury and £20 million from the national lottery. The funding was oversubscribed and has now been used—it has come to an end. On the Isle of Wight, Ryde Waterside pool and The Heights in Sandown both benefited from the support.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Obviously, the interest in it is enormous, which is why everybody is here. One of the things that I wanted to say—I probably will not get the opportunity to because of the number of Members here—is that having swimming facilities available, as we have in the neighbouring constituency to Strangford, gave people the chance to swim who never would have had it. It also gave us some Olympic champions, such as Bethany Firth—that is a fact—who learned to swim at the Aurora complex in North Down, with the Ards swimming club. Her opportunity gave us a gold medal at the last Olympics. The opportunity is there, and so are future Olympic champions.
Joe Robertson
I agree; swimming does all those things. As we are talking about Olympic champions, I have a quote from five-time Olympic swimmer Mark Foster, commenting on the support that the previous Government were able to provide. He said:
“Swimming pools are at the heart of communities, and there are so many reasons why this funding to keep almost 200 open in England is so important.”
Indeed, 325 swimming pools and leisure centres across England received a share of that money. Investment helped keep them open, and has gone towards helping to meet the target of keeping 3.5 million more people active by 2030. The first £20 million of that money was directly delivered to facilities at risk of closure, and it built on the support from the £100 million in the national leisure centre recovery fund, which since 2019 has helped secure or reopen 1,100 pools. I have secured this debate today because that source of funds has been exhausted but so relied on, and so far, the current Government have not announced any plans to continue with it or to provide any alternatives to help keep pools open and upgrade them where needed.
I have some asks from Swim England. It seeks and encourages long-term capital investment and revenue funding to support the renewal of public leisure infrastructure. It wants to see a shared vision across Government for the future of public leisure, which recognises the value and contribution of swimming, particularly to the health and wellbeing of communities, and its social value. It wants greater integration between the health and leisure sectors, particularly through the work of integrated care systems.
I have some questions for the Minister, which I hope she will address towards the end of the debate. What steps is she taking to support local authorities facing increased financial pressure in maintaining and upgrading ageing swimming pool infrastructure? Does her Department have plans to set targets or a benchmark for reversing the decline in swimming pool provisions across England? If she wants to comment on the United Kingdom, so be it. Will the Minister continue to support and fund, specifically, the last Government’s swimming pool support fund? If not, why not? What alternatives will she put in place?
I remind the Minister gently of a previous quote by her:
“The public leisure sector plays an important role in the delivery of sport, physical activity and leisure across the country. It does so through vital community assets and infrastructure, such as swimming pools…We know that it helps to address and prevent long-term health inequalities, both mental and physical. It helps to combat loneliness, grow the local economy and provide jobs and purpose.”—[Official Report, 4 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 75WH.]
I could not agree with her more.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. We are going to struggle to get everybody in. I will have to ask hon. Members to keep to a formal two-minute limit, and if you intervene, unfortunately I will have to take you off the list. I have to call the Front-Bench spokespersons by 5.10 pm.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing the debate.
First, I declare an interest: in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran I chair the Splash group, which is working hard to restore and reopen the outdoor tidal pool in the town of Saltcoats. It has actually been in existence since about the 1890s, so that we can keep swimming pools going. Outdoor swimming has never been so popular, and the pool would be a great asset once again to our town and the constituency. Earlier today I hosted an event with UK Future Lidos, which is here to promote the excellent contribution that lidos make to public health, overall health and wellbeing, the local economy and so much more. The event was met with great enthusiasm, with many attending and showing much interest in visiting and supporting local lidos.
Swimming is very popular in the UK, and in Scotland it is one of our most successful sports. It is one of the nation’s highest participation sports, and 95% of Scottish people agree that swimming pools are important for safety. Nine in 10 agree that the closure of swimming pools is bad for local communities and a cause for concern.
John Lamont
I should declare an interest: I learned to swim in Seamill in the hon. Lady’s constituency. Does she agree that there is a particular challenge in Scotland because the Scottish Government are underfunding local authorities, which makes it much harder for councils to support swimming pools in the way they might want to?
Irene Campbell
I fully agree with the hon. Member’s comments.
Additionally, 93% of Scottish people think that all children should learn to swim, and 91% think that learning to swim is an important part of every child’s education. It can obviously save lives, especially for people living on the coast, as we do.
Swimming is one of the most popular participation sports for all. However, many pool operators are passing on rising operational costs to pool users, making swimming a less affordable and accessible activity, which is a challenge. Scotland still has the highest drowning statistics of all the home nations, and it is important that we help pools access funding to keep affordable and safe swimming available to all, to protect the heritage of our cultural assets, and ultimately to save lives.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing the debate.
I learned to swim in Eastbourne Sovereign Centre. Locally, we are ambitious to protect the pool for the long term. That is why I am pushing the Treasury to pilot new models of investing in the future of swimming facilities, because the current local authority “going it alone” orthodoxy is broken. Through a blend of new investment, a partnership between the UK’s largest operator for leisure facilities, Better, and innovative political leaders in my town, as well as Government flexibility on other grants we have been awarded, Eastbourne Sovereign Centre could be a test bed for a new funding model that could be replicated across the country. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss the model, and to her officials for coming down to Eastbourne last week to explore it and see our swimming magic in action.
That magic is also present in the work of Helen Nichols and the Motcombe pool community interest company team, which has secured over half a million pounds to help regenerate their local community pool; the Hillbrow sports centre, with Nick Harvey and Duncan Kerr pioneering a model that uses swimming and health together to train up general practitioners; Eastbourne swimming club, which has nurtured swimmers since 1866; Gary and his team of Eastbourne voluntary lifeguards at the Eastbourne college pool; Joe Agrela at Swimming Nature; and the Blue Lagoon in Hampden Park.
These swimming heroes and their work prove that swimming facilities are not luxuries; they are lifelines, and they produce incredible outcomes for Eastbourne. As a town, we stand ready to work with the Government to pioneer the future of the country’s swimming facilities, and the discussion is always open for us.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.
As the Member of Parliament for North Somerset, I welcome today’s debate. I speak on behalf of the many constituents I have spoken to in the past year who have told me how much they value swimming, not just as a sport but as a life skill and a vital part of our community life. Whether it be the much beloved lido in Portishead, the marine lake in Clevedon or Backwell leisure centre, to the coastal community I represent, swimming plays a vital role in supporting our physical and mental wellbeing. However, despite swimming’s clear social value, swimming facilities are increasingly under strain: according to data provided by the Swimming Alliance, across the country more than 1,200 pools have closed since 2010, and many others are ageing and becoming increasingly costly and risky to maintain.
In North Somerset, we are seeing the consequences of decline at first hand, with the closure of the much-beloved swimming pool at Crockerne primary school in Pill. It had taught our children to swim for the past 60 years, but a lack of funding and support has denied residents in this beautiful nook of North Somerset the opportunity to engage in one of Britain’s great pastimes.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
The swimming pool in Atherstone, in my constituency, opened in 1969, and is where I learned to swim. Today it closes regularly because of boiler problems, and despite the swimming pool support fund, it is reaching the end of its life. If it closes and is rebuilt, it will inevitably be closed for around 18 months. There is a waiting list of more than two years for children to learn to swim. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the legacy that the last Government left in terms of investment in swimming facilities, not the picture painted by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) in his opening remarks?
Sadik Al-Hassan
I have to agree with my hon. Friend.
However, it is not all doom and gloom. Other swimming facilities in North Somerset have benefited from the great generosity of this Government in recent months. Portishead lido, which I greatly look forward to visiting this Friday, continues to thrive, thanks not only to the hard work of its volunteers, but to the generous £1.3 million grant awarded in the latest round of the community ownership fund. Thanks to the unprecedented support shown by this Labour Government towards preserving local treasures, Portishead lido will now be able to modernise and enhance the pool and café so beloved by the local community.
That is why it is so important to have debates such as these: so that we can continue to share the triumphs and miseries of swimming facilities in our constituencies, and highlight just how important Government funding is to their sustainability. With ageing infrastructure, increased energy costs and the cost of living squeezing families’ discretionary spending, it is more important than ever that we ensure that adequate levels of funding are directed towards ensuring that these treasured community assets remain open to the public for years to come.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing the debate.
I was a competitive swimmer in my teens, and my sister swam for Scotland. The hair care means that I do not swim as much as I would like now, but I want to say that my colleagues’ cards are all marked: Hope for Youth Northern Ireland runs a biannual House of Commons versus House of Lords swim, and a couple of months ago I was the only MP on the team. I will be in touch when it comes around again.
I want to emphasise, from a Scottish perspective, a number of things that colleagues have already raised. Safety is important. I highlight the work of Lib Dem Councillor Aude Boubaker-Calder, who has called on local authorities to ensure support for swimming lessons in schools. We need also to think about the wider safety implications for adults.
On access to facilities, my Lib Dem colleagues in North East Fife have again done a lot of work—initially as a result of covid restrictions—to ensure that we maintain the opening hours of existing public facilities at East Sands in St Andrews and in Cupar, so that people can access the same provision as they do in other parts of Fife.
As we think about safety, it is important to think about the growth in open-water swimming. In my constituency, I have a number of tidal pools and beaches—in Cellardyke, Pittenweem, Leven and St Andrews. Whether it is the Bob and a Blether group, the Nae Richters or—my favourite—the Bluetits, swimming groups demonstrate that the demand for swimming is there, and that there is a high participation rate among women, which equals keep fit and aerobics.
Clearly, the issues are similar across the UK. They are about ageing facilities and the support to rebuild and reinvest in them. They are about the high cost of energy for swimming pools and the costs of participation. We need to address those costs, particularly for people in poorer communities, so that they have the opportunity to learn to swim. It is for everybody’s safety.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. To get everybody in, we will have to reduce the time limit to one minute.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I remember that when I learned to swim in Hartlepool in the 1980s, it was freezing. The only reason I went along to the swimming lessons was because my mam promised me a packet of salt and vinegar crisps afterwards. None the less, it started a real interest in swimming. I spent the summers of my teenage years mostly in the pool, and I am now a keen outdoor and indoor swimmer. I like swimming outdoors because it is good for my mental and physical wellbeing; I like swimming indoors because I like the flumes more than anything else.
Throughout my life, I have relied on the investment that local authorities have made in swimming, no more so than in Stockton, where we have a great pool at Billingham Forum. It is home to the Billingham amateur swimming club, which did so well at the South Tyneside Gala a couple of weeks ago. There is also Splash in Stockton, in which the council is investing £18.5 million to enhance the facility.
Although Stockton has done well, there has been a net loss of 500 swimming pools across the country since 2010, which really is the legacy of the last Conservative Government. That has had an impact on children’s ability to swim and, of course, on the saving of lives. I want the Minister to take that into account as she thinks about how we can invest in local authorities’ swimming facilities in the future.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this debate.
A young lady called Imogen wrote to me recently to tell me about her concerns over swimming safety. She notes that Norfolk has many beautiful rivers, but she worries about people who do not have enough experience of swimming to stay safe, and she urges us to act to improve this situation. I am pleased to be here today in Westminster Hall to speak up for her and express her concerns.
In North Norfolk, fantastic progress is being made to support our swimming facilities. When it comes to securing investment in and improvement to those facilities, Liberal Democrat-led North Norfolk district council has really dived in head-first. [Interruption.] Thank you. In 2021, the Reef leisure centre in Sheringham, which has a swimming pool, reopened after a major rebuild. Moreover, although it is just outside my constituency, I am also thrilled that in the last week planning consent has been granted for an expansion of the leisure centre in Fakenham, which we hope will be completed in 2026. That has been made possible by the Lib Dems securing Government funding to support an £11 million scheme that will transform the centre into another high-quality amenity for local people.
At a time when many other local authorities are backing out of projects because of surging energy prices and slashed Government funding, I am pleased that my residents, supported by the Lib Dem-led council, will have fantastic swimming facilities to enjoy for years to come.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Falmouth is a town of young people which juts out into the Atlantic on a finger-like peninsula, so it is vital that people there learn how to swim, yet statistics from a primary school in Falmouth show that the percentage of young children who are unable to swim 25 metres has shot up dramatically, from less than 10% to 50%. That is not coincidental. Schools in Falmouth are struggling, because Falmouth no longer has a swimming pool. It was decommissioned in 2022 by Cornwall’s Tory-run unitary council, which said it was too expensive to run. There is no other swimming facility within a half-hour drive. Primary schools in Falmouth are trying to bus their children for up to 40 minutes to swimming facilities, but that is much too expensive and people are now struggling to learn how to swim.
As things stand, the Falmouth and Penryn Community Area Partnership, which covers a population of 50,000, is the only one in Cornwall without a pool in its area. Falmouth town council took a risk, took on the leisure centre on Pendennis headland and is trying to redevelop the site, but it is struggling to do so. Collaboration with the private sector will be essential, but we also need help from the Government. I know they recognise how important swimming is for our children and young people.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
My constituency is home to a number of public swimming pools, including the remarkable Pells pool lido in Lewes. Opened in 1861, it is the UK’s oldest outdoor freshwater swimming pool still operating. Today, however, I will focus on another one of our local pools.
Back in the 1970s, the people of Ringmer demonstrated extraordinary community spirit by spending years tirelessly raising money for their own swimming pool. It opened in 1981 and became a vital local asset, but was forced to close during covid. Now, after further relentless campaigning by local people, Ringmer swimming pool is reopening. Lewes district council, working closely with its longstanding leisure partner Wave Active, stepped forward to rescue and run this essential facility. A new lease agreement with East Sussex county council now ensures that the pool will remain open all day and will be accessible to all, including the local secondary school. This is local government at its best, and I highlight in particular the relentless commitment shown by Councillor Johnny Denis, who has championed this cause every step of the way.
On 14 June, Ringmer will celebrate the full relaunch of its swimming pool. The pool is not just reopening; the relaunch is a victory for the community. I suggest that the example of Ringmer is a clear inspiration and sends out a clear message. Leisure facilities are not optional luxuries; they are lifelines. Let us ensure that pools across my constituency, including those in Seaford, Newhaven and Lewes, and other pools across our nation receive the support they deserve.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Sixty seconds is not long enough for a speech, but there is clearly a lot of strong feeling in the Chamber today about this issue, so I hope that one day we will make more time for a longer conversation about this really important issue.
We all know what the physical and mental health benefits of swimming are. For me, one statistic that really stands out is that nearly half a million people have either reduced or stopped taking medication for their mental health because of swimming. Today though, I will quickly mention Crook in my constituency—it lost its swimming pool over a decade ago, and every promise of one since has come to nothing—and Stanhope, which lost its lido during covid and it has never reopened.
Pools like these are important parts of our social infrastructure that keep people fit and healthy. It is important that we look at funding models for swimming, potentially looking to pension funds for the investment we need for new infrastructure, and support swimming pools in combining swimming with other social infrastructure to make them viable.
Finally, I will give a quick shout-out for open swimming. We need more safe open swimming spaces. I welcome the work that this Government are doing to clean up sewage, so that people can enjoy open water swims.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing this debate, which is important to my constituents in North Devon.
I will briefly raise the case of a brave young man from North Devon. His name is Oscar, he is 14 years old, and he recently saved the life of a man who got into trouble in the sea off Saunton Sands. Oscar learnt his lifesaving skills at Barnstaple swimming club and with Saunton Sands surf life saving club, but their local pool is run by a private operator and is among the most expensive in Devon. I thank my constituent Rob Enever for his hard work to highlight that there are no concessionary rates for low-income families. Many concerned parents have written to me, worried that basic access to swimming is becoming a question of the haves and have-nots. That means fewer children learning to swim, fewer thriving swimming clubs, and perhaps—if we cannot keep access to swimming available and affordable—fewer heroes like Oscar.
I hope that when the Government are able to look at this issue again, there is greater recognition of the public safety aspect to this whole question, especially in coastal areas such as mine in North Devon.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The proposed imminent loss of two public swimming pools in my constituency of Bedford, citing unaffordable repairs and running costs, is a matter of significant concern for myself, residents and local representatives.
The Oasis and Trinity pools—one run by the local authority and the other managed by the local college—serve many constituents who swim for leisure. Local schools, for which swimming provision is mandated by the national curriculum, competitive teams and other groups all fear that they will be left without adequate provision or the opportunity to swim for health and leisure. I urge the Government to support the provision of public swimming facilities, and I am looking forward to hearing how they intend to do so.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Water is so important to Bournemouth, the coastal town that I represent. I commend Bournemouth swimming club and the 1.4 mile swim between Boscombe and Bournemouth piers, which is one of Europe’s largest charity swimming events.
We have swimming pools in Bournemouth, but only a few of them. Foremost among them is the Littledown centre’s 25-metre swimming pool, but schools tell me that they have limited opportunities for children to swim. If schools have few feasible places to go to, swimming opportunities are reduced. We can tackle child poverty, we can improve people’s life chances by, for example, resurrecting Sure Start and extending free school meals to families in receipt of universal credit, but we can also subsidise swimming lessons, provide free swimming passes, and invest in the swimming facilities that have been run down for so long. Leisure provision should be a statutory duty for local authorities, and we should have a Government—as we do with this Labour Government—who are committed to improving swimming for all.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
A report last year by the Royal Life Saving Society found that the number of child drownings in England had doubled over a four-year period. That was 125 lives lost. Two years ago, The Guardian reported that England had lost almost 400 swimming pools since 2010, including local authority and community-owned pools, privately owned leisure facilities, school and sports club pools, and the Deepings leisure centre, which previously hosted the renowned Deepings swimming club. My question to the Minister is straightforward. How can I obtain funding, in tune with the previous Government’s swimming pool support fund, to help that much-loved community facility to reopen, and so make swimming available to children and adults in the community?
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate.
We are in the midst of a massive public health crisis caused by two things: the poor food that we all eat, which the system encourages us to eat, and sedentary lifestyles. Not enough people take part in basic physical activity and sport. As a nation, we have stumbled into this dire situation in which systemic pressure is applied to discourage healthy lifestyles, and the impacts on our precious NHS are clear. Swimming must be part of the solution.
As a form of exercise, swimming is enormously beneficial to most people, even rubbish swimmers like me. It is easy for me because I do not have any hair care to deal with afterwards, to reference the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip. That is particularly true for people with disabilities, for older people and those with health conditions who might struggle to exercise on dry land. Research shows that those who begin swimming tend to stick with it to a greater extent than those who take up other forms of exercise. It clearly has something that keeps people involved.
Nuffield Health is the largest private pool provider in the country. Its research has revealed that adults who swim retain their gym memberships for five months longer than those who do not. It is clearly a popular form of exercise among the public and deserving of more Government attention, yet the picture nationally is one of decline. In 2019, 14 million adults—more than 30% of the adult population—went swimming, but despite the popularity of the sport, since the pandemic we have lost 427 public pools. That is a shocking statistic. The average age of a swimming pool at closure is 38 years. Some 1,200 pools in England are 40 years old or more and are approaching end of life. I have seen this at first hand in Cheltenham.
Last year our pool at Cheltenham leisure centre was partially closed due to the discovery of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. It was closed for six weeks. Our leisure centre is at the end of its life and we need a new one. There are countless similar cases across the country. The effects of diminishing access to swimming pools can already be seen among children in the childhood obesity crisis. Swim England estimates that only 72% of year 7 pupils meet the guidelines to swim competently and confidently. That is a worrying increase from previous years and reflects poor uptake of a potentially lifesaving skill. Last year’s “State of the UK Swimming Industry Report” identified rising energy costs, ageing infrastructure and difficulties in recruiting swimming teachers and lifeguards as the main factors driving those losses, but it is worth noting that reporting back via schools is really difficult to do and is not done properly in this country.
Rising energy costs have impacted all areas of life over the past few years, but for swimming pools energy costs are now twice what they were in 2021. There are solutions, though, and again I look locally. Cheltenham lido has installed solar panels to reduce its energy costs; this has brought with it the added benefit of improving the lido’s carbon emissions—an important measure, given that swimming pools are large producers of carbon emissions and have high energy bills. The lido’s trust tells me that its stats show savings of an incredible 4.4 tonnes of CO2 in the first fortnight that the solar panels were in operation.
SF Planning, the agent for the planning development, reckons the solar panels will provide 93% of the power needed to run the lido. With the help of Professor Jeremy Miller, it is looking to go even further by harnessing even more renewable energy. I would like to place on the record my thanks to the lido chief executive officer, Julie Sergeant, who is in the Public Gallery—hello, Julie—and to Rick Jones, the chair of the lido’s trust, alongside all the trustees and staff of Cheltenham’s lido. The facility recently celebrated its 90th birthday. Thanks to their leadership, I am confident it will continue to serve the public for many more years to come. I fully intend to be there to see it through to 120. Or 130—crikey!
The Liberal Democrats are calling for swimming pools and leisure centres to be designated as critical health infrastructure, in order to protect the swimming pools in our communities against closure. It is vital that we do this to uphold what we know is true, which is that people who go swimming like swimming and make themselves healthier and happier as a result.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Jardine—excellently chaired, as always. I would like to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing this important debate. We have had some excellent contributions across the Chamber. He spoke passionately about the case for more investment in swimming facilities across England. He also had brilliant contributions from colleagues in Scotland about important safety issues, particularly in open water swimming. I wholeheartedly agree with a lot of the arguments that have been made. I thank Swim England and those in the Swimming Alliance who are here today for their ongoing engagement with us as the official Opposition.
Swimming, as we have heard already, is a valuable life skill. Going for a swim can keep people of all ages fit and healthy, both physically and mentally. Knowing how to swim can save your life or someone else’s. That is why it is rightly part of the national curriculum. But, worryingly, we have seen a decline in young people’s swimming capabilities following the pandemic. According to Swim England, nearly a third of children leaving primary school cannot swim confidently, safely and unaided over 25 metres. As the sports body warns, there is a risk that many in this generation will simply not learn to swim. The complex causes of that are often seen in London, where swimming facilities are actually a lot better than other parts of the country.
Jamie Stone
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will share my dismay that death by drowning is twice as common per head of population in Scotland as it is in England. Does that not say something about the under-provision that we currently have north of the border?
Mr French
Sadly, it does. Parts of the Swimming Alliance are looking very closely at the open swimming element because of the tragic examples where people lose their lives. We have to be conscious of that as we go into the summer months across Great Britain, when people are more likely to swim in open water.
We have sadly seen the closure of too many swimming pools in recent years, with the number of new pools opening being only half that of those that have closed. It is a trend that the previous Conservative Government fought hard against. In 2020, we launched the £100 million national leisure recovery fund to keep leisure centres open in more than 260 local authorities.
More recently, in 2023, when rising energy prices threatened to close more swimming pools, we launched the £80 million swimming pool support fund. That crucial funding helped 102 local authorities to cover the spiralling costs that threatened to reduce and close even more facilities. Importantly, it funded nearly 550 projects across almost 350 leisure facilities to help them to reduce their energy bills. Those facilities included two in my home borough, the London borough of Bexley, where swimming remains very popular among my constituents. It is also where I learnt to swim, at the Crook Log leisure centre—not very well, I must say, although that is not a comment on their swimming lessons.
We invested to protect swimming facilities, but I now fear that, sadly, the trend of closure could accelerate under this new Government without new proposals coming forward. Schools struggling with the cost of the Labour Government’s national insurance increase might not be able to afford travel costs to local swimming pools. I am worried that the school tax will impact the areas of the country where the private pool in a school is the only swimming facility available, and about how that may impact local clubs looking to use it.
Councils are also braced for more spending pressures as inflation rises again and will struggle to keep public facilities afloat under Labour. My council has been hit with a £5 million extra cost this year just because of national insurance. Leisure facility costs are still rising, as we have heard, thanks in no small part to similar tax hikes. We have only to look at the letter from a number of providers that was made public yesterday to see their concern about the Government’s inaction.
While I appreciate that some of those matters are beyond the brief of the Minister for Sport, they are a consequence of her Government’s decisions. It is against that backdrop that she needs to lay out the Government’s plans to not only prevent more closures but open more swimming facilities, particularly in underserved communities around the country. What representations has the Minister made to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the potential impact of council finances on swimming facilities? Will the Department for Culture, Media and Sport continue to provide capital funding to improve energy efficiency at our leisure centres and pools? What is her plan to reverse the trend of swimming pools closing, and promote open swimming because of the safety aspects that we have discussed, so that every generation has a chance to learn to swim?
This is an important issue for not only people’s health and wellbeing, but Britain’s sporting prowess. We all know the amazing British Paralympic and Olympic athletes and the representations they have made at the elite end of the sport. This is something that this Government must address to ensure that everyone can swim safely, and we will hold them to account to ensure that that happens in the years to come.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate. The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone, regardless of background, has access to and benefits from quality sport and physical activity opportunities. I have been clear in Parliament and beyond that I know just how important public leisure facilities are. They are great places for people of all ages to stay fit and healthy, offer vital social spaces and play an important role within communities.
I will respond to points raised during the debate and then elaborate further on some of them as I progress through my speech. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East made a very clear case for the important role that quality and accessible community swimming facilities can play in his constituency and across the UK. He clearly illustrated his commitment through securing the debate and his speech. I was struck by one of the statistics he shared: 27% of the population have taken part in some form of swimming over the last 12 months. I very much heard his asks from Swim England, and I am pleased to echo the comments he quoted from one of my previous speeches about how I am committed to public leisure and greater integration between health and sport, which I will come on to speak about.
The hon. Gentleman asked about specific support for local authorities, which is an issue for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. He asked about specific targets. We do not have plans to set targets, as it is for local areas to determine what they need, but we believe that robust plans should be in place. The shadow Minister and the hon. Gentleman also spoke about the swimming support fund. I am very aware of the benefit it had, but I cannot comment on that ahead of the spending review.
I was pleased to meet the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) a few weeks ago. He highlighted some of the creative opportunities available. I was pleased that my officials were able to visit his constituency, and they said that they had a productive visit. I look forward to continuing that dialogue with him. A number of Members from across the House spoke about the importance of safety, including the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome)—he paid tribute to Oscar, and I echo those comments—and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald). The right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) made a really important point about the tragic increase in deaths.
Sir John Hayes
In order to help the Minister, because I know she does not have much time, would she agree to meet me offline to discuss that? It would be much easier if I could meet her with a community group from the Deepings, and we can take that forward.
Stephanie Peacock
I would be very happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman. I was going to say that I would write to him after the spending review, but he has very keenly got me to agree to a meeting. It would be an absolute pleasure, and we can continue the conversation.
Sport and physical activity, especially swimming, plays a vital role in tackling the health challenges facing our nation through helping to treat and manage a wide range of conditions. Swim England’s “Value of Swimming” report highlighted that 1.4 million adults felt that swimming significantly reduced their anxiety or depression. That report has been quoted more than once today. Swimming has saved the NHS and social care system more than £357 million annually. Physical activity interventions contribute an immense saving to our NHS by preventing 900,000 cases of diabetes and 93,000 cases of dementia every year. The Government are committed to focusing our health system on prevention, and sport and physical activity are central to that. The biggest health gain comes from supporting those who are inactive or less active to move more.
Across the country, there is a direct correlation between increased activity levels and the number of accessible facilities that are safe, inclusive and affordable on offer. We must therefore ensure that these spaces are both present and accessible as a key part of getting people active and thereby tackling health inequalities. Whether through team sports, gym classes or children’s swimming lessons, these spaces can create a sense of pride in place and improved community cohesion. In my constituency of Barnsley, we are lucky to have access to some brilliant swimming facilities. Everyone in the local area knows the Barnsley Metrodome—I always remember it as where the general election declaration is made—and we also have the Dearneside and Hoyland leisure centres. All are incredibly popular. Many local people enjoy our public pools, and swimming is a great way to look after our physical and mental health.
In my role as sports Minister, I joined Mental Health Swims last month for a cold water swim in the Hampstead ponds to mark Mental Health Awareness Week. A number of Members have talked about the benefit of cold water and outdoor swimming. Mental Health Swims is a peer group that hosts free and inclusive swim meets in more than 150 locations across the UK. I got to experience at first hand some of the benefits of outdoor swimming. I know people across the country enjoy the activity too; indeed, people in South Yorkshire often visit the Manvers lake just down the road from my constituency, which has some of the best facilities for open water swimming in the country. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made some really important points on that topic.
I also saw the impact of swimming when I visited Active Essex. Local council leaders are working in partnership with Active Essex, local health services and leisure providers to knit together services. They are building strong links between health and leisure sectors, including co-locating services so that people have easy access to a wide range of physical activity opportunities. That means, for example, that people with long-term health conditions can have access to activities that not only improve their physical health but are fun and social and, in some cases, contribute to them getting back to work.
I will share with the House an example. I spoke to a woman who had had a terrible accident, and she was on medication. She did not work, but through the project, she had come off medication and was retraining and looking for work. It was incredibly inspiring to speak to her, and a really good example of what knitting together local government, health and sport can do. These visits have reinforced the positive impact that sport can have on mental health.
I acknowledge the importance of swimming lessons in my constituency, as a number of hon. Members have done for their constituencies. There are a number of open-water spaces in Barnsley that are not appropriate for swimming, but it is important to know how to swim in the event of an emergency in water. I am a former teacher, so I know how important it is to ensure swimming proficiency for schoolchildren. It is not just a great way to get active, but a fundamental life skill. Swimming and water safety are compulsory elements of the physical education national curriculum at key stages 1 and 2. Pupils should be taught to swim a minimum of 25 metres using a range of strokes and be able to perform safe self-rescue, but it is clear that we face significant challenges.
The numbers of children leaving school able to swim the required 25 metres unaided is falling. Last year’s data shows that only 70% of year 7 pupils aged 11 to 12 can swim confidently and proficiently over a distance of at least 25 metres—a fall of seven percentage points compared with six years ago. That is clearly a very worrying trend, and it is clear that inequalities between those who do and do not have access to opportunities to swim are widening further. We are aware of that, and through the Government’s work to reform school sport, we are committed to supporting schools to provide opportunities for every pupil to learn to swim.
We are committed to protecting time for physical education in schools. The ongoing independent, expert-led review of the curriculum will ensure that all children can engage with a broad range of subjects, including PE and sport. Local government has an integral role to play. We encourage local leaders to prioritise access to sport and physical activity wherever possible and to support public and private sectors to work together to ensure that provision is accessible and reflects the needs of local communities.
Although local authorities are responsible for decisions regarding sport and leisure provision in their area, we recognise the challenges faced, especially by smaller councils. The Government are taking immediate action to begin addressing those challenges by ensuring that funding in the latest local government finance settlement goes to the places that need it most. Overall, the provisional settlement will ensure that local government will receive a real-terms increase in core spending of around 3.2%. I am committed to working to support our leisure sector up and down the country.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), asked whether I speak to those at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. I very much do, and I am very keen to continue those conversations, because my Department is responsible for the overall approach to sport and leisure provision across the country. We work closely with Sport England, the Government’s arm’s length body for community sport, to invest more than £250 million of national lottery and Government money annually in some of the most deprived areas of the country to help them to increase levels of physical activity. That includes the vital £10.6 million from Sport England for grassroots swimming, empowering more people to learn to swim, enjoy water and compete safely. Sport England’s place-based investment approach, which is now expanding to a further 53 communities, places local voices at the heart of decision making and is testament to our evolving strategy, but we recognise that the journey does not end here.
We appreciate the huge contribution that publicly accessible sport and leisure facilities make to health and wellbeing. My Department will continue to look at ways to support such thinking, as we look ahead to future policy around community sport and leisure facilities and their contribution towards genuinely tackling inactivity and inequalities. I am hugely passionate about that agenda, and I know that being physically active and playing sport genuinely changes lives. Hon. Members have made really important contributions; we can see how much people care about this issue up and down the country from how well-attended the debate has been. I thank Members for taking part.
Joe Robertson
I am grateful to Members for attending this important debate and making so many good contributions. There is plainly unanimous agreement about the importance of swimming for the health and mental health of young people, as well as for safety and other reasons. I hope that there is general support, at least, for the Government having a role to play in ensuring public facilities are available to everyone and are affordable.
I welcome the sentiment expressed by the Minister, although it is obviously disappointing that she is unable to commit to previous Government funding pots to secure swimming facilities. I hope in the coming weeks that she and her Government are able to translate that sentiment into funding promises, so that local government and other providers have the security they need to continue to provide swimming facilities for the public.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for swimming facilities.
Other Correction
Mrs Hodgson
Women’s Health
The following extract is from the Westminster Hall debate on Women’s Health on 27 February 2025.
Mrs Hodgson
…The UK has the largest female health gap in the G20, and that is attributed in part to the misdiagnosis of conditions in women. It is absolutely shocking that eight in 10 women in this country report not being listened to by healthcare professionals.
[Official Report, 27 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 498WH.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson):
Mrs Hodgson
…The UK’s gender health gap can be attributed in part to the misdiagnosis of conditions in women. It is absolutely shocking that eight in 10 women in this country report not being listened to by healthcare professionals.
National Policy Statement for Ports: Proposed Revision
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
Today, I am laying before Parliament the draft amended national policy statement for ports.
The extant NPSP was designated in 2012. It sets out the need for development of ports in England, and at reserved trust ports in Wales, currently Milford Haven. The NPSP provides guidance for applicants in preparing, and for the Secretary of State in determining, applications for development consent orders for seaport applications.
The previous Government announced a review of the current NPSP in a written ministerial statement in March 2023. In light of our missions and priorities, this Government continued that review and have decided to amend the document.
Today, I have launched a public consultation on a draft revised NPSP, along with an appraisal of sustainability and a habitats regulations assessment. These are subject to a public consultation period of eight weeks and to parliamentary scrutiny in parallel. My Department is also publishing port freight demand forecasts for the United Kingdom as a whole, to which the draft NPSP refers. The documents are available on gov.uk.
I will place copies of the public consultation document, the appraisal of sustainability, and the habitats regulation assessment in the Library of the House. The public consultation will close on 29 July 2025. The relevant period for parliamentary scrutiny will be from 4 June to 14 November 2025.
The review of the NPSP is proceeding in parallel with our wider programme of planning reforms, including the Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently before this House, designed to expedite and facilitate decision making, and stimulate growth and green energy transformation.
[HCWS681]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, as is normal on these occasions, I must advise the Grand Committee that if there is a Division in the Chamber—I put in parentheses that I think that is highly likely—while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Baroness Finn
“PurposeThe purpose of this Act is to enable public authorities to identify and prevent fraud and error and recover monies lost through fraud or error, and to strengthen mechanisms for reducing fraudulent activity across public services.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out the purpose of the Bill—to identify, prevent and recover public funds lost through fraud and error, and to strengthen mechanisms used to reduce fraud across public services.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, this is a serious Bill. It deals with a serious problem. Fraud against the taxpayer is not a footnote. It is not a rounding error. It is a threat to public trust and the integrity of government. We on these Benches support the purpose behind the Bill. We want it to succeed. We want it to be strong, clear and capable of making a difference from the moment it takes effect. In the days ahead, we will approach Committee with purpose. We will work with the Government where we can; we will press them where we must. Our proposals will be focused, practical and aimed at making the Bill stronger.
At Second Reading, we raised a number of issues. These remain our priorities. We want proper oversight of the powers granted to the Public Sector Fraud Authority. We want strong review mechanisms. We want protection for those who may be exposed or vulnerable and we want recognition of the cost burden placed on those who are asked to deliver these powers. These concerns are not confined to one party or one corner of the House; they are widely shared. They reflect a simple truth: good intentions are not good enough. If we are to defeat fraud, we need sharp tools, clear lines of responsibility and laws that do not fold under pressure. That is the task before us and the spirit in which we will proceed.
We will be starting our Committee stage discussion by covering some of the proposals put forward in relation to the Cabinet Office. We broadly support the intention of these measures, but we have several key concerns and suggestions around the Bill as it stands. First, the role of the Public Sector Fraud Authority remains ill defined, particularly in relation to other public authorities. At present, the PSFA can only act when invited by the very bodies it is supposed to scrutinise. This is not effective oversight; it is an invitation to avoidance. Departments can simply choose not to refer themselves.
More importantly, if they lack the legal powers to investigate fraud internally, these powers should be given to them directly. If they already possess them but fail to act, a central authority merely serves as a convenient place to offload difficult or politically awkward cases. Yet the Bill does not address this gap. It does not strengthen departments or build capacity at source. Instead, it hands sweeping new powers to the Cabinet Office and places responsibility for tackling fraud across the entire public sector in the hands of a team of now just 25 civil servants. That is not a credible model. It concentrates accountability at the centre without providing the means to exercise it effectively and it leaves the rest of the system with little incentive to act.
PSFA officials are handed sweeping PACE powers with no direct authorisation or legal requirement to pass a reasonableness test and can refuse to undertake an investigation with no duty to report the reasons why. The risk is obvious. Complex fraud will be passed from hand to hand, referred and re-referred, until it disappears altogether into the undergrowth of government.
Secondly, the Bill grants the Public Sector Fraud Authority powers of remarkable breadth. These include the ability to obtain information notices, issue civil penalties, apply for search warrants under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and extract funds directly from bank accounts by order. These are not judicial decisions; they are executive powers exercised administratively.
Critically, the Bill allows these functions to be exercised not by Ministers but by civil servants, as junior as high executive officer grade, acting as authorised officers under Clause 66. There is no requirement for ministerial sign-off and, in many cases, no real mechanism for contemporaneous parliamentary scrutiny. The only oversight comes in the form of an independent reviewer appointed by, and reporting to, the same Minister whose powers they are reviewing. That reviewer cannot intervene, stop action or compel disclosure. They merely write a report after the fact, which the Minister is then required to publish. That is not accountability; that is delegation without control, power without visibility and scrutiny without consequence. A system that concentrates coercive legal powers in the hands of junior officials outside of clear ministerial direction not only is constitutionally careless but risks creating a grey zone of enforcement where power is exercised without responsibility and mistakes cannot be traced back to those elected to answer for them.
Ensuring that we find the right balance, where we develop the PSFA into an authority that has proportionate powers, a credible anti-fraud function and proper oversight, is the objective of our amendments today. Our first amendment, the purpose clause, is intended to ensure that the use of sweeping powers in the Bill is limited only to the purpose of identifying and preventing fraud and the recovery of public funds lost through fraud and error, as well as to strengthen mechanisms to prevent this in the future. We believe that it is a sensible, proportionate amendment that will ensure that the powers in the Bill are used only in pursuit of that explicit objective. A legal protection against the abuse of powers is a responsible safeguard and, given the extent of some of the powers granted in the Bill, anchoring that to the core purpose on which noble Lords across the House agree is, in our view, a reasonable measure.
Our role as the Opposition, as I said, is to question the Government, to challenge them on their reasons and their rationale and to make suggestions on how to improve legislation. I look forward to this Committee day, and those upcoming, to play that role. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, there is really not a lot to say at this stage. We support the purposes of the Bill. Obviously, it is not meant to be a contentious Bill, but the interesting thing is the fine line that it draws between chasing people who have made honest mistakes and those who enter into fraud. As with income tax—if we still use the old words from my accountancy days—the difference between evasion and avoidance is sometimes a very thin line. We will explore where you draw that line in terms of how you chase people for mistakes that have been made, perhaps on purpose or perhaps in error. We look forward to the progress of the Bill to see where those lines are drawn.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly as the other opposition Front-Bencher working on the Bill. I shall make a few introductory remarks on the purpose of the Bill as we begin Committee. I join my noble friend Lady Finn in welcoming this opportunity to have a productive, collaborative opening discussion on what the Bill is actually about and what it should be about.
Public sector fraud, as we have debated, is a crime that hurts every taxpayer in the country. It hurts every public service user and is an insult to everyone who works hard, pays their taxes and contributes to our society. This is a problem that we need to take steps to address, and the Government are right to reintroduce legislation and restart the process, which I know both Ministers acknowledge was started under the previous Government.
As noble Lords will be aware, my main focus will be on the second part of the Bill, which covers the DWP. This will not be covered so much in the amendments under discussion today, although I want to take the opportunity at the outset to flag up in advance and highlight some of the concerns that I have around these provisions and where my focus will be in the forthcoming Committee days. I hope this is helpful to the Committee.
First, on banks, there are still many questions over how the relationship between the DWP and the banks will manifest itself. We do not have clarity from the Government over how the process will work in practical terms or the costs that will be incurred by the DWP and financial institutions as a result of compliance under the terms of the Bill. As we highlighted at Second Reading, the Government, if they remain committed to human oversight of all decisions and reviews of information obtained from banks, could see a massive increase in their workload. Gaining greater clarity on this relationship, how it will work, the impact that it is anticipated to have and the resources required will form part of our approach on this part of the Bill.
Linked to this is the need to test the means to the end. What will be the cost for the expected return? How will the return be defined? That is the identity and recovery of fraud; also, the measurement of the deterrent factor in taking greater and more stringent measures to combat fraud—to take the challenge to the fraudsters, who have been seen to become ever more sophisticated. We will wish to challenge enforcement. What works? What are the sanctions for those who are convicted? Are they effective? What costs and resources are judged to be estimated in respect of this aspect of the Bill?
Secondly, we want to ensure that the Bill protects vulnerable people and recognises additional factors that may lie behind, for example, an overpayment. Proportionality in the exercise of these powers is vital, and we need to ensure that we do not cause greater harm than good in the pursuit of our shared objective. This concern is shared by noble Lords in this Committee. I am hopeful that we can reach an understanding with amendments that protect vulnerable people.
Finally, we see the Bill as an opportunity to combat those who seek to share information, allowing people to defraud the benefits and welfare system—the so-called “sickfluencers”. This is a serious problem. Thousands of people every day are consuming content that informs them of how to play examiners and score certain points based not on their actual health condition but on a script they have been taught online. These assessments are the mechanism through which the state determines eligibility for welfare payments. “Sickfluencers” who actively encourage dishonesty and make money out of a dishonest gaming system for exploitation must be stopped. We shall support amendments that seek to make this an explicit offence, so that there can be no room for doubt that these actions are wrong and could be criminal.
This is an important discussion on a topic that deeply affects everyone in our country. I welcome the opportunity to discuss ideas and suggestions for improvements to the Bill, which attempts to achieve a noble task. I and my noble friend Lady Finn will work in good faith with the Government and noble Lords across the Committee to improve the Bill and to make it effective and responsible.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, and so we begin. I thank all noble Lords present for their participation and engagement. On a personal note, before we get to the substance and serious detail of the Bill, this time last week I was having my make-up done for getting married, so I welcome noble Lords joining me on my honeymoon in our Palace.
Moving on to the substance, I remind your Lordships why we are here today. Fraud against the public sector takes money away from vital public services, enriches those who seek to attack the Government and damages the integrity of the state. This Government said clearly in our manifesto that we will not tolerate fraud or waste anywhere and that we will safeguard taxpayers’ money. This Bill is part of those efforts. This is a Government focused on delivery. The Bill makes provisions
“about the prevention of fraud against public authorities and the making of erroneous payments by public authorities; about the recovery of money paid by public authorities as a result of fraud or error; and for connected purposes”.
This is already in the Bill’s title. There is no need for an additional new clause at the start of the Bill to set out a purpose that reiterates this, albeit in different language.
It is important for your Lordships to understand the real impact of fraud against the public sector. This is a dry term for something profoundly impactful. It is not government or state that is the ultimate victim of such fraud. It is not the Chancellor’s pocket that is picked, although the Treasury bears the brunt of at least £55 billion of fraud and error each year. The real victim is the British people. Every taxpayer who pays their fair share pays a fraud premium, because fraudsters cheat the system and skim from the top. It is taxpayers who are the victims. Every citizen who uses public services, knows how much good every penny can be put to in the communities in which we all live and rightly expects that the money will go to support their community is being defrauded. It is our citizens who are the victims.
Everyone who is in need, and who relies on the benefits and welfare systems that others cynically abuse, is a victim of public sector fraud. Noble Lords across your Lordships’ Committee will share my contempt for fraudsters who attack the British people in this way, and will want to take decisive action to start putting things right.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, our first amendment —to insert a purpose clause—has a clear and simple aim. The Bill grants sweeping powers, many of which can be altered and wielded through secondary legislation. Our purpose clause would ensure that any Administration exercising powers under the Bill will be tied to the core purpose that we have defined: to identify and prevent fraud, to recover public funds lost through fraud and error, and to strengthen mechanisms used to reduce fraud across public services.
As we begin Committee, we do so with a clear and constructive purpose. We support the principle of the Bill and share the goal of tackling fraud against the public purse. But as I said at Second Reading, support for the goal must not mean silence about the means. Our focus now must be on ensuring that the legislation is as effective, proportionate and accountable as it needs to be.
Through our amendments and contributions, we aim to improve the Bill—strengthening its safeguards, clarifying its powers and ensuring proper oversight. In doing so, we hope to help shape a framework that is both robust in its fight against fraud and respectful of the principles of fairness and transparency. We look forward to working with the Government and colleagues across the Committee to achieve that outcome. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, I am now going right off script, for which I am sure I will get into terrible trouble, to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, what a way to spend a honeymoon—but many congratulations.
Clause 1: Core functions of the Minister for the Cabinet Office
Amendment 2
Baroness Finn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the Government’s plans for the extent of the role of the Public Sector Fraud Authority in supporting other public authorities in tackling fraud against them.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not congratulating the Minister for choosing to spend her honeymoon in these august surroundings. What better way?
At Second Reading, I highlighted the cultural problem with tackling fraud—that it is often safer to overlook than to uncover—so we have to change the culture and ensure that proper tackling of fraud is a cultural practice embedded within every public authority and government department. There is merit in creating a body with the powers to investigate fraud externally, but we need to make sure that proactive prevention and investigation into fraud start at home. Our Amendment 2 seeks to create an obligation for the Minister for the Cabinet Office to support public authorities in undertaking their own investigations into fraud when it occurs in said public authorities. In further developing the PSFA, the Bill provides us with a new resource and opportunity to support departments to intervene early and create mechanisms through which they can tackle this issue internally.
This objective has several key advantages. One major advantage is that this approach recognises that public bodies are complex, with unique funding mechanisms and operational procedures. Internal fraud teams bring intimate knowledge of these environments and have greater capacity to pursue targeted objectives, using knowledge that external agencies may lack. This allows for swifter detection of anomalies, targeted interventions and smarter use of data and insight.
Another significant advantage is that conducting internal fraud investigations inspires deterrence. Internal investigations can often begin before fraud escalates or becomes systemic. Timely action minimises losses and creates a departmental culture that stands more firmly against fraud. Not waiting for an external body to point out what has already gone wrong can embed a culture of deterrence and proactive interdepartmental counterfraud measures, which are an opportunity to minimise losses and therefore departmental damage.
Of course, internal investigation must never mean internal cover-up. The answer is not to sideline external oversight but to complement it. We must ensure that departments are equipped with the right skills, resources and authority to carry out investigations properly and that they are held to account when they fall short.
Our Amendment 24 seeks to strike this balance by requiring public authorities to conduct an internal review if they lose £50,000 or more through an overpayment or fraud, and to provide that report to the Minister for the Cabinet Office. This measure seeks to meet the benefits that I have just outlined, while embedding in law that responsibility for fraud cannot be outsourced. Authorities that lose money must take account of why this has happened and, fundamentally, they must also take responsibility for it. Making them accountable to the Minister is a mechanism through which we can achieve this.
I hope that the Government will consider supporting the amendments in this group, which seek to embed departmental accountability for fraud while utilising the resources of the PSFA to create intradepartmental cultures that deter and counteract fraud. I beg to move.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, if we continue at this speed, the Chief Whip will be disappointed that we are doing only seven groups. It is probably unlikely that we will continue at this speed, but I can aspire.
While I appreciate the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I want to be clear that Amendment 2 is unnecessary as it is duplicative. It would insert “investigating”, as a way that the Minister can support other public authorities’ actions in response to fraud, separately from the explicit function of investigating if a request is made of the Minister by the public authority, which is earlier in the same clause. It is unnecessary because the word “tackling” in the same line of the clause cited covers any activity to support a public authority dealing with fraud and supporting them in their own investigations too. It is deliberately drawn broadly so, if adopted, this amendment would not change the scope of Part 1.
The Government’s intention with Part 1 is for the PSFA to become one of the ways that public authorities deal with fraud, by requesting that it take on a case for investigation, enforcement or recovery. The PSFA is also happy to support other public authorities in their own fraud investigations, and already does so. Which option is best will depend on the facts of the case.
Amendment 24 would require departments to conduct an internal review if, following a PSFA investigation, it is confirmed that they have lost more than £50,000 to overpayment or fraud. All losses at this scale should already be investigated and reported on. There are established audit, assurance and reporting processes for this.
In addition, the facts of the case would already have been established by the PSFA, and learnings taken from it will be shared on a cross-government basis to aid the prevention of fraud—hence the establishment of the PSFA within the Cabinet Office. This amendment would create an extra burden on each department and replicate the work of the PSFA, and is unnecessary as its core aim will already be addressed through other activities.
I hope that this explanation reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and that she can therefore withdraw her amendment. I expect that we will discuss more of this in great detail as we continue.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. As we draw the debate on this group to a close, I thank all noble Lords who have engaged with the issues—so I thank the Minister. We are clear in our recognition that tackling fraud must go beyond enforcement. It must be a culture embedded across every public authority and government department. Although it is right that the Public Sector Fraud Authority must have the powers and resources it needs to act decisively, with these amendments we highlight that fraud prevention cannot and must not rely on external investigation alone. The work must begin within departments themselves.
Amendment 2 reflects our view that the Minister for the Cabinet Office should have a duty to support public authorities in carrying out their own investigations, and the amendment seeks to use the resources of the PSFA to encourage early intervention, the development of internal counterfraud capability, and ensuring that every public body has the tools to act on fraud swiftly and effectively to counter fraud at home.
Our Amendment 24, which would require internal reviews for significant losses, is a proportionate and reasonable step towards building a culture of accountability across the public sector. If a public authority loses £50,000 or more through fraud or overpayment, it is right that the public body must work to understand what went wrong, and it is right that it must explain this to the Minister. Without our amendment, we risk allowing the same mistakes to recur, with no mechanism for learning or redress within the public body itself.
Our amendments seek to promote a culture of responsibility. They seek to ensure that no department or authority sees fraud as someone else’s problem or as a matter that will simply be dealt with elsewhere. The message that these amendments send is clear: tackling fraud must begin at home. These proposals are balanced, targeted and grounded in practical experience. I hope the Government will reflect carefully on these points and consider working with us to embed this into the Bill. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kramer
“(e) creating a whistleblowing reporting channel for cases of fraud against public authorities which—(i) guarantees confidentiality and anonymity if requested,(ii) includes clear definitions of who is a whistleblower in cases of fraud against public authorities,(iii) provides a process to update whistleblowers in cases of fraud against public authorities, and(iv) protects whistleblowers in cases of fraud against public authorities from retaliation and detriment.”
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson. In the eyes of this Committee, coming here today on her honeymoon to lead on the Bill demonstrates that she is a true romantic.
The amendments in this group, both of which are in my name, are probing amendments, and they are designed to create a whistleblowing channel in the PSFA. Amendment 3 is more general, but Amendment 66 would specifically set up an office of the whistleblower. Expanding the role of the Public Sector Fraud Authority without creating an appropriate whistleblowing channel seems an opportunity seriously missed. The Cabinet Office, with its wide reach, is exactly the right place to put an office of the whistleblower to tackle public sector fraud.
At Second Reading I spoke of the change in attitude towards whistleblowers by both regulators and enforcement agencies. Many now see whistleblowers as crucial to their effectiveness. I will not repeat a Second Reading speech; I ask the Minister not to take my word for this but to speak directly to the Serious Fraud Office, to HMRC’s tax office and to the Covid commissioner. I hope the Government will respect what these organisations have learned out in the field about tackling fraud, and that will lead her to see the significance of creating an appropriate whistleblowing channel.
However, I want to address what seemed to be some misapprehensions from the Minister’s speech at Second Reading. She seemed to be of the view that the national benefit fraud hotline is a sufficient whistleblowing channel. As far as I can tell, it funnels information, usually anonymous, to DWP, but there is little or no follow-up with the individual who has reported. Whistleblowing is a process. Initial reports lead to further exchanges and often to the gathering of information and evidence. That is why it is so valuable. The hotline today simply is not sufficient, and that is one of the reasons why fraud is so prevalent.
The Minister also said that only 6% of benefit fraud is linked to organised crime, and I find that impossible to believe. The Police Foundation recently did a major piece of research and concluded that 30% to 45% of fraud is linked to organised crime. That is way above the levels previously estimated anywhere across the piece before that report came out. It is now regarded, in a sense, as the masterpiece of research in this area.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for not having been present for the Second Reading debate on this Bill—it is a subject rather dear to my heart—and for not being here at the beginning of this Committee’s proceedings this afternoon. In both cases, I had unmoveable previous commitments. I rise to express broad support for the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. She is absolutely right when she says that the Cabinet Office is the right place for a channel of this nature to be located. In later amendments, I will address concerns that the central public fraud authority needs to be empowered to intervene with other departments and be more strongly set up for that purpose. In the context of whistleblowing, I doubt whether it is essential to have this set out in the statute because there is nothing to stop the Cabinet Office setting up such a channel now, but it is an opportunity to ventilate the issue, which we should welcome.
Back when I was the Minister for the Cabinet Office, we were trying to simplify the way procurement was done because one of the unforeseen consequences of having absurdly overbureaucratic and overcomplicated procurement practices was that fraud became easier. When we were trying to simplify how procurements were done, we set up something we called, rather misleadingly, the mystery shopper channel. If bidders or suppliers saw, anywhere in the public sector, a procurement that was being done in the old-fashioned way—excessively prescriptive, rigid and expensive for bidders—they could let us know anonymously. They could tip us off, and the Cabinet Office was then in a position to intervene and draw attention to this—often because it was being done at a relatively junior level, without senior people being aware. So I know from experience that a channel of this nature can be very powerful, and many suppliers are immensely appreciative of the value it created for them. I support the approach that the noble Baroness has taken, and I hope the Minister will take that away.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for raising whistle- blowers in respect of the Bill and for highlighting the importance of the protection of those who feel that they must speak out if they see an action or actions that they feel could be fraudulent or not in the public interest. Indeed, it could be actions that should be being taken but are not.
Ensuring that we have adequate protections for whistleblowers is vital to building confidence with the people we need to come forward if we are to tackle fraud. In respect of public sector fraud, such people are employed in local authorities or in the Civil Service. If certain protections are not in place, this can have a detrimental effect on recruitment, retention and perhaps career management.
In tackling fraud, we will inevitably ask—and, in fact, trust and expect—public officials to make the right calls and decisions in their day-to-day work. These decisions can often be incredibly tough, involving sensitive matters and perhaps involving close colleagues. So reassuring public sector workers that they will be protected when they do the right thing is of paramount importance, and we would support further reassurance from the Government that whistleblowers will be protected and supported when they come forward.
Amendment 3, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, presents a sensible proposal for the creation of a whistleblowing reporting channel that would guarantee anonymity and protect whistleblowers, who would themselves be legally defined. The noble Baroness might like to explain in her summing up, however, what she means by
“a process to update whistleblowers in cases of fraud”.
How would she see this work?
On her Amendment 66, we do not think it necessary to establish an office of the whistleblower, although I understand that, as she said, this is very much a probing amendment. It sounds laudable, with laudable aims, but we see this as potential overregulation—the setting up of another body, at an unknown cost and with an unknown number of employees and resources—when we believe that what we need is a proportionate and workable system, as the noble Baroness herself has said in her Amendment 3, and an established process by which fraud is able to be reported with protections in place.
There is a danger that if you set up a body such as a specific office for whistleblowing, you can perhaps unwittingly encourage too many false flags, where whistleblowing is almost encouraged and a bureaucracy is created. It is important that evidence of whistleblowing is protected only where it is substantive and where there are protections in place—not flimsy or based on hearsay, for example. Of course, wrongful reporting can have a devastating effect on people’s lives.
These are really questions for the Government to answer, because the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and I share the same objective: pushing and encouraging the Government, in the Bill, to demonstrate practically what actual new protections there are for those who see or perceive fraud in their area of public sector work, bearing in mind that fraudsters can be cunning and clever. It often surprises one who is ultimately seen to commit fraud—it is often in an unexpected area or from people you would never suspect of committing fraud.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that it is good to make comparisons with other whistleblowing processes, which she did with a deal of eloquence. I want to make a comparison with the NHS, as I understand that the NHS has upgraded its protections for whistleblowers. Thus Health Education England is listed as a prescribed person under the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. That means that workers at other organisations or companies who wish to raise concerns—in other words, whistleblowing—relating to the education, training and sufficient supply of healthcare workers at their employing organisation or company can do so to HEE. Prescribed persons enable workers to make public-interest disclosures to an independent body where the worker would prefer not to disclose to their employer direct, and the body may be able to take action on the disclosure.
We know that whistleblowing is the term used when a worker provides information to their employer or a prescribed person relating to wrongdoing. The wrongdoing will usually, though not always, relate to something that they have witnessed at work. This is also known as disclosure, which was raised by the noble Baroness as well. To be protected by whistleblowing law, a disclosure must be a qualifying disclosure. That means that the worker making the disclosure believes that doing so is in the public interest and it relates to one of the following categories, which I suspect the Committee will be aware of: criminal offence, breach of a legal obligation, miscarriage of justice, endangering health and safety, damage to the environment and covering up wrongdoing in any of those categories.
Workers have the right not to be subjected to any detriment as a consequence of making a disclosure. To qualify for protection when making a disclosure to a prescribed person, workers must have a reasonable belief that the matter falls within the prescribed persons remit and that the information disclosed is substantially true. Meeting these criteria is referred to as making a protected disclosure. Workers are encouraged to seek independent advice to help consider whether they might meet the criteria for making a protected disclosure. As the Committee may know, that can be obtained from Public Concern at Work or Speak Up or through a legal representative. In addition, HEE is required to report in writing annually on whistleblowing disclosures made to it as a prescribed person without identifying the workers concerned or their employers.
Rather than set up a new whistleblowing body— I have used the HEE as an example—I press the Government to find an existing mechanism, maybe within the Cabinet Office, a body that exists already and can be set up in the public sector and defined as a prescribed person specifically for public sector fraud, rather than setting up a particular office for the whistleblower.
We need to recognise that, although we are asking workers to do the right thing, we are also asking them to do something that is emotionally difficult and distressing. People should be empowered to stand up for the correct use of public money, which can happen only if cast-iron reassurances can be given to them.
With those explanations, I hope the Government will consider these points as they progress with the Bill, focusing on practical, sensible but proportionate proposals that will encourage people—which is the whole point—to come forward when they are made aware of some wrongdoing.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on the important issue of whistleblowing. Protections for whistleblowing are a key aspect of counterfraud investigations. A huge amount of the information originally received to guide our investigations comes from whistleblowers, so making sure that the appropriate protections are in place is incredibly important going forward. I welcome the opportunity to explore what more can be done and to reflect on what currently exists.
It will not surprise the noble Baroness that I am unlikely to commit to a new agency within this Bill today, but I welcome the opportunity to meet her to explore in more detail anything that she believes we can do within the confines of the Bill. I sat through a similar debate on the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, when we also touched on these issues. I would like to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that the meeting she suggests is one that we have already discussed, but we will now advance it. I will meet all the agencies that she has highlighted to talk about what they do and do not require.
Currently, to qualify for the whistleblowing protections provided by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, as inserted into the Employment Rights Act 1996, a worker needs to have a reasonable belief that their disclosure tends to show one of the relevant failures set out in legislation, that the disclosure is in the public interest and that the disclosure needs to be made to the relevant person—for example, the employer, a legal adviser or a prescribed person. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, touched on the challenges of using “workers”. DBT guidance sets out the definition of a worker as extending to agency workers and individuals supplied via an intermediary; non-employees undertaking training or work experience as part of a training course, otherwise than at an educational establishment; self-employed doctors, dentists, ophthalmologists and pharmacists in the NHS; police officers; student nurses; and student midwives. So although it is “worker”, there is a slightly wider definition.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Maude of Horsham, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, for rowing in on this issue of real significance. I also thank the Minister, who is clearly taking these issues on board, thinking them through and looking for a way to progress. I would love the opportunity to meet her to explore where I can be helpful.
I want to challenge a couple of issues raised by the noble Viscount. The cost is often raised when we talk about creating a specific office of the whistleblower. But in the United States there are offices of whistleblowing in the Securities and Exchange Commission, the CFTC and the Department of Transportation, for example. Every single one of them is now regarded by the US Department of the Treasury as a profit centre, not a cost centre. Their effectiveness in bringing people to trial and achieving fines is so significant that they not only pay for themselves but flow money up into the Department of the Treasury. HMRC has very similar experience. It is now proposing significant financial incentives for whistleblowers on the grounds that this will allow the recovery of lost tax to a degree that will more than pay for the process. There is a real set of questions there.
I fully accept that there are many ways in which to do this but I am feeling heartened by the broader receptivity around this issue. I do not think that there is one template that works for all, but there certainly can be a template that would work well within the context of the work that the PSFA will do. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Finn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the circumstances in which a public authority would recover an amount paid in error.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, our amendments in this group seek to address some of the limitations that the Bill places on the powers of the PSFA to undertake investigations on behalf of the Minister for the Cabinet Office when it is made aware that fraud is suspected or has occurred in a public authority. It is vital that, in further developing this resource, we ensure that it has the powers and the relevant responsibilities to tackle fraud properly and pose a deterrent to those who seek to commit it in our public authorities.
Amendment 4, standing in my name, seeks to probe the circumstances in which a public authority would recover an amount paid in error. It is important that we distinguish, throughout our discussions over these Committee days, between funds that were acquired by deliberate fraud and funds that were acquired because of a mistake. We hope that, in responding to this amendment, the Government are able to make clear their distinction between these two things and how this will be reflected in the exercise of the powers in the Bill.
Amendment 5 removes the requirement that public bodies must first request an investigation into suspected fraud before the Minister for the Cabinet Office may undertake an investigation. The Bill as it stands contains a considerable loophole that can easily be exploited if any public authority wishes to avoid an investigation into its affairs. The PSFA needs to have the legal capacity to undertake proactive investigations into fraud when it is made aware of appropriate instances or concerns. To rely on public authorities that may be conducting illegal activities to find it within themselves to own up before an investigation could even commence is far too weak. We need a counterfraud authority that proactively goes after fraudsters, not one that waits to be invited to investigate.
We are also concerned that the PSFA, even if a case were referred, could simply refuse to take it out of hand. There is no requirement for the PSFA to justify when a case has been refused if it chooses to do so, and we cannot therefore be certain that the information referred would be acted upon. This creates a direct disincentive for organisations to make representations to the PSFA to initiate an investigation. Why risk the reputational damage of an investigation if it could simply be refused for no apparent reason? This is an issue that we will seek to address and that I hope the Government will consider as an amendment to the Bill.
Amendment 6 would enable the PFA to undertake fraud investigations into HMRC and the DWP. This is an opportunity for us to simplify and co-ordinate counterfraud efforts across the public sector. We must ensure that we do not create a two-tier system in which some authorities are accountable to the Cabinet Office and others are not. This amendment would ensure that the PSFA can exercise these powers to prevent fraud and recover funds across these major public bodies to address the asymmetry that the Bill creates.
Our Amendment 7 balances our proposition that the PSFA be empowered to undertake proactive investigations with the control measures that would limit the use of the powers granted under Part 1 by requiring the Minister to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that fraud or attempted fraud has occurred. This test would ensure that investigations could be initiated only on reasonable grounds. The Bill as it stands provides considerable powers to the Cabinet Office in order to combat and prevent fraud. We need to ensure that these powers are exercised responsibly, carefully and for good reason. Our amendment would hold investigators in the Cabinet Office to a higher threshold before they could begin to exercise these powers, which will protect both the Cabinet Office and the people under investigation from abuse.
Finally, our Amendment 8 would ensure that the fee charged to any public authority by the PSFA would not exceed the amount of money that was recovered. This is a sensible amendment that would ensure that a fraud investigation did not come at a net detriment to the public authority. We feel that providing a legal guarantee to public authorities that they will not be left out of pocket as a result of an investigation is an important reassurance that must be made in the Bill.
Our amendments in this group seek to implement sensible, balanced improvements to the powers and role of the PSFA. By allowing this body to undertake proactive investigations into public authorities, which will include the DWP and HMRC, we will close the loophole in the Bill that allows public bodies to dodge investigations simply by failing to request one. This is balanced with controls on the powers of the PSFA requiring a reasonable grounds test to be met before commencing an investigation, and ensuring that any charges made out to public authorities do not exceed the amount of money recovered. We broadly support the Government’s proposition, although we feel that the purpose of this part—to recover money, combat fraud and deter future offences—will be better met if our amendments are incorporated. I beg to move.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 5 and 6 in the names of my noble friends on the Front Bench.
As I have said, I was the Minister for the Cabinet Office for five long years, during the entirety of the coalition Government—I am not sure that anyone else has been there for that long. Despite the best efforts of some in the higher levels of the Civil Service to have me promoted, moved sideways or eventually fired, I survived and outlasted them all. This was when the coalition Government took over—a time of fiscal crisis, with a budget deficit of some 11% of GDP—and it was urgent that the costs of government should be reduced. We were pretty successful in that: we reduced the running cost of government cumulatively over five years by £52 billion. We were DOGE before anyone had thought of it, and, frankly, we did it much more effectively.
One of the elements that we pursued was fraud and error, and indeed debt. We were surprised to discover that activity to counter fraud, reduce error and recover debt was not being seriously co-ordinated. You would have thought that this would be a core function of the Treasury but it was not; the Treasury’s view was that this should all be done in each of the individual silos, and of course that militates against effectiveness.
On the skill sets around countering fraud, et cetera, we concluded that this was a cross-cutting function that runs right across government and needs to be seen in that way. We started to introduce in a slightly makeshift way—piecemeal, making it up as we went along—what we now call the functional model. This is where these cross-cutting functions—procurement, IT and digital, major projects, and HR—are strongly led from the centre of government, with visibility into what is happening in those functions right across the Government. Of course, it is through all those functions, including financial management, that the money gets spent. However, the Treasury’s view, which is true of most finance ministries anywhere in the world, is that it looks at the verticals, and if something is in an approved budget line, that is it—you get on and do what you like.
There is an underlying assumption that all public servants are equally concerned about conserving public money but, regrettably, that is not universally the case. It is essential that there should be proper central oversight. Given the reluctance of the Treasury to take this seriously—as my noble friend Lord Agnew demonstrated vigorously when he resigned in the middle of a speech on exactly this subject, highlighting the reluctance of the Treasury to give it sufficient focus—the Cabinet Office is the place for this to be done. There needs to be proper oversight into how these functions are being run and are operating, and providing some real-time accountability rather than waiting for the Public Accounts Committee some time after the event, generally after the horse has bolted.
That is why allowing the Minister, through the Public Sector Fraud Authority, to intervene only at the request of a public authority seems justifiable in relation to the wider public sector, but in relation to central government departments, agencies, authorities and so on, it seems to be wholly indefensible. There is an assumption that all these authorities and entities will be so concerned to disclose what has gone on in their departments, in their own backyards, that they will willingly ask the Cabinet Office to intervene and be charged a fee for the privilege. I have to say that real life tells us that this is unlikely to happen because we have real-life experience to look at. When, during the coalition Government, it was disclosed that in one major department two suppliers to government had been systematically overcharging that department over not just a short period but a decade or so, it turned out that this had been known about for some time.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I intervene only because the whole debate on these amendments seems to dwell on what a public authority is. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Maude, about the Treasury and central government, but my version of public authority would come down to local authorities, which as far as I am aware are public authorities.
I will talk from experience because I was a councillor in the London Borough of Barnet for 28 years, and for the last four years of that I chaired its audit committee. To my mind, what is missing in the Bill and the amendments is the use of audit procedures, which exist in many public authorities. That is where the investigation should start, at the lowest cost and more effectively.
The noble Lord talks about HMRC. The reason why it failed is that the outside body that had this work subcontracted to it collected the low-hanging fruit. It collected the frauds that were easy to collect because there was money in the individuals, companies or organisations involved. I ask the Minister and her team to think about how to stop attacking only low-hanging fruit. It is the ones that are not dealt with by the existing organisations that we are looking at. Encourage local authorities to set a gold standard where they and anything like them will look at the situation internally and assess where the fraud is. At that stage, it may well be that they want to call in these organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Maude, says they perhaps should not be called in, but they should be if needed. We need to use the things that exist already. To me, the fact that the word “audit” does not appear anywhere here is a negative part of this measure.
Lord Maude of Horsham (Con)
The noble Lord’s point about what we mean when we talk of a public authority is really important. I make a distinction between entities that are part of central government—where the writ of the Cabinet Office and the Treasury should absolutely run without exception for these purposes—and the wider public sector. I believe in localism; local authorities should be responsible for what they do and have access to a centre of excellence of great capability in central government. But there should be a sharp distinction made between central government and the wider public sector.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I apologise; to some extent I moved onto what sounded more like a Second Reading speech, but it comes out of the comments that the noble Lord made. Not just central government bodies but other public bodies must use the investigatory powers, where they are already there, and bring in the heavy guns only when needed. So I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Maude, says.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I feel rather inadequate after hearing the last few speeches, which were excellent in their expertise and in making me think about the issues, and after the earlier discussion led by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on whistleblowers. I feel as though I am going to learn a lot from these debates, so I apologise, as I am raising just a few simplistic issues in this group on the chapter that has been labelled “Key concepts”.
As we start Committee, I draw attention to how the Government have been explicit that the powers in the Bill are designed to target error in addition to fraud. Error does indeed account for substantial losses of public money, so I have no problem with the Bill doing both but, too often, it seems that its powers—many of which are too draconian—are applied equally to fraud and error without distinction.
I am broadly in favour of looking at Amendment 4, which seeks to probe the circumstances in which a public authority would recover an amount paid in error, as we need to make a distinction between error and fraud. In general, many of my concerns, although largely confined to the section of the Bill dealing with the DWP and welfare, are on the dangerous conflation between fraud and error. If we do not keep them distinct, there will be unintended consequences from this Bill, and I am very worried about disproportionality in justice and so on. I would be interested to hear how the Minister responds to Amendment 4.
I am also very sympathetic to Amendment 7, which requires that:
“the Minister is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to suspect that fraud or attempted fraud … has occurred”.
That notion of reasonable grounds is very important for this Bill and, sadly, it is too often absent. I think it can lead, for example, to suspicionless surveillance, which we will be talking about later in Committee.
I want to quote the written evidence given to the Public Bill Committee by the cross-party law and human rights organisation Justice. It emphasised that:
“This requirement for reasonable grounds is a well-known legal requirement in the context of state investigations: it is a safeguard to protect individuals from baseless state interference and fishing expeditions”.
It is very important that the requirement for reasonable grounds is taken very seriously throughout our discussions, so I was glad to see Amendment 7.
Although it is now completely after the effect, and I feel like this is a cliché, I will say congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson. I kind of feel like the moment might have passed, but I have to say that her announcement at the start of the debate cheered me up.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very useful debate, and I hope to be able to give some clarity on some of the issues that have been raised. It would be remiss of me, and I should have done it earlier, not to thank the noble Lord, Lord Maude, for starting the process of where we have ended up today. He and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, started a great deal of this under the previous Government. We are now seeking to ensure that the PSFA has the appropriate powers to deliver what they started.
Before I move on to the substance of this group, I think it would be helpful to respond to a question that was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, about what a public authority means with regard to the Bill and what we are actually talking about. Public authority is defined in Clause 70 “Interpretation”. The definition is:
“‘public authority’ means a person with functions of a public nature so far as acting in the exercise of those functions”.
It would include, for example, other government departments, arm’s-length bodies and local authorities. This is a broad definition that takes in a wide range of organisations and delivery mechanisms for public functions to ensure that fraud against the public sector in its widest sense can be tackled.
Whether a body comes into the definition of public authority will be tested before a case is adopted, but let us be clear that, especially when we are talking about fraud, it would be surprising if someone was targeting the public sector and they stopped at the remit of one government department just because we define it as one government department. We all know, and noble Lords who have served in government are even more aware, that MHCLG, the Cabinet Office, the DfE and the Department of Health will have multiple users that may touch on different levels of fraud, which is why it is important that we have the breadth of definition.
On the substance of this group, Amendment 4 would remove error from the scope of the amounts that the Minister can recover. This would significantly change and restrict the scope of the PSFA’s recovery function. It would mean that, if the PSFA investigates a case and does not find fraud but does find that a person has had money that they were not entitled to, it would not be able to take action to recover it, including using the debt powers in the Bill. The PSFA would have to refer the matter back to the public authority concerned to take whatever error recovery actions it is willing and able to take.
In response to concerns raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—I am pleased that I was able to make her happy at the beginning of Committee stage—it is very likely that the PSFA will encounter payments that could be classed as error. Fraud and error are difficult to separate. Indeed, the National Audit Office and the PSFA do not attempt to do so in their measurement methodology. This is because proving fraud requires evidence of intent, and it is often impractical or impossible to do so. One of the purposes of the Bill is to do more to evidence fraud and take the right action to tackle it, but I hope noble Lords will agree that when you have money that you are not entitled to, you should pay it back and it should be recoverable if it is not paid back. That has always been a principle that the Government have adopted.
Before I move on to wider detail, I want to touch on some comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on the loophole for public authorities. Public authorities are the victims, not the perpetrators. Even without powers, the PSFA enforcement unit is getting referrals. We do not foresee a shortage of cases coming our way. The PSFA must be able to triage and pursue the most impactful and value-for-money cases. This is a genuine question—which is why we are here in Committee—of culture and approach, and one that we should have a conversation about. The Government genuinely believe that a collaborative approach with other government departments will yield more co-operation in terms of investigations than a more aggressive approach. Being invited in will ensure that government departments actively engage with us, as has proven to be the case during our pilot so far.
I believe it will assist your Lordships’ Committee if I briefly set out the circumstances in which a public authority would recover an amount of money. Accounting officers of public authorities are required to follow the principles set out in the HM Treasury publication Managing Public Money in annexe 4.11, which is— apparently—readily available to noble Lords. The relevant section states:
“Most organisations responsible for making payments will sometimes discover that they have made overpayments in error. In principle public sector organisations should always pursue recovery of overpayments, irrespective of how they came to be made. In practice, however, there will be both practical and legal limits to how cases should be handled. So each case should be dealt with on its merits”.
Amendment 5 would remove the words:
“only at the request of that public authority”
from Clause 2(1). I believe the intention of this amendment is that PSFA should be able to simply decide to open a fraud investigation irrespective of the wishes of the target of fraud, in the same way that the police can open an investigation into other crimes. However, omitting the deleted words but not otherwise changing the clause would create an element of uncertainty over who is responsible, in the first instance, for dealing with fraud against a public authority. At the moment, it is clearly the public authority. If the intention of this amendment is that it should be for the Minister for the Cabinet Office to decide to investigate, whether or not the public authority wants the Minister to step in, this may conflict with the preservation of public authorities’ own fraud functions in Clause 2(5)(b).
Responsibility for managing fraud is, in the first instance, given to accounting officers of public authorities, as set out by Managing Public Money annexe 4.9—which I am sure all noble Lords have read. There may also be other unintended consequences by the adoption of this amendment, specifically whether the revised working of the clause might actually compel the Minister for the Cabinet Office to investigate all public sector fraud. That is something beyond the current capacity of the PSFA, which I am sure we will discuss in great detail later in Committee. If the PSFA finds fraud off its own bat, as it were, it might not then be clear on what legal basis, if any, it would be able to recover it, as it would not be acting on behalf of the public authority per se. The Government seek to maintain the status quo of acting at the request of public authorities as a matter of operational practice as set out in this Bill, in order to prevent any confusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Maude, raised a query about the Treasury not taking this seriously. The PSFA reports to the Cabinet Office and HMT. It works closely, advising HMT on fraud as part of the spending review process. I hope that that is somewhat reassuring, given where we are in the spending review process.
Amendment 6 would remove the restriction in Clause 2(2) on the PSFA undertaking cases at the request of the DWP and HMRC. This would be a significant change in policy intent. HMRC and DWP have 84% of the counterfraud resource across His Majesty’s Government, including thousands of people and their own designated powers. The PSFA role envisaged is supporting those departments which do not have well-developed fraud investigation, enforcement and recovery functions or powers, not seeking to subsume those with targeted powers that are already well established. For once, this is a government department not seeking to gather other people’s power and staff. Neither HMRC nor DWP need the further assistance of Part 1 of this Bill and there are many other public authorities which do.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
If the Minister does not mind, can I pick up the issue that the noble Lord, Lord Maude, raised? Nobody knows how to manage government more closely than him; he is deeper steeped in this than any of us. How does the Minister anticipate dealing with the fragmentation of investigation? If HMRC is chasing down someone, you can almost be certain that it will be dealing with public procurement in a different way and that there will be other issues around that particular entity. Is there a mechanism she sees that will break down those siloed lines?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I reassure your Lordships’ Committee, particularly the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, that the PSFA and HMRC or the DWP can and will do dual investigations and work closely together. They have their own powers. I think the case of HMRC is probably more relevant than the DWP, but they will work collaboratively and do joint operations while having their own separate remits. It is not that they will not work together; however, we anticipate that especially where there is evidence—as I said earlier, it is about breadth of government—we would expect the majority of the PSFA’s work to be outside of those government agencies or public authorities.
Amendment 7 is unnecessary because it straight- forwardly duplicates matters already dealt with elsewhere in the Bill. Clause 1(1)(a) states that the Minister is given the function of investigating “suspected fraud” against public authorities. Clause 70, the interpretation clause, defines “suspected fraud” as
“conduct which the Minister has reasonable grounds to suspect may constitute fraud”.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, is content that the issues she raises in this amendment are appropriately dealt with.
Finally, Amendment 8 would restrict the fees that the PSFA could charge a public authority for investigation, enforcement or recovery action to no more than the amount that is recovered. Cash recovery is the hardest part of enforcement. Many initiated investigations will close without reaching the recovery stage—for example, because no fraud is found, an alternative approach is taken or because recovery is not possible even if the investigation is successful. The amendment would mean that no fee could be charged in those cases, despite the PSFA having necessarily invested resources into the investigation with the agreement of the public authority to have taken the case and undertaken the actions in the first place. That does not represent good value for money and runs contrary to the guidance in Managing Public Money on cost recovery.
In the most serious cases, cash recovery may not be the main or even a major factor; it will be the disruption of criminal gangs and prosecution of serious offenders. Such cases may be long, complex and multi-agency, and costs will probably exceed any potential recovery quite quickly. In cases of organised crime, assets may be irretrievable, laundered beyond reach or overseas. The public interest in investigation is to punish the criminals. The adoption of this clause would also fail to acknowledge or promote the deterrent effect of the investigations. The PSFA cannot be restricted in the cases that it selects by how much of its costs it can recover; that is counterproductive and counterintuitive.
I have two other points to raise.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I beg the noble Baroness’s pardon but, if the PSFA can charge more than it recovers, is that not a massive disincentive for the public authority to ask it to come in to begin with, given that it has to ask ?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
There is a balance here, because of the positives that go alongside this. There is a genuine issue that, if a criminal gang is actively targeting a public authority, the investigation and prosecution of those people in itself is something that the public authority would wish to see. There will always be costs involved in criminal activities, even if they cannot all be recovered. The police actively investigate criminal gangs, with the pragmatic understanding that not all costs can be recovered. There is also a deterrent effect in prosecuting people to ensure that everyone is aware that, if you defraud the state, you will be prosecuted. We will not always be able to get the money back, but we must be realistic about what is in front of us and what we can achieve.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
I have not thought this through, but a no win, no fee approach seems quite useful. If the PSFA, which will have many successful prosecutions where it brings in fees that are well above its actual costs, it will have a resource that will surely allow it to pursue cases where there is not a successful recovery but where it is important for the case to go ahead. I am just wondering whether there is not a model that might work more effectively.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an interesting point. That is why the Cabinet Office and the PSFA are adopting a test-and-learn approach to see what will and will not work. Having said that, we have to be realistic that we will not always be able to recover funds and someone has to pay for the cost of the investigation. The balance of what that looks like is something we will have to explore as cases progress.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, on this occasion I want to thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I hope that the Minister will recognise what we are proposing in this group are a series of amendments that would make meeting the objectives and purpose of the Bill easier. I thank her very much for her constructive approach. I especially enjoyed listening to the quotations from Managing Public Money, which used to be quoted extensively at me when I was in the Cabinet Office.
The proposals in the amendments would ensure that fraud could be proactively investigated and counteracted. That is the only way that we will bring fraud rates down, provide an effective deterrent to potential fraudsters and prevent departments dodging oversight by failing to request an investigation. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made the sensible case that public authorities must not go only after low-hanging fruit and duck difficult investigations.
I spent five long years as my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham’s special adviser while he was in post. I spent that time learning from him, especially on the reluctance of the Treasury to engage properly with recovery on fraud. I am delighted that the PSFA has a dual remit and will report to both HMT and the Cabinet Office, but working closely with the Treasury was always a construct where the Treasury would assert its primacy, and I hope that does not happen in this instance if it works negatively.
I had a strong sense of déjà vu while listening to my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham. He is correct when he says it is wholly indefensible that the PSFA must wait to be invited to conduct investigations into wrongdoing, and we will be probing on that. The DWP does not wait to be invited before it goes after benefit cheats, and there is no reason why public officials should be held to a different standard. The exclusion of DWP and HMRC is perplexing. My noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham correctly picked up on that and made the case—convincingly, I thought—for their inclusion in the remit.
The PSFA must always operate in the public interest, and ensuring that we have adequate thresholds for investigations is a well-established, sensible proposition. Our amendment would ensure that that threshold was included in the Bill so that we could be reassured that the PSFA would operate only once the reasonableness test had been satisfied, a point that was picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. The same can be said for a legal guarantee that recovering fraud must not come at a cost to the public authority in question.
In conclusion, we believe that our amendments in this group would improve what the Government have already set out in the Bill, and we hope the Committee will support us in incorporating these improvements. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure the Minister is required to have a reasonable belief that an information notice would be proportionate in each case.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the powers granted in this part of the Bill are necessary in principle, although the core principle of proportionality, which guides our approach on these Benches, means that we have some suggestions for improvement. We need to make sure that this system has adequate safeguards, protections and balance. I want to reiterate the view that in pursuit of a legitimate objective, we do not succumb to a temptation for overreach or powers which are too sweeping.
Our Amendment 9 introduces a reasonableness threshold, which has to be met before an information notice can be submitted. This amendment is designed to ensure that the information notice, which imposes a duty on the relevant person to provide information to the Minister, is imposed on that person only if there is a reasonable belief that the information notice would be proportionate.
We need to bear in mind throughout these discussions that the Bill establishes a substantial array of duties and responsibilities, and we need to make sure that when powers are exercised, they are done so with those burdens in mind. Our proposal that these powers can be exercised only when seen as reasonably proportionate incorporates this balance and will ensure that additional operational burdens are not imposed unless thought necessary.
Further, Amendment 10 seeks to protect the person to whom the information notice relates from unfair treatment ahead of any final conclusion about their liability. Banks and financial institutions, particularly when the Bill first comes into effect, will naturally be concerned that they are being asked to provide information about one of their customers in relation to fraud. It is feasible that the said bank may want to withdraw some banking services from the person in question, and it is therefore a reasonable demand that the Government make clear that the person in question is not necessarily guilty of the suspected fraud. We need to make sure that the verdict is not inadvertently passed on the person before a conclusion is reached, and this amendment would ensure that an investigation does not end up constituting a sentence.
Our Amendments 11, 12, 13 and 14 all address the technicalities of the review mechanism and seek to probe the Government on why they have set up the review mechanism in the way that they have in the Bill, Amendment 11 questions the Government on why they have defined 10 working days as the lower limit for the period in which the person to whom the information notice is given has to comply with the demands in the notice. Can the Minister assure the Committee that this period has been set based on a discussion with relevant persons to whom this duty will apply? Again, we need to recognise that this is a duty being imposed on third parties, and we need to balance it with the other activities undertaken by those persons.
Amendment 12 seeks to clarify how a review process could be initiated by the person to whom an information notice is given, which, alongside Amendment 13, seeks to make it easier for the person to review this decision with a longer timeframe. Amendment 14 would oblige the reasons for any decision reached following a review to be set out in writing, placing an additional duty of responsibility and accountability to the Minister for the steps they decide to take.
Alongside the reasonableness test outlined in our Amendment 9, these provisions work to make sure that the powers under the Bill are exercised proportionately and that they are balanced alongside adequate provisions for review, which will promote the sensible application of these notices.
Finally, Amendments 15 and 16 seek to protect the information of a person which has been shared with the Minister by limiting the people with whom that information can be shared. Defining in law that only specific people can have sight of personal, sensitive information is a proportionate check on the power of the Minister and will have the twofold benefit of protecting people who, we must remember, are not actually necessarily guilty of fraud, with the need to check their information to ascertain this fact.
The principle of obtaining information about a person is necessary for the provisions in the Bill to work and the objectives we all share to be met. Our amendments seek to nuance and improve the exercise of these powers by adding a reasonableness test, a clarification of the review process and additional controls on data sharing to protect those to whom the information notice relates. We hope that the Government and noble Lords across the Committee will recognise these improvements to the provisions currently set out in the Bill on information notices and the relevant review processes, and that these will be supported as measured and balanced proposals. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I will very quickly make a couple of comments on Amendments 9 and 10. First, on Amendment 9, I have an amendment later in Committee that inserts a reasonableness point in a similar way, so I support this. However, I wonder whether this amendment is actually in the wrong place; I suggest that it ought to be in the initial line—“the Minister should reasonably consider”—as opposed to “reasonably proportionate”, but that is a small issue. I support the concept of Amendment 9.
Amendment 10 is quite important. This issue has been raised by the banking industry, and there is a very real concern that the receipt of a notice might provide reasonable grounds for the financial services firm to know or suspect that the customer has defrauded the public sector. In that situation, the failure to take action, for example to close or restrict the account, might conflict with wider anti-money laundering obligations and, possibly—I am not sure this is right—the corporate criminal offence of failure to prevent fraud. That might include having to exit customer relationships and so on.
So there is a very real concern from the financial services industry here. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Government in this situation but it is something that we need to think about, as the receipt of a notice cannot be seen as reasonable grounds to suspect fraud, because that would set all sorts of hares running against people who might be entirely innocent.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will just pick up the issue that has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. We are dealing tomorrow with a statutory instrument that attempts to provide safeguards against banks and other organisations deciding to close people’s bank accounts or to deprive them of other financial services. It is often the people who are under the most financial pressure who find it difficult to get banked in the first place. They can get a basic bank account if they are lucky, but to get a bank account with any of the features that make financial life reasonable is exceedingly difficult. I therefore share the noble Lord’s concern that we do not start a hare running.
Banks are eager to offload people who do not have a lot of exciting and interesting activity. If this notice gives them an excuse to do that, I can see that an awful lot of banks will seize that opportunity, so I raise this as an issue to be wary of. In fact, we have an SI going in the opposite direction tomorrow, so this is really for the Government to make sure that one hand knows what the other hand is doing.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise in advance, because I think we are about to have a vote—or not, if the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, does not press her Motion.
Some significant points have been touched on in this very short debate. I will respond to each amendment in turn. Amendment 9 looks to introduce a test of reasonableness to determine whether an authorised officer has appropriately considered that information sought is both necessary and proportionate. Clause 3(1)(a) and (b) already set out the test for issuing an information notice: an authorised officer will have the power to compel information only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so, and only when the information being requested relates to a person whom an authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed fraud.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
What the Minister says is not quite true. It is where “the Minister considers” that it is necessary and proportionate to do so, not simply where it is necessary and proportionate to do so. That is an important difference—hence the reasonableness requirement.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is going to inspire me to go into more detail. There must be reasonable grounds to suspect that fraud has taken place, which follows the basic rule that there must be an objective basis for that belief. It must be genuinely suspected that the fraud has been carried out by the individual, and the belief must be based on facts and/or information that are relevant to the likelihood of needing to obtain information for the purpose of investigating suspected fraud against public authorities. It must be objectively reasonable for them to suspect this, given the information available to them. The reasonable grounds test is a standard and widely accepted test used by various organisations, including the DWP, the Serious Fraud Office and the police. We are seeking to replicate that.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I shall begin where I left off. I was responding to Amendments 12, 13 and 14. It is necessary that an appropriate period is provided for a first or third party to request a review of an information notice. That is why we introduced the seven-day period for information holders to request a review. This ensures that those attempting to hold up an investigation by requesting a review for no necessary or legitimate reason do not hold it up for an extensive period. If all safeguards were fully utilised as outlined across the Bill, it could already result in delays to the investigation of two years or more, potentially enabling continuing activities that defraud public authorities in that time. We are seeking to make every effort to balance appropriate safeguarding with effectiveness and protecting the public purse. Extending this period to 28 days would add an unnecessary delay in the investigative process.
Amendment 14 would have no material effect over and above what has already been drafted as, in the event that the notice is upheld or varied, details will be provided to the information holder in order to inform their next steps, should they continue to not comply. On Amendments 15 and 16, while I am sympathetic to the intent of the amendments tabled, we believe them to be unnecessary. It is vital that any data-sharing powers between public authorities are done in a way that is relevant and effective for an investigation. An example of this would be sharing information with the public authority that has been defrauded or with the Serious Fraud Office. Imposing a prescriptive list of persons—who could regularly change—who can have information disclosed to them will restrict the intent and scope of the Bill. The clause details that information can be disclosed only for the purpose of exercising the core functions of the Minister, which already restricts to whom and for what purpose the information can be disclosed.
The Bill already contains safeguards to ensure that all data processing, including data-sharing, must be done in accordance with current data protection legislation, which is why I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, is prepared to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, as we draw this stage of the debate to a close, I want to reiterate our position that the powers granted in this part of the Bill are in principle necessary. I thank the Minister for her response, but necessity must always be accompanied by proportionality. That guiding principle sits at the heart of the contributions we on these Benches have made today and of how we will approach the remainder of Committee. We have sought throughout to ensure that the powers conferred by this legislation are tempered by appropriate safeguards and a clear sense of balance. In the pursuit of the legitimate and shared objective of tackling fraud against the public purse, we must be vigilant not to reach for powers that are unduly sweeping or risk unintended harm.
Amendment 9 introduces the threshold of reasonableness before an information notice can be issued. This is about recognising that every power granted imposes a corresponding burden. We must ensure that those burdens are justified and not excessive, although I absolutely take the point the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, made about where the word “reasonably” should sit. We will look at this going forward.
Amendment 10 would provide protection for individuals who may find themselves the subject of an information notice and who are not yet found liable, but are potentially facing premature consequences. The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, raised similar concerns in this area. We want to prevent a situation in which an investigation becomes, in effect, a sentence. Banks and financial institutions in particular need clarity that a notice does not equate to guilt.
Amendments 11 through 14 examine the review mechanism proposed in the Bill. We have asked the Government to justify the 10-day working compliance period in an information notice and whether this reflects realistic operational constraints for third parties. We have also sought to strengthen the ability of the recipient to initiate a review, to provide more time for that review to take place and to require that the Minister’s reasoning be clearly set out in writing. These are sensible and measured proposals that will promote accountability and reinforce the legitimacy of the process, as attested by the justice group in its review.
Lastly, Amendments 15 and 16 address the handling of sensitive information. We propose that any data shared with the Minister under these powers be subject to tightly defined restrictions on further disclosure. This is a proportionate and necessary check, protecting individuals who may never ultimately face action while still allowing the Minister to undertake the task of fraud prevention.
The underlying objectives of this Bill are ones that we all share. Our amendments have been crafted to ensure that these objectives are pursued in a way that is fair, balanced and lawful. They offer reasoned improvements, a reasonableness test, a clearer and fairer review process, and better protections for personal data. I hope they will be supported at a later stage, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finn
“(5) Within six months of the day on which this section comes into force, the Minister must prepare and publish guidance on the process by which authorised investigators are appointed in accordance with subsection (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Minister to set out the process by which authorised investigators are appointed in statutory guidance.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, our amendments in this group are based on a recognition of the fact that we are granting sweeping powers to investigators in the PSFA, to be exercised in the name of the Minister. This is, again, all about proportionality.
Amendment 17 would require the Minister to set out in statutory guidance the process through which authorised investigators are appointed. In combating fraud, we must protect against the creation of opaque but powerful bodies with inadequate oversight and accountability. Justice, a cross-party law reform and human rights organisation working to strengthen the UK justice system, recognises this amendment as an effective measure that would bring much-needed clarity to the process of appointment and the standards under consideration in that process.
Amendments 18, 19 and 20 relate to property. Amendment 18 seeks to probe the Government on the sort of changes they anticipate may be deemed necessary by the courts in relation to seized property. Before we vote to endorse this part of the Bill, I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to provide greater clarity on how they expect that the powers provided for under this part will be exercised, which is a particularly important point of clarification given that we are talking about property seized by the state.
Amendments 19 and 20 combined would prolong the period of time that must pass before an order to dispose of or destroy the seized property can be enacted. The seizure and destruction of personal property is a substantial power, and we must balance the practical consideration of holding seized property with a view to protect the rights of the individual to property which is theirs and which they have a right to recover. We believe that extending this period from six months to one year is a proportionate measure that would balance the practicalities of the process with the rights of the citizen.
Amendment 21 relates to oversight of the exercise of powers granted to the Cabinet Office under the provisions in this clause. If the Government deem it necessary to grant powers of this scale to the Cabinet Office in order to combat fraud, this must come with the acceptance that proper oversight and review of how those powers are used is a concurrent responsibility. This should not be left to the discretion of the Minister and ensuring that oversight is properly exercised from day one is a vital change.
Amendment 22 is an important measure designed, again, to ensure that sensitive information can be disclosed only to relevant persons. Although I am sure that this is simply an oversight in how the Government have drafted the Bill, clarifying the persons to whom information can be disclosed is an important safeguarding measure that would inspire confidence in investigations and ensure that confidence in the relationship between the IOPC and the PSFA is strong from day one. I hope that the Government and noble Lords will recognise this as a sensible improvement, which seeks to facilitate the role of the IOPC in the way that the Government have outlined.
The amendments in this group are rooted in a single, guiding principle: the exercise of significant powers by the state must always be matched by strong safeguards, transparency and oversight. We recognise the necessity of equipping investigators with the tools to combat fraud, but we must not do so at the expense of proportionality or the rights of the individual.
From the appointment of authorised investigators to the seizure and potential destruction of personal property, these powers touch on serious questions of liberty, accountability and trust in our institutions. Our amendments seek to ensure that powers are not only effective but clearly defined, properly scrutinised and subject to checks that protect both the public interest and individual rights. In strengthening the role of oversight, clarifying the limits on data sharing and demanding clear standards in the appointment and exercise of authority, these are far from wrecking amendments; they are constructive and measured. They reflect the careful, balanced approach we must take when legislating in areas where the state touches most directly on the lives and property of citizens. I hope the Government will engage seriously with these proposals and that noble Lords across the House will support them. I beg to move.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. The Minister will be aware that false bailiffs knocking at your door are a major scam, and the PSFA clearly would not intend or hope to be a source of opportunity for people pursuing a scam in claiming to be part of its activities.
Has the Minister had the opportunity to talk to people such as those from StepChange to try to get a feel for how to deal with people who are vulnerable from whom they need to collect property or recover items? Has that charity been involved in shaping the framework for this particular set of issues?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, your Lordships are speedy and my Chief Whip is confused, but I appreciate the opportunity to discuss some important issues and to put on the record things that I hope will reassure noble Lords.
Before I move to the substance of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, I will respond to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer. I have not met StepChange, but that is an interesting suggestion. We have engaged with wider stakeholders. With regard to how the PSFA will be using the PACE powers that we request, that is in the next group of amendments so we will discuss those in more detail then, if that is okay. I will revert, and I will ensure that I have a meeting with StepChange before we progress such conversations. The people behind me are nodding at me.
As this group of amendments addresses three distinct areas of concern, I will take those in turn. I will start with the recruitment of authorised investigators. Under Amendment 17, the Minister would have to prepare and publish guidance on the process by which authorised investigators were appointed within six months of the Bill coming into force. We do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The PSFA is bound by well-established Civil Service recruitment principles under- pinned by relevant legislative provisions. All recruitment to the role of authorised investigator will be based on merit via fair and open competition.
Clause 7(3) of the Bill states that an individual can become an authorised investigator only if they have been authorised by the Minister to exercise the PACE powers conferred in the Bill. The Minister will not make such a determination unless they are content with the evidence provided to them demonstrating that the candidate has been suitably trained in the use of PACE powers and is ready to take on the responsibility of utilising them safely. All authorised investigators will receive bespoke training that will cover all aspects of investigative practice, including the relevant PACE powers. Training will be to the same standard as other law enforcement bodies that use PACE powers.
Authorised investigators will work to clear operational guidance to ensure that they are delivering the use of the powers in a lawful and transparent way. They will also become members of the government counterfraud profession, and their training will align with the profession’s investigator standard. Existing investigators within the PSFA’s enforcement unit, who will work to become the PSFA’s first authorised investigators, bring with them a wealth of relevant knowledge, skills and experience from previous roles in both the police and investigation services within government departments. These powers will be in safe hands. I hope noble Lords find that reassuring.
The disposal of property is incredibly important. On the face of it, the purpose of Amendment 18 is to remove the provision of the PSFA to make any changes to the relevant property that the court considers necessary for the purposes of avoiding or reducing any risk of the property being used in the commission of an offence. Noble Lords have indicated in the explanatory statement for the amendment that they wish to probe
“the Government’s expectations of what types of changes to seized property may be deemed necessary by the courts”.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, as we conclude this group of amendments, I return to the fundamental point at the heart of our proposals. These powers, granted to investigators in the name of the Minister, are substantial. With them comes a responsibility on us as legislators to ensure that they are exercised fairly, transparently and proportionately. Once again, I thank the Minister for her courteous explanation and response.
This Bill seeks to equip public authorities to tackle fraud more effectively. We support that goal, but it is precisely because we support the objective that we believe that the framework within which these powers operate must be clear, balanced and just.
Amendment 17 would introduce a duty to set out statutory guidance on how investigators are appointed, which is a practical step, endorsed by Justice, that would ensure clarity and prevent the emergence of opaque, unaccountable enforcement structures.
Amendments 18 to 20 address the issue of seized property. I listened very carefully to the example of the seized laptop, but Amendment 18 seeks to probe the Government on the nature of the necessary changes to seized property that may be authorised by the courts, and we are asking the Government to clarify what kinds of modifications or uses they envision and under what circumstances. Transparency on how that property may be altered or used is essential.
Amendments 19 and 20 relate to the disposal or destruction of seized property. As the Bill currently stands, property may be destroyed or disposed of after six months. We believe that is too short a period, especially in complex cases where legal processes or appeals may still be ongoing. Our amendments would extend this minimum period to 12 months, offering individuals a more realistic opportunity to recover their property if it turns out that the seizure was not ultimately justified.
Amendment 21 addresses the question of oversight. The Government have taken the decision to grant significant new powers to the Cabinet Office in this section of the Bill. That is a serious move, and one that must be accompanied by serious scrutiny. Amendment 21 would ensure that oversight is built into the system from the start.
Finally, Amendment 22 offers a simple but vital clarification around the handling of sensitive information. This amendment would ensure that the information gathered under investigatory powers can be shared only with persons who are relevant and necessary to the investigation.
Taken together, these amendments form a coherent and proportionate package of improvements. They do not challenge the fundamental aims of the Bill; rather, they support them. But they do so while insisting that the exercise of power must be lawful, justified and always subject to scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the points made, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, it is me again. Our proposal in this group is that Clause 7 and the corresponding Schedule 1 do not stand part of the Bill. The powers granted to civil servants under the provisions in this clause are sweeping, and we believe that they are better exercised by those with adequate training and experience—namely, police officers.
I will cover in a little more depth what this clause is proposing. Clause 7 would allow junior civil servants in the Cabinet Office—relatively junior, at HEO level—to apply to a Justice of the Peace for a warrant to enter and search premises for material relevant to an indictable offence. These civil servants can enter the property whether the relevant person is present or not, and they will have the power to seize anything if they have reasonable grounds for believing that it has been obtained in consequence of the commission of an offence or is evidence in relation to an offence. Section 20 would grant these civil servants the power to seize computerised information, and Section 22 would allow PSFA investigators to retain seized property for as long as necessary in all circumstances.
These are police powers, yet under this clause they are to be exercised not by police officers but by civil servants who, however well intentioned, are under no legal obligation to have the legal training or operational experience that should be required to exercise such powers responsibly. We believe that if an intervention required as part of an investigation is serious enough to justify a search warrant and serious enough to justify entering a person’s private premises and removing their belongings, it is serious enough to require the presence of a police officer, who is recognised as the proper legitimate authority who should bear the responsibility for exercising these powers.
There is a practical point here too. If the Government believe that fraud against the state requires this level of intervention, they should work with law enforcement to build capacity, not bypass it. It is the job of the police to investigate crime, including fraud; that is the basis for their training. That is the established legal framework in which they operate and that is what the public expect. We should not seek to empower civil servants to do the job of police simply on the basis of current operational capacity. Once again, we return to our maxim of proportionality: we need to make sure that the necessary powers in the Bill are exercised responsibly and in a way that is both balanced and effective.
I want to be clear that what we are proposing will not prevent the PSFA undertaking its investigations. Once the threshold for the exercise of these powers has been met, the investigation itself will have had to progress considerably if a warrant is to be issued. Given the way these powers are set out in Clause 7, the Government are obviously certain that investigations will be able to proceed substantially without the need for these powers. Our proposal that they be removed from the remit of civil servants and held instead by the police, which is the established, recognised authority that largely wields these powers at present, will therefore not infringe on the capacity of the PSFA to investigate fraud, as recognised by the Government.
This is therefore another exercise in balance. We believe that our suggestion that Clause 7 and the corresponding Schedule 1 do not stand part of the Bill balances the need to counteract fraud with the imperative that we do not grant sweeping powers to civil servants who are not sufficiently trained, experienced or recognised to exercise them in the proportionate, measured and sensible way we need to be able to guarantee in the Bill. For those reasons we do not believe that Clause 7 and Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill. We urge the Government to reconsider this approach and to ensure that powers of this magnitude are exercised only by those with the proper training, the proper accountability and the proper role: our police services.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, has said it all, so I will be very brief. I have to say that I am extremely uncomfortable with giving these sorts of police powers to civil servants and others. We have an example in the recent past of powers being used inappropriately by a non-police agency in the Post Office Horizon situation. I am very uncomfortable about it. I am interested to hear why we should not allow the police to deal with these things and why we should give them to civil servants, but I will take some convincing.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is now my turn to say, “I’m back”. This is a very important part of the Bill, and it is right that we discuss it in some detail. It was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, in the previous group.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for flagging her concerns regarding the PSFA seeking powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. For ease, I will now refer to it as PACE. Clause 7 designates authorised investigators with the necessary authority to use limited provisions from PACE within the remit of public sector fraud investigations. Specifically, they are the power to apply to the courts for a warrant to enter and search premises and seize evidence and special provisions to apply to the courts to gain access to certain types of material which are regarded as excluded material or special procedure material. These powers will only be used in criminal investigations to enable all reasonable lines of inquiry to be followed and all relevant evidence to be collected.
To reassure noble Lords, when executing a search warrant, authorised investigators will be accompanied by an officer who has the powers of a constable. This could be either a police officer or an officer from another government department, such as HMRC or the NCA, with the powers of a constable. They will ensure the safety of the authorised investigators and will be able to use their own powers of arrest or reasonable force if necessary. We are not seeking for the Cabinet Office to have powers of arrest. They will always be accompanied by appropriate officials who have powers under PACE.
Authorised investigators will adhere to the relevant PACE codes of practice, which provide robust safeguards around the use of these investigative tools. Every application for a search warrant or a court order under PACE must be scrutinised and authorised by the court. Authorised investigators will also be subject to robust internal and external scrutiny. This will come from the PSFA’s independent person, as appointed under Clause 64, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services and, as required, the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, we are very aware of the Horizon scandal and the impact that that had on normal people’s lives. We want to put in every safeguard to make sure, and we hope we have, that these powers could not be used to replicate such a scandal. The PACE powers sought in Clause 7 are the minimum necessary to allow the PSFA to effectively undertake criminal investigations. We are not seeking the full use of PACE powers under this clause for the PSFA.
Turning to Schedule 1, this modifies the provisions of PACE adopted in Clause 7 so that they apply appropriately to authorised investigators within the PSFA. Schedule 1 provides a route for authorised investigators to apply to the court for access to excluded material. Access to special procedure material is provided under Clause 7 and Schedule 1 to PACE. It also establishes a legal framework that allows the PSFA to transfer evidence seized under PACE to other organisations, securing the chain of command—I mean the chain of evidence. It has been a long week; I was getting married a week ago.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned a number of safeguards, including the authorised officer being accompanied by a police constable. I cannot find any of that. Where can I find those safeguards?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very interesting point. It is in the guidance, but I will write to him so that he has a written record.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and repeat that to spend her honeymoon in this way is truly admirable.
Our proposal in this group is straightforward: that Clause 7 and the corresponding Schedule 1 do not stand part of the Bill. The powers set out in them are neither minor nor administrative; they are both sweeping and consequential, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, pointed out. They are powers to enter private premises, to search them in the absence of the owner, to seize property and to retain it indefinitely if deemed necessary.
Clause 7 permits junior civil servants in the Cabinet Office to apply for search warrants in connection with indictable offences. These officials, who are under no legal obligation to possess police-level investigative training or operational experience, would be empowered to enter someone’s property and seize anything they believe is linked to a criminal offence. They may seize computerised information. They may retain this property for as long as they consider necessary. These are serious powers. They are, in every meaningful sense, police powers, and we believe that it should be the police who exercise them.
That is not a theoretical objection; it is a practical one. If the Government believe that the investigation of fraud against the state demands this level of intervention, they should work with law enforcement to build capacity, not attempt to bypass it—as I said previously. The public expect these duties to be undertaken by the police, not officials from within the Cabinet Office.
We are not proposing an end to investigations by the PSFA—far from it. We recognise the importance of this work, and the Government’s own framing of this clause makes it clear that investigations can proceed substantially without the need for these powers. If that is the case, transferring this responsibility to trained police officers, rather than allowing civil servants to exercise it, would not hinder the PSFA’s ability to investigate fraud. It would ensure that intrusive state powers are exercised by those who are properly equipped to wield them.
This is a matter of constitutional balance and operational integrity. Clause 7 and Schedule 1 confer powers that go beyond the traditional remit of the Civil Service. They risk blurring the lines between executive authority and law enforcement. We therefore hope that noble Lords across the Committee, and the Government, will consider supporting this proposal as a measured change, keeping powers in the remit of those who are best placed to exercise them, while ensuring that PSFA investigations can continue in the pursuit of the objectives we all support.
Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in implementing a code of practice under the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interest as the legislator responsible for the Private Member’s Bill that became the Parking Act 1989.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for kicking off the very lengthy process that we are involved in today. The Government issued a code in February 2022, but it had to be withdrawn in June 2022 because of a legal challenge. Areas of challenge included concerns that the code incorporated lower caps than the industry caps on parking charges at the time and that it banned debt recovery fees. The Government are currently actively reviewing how best to raise standards in the industry and plan to launch a consultation about the private parking code of practice in the near future.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
Oh dear. Following the success of my good friend the right honourable Sir Greg Knight in securing the Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019, we still do not have an actual code in place six years on. Delays by the previous Government, through litigation and a need to consult—I think twice —more broadly, have all allowed things to come to a halt. We really must have the code, and I am therefore disappointed that the Minister refers to yet another consultation. This code is needed, so please can it arrive soon?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It sounds like there is unanimity around the Chamber on the need for this. Please be assured that I will follow this up to ensure that we do not wait another six years for the code. Consultation is very important. It is important that we take on board the views not only of the motoring public but of all the private parking organisations and motorists’ representatives. We do not want to end up with another legal challenge, which would hold it up even further. It is important we get it right this time.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the RAC has said that private parking operators are on track to hand out a record 14.5 million fines this year. In addition to the long-awaited code of practice, will the Government go further and introduce a regulator with appropriate powers to protect motorists and ensure transparency across the system?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We want to make sure that we do as much as possible to protect motorists, but this is an industry that helps to regulate parking. Having been a councillor for many years, I know the distress that wrong and illegal parking can cause people, so we have to get the balance right. We will look at all these issues, including the regulator, as we go through the process of drawing up the new code. The important thing is that we get something in place as quickly as possible to put everyone out of the parking misery they have been suffering.
Lord Lennie (Lab)
Can my noble friend say how the Government’s plans for greater devolution and multiyear funding settlements will help local authorities improve parking infrastructure and services?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. Giving local leaders the power and resources to deliver the solutions that are right for their area is at the heart of our Government’s devolution agenda. We have made £69 billion available to council budgets, and brought forward the first multiyear funding settlement in a decade, so that they can deliver better public services and drive forward our plan for change. The English Devolution White Paper was published in December 2024 and the Bill will come to us in due course, which I know noble Lords are all looking forward to. There will be an ambitious package of transport measures in there to give local leaders the tools and the flexibility they need to improve local transport networks and infrastructure. Through greater funding consolidation and multiyear settlements, authorities will have the flexibility to plan and deliver the services that are aligned to local priorities, and to design the transport systems that meet their local needs.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I gather that a consultation will take place next week between the industry and the Minister. One hopes that a code will be set up, but the Government can determine fines. Does she agree with the leader of Bournemouth Council, Millie Earl, who, following an incident where fire engines could not get through on a road by the seafront, said:
“We are really constrained in what we can do to deal with it”?
The fines are now £35, which, as the former MP for Bournemouth East, Tobias Ellwood, said, is a very good bargain for parking for a day out.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is very important that local areas can determine that themselves. It is not the Government’s intention to impose that on local areas, because it may vary across an area. It is very important that local areas can determine that themselves and fit it around their overall local transport strategy—that is key. There is a great difference between local authority car parking, where the money might be recycled into local services, and private parking. Sometimes there are agreements between the private parking companies, sometimes there are not. This is a matter for local determination.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a previous Transport Minister and pay tribute to the work of colleagues such as the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Brennan, in introducing and working with legislation. I make it clear to the Minister that companies have been stringing the Government along for many years and we are getting bogged down in process, but their business model totally depends on access to the DVLA register. It is only permissive for the Government to provide that information, to get them out of GDPR. Why do we not make it clear to the industry that we are going to get this solved, otherwise we will shut off access and its business will collapse straight away?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I would not take quite such a harsh view as my noble friend. On how the Government respond to the industry, there is a big industry here and we know that, as a result of the national code having to be withdrawn, it produced an update to the industry code, so the industry is trying to do something towards regulating itself, which we should commend. We will take account of that industry code when we draw up the national code to deliver better protections for motorists. My noble friend is quite right that we must make sure that the worst practices are dealt with, and the code will aim to make sure that they are.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister outline the Government’s primary objectives for yet another consultation on private parking? What specific insights and further evidence do they hope to get from this? As she said, we have had two consultations on this already by the previous Government, and this seems to be another just waste of time, rather than getting this thing settled.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand Members’, motorists’ and the parking organisations’ frustrations, but the legal challenges that came forward in June 2022 relied heavily on the fact that there had not been proper consultation. That is why we need to make absolutely sure that we do it properly this time.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, one of the most frustrating elements of parking is when you turn up at the car park and discover that none of the three or four apps that you already have on your phone works in that car park. What will the Government do to try to introduce some level of commonality?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Again, I totally understand that frustration. What is important to motorists is that it is transparent when they arrive, so that they are able to make their own choice about whether they wish to use that car park. When you have a sign 12 feet up from the ground that you cannot read from your car, or when it has three columns of close-printed type in font size 6, it does not help anybody. All these matters are being considered. I hope that , as a result of the consultation, we will be able to do as much as possible to ensure that the process is transparent, so that when you turn up at a car park, you know what you have to pay and how long you will be able to stay there.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, I campaigned against cowboy wheel clampers because I saw the misery that rogue parking companies caused to motorists. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, as the AA says, if there were an independent appeals process, a scrutiny oversight board and limits on what could go to court—as set out in the code of practice—the amount of time that courts spend on sorting out disputes could be massively reduced?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for all the work that she did on this—I am sure that the people in her area were grateful for it too. There is evidence of private parking appeals processes being unfair to motorists and insufficiently independent. It is important that motorists have confidence in the appeals process and that it is genuinely independent from the private parking industry. If motorists cannot trust the appeals process, they will be less inclined to engage with it. That could lead to worse outcomes for motorists. We will seek to further understand motorists’ concerns about the appeals process, and we are certainly looking at some of the ideas that my noble friend mentioned.
Denial of Banking Services: UK Defence Sector
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in reforming environmental, social, and governance rules to ensure that they are not used by financial institutions to deny banking services, including loans, to the UK defence sector.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have been clear that there is nothing contradictory between ESG considerations and defence. No company should ever be denied access to financial services solely on the basis that they work in the defence sector. The Government are working closely with the defence sector and financial services to identify the extent of this issue, to reduce barriers to essential banking services and to support a resilient defence industry.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, and somewhat reassured. However, there is still evidence—plenty, in fact—of the threat of debanking faced by SMEs in this sector because of an absurdly overzealous interpretation of ESG considerations. The Government’s defence commitments are welcome, but private capital will of course be necessary to deliver those. Can the Government commit now to bringing ESG rating agencies within the regulatory perimeter, which will force greater transparency? Will they also take a leading role in underlining the desirability of investment in defence and national security, such as by using the National Wealth Fund and encouraging local government pension funds and other public investment vehicles to allocate funds to the sector? While they are at it, can they perhaps also remind the banks that defending the nation is profoundly ethical?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Question, and I am happy to say that to all three of his supplementary questions the answer is yes. I agree with a lot of what he says. Access to finance is a significant issue for defence SMEs, and as a result it will be one of the key considerations for the forthcoming defence industrial strategy. It is not entirely clear-cut that all those access to finance issues are a result of ESG considerations; there are many more, and it is quite a complex picture. As for the noble Lord’s three questions, we recognise that the ESG market has developed quickly and without formal oversight, leading to some stakeholders raising significant concerns. To address those concerns, the Government will lay secondary legislation later this year to bring ESG ratings providers into regulation so that they are subject to rules set by the FCA. We have also set defence as one of the priority sectors that we want the National Wealth Fund to invest in—I think that was the noble Lord’s second question. Finally, we are working closely with the banking sector to make sure that it understands the importance of the defence sector to the economy.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, apart from ESG questions, there are wider questions about investment in defence companies. I declare an interest as an academic. Obviously, often it is students, and some of my colleagues as academics, who may think that the defence sector is not suitable to invest in, just as they are not keen to invest in tobacco or oil. What can His Majesty’s Government do to help launch the national conversation that the strategic defence review says we need to help people, not just the banks but other investors, understand that we need to work with defence companies, because the defence of the realm is the most important duty of the state?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I was not quite sure where the noble Baroness’s question was going, but I definitely agree with where it ended up. The Government have made it absolutely clear that we consider defence an ethical investment. We do not see a conflict between sustainable investment and investment in our world-leading defence sector. At the end of the day, it is not for the Government to tell investors what they can and cannot invest in, but at a time of increasing geopolitical instability, supporting the defence sector has never been more critical.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps I may ask a supplementary to the excellent Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, based on the experience of an entrepreneur and inward investor who plans to build a much-needed factory in the United Kingdom to manufacture weapons-grade ammunition and who has been refused access to banking facilities, because of the defence nature of his proposal, by one of our leading banks. As the strategic defence review makes clear, one criterion for success over the next few years will lie in the number, scale and diversity of defence and dual-use technology companies in the UK. The review also emphasises the need for a whole-of-society approach to defence. With that in mind, does the Minister agree that we must ensure that banking facilities are more readily available beyond the historic primes to defence companies, particularly those which aspire to be, or are, suppliers to the UK Government, and that our procurement should support SMEs to do just that?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his question, and I agree with everything he said. The Government have been clear that no company should ever be denied access to financial services solely on the basis that they work in the defence sector, and the banking sector should never take a blanket approach to any one sector. I very much recognise the story that my noble friend tells, and that SMEs face unique challenges working in the defence sector, compared with larger, more established suppliers, including in accessing financial services, as the noble Lord said in his original Question. As my noble friend said, they face difficulties opening bank accounts and an increased risk of sudden bank account closure, as well as higher costs of borrowing and access to capital, and they often face a higher compliance burden. That is why we have set out that supporting and unlocking the full potential of SMEs will be a key consideration of the forthcoming defence industrial strategy.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it sounds as though the Government are well aware that this is a fairly widespread practice, particularly among the larger lending banks. What advice have they therefore given to the banks about defining what the defence sector is? The defence sector, of course, through its supply chains, affects the vast bulk of British industry, so it is important that they define it in a sensible way.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not think any specific guidance has been given in the way that the noble Lord asks, but the most important thing to say here is that the banking sector should never take a blanket approach to any one sector. Of course, the decision as to what banking services to offer is ultimately a commercial decision but, as I said, banks should not take a blanket approach and they should make sure that decisions are taken on a case-by-case basis. The Government are actively engaging with banks to ensure that they understand the importance of the defence sector. The FCA has worked to understand why banks might close or reject accounts, and where it has found areas where firms need to improve customer outcomes, the Government expect them to consider the FCA’s findings and take them very seriously.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is this another case of a regulator letting the British public down? Should we not press the regulators to do the job that they are supposed to do, and if they do not do it, remove them?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
No, I disagree with my noble friend on that point. As I said before, the ESG market has developed quickly and without formal oversight, so it is the responsibility of government to make sure that that sector is brought under the scope of regulation. As I have said, we will lay secondary legislation later this year to bring ESG ratings providers into regulation so that they will be subject to the rules set by the FCA. Once that legislation is passed, the FCA will consult on regulatory requirements for ESG ratings providers.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has said that it is not for the Government to tell banks to whom they should lend and in what they should invest, but it seems to me that the banks, particularly the large banks, are never slow to beg for public money when they get themselves into trouble. Should the Government not make it clear to those banks that they have a moral obligation to help to defend the public on whose money they depend in times of difficulty?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree very much with what the noble and gallant Lord says. The Government have made it very clear that we consider defence an ethical investment. We do not see a conflict between sustainable investment and investment in our world-leading defence sector.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, defence is a vital requirement of our nation; I think we are all agreed on that. There have been many bad examples, which is why we are debating this today. Does the Minister agree that it is preposterous, unpatriotic and concerning that investment in our defence sector—for example, by certain pension funds or others prioritising ethical investment—should be actively discouraged by those purporting to favour a sustainable approach to investment? This needs to change.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness. As I said previously, the Government have made it very clear that we consider defence an ethical investment. We do not see a conflict between sustainable investment and investment in our world-leading defence sector, and at a time of increasing geopolitical instability, supporting the defence sector has never been more critical.
Young Children: Convenience Foods
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the nutritional content, labelling and promotion of convenience foods aimed at very young children, including fruit pouches and snacks.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, good nutrition is essential to our goal of raising the healthiest generation of children. Foods for infants and young children have to meet regulations on nutrition, composition and labelling standards. More widely, we are committed to tackling the child obesity crisis and government actions, including the junk food advertising ban, demonstrate the scale of our ambition in this area.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I echo the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, “Oh dear”, because this issue is not new. In 2019, Public Health England drew attention to the fact that these products contain free sugars, they are not advised by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition for these young children and they are very misleadingly labelled. Every time the Government respond to this, they do what the Minister has just done and say that there are very good regulations about nutritional content and regulation. But does the Minister agree that regulations are only as good as their enforcement, and these are not being enforced? So, when the Government have their many conversations with the food industry, will they please get a grip and stop these companies producing products that are making our children obese, with rotting teeth?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I hope the noble Baroness will be pleased to know that I recognise the view she states. I realise that this has gone on for some time and I am grateful for her work in this area, including through chairing the Lords committee that produced a very helpful report. I recognise that the current situation is not good enough.
On the matter of food regulations and enforcement, it is the responsibility of local authorities in England to enforce legislation where breaches are suspected. Local authorities will liaise with businesses to clarify and, if necessary, agree the action to put it right. It is indeed the responsibility of individual businesses to ensure that they comply with the law, and I assure the noble Baroness that that is a matter we will continue to press, as well as keeping those food regulations under review.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, even natural and additive-free food pouches are processed by heating and blending for shelf life and a texture suitable for babies. Cooking from scratch is increasingly rare, but particularly important when incomes are low. This basic but valuable skill should be included in all Start for Life infant feeding programmes, as baby food, home-blended from nutritious, pre-spiced, pre-salted adult food is of little cost to families. I ask the Minister: are family hubs being encouraged to help parents learn how to cook?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I definitely understand where the noble Lord is coming from and also share the view about where he wishes to get to on this. Cooking lessons have not been specifically included in the programme, as I believe he may be aware, but the Start for Life website and email programme has advice for parents and carers, including healthy recipes and videos on weaning babies and feeding toddlers, and that has recently been updated.
I hope the noble Lord will welcome the fact that the family hubs and the Start for Life programme are central to the Government’s ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children. That is why we are investing approximately £57 million this year, including £18.5 million for infant feeding support.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, one area that goes under the radar is sponsorship of big sports events. The Olympics has Coca Cola and McDonald’s; many other Olympic sports have things such as Monster. In particular, rugby has Red Bull. The recommended daily allowance of sugar for a child is a maximum of 24 grams. A single can of Red Bull contains not only coffee but 27 grams of sugar. It is completely anti-health, yet we allow these adverts to be all over our televisions. Some 25 years ago, the noble Baroness’s Government took the brave decision to take all cigarettes off any sporting activity. Will this Government think about doing the same for soft drinks that actually make children ill, not healthy?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the noble Baroness is aware, we continue to support the levy on sugar in drinks. That has actually had success, not least with reformulation. On the point about advertising to which the noble Baroness referred, as I have said, we are committed to bringing in the advertising ban, which will be in place in January. Indeed, industry—TV and online advertising—has already agreed to implement what will be in the regulations earlier than that.
Marketing sponsorship is a much broader point, but again it is one we take very seriously and continue to keep our eye on. I cannot give the noble Baroness the reassurance she seeks today, but I can assure her how seriously we take the impact of advertising and branding and who it is aimed at, particularly where we seek to support better health for infants and young people.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s review of the so-called “fizzy tax” and the consultation that will end in July. Could the Minister tell me whether this extends to and covers these pouches, which are very heavy in sugar? If not, can a review take place to try to apply the same principles we have applied on the fizzy tax to the pouches?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
On the matter of new taxation, my noble friend will understand that it is above my pay grade and outside my department. However, we have worked closely with industry in this area. On the matter of pouches, there is already advice that parents should ensure, where children and infants are using them, that it would be better to use the contents through spoons, rather than the item at the end of the pouch, in order to help guard against dental decay. In working with industry, some brands are already taking action to improve their baby food products: for example, the amount of sugar in Heinz creamy rice pudding has been reduced by more than half and Heinz has changed its labelling, which now says pouches are suitable for those aged six months-plus. This is an example of the work we can do. Yes, we have to do more and I am very aware of the danger that sugar represents to the youngest in our community.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, when there are concerns about nutritional content, there are three, perhaps more, possible approaches. First, you could ban the product, although prohibition does not always work. Secondly, you could try nudging consumers towards healthier choices—maybe by taxation or restrictions. Thirdly, you could work with local community organisations. In addition to family hubs and Start for Life, many local community non-state civil society organisations work with local families to help them cook and eat healthily together as a family. Given what has been mentioned already, will the Minister tell us what work the Government are doing with such local community organisations, apart from Start for Life and family hubs, to make sure that civil society is playing its role in educating our children?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
On the three ways forward that the noble Lord identified, the approach often has to be a mix of all three. It is the balance that is the point under debate, and it has to be informed by evidence. I certainly share the noble Lord’s view about the importance of civil society and working with community groups. Indeed, my department, but also the Department for Education and other departments, have worked closely with community groups in order to advance the policies and practices we need to improve the health of the youngest in our communities.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition recommends that free sugars are limited for babies and toddlers, yet it reported that our children have excess sugars and 20% comes from snacks aimed at young children. How do the Government plan to ensure that manufacturers are taking actions that do not directly contribute to childhood obesity?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Further to my answer to the last question, we are taking a multifaceted approach. The advice that we give to parents and carers is important, because the noble Lord raises a very important point about not overusing snacks. Although the regulations are roughly the same across the UK and the EU, in the UK we recommend that six months is the point of weaning, whereas across the EU it is four months. So there is some lack of clarity, although we are very clear about where snacks are not needed, which is up to the point of 12 months. We work to ensure not only that people have regulations for protection but that parents and carers are aware of what they should do in terms of providing a healthy and balanced diet for their children.
Gaza: Humanitarian Aid
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, we are in regular contact with European Union partners and the US. The Foreign Secretary most recently raised the situation in Gaza with EU High Representative Kallas on 19 May, and last spoke to US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on 11 May. The new EU-UK Security and Defence Partnership will enable stronger dialogue and co-operation on a range of issues, including the Middle East.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, that is helpful. Does my noble friend agree that the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is failing to meet the desperate needs of the people in Gaza, who are endangering their own lives as they seek to get water and food? Is not the only answer that Israel must be compelled to open up to the United Nations and humanitarian agencies? Will the Government seek to mobilise our friends and partners to achieve that?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, we and others predicted that the scheme that Israel decided to implement to get aid into Gaza would fail—and the manner in which it would fail. We are deeply saddened by what we are seeing and to receive the information coming out of Gaza about the failure of that scheme. The only way to get aid in at scale that we can currently see is to allow the UN and partners to deliver the aid where it is needed, at the speed and scale needed to save lives.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, first, I condemn the demonstration taking place outside Parliament as we speak. Of course, people have a legitimate right to protest, but there are reports of Members being jostled, questioned and having cameras shoved in their faces. One Member reported having water thrown over them. Intimidating Members and obstructing access to the House are unacceptable, and I hope that the authorities will take note.
The Colonna report was commissioned by the UN in 2024 following the revelations that UNRWA staff members participated in the 7 October attacks. The report made 50 recommendations to UNRWA. The current Government lifted the suspension on funding for UNRWA that we had put in place, despite its involvement in those attacks. Can the Minister tell me how many of those 50 recommendations have been implemented?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, there was a problem with UNRWA. The Colonna report tells us that steps have been taken by UNRWA to deal with that. I am not standing here to have an argument with the noble Lord about UNRWA or any of the things that have happened in the past. What matters today is that we get aid into Gaza, where children are dying through lack of food—that is what is happening. If Israel, or anybody else, can find a better way to get that aid where it is needed without the guns and violence that we are seeing, and without people being killed when going to get aid, let us have a conversation about that. There is no other credible way to get that aid where it is needed at the speed needed, and that is the focus of this Government.
Lord Fowler (CB)
My Lords, surely the only way of reaching some agreement on the size of the humanitarian disaster in Gaza is by allowing in the international press and television. They can report on what is actually happening there, as opposed to putting and leaving it in the hands of the public relations people. Should that not be one of the first priorities of the Government in their international discussions?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Our first priority, as I have made very clear, is to get food to the people who are starving. The noble Lord is right that that is not being helped by the inability of journalists to report accurately what is happening in Gaza. I do not know the precise reasons the Israeli Government have for not permitting journalists to do their job. I know that there are journalists who, despite the undoubtedly enormous risk to themselves, would be willing to undertake that task. It would be far preferable for us to have accurate reporting.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the unconscionable humanitarian crisis has been compounded by the deadly weaponisation of aid delivery. Does the Minister agree with me that the UK should argue that the use of mercenaries in the distribution of aid should be halted immediately and that there should be designated humanitarian corridors involving Palestinian Authority civilian police, which the UK has trained? They need to be put in place this week, literally to save lives.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, there are trucks of aid and professionals with the ability to get that aid where it needs to go, without the use of violence and at speed. Whether or not that is done through corridors, as the noble Lord suggested, I would leave to the judgment of those people on the ground, whom I have met; they are able to do that task and to do it very quickly. He is absolutely right that what is happening now is unconscionable and is failing. It is leading to a huge amount of distress and will lead, unless something is done quickly, to further death. All we can do is make our position clear, publicly and privately, to the Israeli Government. They have made a choice about this: this is not a natural disaster; this is a decision being made to prevent the adequate distribution of aid. We disagree with it, and we believe that the position should change.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my declaration in the register of interests. I have recently returned from a visit to Israel last week that was organised and paid for by Conservative Friends of Israel, where we were able to look at the impact of the events of 7 October, which is, of course, the context in which all this is taking place, and have a briefing about aid. The Israeli Government have wanted to move to a new model because under the previous model Hamas intercepted significant quantities of aid, used that aid to control the Gazan population and to sell it to raise money for weapons? Can she set out what the British Government are able to do, given their experience in humanitarian relief, to assist the Israeli Government in ensuring that aid gets to the people of Gaza but without funding Hamas terrorist atrocities?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
What happened to Israel on 7 October was a devastating attack of terrorism. Israel has every right to defend itself, and we have said this consistently. Israel is a friend and an ally. We have close links with the people of Israel and they should grow in the coming months and years. But what is happening now is wrong. The withdrawal and blockade of aid, and the inability of people to get that aid where it is needed straightaway, because of a choice being made by a Government, is wrong. The noble Lord is right to remind us about what happened on 7 October, and we are all right to hold in our hearts and minds the plight of those hostages still being held. But that does not make it right to withhold food from hungry children.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I too declare an interest, having just returned from Israel/Palestine last week. As we talk about humanitarian aid, does the Minister agree that the horrors we are now seeing in Gaza cannot and should not be separated from the tensions and conflicts in the West Bank, and that what we are seeing across the whole of the Occupied Palestinian Territories of Gaza, east Jerusalem and the West Bank are all part of one and the same thing —a diminishing of human dignity and equality, a dispossession of land and identity, and a violation by the Israeli Government of the right of Palestinian people to self-determination?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I was in Ramallah in the West Bank myself a couple of weeks ago and I spoke to families who have been forced to move. It is right that we are reminded that we cannot just separate what is happening in Gaza and in the West Bank. It is the same Government undertaking all of this. What struck me, from the conversations I had, was the level of fear that there is in all communities in Israel and the West Bank. It is important that, inasmuch as we can, the UK uses its ability to influence, to try to work alongside the US, Egypt and Qatar to try to get some kind of negotiated settlement here so that there can be a ceasefire, the hostages can be released and we can get the aid where it is needed.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, as usual, these exchanges are, rightly, reasonably calm and measured but they do not get close to the horrors that we see on our television screens, on news bulletins, night after night, with one horror overtaking another—the latest, of course, seeing starving people herded into the south of Israel and food supplies being used as a weapon of war. One report last week encapsulated it all: a mother, a doctor at a hospital in the south of Gaza, losing nine of her 10 children in an air strike. They were aged from six months to 10 years. I do not know what the right language is to describe this, whether it is carpet bombing, genocide or whatever, but I do know that it is evil—and I would love to hear my noble friend and my Government describe it in precisely those terms.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
If I am learning one thing about this job, it is that you can use whatever words and make whatever statements you like, and it has some effect—it is galvanising and it is important that the people of our country know where their Government stand and that we work with our partners and allies internationally to make clear the position of the United Kingdom—but what happens next lies squarely in the hands of quite a small group of people in the Israeli Government. I would have hoped that the statements that have been made and the information we now have coming out of Gaza would have led to a change in position, because the scheme they have come up with is clearly failing. It is going to lead to more death, starvation and desperation in that community and, ultimately, more violence. We need to get everybody we can around a table so that the dialogue can begin again and we can get the cease- fire that we so desperately want to see.
Alaa Abd el-Fattah
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask His Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to secure the release from prison in Egypt of British citizen Alaa Abd elFattah, in light of the condition of his mother, Laila Soueif, who is at risk of death as a result of her ongoing hunger strike in protest at her son’s detention.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his Question. Both and I and the Foreign Secretary were deeply concerned at Laila Soueif’s hospitalisation on Thursday. Certainly, our officials are in regular contact with the family. The Prime Minister had met Laila only on 14 February. The Foreign Secretary raised the case on 1 June with the Egyptian Foreign Minister, and the Minister for the Middle East raised it with the Egyptian ambassador on 31 May. I assure the noble Lord that the Egyptian Government are fully aware of the importance we attach to Mr el-Fattah’s case, and we will continue to press for an urgent resolution.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with the courageous Dr Soueif, who lies gravely in hospital as a result of the incredibly brave stand she is taking to secure the release of her son, whose detention in Egypt has been found by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention to be in breach of international law.
I thank the Minister and the Government for all they are doing to secure his release. The Prime Minister’s direct intervention with President Sisi is very welcome, but given the extreme urgency of this tragic situation and the ongoing, deliberate violation of the UK’s consular rights, is it not clear that words are no longer sufficient? Will the Government now consider further concrete measures, including targeted sanctions, revising FCO travel guidance relating to Egypt, and proceedings in the International Court of Justice to secure the immediate release of Alaa Abd elFattah and bring comfort to his mother in what may be her final hours?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord says, but our absolute priority remains securing Mr el-Fattah’s urgent release and engaging the highest levels of the Egyptian Government. The Government judge that the best way to achieve this is engagement with the Egyptian Government at a bilateral level. We approach this case based on its individual merits and specific political context, but I reassure the noble Lord that we take this urgent matter seriously. We are in constant touch to seek his release in the very near future.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself with what the noble Lord said about Mr el-Fattah’s family, his mother and, of course, his own safety. This is an illegal detention, as defined by the United Nations, and we consider the refusal of consular access to be a breach of international humanitarian law. I appreciate the diplomatic representations that have been made at the highest levels, including by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister, but does the Minister agree that the situation is now so urgent that it requires concrete action? That could be done in two areas. First, travel advice for British citizens going to Egypt could be updated urgently to say that it is not safe to travel to Cairo, given that British citizens could be treated in such a way. Secondly, just a year ago, the UK-Egypt development partnership was agreed by the previous Administration. Surely the Government should signal that that partnership agreement must be paused to enable a swift response and the release of Mr el-Fattah?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
All these matters are a judgment call, and it is certainly the Government’s judgment at this stage that the best approach to secure the urgent release of Mr el-Fattah is that bilateral contact at the highest possible levels. We have been consistent in our support for Mr el-Fattah and his family. Of course, the Egyptian authorities do not recognise his British nationality and see him only as an Egyptian national, and our consular staff have therefore been unable to visit him in prison, but they are in regular contact with him through his lawyer and his family. I repeat that, at this stage, we are absolutely committed to that bilateral contact in order to see the urgent release of Mr el-Fattah.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I stood with the daughter of Dr Soueif outside St Thomas’s yesterday. There were a lot of journalists there. The call was mainly because of the extreme urgency of the situation and the fact that it appears to be President Sisi’s own personal obsession to keep the young man in prison. Really, our contacts should be not only at the diplomatic level, but with our Prime Minister to the President, and with the Prime Ministers and the Presidents of our allies, such as President Macron, who also has a relationship with the Egyptian Government. Is it not imperative to find out what the real reason is for keeping Alaa in prison—is it his influence on the young people of Egypt?—so that the right trigger can be used to persuade President Sisi to let him out before his mother dies, which is possibly a matter of days?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I share my noble friend’s concern about the condition of Laila. We are very, very concerned, and we remain in constant touch with the family about her condition. Let me just remind my noble friend what I have told the House. The Prime Minister raised Mr el-Fattah’s case with Egyptian President Sisi on 22 May, and previously wrote to President Sisi on 4 May. The Foreign Secretary has also discussed Mr el-Fattah’s case with the Egyptian Foreign Minister on a number of occasions and spoke again on 1 June to press the urgency of the situation. Minister Falconer has certainly discussed this case multiple times with the Foreign Minister of Egypt, most recently on 25 May, and with the ambassador on 31 May. The National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, raised Mr el-Fattah’s case in a phone call with the Foreign Minister on 27 April. Let me reassure the House that we are absolutely determined to ensure that Mr el-Fattah is released, and we are maintaining that contact at the very highest levels.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, all sides of the House are, I think, united on the point that Mr el-Fattah’s continued detention in Egypt is an incredibly serious matter. As my noble friend said, the UN has concluded that he is being held arbitrarily by the Egyptian authorities and should therefore be released immediately under international law, which the Egyptian Government are breaking. The UN panel set a six-month deadline for the authorities to release Mr el-Fattah and investigate the violation of his rights. Can the Minister please update the House on what the Government plan to do if that six-month deadline is allowed to elapse with no change in the situation?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
On the UN decision, it is for Egypt, as the state detaining Alaa, to respond to the recommendations of the working group, which does not have the same sort of legal status. We take the working group’s findings absolutely seriously, which is why we have been consistent in calling for Alaa’s release. I repeat that the Egyptian authorities have to respond to that working group’s report. As far as we are concerned, we are determined to follow our bilateral approach at the highest possible levels to make the strongest possible case.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, given that the mother, Laila, is in hospital and could die this week, is it not time to do something more than talk?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I do not know what the noble Baroness would suggest. This is a judgment call. It is my absolute, sincere hope—shared by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—that we can support Alaa’s mother, Laila, and ensure that she is safe. We are going to do that at the highest possible levels, by working with the Egyptian authorities and conveying our strong message to seek his urgent release. It is a judgment call and, at this stage, I think that we are making the right judgment.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, I do not want in any way to underestimate the importance of the bilateral efforts that the Government are making and that the Prime Minister has personally made, but, surely, given the strategic importance of Egypt to the United States and the significant aid from the United States that supports Egypt and its military, the Prime Minister’s strong relationship with President Trump should be leveraged to try to get justice in this case.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we should use all possible avenues to amplify our bilateral call, and we are certainly working with allies to do that. At this stage of the game, it is really important that we focus on our specific call.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
My Lords, can we hear from the noble Baroness, please?
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as a mother, my heart goes out to the mother of Alaa Abd el-Fattah, Laila Soueif. I cannot imagine the pain that she and her family are going through. Given that the Egyptian Parliament is about to go into recess for Eid and that there may be little extra chance to have the time to negotiate bilaterally, would not some extra pressure give more comfort to the family? Given the bilateral talks that have been had at the highest level, are there any signs of progress at all that can give any such comfort?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I repeat to the noble Baroness that these things are a judgement call. I reassure her and the House that we have kept the family constantly informed of our efforts, and certainly we will continue to do so. It is our hope and determination to see his early release.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former co-chair of the APPG on Egypt. What grounds do the Egyptian Government give for refusing diplomatic access to Mr el-Fattah, whether it be from the embassy or consular, while he has been in prison? Has the Foreign Office assembled, found or heard any information that has satisfied it as to whether there has been any ill-treatment of Mr el-Fattah while he has been in prison?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hope I have reassured the House that, while the Egyptian authorities do not recognise his British nationality and therefore our consular staff have not been able to see him in prison, we have remained in constant touch with his lawyer and his family, and through his lawyer we are able to determine his current status. The important thing that we have done to support the family is keeping them informed of what we are doing, while focusing very strongly on the highest level of bilateral relations.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, has the Minister reflected at all on the incredibly cruel, inhumane and squalid conditions in the Bab al-Khalq prison? What representations has the embassy made to the Egyptian authorities? Can the Minister repeat the point about access? It is incredibly important that he is visited in prison by our officials, so that they can see for themselves these truly appalling conditions.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I reassure the noble Lord that we have asked for access, which the Egyptian authorities have so far refused, but we have been in constant touch with his lawyer. The noble Lord is right about some of the conditions, but we are absolutely determined to ensure that he remains safe. We have made that case very strongly when seeking his urgent release—but we remain concerned. I must stress that, when I heard Laila on the radio, I thought her determination, at whatever cost, to see the release of her son has to be greatly admired and respected.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I remember some years ago meeting President Sisi and being struck at that time by the very close relationship which the Egyptians, in personal and commercial terms, have with the Saudi Arabians. Might it be a good idea if we could, through diplomatic channels, encourage our representations in Riyadh to help us over this issue?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear what the noble Lord says, and I responded to a previous question on this. Of course, we make sure all our allies are very much aware of our position and our call on the Egyptian authorities. At the end of the day, what will secure Mr el-Fattah’s release is that bilateral relationship and that bilateral call. It is a difficult judgement call, but we have kept the family informed, and it is very much our hope to ensure that he is released as early as possible.
Health and Social Care Information Standards (Procedure) Regulations 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25 March be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 May.
Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 4th June 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberStatutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 14-I Marshalled list for Committee - (12 Mar 2025)
School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, on 6 February this year, in response to an Oral Question about teacher recruitment, the noble Baroness the Minister stated:
“We are committed to recruiting an additional 6,500 new expert teachers across our schools, both mainstream and specialist, and our colleges over the course of this Parliament”.—[Official Report, 6/2/25; col. 797.]
However, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the recent pay award has left a £400 million funding gap that schools will need to fill, which equates to the salaries of about 6,000 teachers. A recent survey from the National Association of Head Teachers showed that 46% of heads said that they would have to cut either teaching hours or the number of teachers, and 80% said that they would cut teaching assistants or their hours. I wonder whether the Minister could update the House on what the Government’s revised forecast is for the number of additional teachers they will recruit—that is, net of those redundancies and retirements—over the course of the Parliament. My maths suggests that it will be close to zero.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, on 22 May we were able to announce that this Government will fulfil the recommendations of the School Teachers’ Review Body and award a 4% pay increase to our teachers. Alongside that, we were able to announce an additional £615 million to fund that pay increase. That, alongside last year’s acceptance of the STRB’s recommendations, means that, while this Government have been in office, teachers have received a pay increase of nearly 10%. That is a fundamentally important contribution to retaining teachers in our classrooms and recruiting new teachers to be able to meet our 6,500 extra specialist teachers during this Parliament.
Noble Lords opposite, while asking legitimate questions, might like to reflect on the fact that, when we arrived in government, we found on the desks of the DfE the STRB’s recommendations from last year that their Government had run away from implementing. Since this Government have been in office, given the action we have taken not only on pay but on other provisions, we have seen an increase of 2,000 students starting teacher training. We estimate that the actions we have taken will ensure that an additional 2,500 teachers will be retained in the workforce over and above what would have happened had the previous Government continued their action towards teachers.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we welcome the Government’s acceptance in full of the School Teachers’ Review Body and the additional resources provided. However, there is a financial impact on schools having to implement the pay rises from their existing budgets. Given that half the schools are already considering staff cuts, and 45% of secondary head teachers are using pupil premium funding to fill budget gaps, can the Minister clarify the efficiencies the Government believe are still available to be found within existing school budgets?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that we have inherited a situation where school budgets are stretched. That is why we have already made available an additional £2.3 billion for the core schools budget in the October 2024 Budget, of which £1 billion was for high needs. We have also made available, on top of that, £930 million to support schools with the cost of the national insurance contributions increase in March 2025. There is also, as I have already said, £615 million for the 2025 pay awards. That means that, while this Government have been in power, we have seen the core schools budget increase from £61.6 billion to £65.3 billion.
There will be productivity challenges for schools and the Government have been clear that, as with other parts of the public sector, we will look to support schools in finding 1% of efficiencies to contribute to the ability to pay the pay award. That is alongside considerable funding support; considerable additional funding, on top of the efficiencies, to fund the pay award; and work that the department is doing with schools to help them find those efficiencies. That is a responsible way to balance the need for teachers—who are the most important in-school determinant of children’s success—in our classrooms with our responsibility to the taxpayer to ensure that public money is spent as effectively as possible.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, as a working teacher, I say thanks very much for the 10%—it is very gratefully received. It occurred to me a few days ago that the Government seem to presume that nowadays everybody leaves university, trains to be a teacher and stays a teacher for the rest of their lives. That is just not happening. The way working patterns are now, people change professions after 10 years. Is that built into the model of recruiting now—that people last only, say, 10 years and move on, and that we can get people who have been in other jobs and recruit them into this very fine profession?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. There are of course people who enter the teaching profession, teach for 10 years, and then leave to become Members of Parliament and Ministers. I am probably too old now to ever countenance going back into the classroom, but the noble Lord makes an important point about how we attract people into the profession at a later age.
That requires, for example, some of the flexibilities we have introduced through the postgraduate apprenticeship route into teaching. It also means that you have to make teaching an attractive profession for people to enter at any age and, importantly, to stay in. That is why we are—through the targeted retention incentives, the bursaries we are offering for specialist subjects, the action we are taking on supporting teachers on the considerable workload they face and the action we are taking to ensure that technology can support teachers in doing the face-to-face work in the classroom that makes all the difference—helping to recruit teachers at the beginning of their careers and teachers who are perhaps coming from other areas and, most importantly, to retain the excellent teachers that we have.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Will the Minister say something about where the 1% efficiency savings in schools might be found?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Yes, they might be found by, for example, schools being able to take the opportunity of the national energy contract that the DfE has entered into. We have already seen that schools that take part in that save considerable amounts of money. They might be found in other ways by thinking about the procurement that schools are doing. To emphasise the point I made earlier, we are not asking schools to do this alone, not least given the enormous pressures that we know there are on head teachers; we are standing alongside schools to support them with a wide range of advice and practical things, such as the energy contract, to be able to achieve this.
It is not unreasonable, at a time when we are asking organisations across the public sector to find efficiencies, that a small part of the contribution to the teachers’ pay award should come from efficiency. On top of that, of course, is the considerable investment of £615 million that this Government are making in teachers through the teachers’ pay award.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the Minister mentioned bursaries, but art and design and music lag a long way behind science subjects. Do the Government have any intention of increasing those? Science subjects get a considerably higher amount of bursaries than art and design and music do.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
This pay award means that all teachers will now be receiving about a 10% increase, which this Government have been able to deliver. When we are then thinking about specific bursaries and retention incentives, we need to think about those areas where there have been particular difficulties with recruitment as well as those areas that are particularly important for delivering on the Government’s growth objectives. That has been the thinking behind where those additional incentives have gone. However, I reiterate that the basic pay for teachers now means that median or average pay for a teacher is now over £50,000, which strikes me as being the sort of amount of money that we should be willing to provide for those people who are making such a fundamental—the most important—difference in school to our children’s futures.
Thames Water
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, these Benches attempted to amend the Water (Special Measures) Act to protect consumers from bearing any costs associated with a special administration regime, but this was rejected by this Government. Will the Minister commit today that consumers will not be made to pay any SAR-related costs, and that under no circumstances will the Government take responsibility for repaying the rumoured £20 billion of Thames Water debt? I should also declare an interest that one of my daughters works at a firm named in the press as a bondholder.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government do not have any intention for consumers to pay towards this. We do not see that consumer bills need to go up to cover these debts. It is not for consumers to pay for the mistakes and poor behaviour of the water companies. In response to the second question, within the regime, we will look at it in detail, but it is, again, not our intention for the water companies to basically get away with it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, we are already paying more for our water because Thames Water has put up our bills. I declare an interest as a Thames Water bill-payer. How much higher are our bills going to go before the Government actually accept that they have to put public ownership before private profit?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One of the reasons that bills are going up—not just for Thames Water customers but for other consumers—is the lack of investment for years and years by the water companies in infrastructure, which is why we have so many problems with pollution, for example. While it is not something that the Government want to see continue—we do not want to see consumer bills going up unnecessarily—it is important that, with the PR24 settlement that was made, that money goes directly into investment, which is why we are stopping dividends and unnecessary bonuses being paid.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the creditors who have heaped billions in debt on to the company should now pay to sort this mess out, possibly through a well-planned administration process and a swift exit, after which the company should be mutually owned by the 16 million customers? Do the Government now have plans ready and in place for Thames Water to be brought into special administration? What plans do the Government have for a new operating model for water companies to work for the public benefit?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Any future operating model will be part of Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review that is currently taking place—I am sure the noble Baroness will be aware that the interim report is out. That will be part of the work being carried out by Sir Jon and others.
The big issue is that fundamentally this a private company. It for the company to solve the issues of financial resilience. It is not for us to tell a private company how to manage its finances. That is really important. But, having said that, we have to be prepared for all eventualities across regulated industries and Thames Water has clearly had some pretty serious problems. If it comes to a SAR, creditors cannot ask the debt to be repaid during that special administration regime. If it did come to that, there is a moratorium on legal proceedings during a SAR and that would take away the creditors’ ability to enforce any debt repayments.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, while the Government are dithering about the future of Thames Water, its debt has increased by £3 billion, it is spending £200 million a year on its business advisers and one-third of a customer’s bill basically covers the interest payments. Is it not time that the Government recognise that privatisation has failed and that the only way of giving the water industry firm footing is through public ownership?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I have said previously, the Government are not going to be renationalising the water companies. The Government are not dithering. This is a private company that has some serious debt problems. It is not for the Government to tell a private company how to manage its finances. If it comes to it, we are prepared to ensure that customers continue to receive high-quality water through their taps, because that is what is really important, and that the systems stay in place.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the interim Cunliffe report was very clear that part of the problem is the short-termism of regulation and the high volatility in returns not being conducive to long-term, low-risk, low-return investors. Will the Government accept whatever the commission proposes in its final report and bring a Bill before this House so we can review the situation in the long term?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Clearly, the report we have in front of us is an interim one, so we are currently looking at it and considering the recommendations. Further work will then be done and as a Government we will then look at those recommendations and work with Sir Jon Cunliffe on how best to move things forward. Clearly, there are some serious structural issues in the way things have been managed and we need to take this very seriously if we are going to sort out the mess that many water companies have found themselves in. That may well result in a further water Bill in the future.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
What lessons are the Government learning from the water sector experience for other regulated industries? As the Minister said, there have been decades of underinvestment. The 1990s European law should have been implemented, and successive Governments, including the last Labour Government, failed to apply the law on proper treatment of sewage. What lessons from poor regulation ought to be applied in other so-called regulated industries?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure that the other regulated industries are watching what is happening in the water industry with great interest. It is important that where our industries are regulated, they are regulated properly, appropriately and for the benefit of the country and consumers. It will be interesting to see the outcomes of the Cunliffe report, particularly regarding Ofwat, the Environment Agency and some of the people who have been responsible for the hands-on regulation. We have some important and interesting decisions to make as we go forward.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that—as many people have said already—the root of the problem at Thames is the level of debt? The fact is that, many years ago, Ofwat allowed Thames Water to increase the level of its own debt beyond any reasonableness. The public have been let down as much by the regulator as by the water companies. I very much hope that the Minister will agree that we need to change the type of regulation that the water companies have to live by.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Duke makes an extremely important point. The Cunliffe report is pretty damning on how the regulators have overseen what has happened. Clearly, it has not been good that water companies, particularly Thames, have been allowed to get into so much debt. We will absolutely be considering these matters very seriously.
Lord Cryer (Lab)
My Lords, I was a London MP for 22 years, and I can say with some conviction that Thames Water was one of the worst and most contemptible organisations I have ever dealt with—and that is up against some pretty stiff competition. Can we scotch this myth that has been put out by Thames Water for years that it has not been paying dividends? It has been paying what are, in effect, dividends to the parent company. Technically they may not be dividends but, in effect, they are. When Thames Water makes these claims, we should call it out for what it is doing: telling lies to the British public.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
It is really important that we have clarity and honesty from our water companies, because there are so many problems. If we are genuinely going to sort this out, we need to have a proper understanding, and there should not be little tricks and ways of paying money—whether through dividends or otherwise—that circumvent what we would consider to be best behaviour.
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 we consider the Commons message on the data Bill, I remind the House again of the importance of applying some discipline to ping-pong. We have now spent 42 hours debating the Bill as a whole, including nearly eight hours on the last three rounds of ping-pong. The remaining issue is well known to Peers and the arguments have been rehearsed at length, so I ask noble Lords to minimise contributions and keep any interventions brief, succinct and to the point. I am grateful in advance to all noble Lords. I have asked the Whips to continue to monitor the situation and intervene if necessary.
Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 4th June 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberData (Use and Access) Act 2025 View all Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 106-I Marshalled List for Consideration of Commons Reason - (4 Jun 2025)
18:03 - Division on Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A) - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 116 - Motion A1 agreed.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 49F, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49G, and do propose Amendments 49H, 49J, 49K, 49L and 49M in lieu of Amendment 49F—
“(e) ways of enforcing requirements and restrictions relating to—
(i) the use of copyright works to develop AI systems, and
(ii) the accessing of copyright works for that purpose (for example, by web crawlers), including enforcement by a regulator.”
“(3A) The consideration and proposals under each of paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (3) must include consideration of, and proposals relating to, AI systems developed outside the United Kingdom.”
49M: After Clause 134, insert the following new Clause—
“Progress statement
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement setting out what progress has been made towards the publication of—
(a) the economic impact assessment required by section (Economic impact assessment), and
(b) the report required by section (Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems).
(2) The duty in subsection (1) does not apply where the economic impact assessment and the report have been published before the end of the period described in that subsection.”
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, in moving Motion A, I will also speak to Motion A1. Following on from colleagues discussing this in the other place yesterday, we are back here again today to debate this issue of AI and copyright. Your Lordships will see on today’s Order Paper amendments from the Government providing legislative underpinning to the commitments I made on Monday. My letter to noble Lords yesterday set out in detail what these amendments do alongside everything else the Government have done to respond to noble Lords’ concerns. I hope this helped to dispel the feeling that the Government are not listening and have not compromised. It also puts beyond any doubt the Government’s views on the issues at hand, especially the issue of transparency.
The solution to these issues is what we have said all along. There is no disagreement with our plan to finish analysing the consultation processes, convene technical working groups, make a Statement to the House on progress, and then bring forward reports setting out our proposals and our economic impact assessment of them. I am glad to make amendments to the Bill to give this plan legislative effect. This is consistent with our approach of hearing concerns, responding to them and moving the Bill forward. I urge noble Lords from across the House to support them.
The only issue on today’s Order Paper with which there is any disagreement is the question of whether the Bill should mandate the future production of a draft Bill, its contents and it going through the pre-legislative scrutiny process. I hope that noble Lords agree with what I put in my letter to them: we cannot, should not and must not prejudge the outcome of these processes. Despite assertions to the contrary, good government does not assume what 11,500 detailed responses to its consultation will say.
Our plan—to consult properly and finish the job, carrying out the processes as now mandated in the Bill and then bringing forward legislation that both Houses of Parliament can have confidence in—is surely the right one. A draft Bill is not a plan to solve the problem. Indeed, it could have the consequence of delaying the very reforms that your Lordships have called for. For these reasons, I hope that noble Lords will support the amendments in my name, but not continue to insist on Amendment 49F today.
Before I finish, I will address the question of double insistence. Today, noble Lords have been presented with a question of whether to go even further than we have come so far during ping-pong and choose whether they want the entire Bill to fall if the Government do not accept the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I sincerely hope that it does not come to this, for it would mean that noble Lords are willing to countenance the unprecedented: trying to collapse a Bill that does nothing to weaken copyright law, but which does deliver many of the elected Government’s manifesto commitments—for example, a data preservation process supporting bereaved parents; new offences for intimate image deepfake abuse; smart data schemes such as open banking that businesses have been crying out for; and a framework for research into online safety.
This would mean that noble Lords are willing to try to collapse a Bill that the elected Government are using to grow the economy by £10 billion, the number one mission from their manifesto and election campaign; that makes vital, uncontroversial and necessary amendments to our national security and policing laws to keep us safe; that will save 140,000 hours of NHS time per year, with the potential to reduce medication errors by 6.8 million and prevent 20 deaths per year; and that the elected House has voted overwhelmingly in favour of four times. I urge noble Lords to choose instead the Government’s plan to solve this issue and vote with the Government today. I beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness Kidron
Leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 49F.”
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I did not expect to be here today. I am disappointed, frustrated and, to be honest, quite sad to be here and to have to make this argument again. I will make just four points and then I will listen to the House and to the Minister.
First, it is not fair, reasonable, just, balanced, or any other such word to stand in the way of the creative industries identifying those who are taking their work and their property. It is not neutral; it is aiding and abetting what we have called in the House “widespread theft”. We have asked, both privately and repeatedly on the Floor of both Houses, what the Government are going to do to stop the work of creatives being stolen right now. The answer is nothing.
Secondly, the Government may be new—ish—but your Lordships’ House is full of people with long political histories. They see time and delay in the consultation, in working groups, and in Statements to Parliament. Inaction is a powerful tool in politics.
In opposition, Labour wrote a manifesto for the creative industries that it took into the election with a raft of promises, including to
“support, maintain and promote the UK’s strong copyright regime”.
The manifesto stated:
“The success of British creative industries to date is thanks in part to our copyright framework”.
Yet we are struggling to get the Government to act on that promise, or to act on that knowledge.
The Government are aware of the stealing, aware of the law, and aware that creative work morally and financially belongs to its creator. The Government are aware that the success of creative industries depends in large part on the copyright regime, and that mass theft is breaking the press, the arts and other IP-rich businesses, and hampering the UK AI community. Inaction is not neutral. It is hurting our community and it is hurting the Government’s future prosperity.
Thirdly, all noble Lords, including me, are concerned about the primacy of the Commons. We are being accused of constitutional wrongdoing. I was very disappointed in the Minister’s opening speech. We are not trying to collapse the Bill. This Bill is a Lords starter. If we vote, we will not be double-insisting. That is entirely, 100%, in the hands of the Commons. Even though we have been here several times—largely because the Commons evoked financial privilege twice, with a very low bar—today is the first time the House would be insisting on any of its amendments. That point has been made by many noble Lords who have been in the House a great deal longer than I have.
If we were to send the Bill back for Commons consideration today, the other place would have three choices. It could choose to accept the amendment, it could choose to replace it with its own amendment in lieu, or it could choose to double-insist—and crash the Bill. I want to make it absolutely clear that, whatever transpires today, I will accept the choice the Government make. This is our last chance to ask the Government to provide a meaningful solution, and it will be in their hands alone to provide one.
Yesterday in the other place, Conservative and Liberal colleagues voted for this amendment enthusiastically, on the basis that it was a minimum that we could ask for—an amendment that the Government told me in advance of our debate that they would overturn. And indeed they did, in 38 minutes. I thank those on the Opposition Benches in the other place, many of whom have written to me this morning expressing support and the hope that noble Lords will, as they say, keep going. I thank colleagues across your Lordships’ House for their eloquent contributions and extraordinary support throughout.
I also thank again Labour colleagues who have sat on their hands and occasionally come through the Lobby with us. I know it is hard, but it is the role of your Lordships’ House to ask the Government to think again, and it is both against convention and a rebuke to the House, a rebuke to the true feelings of their own Back Benchers, a rebuke to a £126 billion industrial sector and a rebuke to the 2.4 million creative workers, to return again and again with no solution to the stealing. Unless this is a tacit deal with big tech, it makes no sense to refuse to take a power just in case, and to refuse to create a timeline or a legislative vehicle for transparency on behalf of our second-biggest industrial sector when it is crying out for our support—the very support that Labour promised.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will very briefly make two points. The first is to perhaps allay some fears that noble colleagues may have about the constitutional propriety of where we find ourselves, and for this, I thank our wonderful Library.
This is a Lords starter Bill—it started in your Lordships’ House. Since 1997, there have been no fewer than 14 Bills which started in the Lords and have gone backwards and forwards for ping-pong three times or more. Of the 14 Bills, two of them got a score of five, one got a score of four and 11 got a score of three, so we are not in virgin or new territory. This is tried and tested and it is what happens when there are fundamental disagreements, and there is nothing unconstitutional about trying to settle a genuine disagreement in a way which gets each side to listen to the other, to acknowledge the other side’s strength of view and to come up with some sort of accommodation which both sides can live with. We are having a problem arriving at that, but we are not in a state of constitutional impropriety. That is the first point that I wish to make.
The second is to emphasise the point my noble friend was making on the urgency of this. I have some sympathy for His Majesty’s Government here. When I spoke briefly on Monday, I tried to indicate the background and the dilemma that our Government find themselves in, and I have a lot of sympathy for that.
Under the previous Government, noble Lords may recall that our penultimate Prime Minister was a great fan of AI and made great play of trying to attract interest in AI, positioning the United Kingdom as potentially a major base of the AI sector outside the United States. The new Government have continued that theme and recognised AI as a core element in one of their many missions for growth. However, if we look at where the United States is coming from, we see that its position is very clear, and it is deeply uncomfortable for us. Vice-President Vance said on 11 February at the Artificial Intelligence Action Summit in Paris that
“with the president’s recent executive order on AI, we’re developing an AI Action Plan that avoids an overly precautionary regulatory regime while ensuring that all Americans benefit from the technology and its transformative potential … Now, we invite your countries to work with us and to follow that model if it makes sense for your nations. However, the Trump Administration is troubled by reports that some foreign governments are considering tightening the screws on U.S. tech companies with international footprints. Now, America cannot and will not accept that, and we think it’s a terrible mistake not just for the United States of America but for your own countries”.
What could be clearer than that?
OpenAI, one of the major companies involved in this, says that America needs a global strategy that adopts American AI systems, not anybody else’s, and a copyright strategy that protects
“the rights and interests of content creators”,
and preserves
“American AI models’ ability to learn from copyrighted material”.
After the consultation in this country with our Government, it said:
“The UK has a rare opportunity to cement itself”,
—it makes one think of being in cement under Brooklyn Bridge—
“as the AI capital of Europe by making choices that avoid policy uncertainty, foster innovation, and drive economic growth”,
calling for a broad copyright exemption.
Lastly, Google said that rights holders can already effectively exercise “choice and control”, but suggested those who opt out of AI training would not necessarily have a right to remuneration if they still appeared on a model’s training data—so, basically, “We’ve stolen it, but too bad”. It further said that
“we believe training on the open web must be free”,
and it warned that
“excessive transparency requirements … could hinder AI development and impact the UK’s competitiveness in the space”.
This is the very uncomfortable dilemma we are in. I would welcome transparency from His Majesty’s Government about the fact that we are in an uncomfortable place and that we all need to work together to find a solution that is in the best interests of our country and of our creative sector. We obviously need to come to an accommodation with the United States of America, but on the basis of the last two months since “Freedom Day”, one day after April Fools’ Day, we are in dangerous territory. We just need to be honest with one another.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness on her determination and consistency in promoting this cause. It is very worth while, and, as she said, she is the spokesperson for at least 2.5 million people who constitute the cultural history of our country.
What I find rather extraordinary about this Government is that, within a period of a year, they have sought to turn huge numbers of people sharply against them. First, they turned the pensioners against them, then they turned on the farmers, and now they are turning on the creators of our culture, which are very much larger than the farmers. If this is passed tonight, I am sure it will go to the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, who must begin to wonder, if he is managing to turn all these groups into enemies, how many will support them in 2029 This has political implications.
There is no doubt that the whole cultural world of our country—not just the writers but the composers and painters as well—feels that it would have its livelihood severely limited, if not almost eliminated. Not only does that go for the famous writers such as Ishiguro but last Thursday, Antony Gormley, our leading sculptor —some would say he is a genius—said that it was our duty to defend the moral integrity of creators. I hope that the Minister also believes in what he said about defending the moral integrity of creators. That is what this Bill is about. Once we remove the protection of royalty, we make copying very easy and very quick. If the Bill stands on the statute book like this, it will also enhance criminality, because not only the big four but anybody in their garage in Wolverhampton could ask ChatGPT, or AI, or Microsoft to create a picture by a great painter, and then they could sell it. Only if the painter were alive and said, “Well, I never painted it” would they be able to stop it. When they are dead, anybody can do it. In fact, I think some would do it.
I know the Minister is under pressure from the big American companies, but I draw her attention to comments in the Financial Times this week by someone who is described normally as the godfather of AI, a Canadian called Yoshua Bengio. He says that, at this moment, all sorts of people are experimenting in AI and trying to find a way to accommodate it and protect themselves from it but also benefit from it. He said very clearly that he was scared by recent events,
“because we don’t want to create a competitor to human beings on this planet, especially if they’re smarter than us”.
That is of course the danger of AI, particularly in the creative world. Once the creators have lost control of their royalties, what will they depend on? There is absolutely no doubt that many of them will suffer financially because of this Bill. Last week, as I already mentioned, Antony Gormley—our famous sculptor; some would say he is a genius—said on the “Today” programme that there is a duty to defend the moral dignity of our creators. That is at the heart of the amendments the noble Baroness has tabled.
I hope the Government will therefore consider not only that this is a bad Bill but that it has been done far too quickly. Normally in our legislation, we have consultation before we get to Report, but the Minister says that they are now consulting everywhere on the impacts of this measure. That is entirely the wrong way to behave, and I hope we will send the Bill back to the Commons later tonight.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, as I have often said in this House, I will accept nothing less than a compromise, but it seems that this Government are refusing to act on the wisdom, knowledge and experience of this House. My heart is broken to think that the Government could be so irresponsible and not see the damage being done to our creative industries. I declare my interests as set out in the register.
I will tell the House a personal story about something that happened to me the other day. I was in the supermarket discussing with my husband which apples to buy, when a woman standing nearby said, “I would recognise that voice anywhere. You’re Floella. I’m one of your ‘Play School’ babies”. I smiled, happily posed for a selfie and gave her my autograph. However, it made me realise that my voice is linked to my character and legacy and is also an asset. This is the perfect example of how many people in my creative industry rely on their voices to earn a living.
The deep concern is that AI models could replicate an actor’s or presenter’s voice and distinctive vocal style, almost perfectly, and use it in an advert or voiceover without their knowledge or permission, without payment, and without care or moral conscience—and in such a cavalier fashion. This is why people in the creative industries are so frightened about the consequences of an AI free-for-all where transparency and copyright law are non-existent.
I once again speak in support of the intrepid noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and stand shoulder to shoulder with her to make sure that we keep fighting to prevent the livelihoods of thousands and thousands of people—their lifeblood—being stolen. Yes, it is a shame that we have to be involved in ping-pong in this way, but I do so because, at the end of the day, I cannot face my friends and colleagues in the creative industries knowing that I did not do the right thing and make a stand. I can now look them in the eye and say, like many other noble Lords across this House, “I stood up for you and the future of your creative industries, and for the benefit of our children’s future, as I have always done”. They will be excluded from being part of the creative industries as we know them, and from forging careers in this exciting, adventurous, creative, highly respected world.
I do not see this as a party-political matter, and, in years to come, we will suffer the consequences of this error of judgment and the mental anguish it has caused. In my 15 years in this House, I have been assured many times by Ministers, “We will make changes later”, only to realise that “later” never comes. So, we are standing up for the creative industries and their fight for survival and fairness—now, not later. I urge all Members of this House to show strength of support, stand together with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and send a clear message to the Government that we are not accepting this on our watch. The creative industries deserve better and must be saved.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I have yet to vote with the Government on this issue. We all owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the way in which she has championed the interests of the creative sector against the daylight robbery of its rights by big tech to train its models. She has given another powerful speech today. But I have decided that today, I will support the Government, to the disappointment of her and my friends alongside me, for three reasons. First, I accept we are not there yet, but we are perilously close to losing an important Bill that is needed to secure data adequacy with the European Union, to give coroners access to social media companies’ data, and to secure the offences relating to deepfake porn championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Owen.
Secondly, constitutionally, it is now time to listen to the elected House on a Bill that has been through the Commons three times and this House twice, more or less, and was a manifesto commitment. Thirdly, we now have some modest movement from the Government in their amendment, reflecting more urgency and a commitment to comprehensively dealing with the issues of AI and copyright together.
This issue has been appallingly dealt with by the Government. I am not referring to my noble friend the Minister, because some things are out of her hands; but I hope that, as a result of ping-pong, the Government now understand this House better, that they understand the passion and power of the creative sector better, and that they deliver on their promises to legislate comprehensively on the issues of AI and copyright as quickly as possible, and based on the need for transparency. On that, I will work with anybody else to hold their feet to the fire.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, misses one or two points. My noble friend Lady Kidron has made it clear that this is her last stand, so nobody is suggesting that noble Lords are going to try to defeat this Bill. Indeed, I do not think any of us would want to do that.
The Government have said that there is no change to copyright law—I think that is correct—and that copyright law will be upheld. So far, so good. But if we cannot see how copyright is being transgressed, how can we enforce the law? How can we take people to court to get back our royalties? I should mention my interests as listed in the register. In order, it would seem, to appease the American big tech companies and quite possibly President Trump himself, what we have actually done is locked the front door of our creative mansion but left the back door wide open. That is why, in a nutshell, the creative industries are up in arms. It is why I will support the noble Baroness, should she decide it wise to seek the opinion of the House, and I will support her on behalf of all those writers, artists and musicians who stand to lose out through this lack of transparency.
I know many composers, writers, painters and film-makers who earn a pittance from copyright—£2, £3, £50, £100. But however small it is, it is an acknowledgement that they created something, and that that intellectual property belongs to them and should be rewarded.
Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am an unaffiliated Member of this House, even though I sit on Labour’s Benches—some may say an “unbalanced” Member of this House. I refer to my registered interests. I, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, am saddened that we have reached this point. The Bill will not be destroyed should she divide the House this afternoon and should noble Lords vote in favour of her amendment. That is purely within the power of the Commons.
The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, referred to friends in the industry, and we have many. I say to the Government: are the creative industries, unions, associations, writers, directors and painters all wrong and the Government are right? If so, what do the Government have to fear from an approach that is absolutely transparent and allows us, the creators, to hold those who use our work accountable?
I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has said everything that needs to be said at this juncture. Valiantly, she has marched us to the top of the hill. It is the moral high ground, and it is not a hill I am going to march down from.
I had the Whip suspended from me by the Labour Party nearly a year ago, and on a point of principle, I subsequently resigned. I believe, like everybody else here, we are here to pursue the principles we believe in—yes, the democratic principles—high amongst which is holding accountable the Members of the other place and the Government.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I join with others in supporting the noble Baroness in exercising her right to insist upon Amendment 49F. Three months after the Government’s own report, this allows Parliament to be informed of the scale of the theft and the loss of revenue to United Kingdom companies, as it also enables a draft Bill on copyright infringement, AI models and transparency of input.
Your Lordships may consider that these measures are relevant for three reasons. First, they offer a degree of competence and protection, otherwise so far insufficiently provided, to and for the creative industries in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, they give an example internationally, including within the 46 states affiliated to the Council of Europe, of which the United Kingdom remains a highly regarded member and of whose education committee I am a recent chairman.
Thirdly, both within and beyond Europe, and starting with the 1710 Statute of Anne, granting legal protection to publishers of books, they continue to set a copyright protection standard, which in this case is expected of the United Kingdom and is also consistent with Article 11 of the 2024 Council of Europe Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence, human rights, democracy and the rule of law, safeguarding privacy and personal data.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and declare my interest as an artist member of DACS.
I have supported the amendments from the noble Baroness because transparency would have unlocked avenues to negotiate licences, bringing mutual benefits to AI companies and rights holders alike.
Yesterday, in another place, the Minister asked, “What is the point of transparency if a company refuses to comply without enforcement?” The answer is simple: not all companies will refuse. There are responsible players: companies that will want to act lawfully and ethically, which would welcome clear frameworks for transparency and licensing.
Transparency would level the playing field in favour of those companies and would put pressure on those that choose to defy the law, rather than allowing them to dominate by default. Without transparency, the opposite happens: the market rewards infringement and penalises respect for copyright. That is the road we are on, and it is not one this House should endorse.
Every day of inaction allows unchecked infringement while good companies face competitive disadvantage. How long must artists and rights holders wait? The time for transparency is not some distant future date; it is now.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I have supported the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, throughout in her amendments, but, as a former Member of the elected House, I think we reach a very difficult juncture today in insisting on an amendment which I think we all know and agree is actually inadequate. It is a modest, moderate amendment that will not do the job that all of us who have been supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, throughout would like to see done: namely, to guarantee the transparency that is needed in order to protect copyright into the future.
As a former Member of the elected House, and despite agreeing entirely with all the arguments that have been made, I find it very difficult to walk through the Lobby when the elected House, of which I was a Member for 23 years, has clearly rejected the proposal that we are now considering again today to send back to that House. In saying that, I want to say to the Government that I hope that they have listened intently to the debates that we have had in this House and all the points that have been raised, and I hope that they are aware of the emergency that we are describing in this House.
I went this morning, as I did yesterday, to visit and have a look at the South by Southwest conference taking place in Shoreditch, in north London. If you go through the Tube station at Old Street, you will encounter a number of advertisements for AI companies with the slogan, “Stop Hiring Humans”. Now I am a member of the Labour Party and for us in the Labour Party, one of the reasons why we have been putting through measures such as the Employment Rights Bill is because we believe in the dignity of labour, and in the importance of people being rewarded for their labour. That includes those who work freelance or who depend on their intellectual property for their income.
I want the Government to think, when they are engaging with these companies, “Who are we getting into bed with on some of these occasions? Who are the people we are perhaps unnecessarily favouring and giving privileged access to in government? What are their intentions for the future of labour, the workforce, pay and conditions, the dignity of people in work and the right for them to protect their intellectual property?”
What is happening right now, for example, in the music industry? Just last weekend, the four major record labels announced that they were in negotiations. Rather, it was revealed, they did not announce it, that they were in negotiations with apps such as Suno, which I have on my phone, which will create—not create, generate—for you. It does not create anything, it is just a desiccated calculating machine, but it will generate for you a piece of music within 30 seconds that is a facsimile of human creativity. It is not very good, but it is astonishing at the same time, as a piece of technology.
What will happen is that the major labels will go into negotiations. They would have had a stronger hand, actually, in some ways, if the Government could have found their way to support the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, put forward—but they will go into those negotiations. In fact, they will probably come to some kind of deal where they will agree some kind of licence. It will not be a very lucrative one, because their power at the moment is weak, unless Governments start standing up for the right of intellectual property. In exchange, they will try to take a bit of equity in those businesses.
The people who will be left out of the room—as usual—will be the creators. The big labels will be in there. The Lucian Grainges of this world will be in there. He recently paid himself more in one year than every songwriter in this country as the head of Universal. The Musicians’ Union will not be represented in there. Equity will not be represented in there. The Writers’ Guild will not be represented in there. The representatives of visual artists will not be represented in those talks. As usual, the deal that is done will favour those people who have control over some of those rights and will leave out the creators from those talks.
I urge the Government, in what has come of all this, to make use of a thing that was created and actually came out of a Bill that I introduced and from the work of a Select Committee in the other place in the last Parliament, namely the Intellectual Property Office, the creators’ round table, which has been created by this Government. I give credit to Minister Bryant for taking it very seriously and pushing people hard to make sure that creators are remunerated. I urge the Government to make use of that and to make sure that they insist that creators are represented in these discussions going forward, and that they use all the leverage they can to ensure that that happens.
Taking on board what the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, said, I completely agree with what she said about her voice. We should introduce new rights for creators—it is not original but I always call them VINL rights: voice, imagine, name and likeness rights—to ensure that people’s voice, image, name and likeness cannot be stolen and used by others to make a profit without them being properly consulted and rewarded for that. There is good to come out of this. Although I cannot walk through the Lobby with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, today, because I believe that, if the elected House insists on not accepting this amendment —we all agree, I think, that it is not a strong amendment—
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Does not my noble friend appreciate that sending this amendment back to the elected House will, for the first time, give it a choice? There has been no choice for anybody in the elected House. There has been no government amendment; it has just been yes or no. Sending this back forces a choice, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said. It cannot be sent back again. I speak as someone who did 27 years there and suffered ping-pong, but I am sticking with the noble Baroness today.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
I have enormous respect for my noble friend and find myself agreeing with him about a great number of things. However, it could be sent back with an amendment in lieu from the Government—that is true—as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, pointed out, because this is not double insistence. I feel, and always felt in my 23 years in the other place, that, once the elected House has taken a strong view on a particular amendment, it should be accepted by the unelected House. That is my view, even if it is not the view of my noble friend.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I will be mercifully brief. We have heard a lot of powerful eloquence about property rights, both in this debate and in the days that preceded it. There is much in that to agree with. I hope that those who have spoken so well on this topic today will speak up as enthusiastically when the property rights of others who are perhaps less good at presenting their case are threatened with theft—for example, via the compulsory purchase coming to this House soon.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, I need to declare my interest. I was in a bookshop and a lady of, let us say, a certain number of years scuttled over to me and said, “You’re Michael Dobbs, aren’t you? I’ve always wanted to meet you and tell you that I read one or two pages of your book before I fall fast asleep at night”. I am glad that the noble Baroness’s experience was rather better—though I took it as a compliment.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and so many others, I am desperately sad that we are where we are. This is not just a disagreement about the Bill. This has become a more fundamental disagreement about the rights and the responsibilities of the Government—their right to get their legislation through and their responsibility to listen. The Government Front Bench insists that it is listening, but not even their Back Benches believe that. In the first round of ping-pong, Ministers managed to get only 125 Members to vote for them, on what I assume was a whipped vote. The Government soldiered on, but, in the second round of ping-pong, their vote fell. In the third round, on Monday, their numbers fell yet again. It was a little like watching Napoleon’s retreat through the snow from Moscow. On Monday, only 116 stumbled through the drifts in the government Lobby, which included all the officer class on the payroll—although I see that the screws appear to be on today. That 116 was despite, if I may say so, a gallant intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle—many of us will remember that. It was a brave speech in support of the Government; indeed, it was the only speech in support of the Government.
From every corner and every Bench in this House, even the Government’s own Benches, the plea has gone up: please listen. The Government have not responded. They have given us nothing but silence; the silence of a forest in winter, frozen and unbending. It is so strange and so unnecessary. They have changed their mind on so many other things—even winter fuel payments, I understand—but not on this. I suggest to the Government that they are using up their credit in this Chamber and they cannot be surprised if, in future days, when the snow melts and their way turns to mud, as it does for all Governments, the courtesies that they expect from this Chamber are not given as willingly as they might be. When the conventions of this House are so blithely ignored, they cannot always be easily rebuilt.
Ping-pong is not a game. It is a most profound expression of the right of this House to ask the Government to listen to its advice. That advice has been given with more eloquence, more persistence, and indeed more authority and passion than I can ever recall. It would not surprise me if Elton John were to write a new song about it— “Candle in the Wind”, or perhaps “fading footsteps in the snow”, along with the fading rights of every copyright holder in the country. Noble Lords may laugh if they wish, but 2.4 million people, their families and their friends will not think it a laughing matter. I find it a great shame. I leave it to others to decide whether it is also deeply shameful.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I have not spoken previously on this issue, and I do not have the creative abilities of so many noble Members of this House, but I have listened repeatedly to these debates. It is right now to speak briefly in support of protecting our creative industries so that we can continue to reap the ripe rewards of their efforts.
We have to consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, whose interests are being protected here. We have a duty to protect the wonderful creativity of our own country, which gives us so much pleasure and informs, educates and develops us in more ways than anything else can. We are under no obligation to protect others, but we are under an obligation to protect the interests of our people, not of massive tech industries.
I will support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, because her amendment is the right thing to do. Even at this late stage, His Majesty’s Government could choose to act positively to respond to the massive concern that has been articulated in your Lordships’ House. If they do not do so, I very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will seek to call a Division on this matter.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yesterday, in another place, Conservative MPs voted proudly for the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, including my fellow members of the shadow DCMS team, and they stand ready, I am sure, to do the same again, if necessary. I understand the reticence of many noble Lords for prolonged rounds of ping-pong, but I have to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, pointed out, this is not unprecedented. We would not be in this position if the Government had not wasted the first two opportunities by hiding behind points of process on financial privilege rather than engaging with the substance of the argument that the noble Baroness put.
The Bill began in your Lordships’ House, and the noble Baroness is right to insist upon this; there are important points of principle at stake about the protection of private property and the dignity of labour. This is not the point that would kill the Bill; it would ask the Government to come forward with a bit more compromise and respect than they have shown so far. I am proud to be a member of a revising Chamber that stands up for those principles and that power of scrutiny.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, said from the Government Benches that his Government have handled this issue badly. I think he used the word “appallingly”. That is indisputable. The question I have is, why? I suggest that the answer may have been stated by my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool. He put his finger on the point, referring to the concern of the United States Administration to protect the interests of AI companies. Noble Lords may know that the head of the United States Copyright Office was sacked last month, the day after she published a report identifying the importance of AI companies respecting copyright rights.
I have a question for the Minister, which I hope she will answer frankly. She said in her opening remarks that she recognised the importance of transparency. Will she tell the House, in the interests of transparency, what weight the Government have given to the concerns of the United States Government in resisting the repeated amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, over the last few weeks?
Lord Dobbs (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, on Monday I asked almost precisely the same question of the Government and asked for a guarantee that no side deals or side understandings, or anything like that, had been done regarding the trade agreement we have with the United States. No answer has yet been forthcoming; I wish the noble Lord well in his adventure.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am delighted to be associated with the noble Lord on this, as on many other topics.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt these exchanges, which are of great interest. I have not been able to participate in ping-pong for some time, but the House will be aware that I am very keen on the issues being discussed and have been involved in a number of Bills on which issues of a similar nature have arisen. I have been working with a group, keeping in touch on WhatsApp—the fashionable thing to do these days—and we had a broad approach to this, which I am afraid is now fragmenting. My noble friend Lord Knight has traitorously said that he is going to come back into the fold, and I wish him well with that.
The very fine speeches made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, have been misinterpreted by this House, and I regret that. She is absolutely right in asking us to look again at this. If she is successful with her Motion, it is right and appropriate that at last, the Commons has a chance to put forward a proposal which would be in everybody’s interest as a compromise based very closely on—but, ironically, not the same as—the amendment she has been forced, by the system of ping- pong, to put down today.
The right amendment was suggested some time ago—I was involved in discussions around that, but it received short shrift. It would allow the Government to have the power to bring forward by regulation measures required to deal with the ongoing and accelerating crisis, which is increasingly difficult to understand, concerning the way in which creative rights are being stolen and theft exercised on a grand scale. The amendment does not have a timescale or a period over which it can be looked at maturely; it does not rely on consultation; it is a judgment. It is that trust in the decision I want to be taken by my Government that is important to stress, not some of the other issues raised today. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, was right to reflect on the fact, picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that although this is not the first time the House has been faced with a difficult issue, it is the first time it has been frustrated by inappropriate processes and procedures. Let us have a debate on what we can do to get ourselves to a better place. The issues have been well explained.
I reflect on the work we did on the Online Safety Bill, when I said from the Opposition Benches—unscripted, and with slight trepidation that I would be shot down—that I did not want to work in opposition to the Government on a Bill for which there was no political disadvantage on either side, and that we wanted to use the talents, skills and expertise so often found in this House to get the best Bill possible. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, nodding, because we worked well together. It was really difficult to do, because the system is set up to provide opposition to anything that challenges the supremacy of the Bill as introduced. Even the noble Lord had long and difficult times persuading his own side that there was a case to make on moving forward.
This is exactly the same issue. There is not a huge difference in where we want to get to. The Government have moved, but they lack the flexibility that we think will be necessary in the next few months—or even years—to bring forward at the appropriate time the transparency that everybody knows has to be there.
There are other things that need to be looked at, such as copyright, but they can be dealt with in time. However, transparency is at the root of this. I urge the Government to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others—I offer to participate in any necessary discussions—to get to a point where everyone can relax, knowing that the main issue is dealt with and we have a clearly articulated programme that will take us forward at the appropriate time, in the Government’s judgment. That is what we need.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for long. I have sat through every stage of the Bill and not uttered a word. I have been absorbing the debate, and I am still puzzled as to why the Government are not willing to reach agreement with some of the wonderful statements being made.
I have two issues to reflect on. The first is that the creative arts have had a fantastic campaign, but it would be a mistake to think that this is only about the creative arts; it is to do with any property right where copyright is involved. The first to fall would probably be the creative arts, but anybody who is protected by copyright will be affected by AI in one way or another, unless you follow the wonderful wisdom of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
The second point is one for the Government to reflect on. They need to remember the words of Francis Pym, the first Foreign Secretary in Mrs Thatcher’s Government. They had a very big majority, and he dared to suggest to the Iron Lady that big majorities never make for good government. Why? Because you can rely on even those who do not listen to the debate to turn up and vote for your side. You know what happened to Francis Pym? He lost his job. How much will the Labour Government reflect on the experience of Francis Pym?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I once again declare an interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society, and once again give the staunch support of these Benches to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her Motion A1. She made an incontestable case once again with her clarion call.
I follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others in saying that we are not in new territory. I have a treasured cartoon on my wall at home that relates to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill as long ago as 2001, showing Secretary of State Alan Milburn recoiling from ping-pong balls. Guess who was hurling the ping-pong balls? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, that notable revolutionary, and I were engaging in rounds of parliamentary ping-pong—three, I think. Eventually, compromises were reached and the Bill received Royal Assent in April 2001.
What we have done today and what we are going to do today as a House is not unprecedented. There is strong precedent for all Benches to work together on ping-pong to rather good effect. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, says, what we are proposing today will not, in the words of the Minister, “collapse” the Bill: it will be the Government’s choice what to do when the Bill goes back to the Commons. I hugely respect the noble Lord, Lord Knight, but I am afraid that he is wrong. It was not a manifesto commitment; there is no Salisbury convention that can be invoked on this occasion. It has nothing at all to do with data adequacy except that the Government feel that they have to get the Bill through in order to get the EU Commission to start its work. If anything, the Bill makes data adequacy more difficult. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that I agree with almost everything he said: everything he said was an argument for the noble Baroness’s amendment. Once again, as ever, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as I so often do on these occasions. I regard him as the voice of reason, and I very much hope that the Government will listen to what he has to say.
Compromise is entirely within the gift of the Government. The Secretary of State should take a leaf out of Alan Milburn’s book. He did compromise on an important Bill in key areas and saw his Bill go through. I am afraid to say that the letter that Peers have received from the Minister is simply a repeat of her speech on Monday, which was echoed by Minister Bryant in the Commons yesterday. The Government have tabled these new amendments, which reflect the contents of that letter. Despite those amendments, however, the Government have not offered a concession to legislate for mandated transparency provisions within the Bill, which has been the core demand of the Lords amendments championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the reasons set out in the speeches we have heard today.
In the view of these Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, other Members of this House, and countless creatives have made the absolutely convincing case for a transparency duty which would not prejudge the outcome of the AI and copyright consultation. We have heard the chilling points made by the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Pannick, about US policy in this area and about the attitude of the big tech companies towards copyright. We are at a vital crossroads in how we ensure the future of our creative industries. In the face of the development of AI and how it is being trained, we must take the right road, and I urge the Government to settle now.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, given where we are, I will speak very briefly, but I will make just two points. First, I think it is worth saying that the uncertainty surrounding where we are with AI and copyright is itself damaging, not just to the creative sector, not just to AI labs and big tech in general, but to all those who will themselves be impacted by the Bill’s many other provisions. Overall, I think it is worth reminding ourselves that this is an important Bill whose original conception did not even address AI and copyright. It carried very important and valuable provisions—as the Minister pointed out in her opening remarks—on digital verification services, smart data schemes, the national underground asset register and others. These can genuinely drive national productivity. Indeed, that is why my party proposed them when we were in government. It is, therefore, deeply frustrating that the Government have not yet found a way forward on this, and I am afraid that I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Knight. The way the Government have gone about this has been reprehensible: I think that is the word I would use.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today and throughout this process. Colleagues have spoken consistently with passion and eloquence, as befitting the many, varied and celebrated interests that noble Lords have in the creative industries. As I have said on numerous occasions and feel I do not need to repeat, this Government are absolutely committed to the creative industries. We want them to flourish, and we have a plan to achieve this.
I am grateful to noble Lords who took the time to read the letter I sent to Members of your Lordships’ House last night, which, I hope, sets out more clearly our approach to these important issues. Given our debates to date and the letter, I will spare the House a full repetition of our position. However, our concern remains that any legislation mandated now, whether a draft Bill or regulations, will prejudge all the work required and result in laws that are not fit for purpose.
Contrary to some of the suggestions we have heard today, the Government have been listening carefully throughout the Bill’s passage. The Government have set out a plan to deal with this issue which includes additional compromises that respond to specific concerns raised by noble Lords in this House which have been put on the face of the Bill and would be strengthened if the House supports Motion A. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brennan that once the working groups get going it is vital that the creative sector has a voice in them. Of course it is our intention to deliver that.
The next step, which I know that noble Lords are keen to take, is simply to get on with it. The quicker the Bill is passed, the sooner we can put more resources into resolving the issues that noble Lords have raised. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, that we need to work together to find a solution that is appropriate for the UK, not for other countries, which will obviously have their own agendas. I also make it absolutely clear that there are no side deals in any agreement in the trade deal with the US.
Unless and until we reach Royal Assent we are basically stuck in limbo. We need to move on. I know noble Lords have spoken in support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and she herself has called for action now, but we believe that the noble Baroness’s current amendment as drafted would take a long time to implement. It is intended to take effect after the proposals that we have set out in the Bill.
We have heard concerns about expediency and have tested how quickly we can pave a clear way forward, ensuring that all elements are considered in the round. I say to my noble friend Lord Brennan that of course we are aware of the urgency of this. This is why we will publish the economic impact assessment and the report the Bill requires within nine months. This will ensure that we are ready to act as soon as possible while also having sufficient time to consider all views and options. If the report and economic impact assessment are not published within six months of Royal Assent, the Secretary of State has made it clear that he will lay before Parliament a Statement setting out progress towards their publication.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked for clarification on the copyright situation. The Government are clear that copyright must be complied with when copies are made to train AI models. This means that licences are required from copyright owners but in some circumstances a copyright exception may apply. If copying takes place in other jurisdictions, that country’s laws will apply. The law in this area is complex and disputed and it is not appropriate for us to comment on the litigation which noble Lords will know is currently before the courts. We recognise calls for greater legal clarity and this is why we have consulted and are now developing options for the way forward.
Noble Lords have raised the constitutional issue that we are dealing with today. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said in her letter that the Bill is unusual as it started in the Lords and that, if the Lords insisted, the Government would have to accept the amendment or let the Bill fall. I will make our position absolutely clear: the primacy of the House of Lords applies equally to Bills that start in the Lords and in the Commons. This primacy is necessary for a democratic society. The views of MPs elected by the public should be respected, and the House of Commons has expressed its view on the issue of AI and copyright three times already.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that, if the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is carried, it will not scupper the Bill, but rather the Bill will go back to the Commons, where the Commons can provide an amendment in lieu. Therefore, the ball would be in the Commons’ court and the Government’s court; it will not scupper the Bill if we vote for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
Could the Minister also just clarify her point about the primacy of the House of Commons? She just seemed to imply the opposite.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
We regard the primacy of the House of Commons as absolutely paramount. As I have stated, at the end of the day if we are not careful, we will get into a situation—which I think the noble Baroness was beginning to raise—where we will not be able to accept the primacy of the House of Commons. To us, that is absolutely paramount.
Passing the Bill will also let us get on with delivering the other measures it contains, many of which have been championed by noble Lords for some time— and I welcome the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, for all of these. The Bill has had broad support, which was enjoyed in the last Session too, and that is testament to the work done by this Government and the previous one on these issues, and why both our party and the Opposition advocated for the Bill and its policies during the general election.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, have spoken in this and other debates about the good that these measures will do. I am glad to recall her warm support during our Second Reading debate for the data preservation measures for coroners to preserve data when a child dies, and her wishes for the Bill’s swift passage to see that become law, and I agree with her. I also recall the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, saying that this version of the Bill was much improved from the last, and that as we have done so much scrutiny of its predecessor, we should be able to make good progress.
These policies and the significant economic benefits they will bring are why the elected House has voted in favour of the Bill’s continued passage four times in a row. It has exercised its choice. We now have to get on with the job—for the bereaved parents, the victims of deepfake intimate image abuse, the charities that want to use the soft opt-in and the businesses keen to benefit from the use of smart data and all the many and various benefits of the measures and manifesto commitments in the Bill. I urge your Lordships to accept the Government’s new amendments and let the Bill pass into law, rather than moving us to the precipice where we could face collapsing it entirely.
Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)
I am very disturbed that the Minister says there is a potential for the Bill to collapse, with all the important measures within it. If the other place chooses to collapse the Bill, can she tell me which Cabinet Minister or adviser will take responsibility for what is clearly an unprecedented legislative and political failure?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As I keep saying, the primacy of the House of Lords—sorry, the House of Commons—is absolutely vital.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Noble Lords can laugh about this, but it is a really serious issue that is absolutely fundamental to our democracy. The House of Commons has made its position clear on a number of occasions now, and it is not right that the House of Lords continues to try and overturn that.
Baroness O'Loan (CB)
My Lords, I have listened with great respect to the Minister, but she has stated repeatedly that we are going to deprive the country of all the other measures in the Bill that are accepted. That is not the case. It is not necessary for the Bill to collapse at all; what is necessary is for the Government to take some positive action. It would be appropriate for her to accept that in her closing remarks and confirm that, if this House votes in favour of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the Bill will not collapse.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
As I have said, there is a danger that the Bill will collapse if the Lords continues in its current form, and that is not what any of us want. I hope that everybody here accepts the primacy of the House of Commons, which is absolutely fundamental to our democracy.
Lastly, I give my thanks to the public servant whose character and motives were questioned in the House on Monday. Public servants are not able to defend themselves when attacked, and instead of criticism they deserve our thanks. I want to take the opportunity to recognise their long record of distinguished and dedicated public service, not just under this Government but also the previous ones.
At times, it has felt like this debate has indeed brought us to the edge of reason. I hope that today your Lordships’ House will unite around our approach and the fundamental constitutional principles by supporting Motion A in my name.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will start by reiterating something I said in my opening remarks to make it absolutely clear to anyone who was not in the Chamber at that time. If we vote on this amendment, one of three things will happen: the Commons can consider the amendment and accept it; the Commons can put an amendment in lieu, or—and as the noble Lord said, this would be inexplicable—the Commons can collapse the Bill. That is the situation.
I also say to the House that, when I set that out in my opening remarks, I also said that if we choose to vote on this and successfully pass it, I will accept anything that the Commons does. The Commons can accept the amendment; it can put in its own in lieu or it can collapse the Bill, but I will not stand in front of your Lordships again and press our case. I have made that utterly clear, and I want that to be on the record before anybody makes up their mind about what they are going to do today.
I also say to my friends on the Labour Benches—if I can bypass the normal convention—that the Government have not listened. I am afraid that the Government told me before we had our debate on Monday that they would overturn the amendment, and they overturned it in 36 minutes; they did not take the full hour. This whole palaver is not a constitutional crisis, but it is an attempt to get the convention whereby this House is heard by the other House, they bring something back and we compromise. I understand and believe in the pre-eminence of the elected Chamber, and I want everybody to know that—in fact, when the Lord Speaker had me on his podcast, I said, “I am a turkey that will vote for Christmas”.
The other thing that I must say before we get on with this—I beg your Lordships’ forgiveness—is that I was disturbed by the Minister suggesting that I would do anything to undermine the whole of the Bill. It will not be my choice. Those amendments in the Bill to do with bereaved parents and the coroners were amendments in my name and the names of other noble Lords around this House and were the result of a similar campaign to what I am trying to do right now. I resent that.
Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill
Wednesday 4th June 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberSentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 View all Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 99-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (2 Jun 2025)
19:13 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 65 / Noes: 130 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
Viscount Hailsham
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1 in my name, I begin with an apology. I have not previously intervened in the debates on the Bill. Unfortunately, long-standing commitments, including professional commitments, prevented me from participating both at Second Reading and in Committee. That, in fact, is one of the disadvantages, albeit a minor one, of so-called emergency legislation introduced at short notice. More serious disadvantages are, of course, the curtailment of time for reflection and a reduction in the time for consultation. However, I have had the opportunity of studying the Hansard reports of what was said in this House on both occasions, and what was said in the House of Commons.
My main purpose today is to speak briefly to Amendment 1. I begin by commending the admirable speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, at col. 1614, to those of your Lordships who, like me, were not present at the Second Reading debate. His speech was a model of brevity and conciseness, and I agree with everything that the noble and learned Lord said. He said that he did not believe that the guidelines introduced two-tier justice. I agree with that view. He said that he did not believe that the introduction of the guidelines would severely damage confidence in our criminal justice system. I share that view.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, considered that there was no need for this Bill. I am of the same opinion. In my view, this legislation has been triggered by an unhappy combination of political point-scoring and political back-guarding—personal characteristics of an unwelcome kind, albeit not falling within the statutory definition in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord concluded by saying that we should reluctantly accept this Bill but seek to improve it by way of amendment, and that is what I seek to do.
My amendment is in substance a statement of principle—in fact, one that reflects policy, albeit, because of resource constraints, not the current practice. But given the fact that we have this Bill, I suggest that there is merit in framing the policy in explicit statutory and positive language.
I suspect that everyone who has experience in this field would agree that in the great majority of cases where an offender is facing the possibility of a custodial or a community sentence, it is highly desirable that the sentencer should have available a properly considered pre-sentence report—but not one which is the product of a few minutes of discussion in the cells. What is required is a considered and researched pre-sentence report by a qualified member of the Probation Service. That implies a Probation Service which is properly staffed and properly financed to address the required workload.
I deeply regret that, in recent years, there has been a serious decline in the number of pre-sentence reports, and I have in mind the decline of 42%, from 160,000 to 90,000, between 2015 and 2022, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in the Second Reading debate, and by others too. I acknowledge, with very great regret, that one of the immediate causes of this decline in the availability of proper reports was the policy of the Government whom I supported. I will add too, if I may, that the existence of a properly financed and staffed Probation Service is fundamental to the success of the sentencing reforms proposed by Mr David Gauke.
It should be self-evident that the pre-sentence report addresses all the relevant considerations that may help the sentencer to determine the appropriate sentence. That is what my amendment states explicitly. Such considerations may include the individual circumstances and the personal characteristics of an offender. I accept that, as became apparent in the debate, especially in Committee, there is a distinction between the two concepts, although there is a very high degree of overlap, so both criteria should be included. My amendment does that, with a definition to be found in Amendment 7. Guidelines are there to ensure uniformity in the practice of the courts.
Obviously, there is concern about the availability of resources: hence, the impossibility of making reports mandatory. It was the council’s concern about the inadequacy of resources that caused the guidelines to identify specific cohorts as having priority. But drafting the guidance in the positive language of my amendment meets the expressed concern of the critics of the guidelines. My amendment provides for the guidelines to be general in their application, and might encourage the Government to ensure that additional resources are made available to the Probation Service, so that pre-sentence reports become the norm in all appropriate cases. Amending the Bill in the modest way that I have proposed will, I hope, make a small contribution to the proper administration of criminal justice in this country. I beg to move.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Viscount has said. His amendment, like others in this group, would give some helpful clarity to an extremely unclear piece of legislation. I think we are about to make bad law, because the Government have been unable or unwilling to define what “personal characteristics” are. We do not know what will fall within the range of prohibitions placed on the Sentencing Council. It will be left with an undefined scope and an undefined extent. Race, religion and belief, or cultural background, whatever that is, are listed, but after that it becomes a matter for speculation as to what might be included.
The Government insist that the list that appears in the Bill is non-exhaustive. In a letter sent to several of us, the Minister states, but without citing any authority, that “personal characteristics” include sex, gender identity, age, physical disability and pregnancy or “other similar conditions”. What is similar to pregnancy? I have been puzzling over that for some time and I am not quite sure.
The Minister did not mention autism, a background of local authority care or experience of sexual abuse, although in the latter case the Government said, in a different letter, that it is not a personal characteristic to have been a victim, perhaps a repeated victim, of sexual abuse. What is included in the list appears to be in the minds of Ministers, or whatever may appear in the minds of Ministers at some later date, leaving the Sentencing Council and, indirectly, judges and magistrates in some confusion as to what the Government intended.
I think and hope that, in making decisions about whether to call for a pre-sentence report, courts will not be influenced by this whole row—it would be very unfortunate if they were—but there is just a slight risk that this may become an area in which courts start to think, “This is a bit political, we’d better not go there”. That must not happen. The still-existing freedom of courts to decide to have a pre-sentence report is not directly affected by the Bill. My worry is that it might have an indirect effect.
Law can have consequences. I foresee the day when a non-exhaustive list of prohibitions will appear in some other Bill on some other subject. What will happen then? We will be told that non-exhaustive lists of prohibited actions are an established practice and appeared in the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Act 2025. It will become a precedent that will certainly get used on some future occasion, and I think that is a dangerous thing to be happening.
My noble friend’s Amendment 2 restores the Sentencing Council’s freedom, if there is good cause, to issue guidelines that refer to personal characteristics. I urge support for it and, if he presses it to a vote, which I hope he will, he will certainly have my vote and, I hope, those of others who are concerned to protect the ability of the Sentencing Council, a body of some distinction, to do its job in the light of sensible judgment, following discussion with the Government wherever that is necessary or appropriate.
I turn finally to Amendment 9, which is in my name. The Minister has asserted that pregnancy is a personal characteristic, falling within the restrictions imposed by Section 2 of the Bill. But there is case law accepting pregnancy as a reason to order a pre-sentence report, in R v Thompson 2024. Modern slavery was similarly referred to as grounds for a pre-sentencing report in R v Kurmekaj 2024, and being a young offender is dealt with in R v Meanley 2022.
It is difficult to accept that the case law should be overridden by the Bill if it becomes an Act. The Minister has asserted that it is overridden, asserting in his letter that the Bill would make
“such direction about obtaining PSRs across existing guidelines unlawful”.
“Unlawful” is the word used in the Minister’s letter. Nevertheless, he claimed that
“it will not prevent guidelines from reminding sentencers in more general terms that PSRs will be necessary”
when
“an assessment of the offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial”.
So where does that leave us? It leaves us in a tangle of legal uncertainty, and there is no excuse for that. I suggest that the Minister should accept my amendment, leaving the Sentencing Council free to issue guidelines that reflect and draw attention to well-established case law on the value and importance of pre-sentence reports in cases of the kinds I referred to.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I confess that I am still struggling to understand this Bill, despite it having only one clause. The Minister was as helpful as he could be in Committee, and we all know his pedigree, but he has been dealt a very difficult hand. I think this is a bad Bill and, as my noble friend has just said, it is going to be bad law. We all know the political background to it. On Monday, at Second Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, one noble Lord used the delicate word, which I will repeat, “presentational”. I think that is quite a good synonym. The Constitution Committee has commented on the Bill, picking up very much the points that the noble Viscount and my noble friend made and the response from the Ministry of Justice has not, I think, taken us any further.
In Committee, I asked what was meant by the words “framed by reference to”. I still do not really understand them. This has caused me to table Amendment 3, although I realise it is a bit risky pursuing this, because we may be told from the Dispatch Box that the Bill is more restrictive than we would actually want to see, and it is arguable that as it stands, the guidelines can refer to characteristics depending on the law which is being shaped.
The legislation should be clear and certain—points which were made very clearly by the Constitution Committee—especially in this sort of situation. It is curious that the Bill seeks to pit the state against a body such as the Sentencing Council.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Hailsham, I begin my remarks by apologising for not having been able to attend the earlier stages of the Bill. However, I am happy to say that, like my noble friend, I have read the report and I am reasonably up to date with the way in which the debates have gone.
I am very much attracted by what my noble friend said in support of his Amendment 1, and I speak from a position of some—but not a great deal—of experience as a sentencer. I was a recorder of the Crown Court for 15 years, from 1998 until about 2015, with time off when serving in the Government. One of the things I found most useful in dealing with what I thought was the most difficult task as a judge was the advice and help of the sentencing report.
If you are a High Court judge, you tend, if you are dealing with criminal cases, to deal only with life sentence cases. The job that you have to do when sentencing is to consider the tariff within the life sentence. This is difficult but not, perhaps, as complicated as having to deal with the multiplicity of sentences involved in road traffic cases, drug cases, dishonest acquisition cases, and so on, and obviously cases to do with assault and other forms of violence.
As a recorder, as a Crown Court judge and as a magistrate—I see the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is in his place—one is dealing with, in a sense, a much more complicated sentencing picture. The assistance of sentencing reports is huge and valuable. Anything that the Bill can do to make the life of the sentencer easier and to enable him or her to produce a juster sentence is to be welcomed, and the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Hailsham through his Amendment 1 provides the sort of assistance that I would very much have wished to have had as a low-level sentencer. It is perhaps more neatly encompassed in the suggestion through Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks.
Either way, both amendments appear to me to be trying to undo the political mess that has caused the arrival of the Bill. I understand the politics of all this; I am sure we all do. It is a thoroughly unnecessary Bill, one that the Government allowed themselves to be backed into a corner about. It may well be that they regret it. However, given that we have got the Bill, I invite the Government to pay close attention to the speech of my noble friend and to listen very carefully to my chambers colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, when he comes to speak to Amendment 2.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I have not spoken before on the Bill, and frankly, like others, I was rather astonished that this was a topic requiring legislation at all. Like the noble and learned Lord, I have been what you would probably call a low-level sentencer for a number of years.
I will make two points. First, in recent years, in my experience, the quality of pre-sentence reports has greatly improved: from what were sometimes formulaic and feeble reports to nowadays, in my more recent experience, really providing an insight into the defendant’s background, life and attitudes, and conveying realistic recommendations. To that extent, they must always be regarded as helpful, greatly improving on, as the noble Viscount described, representations made by the legal representatives after a few moments in the cells or in the court corridor before coming into court.
Secondly, this experience has led me to adopt the attitude that, whenever in doubt, a report should be directed. I, for one, never regretted directing a report. For that reason, I certainly support Amendments 5 and 6. In other words, pre-sentence reports should, wherever possible and sensible, be the norm.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I have not previously spoken on the substance of the Bill before, either, but I am very attracted by the noble Viscount’s amendment, for the reasons that he and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, have set out.
I think the Government have accepted that their Bill is not intended to prevent sentencers inviting pre-sentence reports in the case of personal characteristics. They are getting at the guidelines that should not take account of personal characteristics. However, there is a danger that, as the Bill stands, sentencers might be deterred slightly from seeking pre-sentence reports in the case of personal characteristics, even though, were the Bill not on the statute book, they would otherwise have done so.
The amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, sorts that out. It makes it absolutely clear that there is nothing to stop the sentencer seeking a pre-sentence report in the case of personal characteristics, if that is desirable for the purposes of the particular case. That is exactly what the legal position should be.
So, I strongly urge the Government to give close attention to Amendment 1 and indeed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which, as has been said, seeks to achieve the same thing. This is consistent with what the Government think their Bill allows for, but there is a danger that it might not have the effect they seek, whereas the noble Viscount’s amendment would clarify the position in what everyone must agree is the right way.
Lord Hardie (CB)
My Lords, I, too, have not spoken before on the Bill. I understand the sentiment behind the noble Viscount’s amendment. As a former judge in Scotland, I do not demur from the advantage of having such reports. However, I wonder whether there is an element of confusion in the various amendments. In the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, seemed to suggest, there may be confusion in the mind of the sentencer as to whether he or she can order a report.
I do not read this clause as being that. Clause 1(2) specifies that the guidelines about pre-sentence reports may not include provision framed by reference to different personal characteristics of an offender. The personal characteristics are defined in Clause 3 as including race, religion or belief, and cultural background. So, I would have thought that it is irrelevant to determining a sentence that someone is of a certain race, or adheres to a certain religion, or has a certain cultural background. What one wants to know is something about the upbringing of the individual, whether he or she was abused as a child, and whether there are other circumstances in his or her upbringing that would explain his or her behaviour. So I do not see the need for the amendments that simply reinforce the position that already exists.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, before turning to Amendment 2 in my name, I will make a number of points that are relevant to the general difficulty of this Bill, highlighted by all the amendments in this group, and relevant to the unsuitability of legislating for what the Sentencing Council may or may not recommend in guidelines as to when pre-sentence reports should or should not be required. I take the point just made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, that there is a distinction to be drawn between the guidelines and when a pre-sentencing report is to be required, but there is real scope for confusion, and that does concern us all.
When sentencing, effective judges must inevitably take into account the personal circumstances of individual offenders, alongside the nature of their offences, the requirement to punish and the need for deterrence. When taking into account those personal circumstances, they are bound to consider their different personal characteristics. So, the drafting of this Bill starts with a conflict that is, on analysis, almost impossible to resolve.
The Government tried to clarify what is meant by personal characteristics in an all-Peers letter just before Committee, in which the Minister cited the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, in the House of Lords as the precursor of the Supreme Court, when he said that
“the concept of ‘personal characteristic’ … generally requires one to concentrate on what somebody is, rather than what he is doing or what is being done to him”.
This might assist a court to consider in a judicial context what words may mean, but it does not necessarily help with the construction of the meaning of a Bill. No clear distinction can be drawn between what a person is by birth and what a person may have become by reason of life experience. For example, is a woman pregnant because of what she is or because of what has happened to her? Is a black person scarred by racism suffering because of what they are or because of what has happened to them?
That difficulty is compounded by the fact that the list of personal characteristics in Clause 1(3) is non-exhaustive. They are said to
“include, in particular … race … religion or belief
or
“cultural background”.
But that does not exclude anything else—a point that has been made by my noble friend Lord Beith and by others throughout the discussion of this Bill. The use of the phrase “framed by reference to” was also rightly criticised by my noble friend Lady Hamwee as hopelessly uncertain. That was in the context of her proposing her Amendment 3, but it runs through the whole of this issue of personal characteristics.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I have already registered my feelings about the Bill at Second Reading and in Committee. Now that we have had the publication of the Independent Sentencing Review and the Government’s response, I reiterate the point that, like others, I simply do not believe that we need this legislation. It seems that the left hand is not aware of the right hand on the evidence around sentencing.
I agree with what has been said already. Amendment 8, in my name, seeks something very specific: to ensure that existing sentencing guidelines relating to the mitigating factor of pregnancy, childbirth and postnatal care can continue to provide directions for courts to obtain pre-sentence reports for offenders who are pregnant or primary carers of young children. Without this amendment, the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill directly contradicts the Government’s stated policy intent to reduce the imprisonment of pregnant women and mothers of young children.
On 22 May, in her response to the Independent Sentencing Review, the Lord Chancellor explicitly stated the Government’s intent to reduce the imprisonment of pregnant women and mothers of young children. She said:
“I am particularly keen to ensure that pregnant women and mothers of young children are not anywhere near our female prison estate in future”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/25; col. 1204.]
Indeed, the Independent Sentencing Review
“recognises the harm caused by imprisoning pregnant women and believes pregnant women and new mothers should be diverted and supported in the community, unless in exceptional circumstances. Custody must only be a last resort”.
How, then, are we to achieve this, when the Bill makes unlawful the existing Sentencing Council’s mitigating factor—pregnancy, childbirth and postnatal care—which came into force on 1 April 2024 and directs courts to obtain PSRs for pregnant and postnatal offenders? I am very grateful to the Minister for writing after Committee, but he confirmed—extraordinarily—that the Bill will render such direction about obtaining PSRs across existing sentencing guidelines unlawful. I query his assumption that, without direction, sentencers might request a PSR. This is a backward step. Simply put, without a pre-sentence report, alternatives to custody cannot be considered by a sentencing court. Without a mandatory direction to obtain a PSR, there is no way to ensure that women are diverted from custody. Without this amendment, the Bill directly contradicts the Government’s stated policy intent. I recognise the very difficult position that the Minister has been put in, but I am simply looking for the Government to have the grace to admit this contradiction and to accept this amendment. It does not have to be seen as a humiliating backing-down, but, rather, a humble response to listening.
I will not delay the House further. I will listen to the Minister’s response in due course, but I am minded, at this point, to divide the House. However, I might need some careful direction, should other amendments be passed, as to where that leaves my Amendment 8.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I wish to add a few sentences to what the right reverend Prelate said. I preface that by noting that, when we built the Sentencing Council, the legislation was discussed and agreed. It was clear when this Bill was introduced that discussion and agreement were needed. I find it very disappointing that we have not been able to get together to find a satisfactory way to deal with this legislation other than by dropping it—I regard that now as gone.
I think it important that Ministers appreciate what the right reverend Prelate said. It is plain that pregnancy and maternity are characteristics, and one ought to ensure that all judges receive the same guidance as to obtaining pre-sentence reports. I know that the Minister and the Lord Chancellor are very keen that pregnant women do not go to prison, but they are not the law; the law is laid down by this unfortunate legislation. If there is one thing we can do to ensure that it does not wreak injustice, it is to allow the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate. There is a huge amount more that we should do, but, without a consensus and discussion between us, I do not believe that we can make any improvement. That is why I content myself with this very narrow point. We cannot be in a position where we cannot give guidance to courts that they should get a pre-sentence report to avoid sending pregnant women to prison.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the Bill’s progress in Committee. In particular, I acknowledge the thoughtful and constructive contributions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon. We have heard further thoughtful contributions today, not least from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester.
None the less, from this side of the House, I wish to place on record our broad support for the principles that underpin the Bill. The use of pre-sentence reports, when applied rigorously, consistently and with due regard to the individual circumstances of the offender, is an essential part of a fair and effective justice system. They play a crucial role in informing judicial discretion, ensuring proportionality in sentencing and helping to reduce the risk of reoffending through appropriate rehabilitative measures. We welcome the intention of the Bill to strengthen and clarify the expectations around the preparation and consideration of pre-sentence reports. These seek to embed good practice across the system and to promote greater consistency in the court’s approach to sentencing.
However, while we on this side support the direction of travel, we remain mindful that sentencing is a complex and sensitive area of the law. It touches not only on legal principle but on human lives, social outcomes and the effective operation of our prison and probation systems. In that context, I will take a moment to acknowledge a specific concern raised by noble Lords in Committee: the lack of clarity around the term “personal characteristics” as it appears in the Bill. This is not a small point. If the legislation is to provide clear and workable guidance to practitioners, including report writers and the judiciary, we must be precise about what we mean. Any doubt or uncertainty in this area risks inconsistent application. It undermines the very consistency and fairness that the Bill seeks to promote. I hope that the Government will reflect carefully on these concerns and consider whether further definition could be usefully provided.
More broadly, I echo the view expressed at earlier stages that, with just a little more time and careful consideration, we could strengthen and improve this legislation further. There remain questions that would benefit from additional scrutiny, and we should proceed with care. We must get this right, not only in the interest of justice but for the confidence of the public, the judiciary and those working on the front line of our criminal justice system. We on these Benches remain committed to working constructively with the Government, with noble Lords across the House and with all those who bring experience and insight to bear on this important issue.
I will turn briefly to the amendments in the first group. As for Amendments 1 and 7, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, we recognise that Amendment 1 seeks to provide clarity about the range of matters that the sentencer may take into account. We invite the Government to consider these during the Bill’s journey through the other place.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their continued and careful consideration of this Bill. Before I turn to each amendment in this group, I want to briefly recap why we have brought the Bill forward.
In revising its imposition guideline, the Sentencing Council included text that suggests that a pre-sentence report will
“normally be considered necessary”
if an offender belongs to certain cohorts, including some that specifically refer to offenders’ personal characteristics, such as those
“from an ethnic minority, cultural minority, and/or faith minority community”.
We believe that the approach taken through this guidance risks offenders receiving differential access to pre-sentence reports based on their personal characteristics. It also means that the Sentencing Council is making policy on who should get a pre-sentence report, when this is properly a matter for Ministers and Parliament to decide. For these reasons, we have introduced this Bill to stop this guidance coming into force and prevent the Sentencing Council making similar guidance in the future.
I turn to the amendments in this group. First, there are those amendments which seek to give the Sentencing Council more discretion to include some factors that are based on offenders’ different personal characteristics. Amendments 1 and 7, from the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, with contributions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, seek to give the Sentencing Council more discretion. The Sentencing Council could still make guidelines with reference to personal characteristics but only if the guidelines also said that those personal characteristics had to be relevant to the ultimate sentencing decision.
Amendments 2 and 4, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would give the Sentencing Council discretion to include factors based on offenders’ different personal characteristics within relevant guidelines, if it felt that doing so would avoid inequalities in sentencing outcomes. Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, is intended to provide that the Bill does not prevent the Sentencing Council including provision within relevant guidelines that reflects existing case law about pre-sentence reports.
During Committee, I committed to take away the concerns expressed by noble Lords about the Bill’s current approach. I have carefully reflected on where there are alternative ways of meeting the Bill’s fundamental objective—to ensure equality before the law. However, ultimately, I remain confident that the current approach taken within the Bill is the best and clearest way to meet this objective. This is because, if these amendments were accepted, the Sentencing Council would be able to continue to produce guidelines that could risk differential access to pre-sentence reports. In doing so, the Sentencing Council would be making policy on a matter that is within the proper remit of Ministers and Parliament. Therefore, we do not believe that these amendments are beneficial, as they would undermine the Bill’s objectives.
I turn to the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Amendment 3 would change some of the drafting used in Clause 1. The Bill states that sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports may not include
“provision framed by reference to”
offenders’ personal characteristics. Instead, if the noble Baroness’s amendment were to be accepted, the Bill would state that any provision which is “solely based on” offenders’ personal characteristics cannot be included in relevant guidelines. The noble Baroness’s Amendment 6 seeks to add text to the Bill that confirms that it does not prevent the Sentencing Council producing relevant guidelines. This suggests that a pre-sentence report would be ordered where an assessment of an offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial to the court. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness has suggested these amendments in the spirit of attempting to make the Bill as clear as possible, and I am grateful for the constructive challenge. I have carefully considered both amendments and we ultimately believe that they would not improve the Bill’s drafting.
For Amendment 3, this is because the Bill is already sufficiently clear. The drafting, which would prevent the Sentencing Council making sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports
“framed by reference to different personal characteristics”,
means that the council cannot include any text within relevant guidelines that refers to offenders’ personal characteristics. This effectively captures our intent, which is to ensure equality before the law. For Amendment 6, the Bill as drafted does not prevent the Sentencing Council including text within relevant guidelines that suggests to sentencers, in general terms, that a pre-sentence report should be sought where a further assessment of the offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial to the court. We have been clear throughout the debates and in supporting material of the benefits of pre-sentence reports. We believe our intention is clear from the language we have used in the Bill. In the spirit of keeping the Bill short and simple, we do not consider it necessary to explicitly state within the Bill things that it does not do. The Bill does not prevent sentencing guidelines encouraging pre-sentence reports based on an offenders’ personal circumstances.
Amendment 8, tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, seeks to ensure sentencing guidelines can continue to advise sentencers to seek pre-sentence reports in cases involving offenders who are pregnant or who are primary carers of young children. I should like to start by thanking the right reverend Prelate for raising this point. I have long been an advocate for better support for pregnant women in prison and for those women who are primary carers of young children, ever since I first sat outside HMP Styal with my mother, taking foster children to see their mums on visits. I know all too well that so many of the foster children who I lived with had mothers in prison who were often victims of considerable trauma and abuse, and they were often vulnerable, addicted and mentally ill. Many found imprisonment had life-changing impacts, for not only them but their children.
Around two-thirds of female offenders sentenced to custody receive short sentences and around the same number are victims of domestic abuse. I proudly chair the Women’s Justice Board, which was set up last year with the aim of closing a women’s prison and addressing the specific needs of this cohort. The sentencing review’s recommendations on short, deferred and suspended sentences will reduce the number of women in prison. This is an important step towards that objective.
However, in the context of this specific Bill, following the Committee debate, I have further considered whether it would be appropriate to add an exclusion. Amendment 8 would allow the Sentencing Council to retain existing wording across relevant guidelines that suggests sentencers request pre-sentence reports for pregnant and post-natal offenders. We remain satisfied that the Bill’s current approach is the right one. It ensures sentencing guidelines do not risk preferential access to pre-sentence reports based on offenders’ personal characteristics. In doing so, it prevents the Sentencing Council making policy on who should get a pre-sentence report.
To be absolutely clear, this does not mean we think pregnant or post-natal women should not be receiving pre-sentence reports. We fully support the ability of sentencers to make their own judgment on whether to order a pre-sentence report, based on their consideration of the unique circumstances of individual cases. That is why nothing in the Bill stops courts requesting pre-sentence reports in any case where they ordinarily would do so. This includes appropriate cases involving pregnant or post-natal women, as well as other individuals who may be vulnerable for a number of reasons.
The key distinction here is that we cannot support any suggestion within sentencing guidelines that access to pre-sentence reports should be based on offenders’ personal characteristics. It is for this reason that we have been clear throughout the Bill’s passage that it does not affect the existing obligation on courts, under section 30 of the Sentencing Code, to obtain a pre-sentence report, unless considered unnecessary.
I want to re-emphasise that, following the Bill’s passage, the Sentencing Council can still remind sentencers in general terms that pre-sentence reports are necessary when, among other things, a full assessment of an offender’s personal circumstances would be beneficial. I would like to clarify that, even without a pre-sentence report, alternatives to custody can be considered by a sentencing court. Pre-sentence reports are by no means the only route through which alternatives to custody are considered, and women are diverted away from custody.
I hope I have reassured noble Lords about the Government’s sentiment with regard to better support for pregnant women and primary carers currently in prison and about our clear policy intention to reduce the number of women in prison. I therefore encourage noble Lords not to press their amendments in this group.
Lord Beith (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, could he clarify something for me, because he has made two apparently conflicting statements in the course of the correspondence? One is that it would be unlawful—and that is his word—for the Sentencing Council to frame guidelines in a way that reflected the existing case law that pregnant women should be the subject of pre-sentence reports. But he has just said, and has said on other occasions also, that the Sentencing Council can issue guidelines or statements of some kind which draw attention to that pre-existing case law. The purpose of my amendment was to leave the Sentencing Council free to do so. How can he, at one and the same time, say that this would be unlawful and then describe this way of carrying it out?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
These are different things and we do not want to link them. The Bill intentionally deals with the Sentencing Council, not the Court of Appeal. The Bill as drafted achieves its aims simply, and we do not want to overcomplicate things.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has indicated to your Lordships that he proposes to test the opinion of this House on Amendment 2. I am a pragmatist. I want to see the Bill improve to further the objective that I have explained to your Lordships. That being so, I am perfectly content to rally behind Amendment 2. I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Lord Marks’ amendment to page 1, line 7, would allow the Sentencing Council more discretion in preparing sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports in order to avoid inequality of sentencing outcomes.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response. However, I do not believe that the proposed guidelines that the Bill seeks to make unlawful were inimical to equality before the law. Nor do I believe that the Bill advances—indeed, I believe it is hostile to—the attempt of the Sentencing Council to advise judges as to how to address the inequality of outcomes that bedevils our criminal justice system. My amendments are an attempt to assist in the addressing of that inequality, so I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 2.
“(4B) Sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports must promote greater use of such reports as part of sentencing, in particular when the sentencing decision is likely to involve a choice between a community penalty and imprisonment.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to encourage increased use of pre-sentence reports.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, in the first group, we considered what we regard as the unsatisfactory nature of this Bill. My Amendment 5 is directed to ensuring that guidelines promote the use of pre-sentence reports as a general rule. As has been mentioned, there has been a very serious decline in the use of pre-sentence reports. As the Minister said in Committee and others have said today—notably, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—there has been a 44% reduction in the number of pre-sentence reports ordered and produced over the last decade. That flows in part from the effect of a recognised lack of resources for the Probation Service to produce these reports over that period.
Not only that, but the reduction in numbers has been accompanied by a recent decline in the quality of the reports produced by the courts. Although, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, some years back there may have been an improvement in the quality of pre-sentence reports, contemporary evidence suggests that there has been a significant decline over the last 10 years. I do not believe that that decline is attributable to a lack of commitment on the part of individual probation officers. However, we should recognise that the demoralisation that has taken place in the Probation Service has been very serious indeed. That has been partly the effect of the ill-starred changes to and reorganisation of the whole of the probation services, initiated by the previous Government. The later reversal, while welcome, merely proved that the whole experiment was profoundly unsettling and damaging to the probation services as a whole.
But the declining quality of pre-sentence reports has been principally the result of a lack of resources allocated to the production of individual reports, particularly the time probation officers have had to prepare them. These reports need to be thoughtful, and thoroughly and individually researched, with a real assessment of the most appropriate sentences in individual cases. The reports need to consider the individual circumstances of offenders with care, and officers need the time to do that. There needs to be much more opportunity for officers carefully to consider individually suitable community sentences and to research their availability. They need to have the time and resources to consider the conditions that might be appropriately attached to such community sentences, along with the employment and housing, and opportunities and risks, that need to be considered in individual cases.
In discussing these issues, we should not lose sight of the central features of sentencing hearings. Pre-sentence reports are the only real independent sources of information for judges about the personal circumstances of offenders and of the possible disposals and their suitability. Judges cannot get this assistance from speeches in mitigation by defence advocates, however well-researched and argued they might be. That is primarily, of course, because such speeches are delivered on instructions—the instructions of the offenders the advocates represent—and are not, therefore, independent. But it is also because the Probation Service has an unrivalled expertise in advising judges on appropriate sentencing. Given the resources and training that dedicated probation officers receive, they can make all the difference to sentencing and can help offenders to make their best efforts to turn their lives around. This is not only a civilised and humanitarian outcome; in turning offenders away from crime, and in reducing reoffending and the huge personal costs to victims and families associated with it, it brings substantial societal benefit as well.
The case for this amendment is that we need to return to the principle that once underlay pre-sentencing reports in practice, as well as in theory, and certainly in every case where the sentencing decision was between custody and community sentences: that the judge should have pre-sentence reports of the highest quality possible in all such cases. During the course of the noble Lord’s tenure as Prisons Minister, he has made it clear that it is his ambition to bring more investment into the Probation Service and to increase the number of probation officers—which should also improve, I would add, the retention of probation officers within the service and raise standards generally. For us, this is a crucial issue.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his constructive engagement with me and others during the passage of the Bill. If he can convince us from the Dispatch Box—I am very hopeful that he will—that his ambition is also the Government’s ambition for the Probation Service and pre-sentence reports, I will not press my amendment to a vote. However, the converse also follows. I await what the Minister has to say in response. I beg to move.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I may be brief, having made my general observations in respect of the previous group. So far as this amendment is concerned, in appropriate cases, pre-sentence reports are of course necessary—but not in all cases. The probation officer is usually the best person to alert the court to the possible benefit of obtaining a report, or not obtaining one, in a given case. In some cases, the sentencer will also want a report, whether or not the probation officer has indicated that a report might assist. We on this side are of the view that we do not need this amendment.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said about pre-sentence reports. A long time ago, I had much experience of defending in the Crown Court, so I know that such reports are of extreme and important value. However, I have to say—for the first time, really—that I agree with the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, who just said that he does not see the need for this amendment. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I do not see it, either, I am afraid. I know that the noble Lord needs to be satisfied by the Minister, who will no doubt follow what I have to say, but, in my view, the Government’s policy on pre-sentence reports is clear: they are in favour of them, and we need to improve them because they have been allowed to go downhill in the past number of years. I agree with that. My view is that this amendment is not something that should divide the House.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, would require sentencing guidelines about pre-sentence reports to encourage their greater use, particularly in cases where a sentencing decision is likely to involve a choice between a community or custodial sentence. I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment. He was right to ask how we can encourage greater use of pre-sentence reports and ensure that we have sufficient probation resource to do so, and he made exactly the right points in speaking about the importance of pre-sentence reports. I am grateful to him for the discussions that we have had since Committee; I would welcome continued engagement with him on this issue.
I hope that the noble Lord will not mind me giving quite a full answer to his question. Although he asked the right question, I would argue that there are other levers beyond sentencing guidelines that are the better place to solve the problem. We must ensure that we have a Probation Service that is properly funded and staffed, and which has the tools it needs to deliver. We must also balance the need for sufficient and thorough pre-sentence reports with the other crucial roles that the Probation Service plays. We want more, and better-quality, PSRs.
I am mindful that the noble Lord tabled a similar amendment in Committee, where I took the opportunity to set out the steps that the Lord Chancellor and I are taking to improve the Probation Service’s capacity to deliver timely and high-quality reports. I would like to reassure noble Lords further on the steps that we are taking to support our Probation Service; if they will permit me, I will endeavour to give a thorough answer as to what the Government are doing.
First, we are increasing staffing levels. We recruited more than 1,000 new trainee probation officers last year and we aim to recruit a further 1,300 this year.
Secondly, I am delighted that we have announced a significant increase to the budget for the Probation Service and other community services for offenders. It will rise by up to £700 million by 2028-29, representing an increase of around 45% by the final year of the spending review period. This is a very significant investment and demonstrates the Government’s commitment to this vital service. I am sure that the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, will agree that this is needed to fund probation in a way that ensures that our probation officers can do the job they came into the service to do.
Thirdly, I am convinced that a significant part of the answer sits with new technology. The Lord Chancellor and I recently hosted a tech round table with industry experts to make sure that we are asking the right questions and working collaboratively on the best solutions. Let me give noble Lords a sense of some of the transformative impact that we are already exploring in terms of technology.
I am passionate about ensuring that probation officers are able to do the job they came in to do. For probation, as with every other public service, new technology has the potential to be really transformative. We are exploring the benefits of AI in a number of areas. We are piloting the use of transcription and summarisation tools to reduce administrative load. We are developing algorithms to support decision-making, risk assessment, case prioritisation and operational planning. AI-powered search is being explored to better support the information gathering needed for report writing. All these have the potential to save significant practitioner administration time and to improve quality, allowing probation officers to focus on face-to-face time with offenders, to support them to change, rather than on administrative tasks.
Technology can also transform how probation staff can bring the right information together to assess and manage offenders. For staff writing pre-sentence reports, we are rolling out a new service called “Prepare a case for sentence”, which links probation systems with the court’s common platform and gives probation staff in the courts the earliest possible notice of cases that are being listed, as well as new templates so that reports are timely and give the courts what they need.
We are also investing in the complete redesign of the approach to the assessment of risks, needs and the strengths of the people on probation and in prison. The resulting sentence and risk management plans will combine a new assessment and planning approach that incorporates the latest desistance research, supported by a new digital service. This new service will reduce the resource burden on front-line staff and ensure that assessment and planning practice better supports individuals, thereby achieving better rehabilitation and public protection outcomes.
Noble Lords will recognise that, although investment in staff numbers and technology are vital foundations, it is nothing without also supporting staff to have the right skills to spot risks and needs and to communicate those to the court. Our staff have access to a wide range of learning and development, including modules relating to court-specific roles and skills, ensuring that they are well equipped to work in this setting. The better trained they are, the better PSRs they will present.
The Probation Service has a dedicated court case assessment tool for line managers to quality assure pre-sentence reports. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation also completes regular inspections of probation regions, with an assessment of court work included as a key component of this. Furthermore, the Probation Service seeks detailed feedback from sentencers on the quality of reports through an annual judicial survey. Through all this investment and improvement, our aim is that, whenever a court orders a pre-sentence report, it can be confident that it is based on the fullest information and a thorough analysis of risks and needs; and that it answers the right questions the court is wanting to understand.
I recognise that the noble Lord’s amendment now specifically refers to scenarios where a sentencer will likely need to decide between imposing a community or a custodial sentence. I completely agree with the noble Lord that pre-sentence reports can be particularly helpful in these kinds of cases. These reports provide sentencers with an effective assessment of risk and targeted assessments of the individual’s needs. This then confidently articulates suitable sentencing proposals that balance public protection, punishment and rehabilitation. In doing so, they will consider a range of disposal options, setting out the best use of credible community sentences where appropriate.
I hope that it will offer some reassurance to the noble Lord that the revised imposition guideline already includes relevant texts in this spirit, which the Bill does not impact. Specifically, it states:
“A pre-sentence report can be pivotal in helping the court decide whether to impose a custodial or community order and, where relevant, what particular requirements or combination of requirements are most suitable for an individual offender on either a community order or a suspended custodial sentence”.
Of course, it is for the sentencer to decide whether to order a pre-sentence report, and there is an existing obligation on courts to obtain a pre-sentence report unless they consider it unnecessary. The Bill does not change that.
I reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for raising the importance of pre-sentence reports and increasing their use. As I have set out, the Government are committed to ensuring greater funding, capacity and efficiency for the Probation Service. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his helpful and detailed response. As I hoped he would, he has given an outline of the Government’s very real commitment to more and better pre-sentence reports. He has also detailed the considerable investment that the Government propose to make in the Probation Service and in the production of such reports. I completely agree with him as to the future role of technology in the Probation Service and in the production of these reports. In that spirit, I respectfully ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
“but do not include pregnancy or maternity.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that existing sentencing guidelines relating to the mitigating factor of “pregnancy, childbirth and postnatal care” can continue to provide directions for courts to obtain pre-sentence reports for offenders who are pregnant or are primary carers of young children.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
I am minded not to move this, given what we have seen already, but I did just want to say to the Minister that there has been real confusion here, and I am really disappointed that this is undermining something that is already in existence. The Minister said the pre-sentencing guidelines are saying one thing, and the Bill is saying another. I am very disappointed, but I am not going to move this amendment.
Malvern Hills Bill [HL]
Wednesday 4th June 2025
(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Lords ChamberMalvern Hills Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Malvern Hills Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I should express my gratitude to the Malvern Hills Trust for inviting me to present the Bill on its behalf.
I am sure that none of your Lordships needs me to describe the iconic beauty of the Malvern Hills. I now live in the city of Worcester and for much of my life I have been in Malvern itself or in the villages close by. The hills stretch for about eight miles from end to end across the borders of Herefordshire and Worcestershire. The highest point is the Worcestershire Beacon at 1,394 feet. The hills are designated as a national landscape, formerly known as an area of outstanding natural beauty. Some 62% of the hills are a site of special scientific interest, and there are three scheduled ancient monuments, including the remains of trenches on the Herefordshire Beacon, or British Camp, which was used by Caratacus in his last stand against the Romans. The hills are home to a rich variety of wildlife and protected habitats. They attract very significant numbers of visitors who take advantage of open access, including a network of footpaths and bridleways.
The promoters of the Bill are the Malvern Hills Trust. That is its working name; its statutory name is the Malvern Hills Conservators. It is the job of the trust to protect and manage the hills for the benefit of the public. I should say that if one visits the hills, it is evident that the trust performs its task very well indeed. The trust was established by an Act of Parliament in 1884 and since then, four further local Acts have amended and supplemented each other. The most recent Act was passed in 1995.
One of the purposes of the Bill before your Lordships is to consolidate those Acts. This would make good what the late Lord Colville of Culross said when introducing the Bill for the 1995 Act at Second Reading on 8 March 1993. I hope it is not out of order if I refer to my pleasure at seeing the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on the Woolsack. The late Lord Colville said in 1993:
“I have great sympathy with one of the petitioners, who would like to see this private legislation consolidated. I am sure that everybody would”.—[Official Report, 8/3/1993; col. 869.]
The area that falls within the management of the trust consists of large parts of the hills themselves and other areas of open land comprising roadside verges and commons. The area is illustrated by a map which has been deposited with the Bill. The trust owns most, but not all, of the land within its management. About 90% of it is registered common land and virtually all of it open space, accessible by the public on foot and on horseback.
Lord Colville also remarked on the ever-increasing pressures on the hills as they become more and more popular. The pressures arising from that popularity continue to increase, and the need for the hills to be conserved and managed for the future public good remains as strong as ever.
The trust is in a somewhat unusual position in that it has the power to issue a levy on the residents of certain parishes in the local area. I will come on to that in more detail later, particularly as it is one of the topics that has been raised in the instruction tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Atlee.
It is worth drawing your Lordships’ attention to the fact that the trust is a charity. As such, the trust has to comply with charity law and take heed of guidance issued by the Charity Commission. As your Lordships are aware, the purpose of a Second Reading is to consider the Bill generally and approve the principle. In due course, a Select Committee will be appointed to examine the Bill and the 50 petitions that have been deposited against it. The trust has looked through the petitions and will respond to all the petitioners.
Common themes have been identified in the petitions, and I will touch on some of them today. Part 2 of the Bill has drawn more attention from petitioners than any other. It would make significant changes to the composition of the board of trustees, which has not changed significantly in 100 years. The trust considers that its board needs to be smaller, and it needs to include trustees who possess the skills necessary to manage an area of open space as significant as the Malvern Hills, in line with good governance of other modern statutory bodies and Charity Commission guidance. The Bill would achieve that.
Currently, the trust comprises 29 trustees: 11 are directly elected by the residents of the levy-paying parishes; 18 are nominated by various local authorities and, in the case of one trustee, by the Church Commissioners. The Bill proposes to reduce the overall number of trustees to 12, with six elected trustees and six appointed trustees. It has been suggested that the Bill would dilute the proportion of elected trustees. The reality is that, if the Bill is enacted in its current form, the proportion of elected trustees will increase from 38% to 50%.
Another point that has been raised by petitioners is about the changes that are proposed to the way elections will work. Currently, the electors of three parishes and of some former wards of a long-abolished urban district council elect one or more trustees for their individual area. The Bill proposes one electoral area, combining all the areas which currently elect trustees, so each one of the six elected trustees would be voted for by all the electors, rather than each trustee being chosen by the electors of an individual parish or ward.
A complaint that has been made is that this will mean that parishes lose their representation on the board, but charity trustees are not representatives of the interests of those who appoint them. The trust’s objects are to preserve and manage the hills for the benefit of the public as a whole. They are not to look after the interests of any particular area.
The trust and I are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for giving us the opportunity to comment on a draft of his instruction, which touches on the trust’s constitution. I can say now that I do not intend to oppose it. I understand that the noble Earl’s concerns may, to some extent, overlap with those of the board as regards the potential for single-issue candidates dominating the elected trustees. I am sure that the Select Committee will look into this in detail, but the position of the trust is that the Bill strikes the right balance between elected and appointed trustees.
Part 3 of the Bill is about finance, and includes Clause 33, which deals with the levy, the subject of the other limb of the noble Earl’s instruction. The first point is that Clause 33 makes no changes to the current position. The parishes which are subject to the levy would not change; the amount that is charged at the time the Bill attains Royal Assent would not change; the way in which the levy is collected would not change; and the statutory limitation on annual increases to the levy would not change. The instruction would require the Select Committee to consider the area within which the levy is applied. I am sure that this would be a matter which the Select Committee would wish to examine in any event. I say again that I do not intend to oppose the instruction.
At the request of the trust, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, included some wording in his instruction about a restriction on the trust on what it can promote in the Bill in relation to the levy. By law, the trust has to obtain the consent of the Charity Commissioners to incur expenditure on the promotion of the Bill. As a condition of that consent, the trust must not incur expenditure in promoting any material changes to the levying provisions, including changes to the levy-paying area. The trust is content, of course, with the levy clause as contained in the Bill, and it would seek to persuade the Select Committee of its merits.
Part 4 deals with public access to and management of the hills. It is worth referring back to Clause 5 for context. Clause 6 sets out the objects of the trust, which are
“to protect, conserve and maintain the landscape, natural appearance, habitats, flora and fauna, geology and archaeology of the Malvern Hills”,
and to
“keep the Malvern Hills unbuilt on as open space for recreation and enjoyment of the public”.
Alongside Clauses 38 and 40, which respectively set out the statutory rights of the public to access the hills and impose a duty on the trust to keep the hills unenclosed, there remains very significant protection for the hills into the future.
I hope that your Lordships have no complaints about the way in which the trust manages the hills now or about the provisions of Part 4, which, in general terms, consolidate the existing local legislation, with very few changes. The most significant change in the Bill is a new power to fence common land to prevent animals straying from it. The Bill does not provide the trust with a charter to build on the hills or to install solar panels or wind turbines all over the hills, as some of the Bill’s detractors have, rather fancifully, suggested. It is quite the opposite.
The proposed instruction by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asks that the Select Committee pays particular attention to the provisions which would impede or restrict public access. I strongly suspect that public access also will be of interest to the Select Committee, and I do not intend to oppose her instruction.
Part 5 restates in modern terms the trust’s power to make and enforce by-laws with one significant change—namely, a new power to issue fixed penalties. Part 6 deals with the trust’s power in relation to land, and again makes no significant changes.
Finally, I should mention Clause 83 in Part 7, which is a new general power for the trust, akin to general powers enjoyed by other statutory bodies and charities. It is important to note the inbuilt restrictions on the use of the power, which means that any fears about the trust bypassing the provisions I have mentioned about preserving the hills cannot become reality.
The proposed instruction of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, touches on the scope of the promoters’ powers. I am sure that, in any event, the Select Committee will take particular interest in Clause 83 and Clause 84, which introduces a number of miscellaneous powers, all of which can be exercised only to further the objects of the trust. The noble Baroness’s instruction is based on the instruction which was passed on Second Reading of the Bill which became the Malvern Hills Act 1995. Following in the footsteps of the previous Lord Colville, as mentioned earlier, I do not intend to oppose it.
I hope that what I have said is persuasive enough for your Lordships to allow the Bill to be given a Second Reading and for it to proceed to Committee. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for his usual expert introduction of the Bill today. The promoters would have been hard pushed to find a more suitable and capable Peer to move the Second Reading.
Assuming that your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading, I will then move my Motion that it be an instruction to the Select Committee considering the Bill that it considers both the precept area and the electoral arrangements. This will not prevent the Select Committee considering, subject to the Standing Orders governing its procedures, any other matters it sees fit or the many petitions that have been deposited, and the noble Lord recognised that. I am indebted to him for agreeing in advance that he will not oppose my Motion. I gently point out to my noble friend Lady Coffey that the drafting of my Motion was very carefully considered and agreed with the promoters in early February this year.
If both instructions are agreed—and they probably will be—your Lordships’ Committee of Selection will have to decide between composing a committee that is ideal for considering the electoral and precept issues or one that is ideal for considering the AONB and access aspects of the Bill, if I may put it that way. I think that the electoral and precept aspects are more important.
My interest in the Malvern Hills arose through my wife, who was born in Little Malvern, and we regularly attend local events. By chance, last Saturday, we were in Malvern and climbed the Worcestershire Beacon—my hips have just about recovered. We have no property interests in Malvern, although my wife’s siblings do.
I would like to think that I am very well briefed on the MHT. I have an open mind, but I have some serious anxieties regarding the governance of the MHT. In particular, last year, the board lost its chair in acrimonious circumstances; there were accusations that it was being run by a small group and was withholding information from certain trustees. Some trustees complained of not getting information in a timely way, or even at all. I have taken up the governance matters with the Charity Commission at the highest level, and this is no longer a matter for me to deal with—I am not equipped to deal with it, nor is it my role. It should be noted that not all trustees are in favour of the Bill. However, advice from the Charity Commission is that the decisions of the trustees do not have to be unanimous.
I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, about the operational side of the MHT. Despite a recent tragedy, I have no doubt that the Malvern Hills are being very well looked after. There is an excellent new chief executive in place. I agree that the five Acts of Parliament that govern the Malvern Hills need to be brought up to date; some of the drafting is archaic and refers to organisations that are no longer extant, and the trustees are unnecessarily constrained in what they can do.
Compared with the eight petitions in 1995, there are 50 petitions on this occasion, reflecting the Bill’s complexity and controversy. Many of them are very well argued, and I am sure that the Select Committee will look at them all carefully.
Removing “natural aspect” from the objects of the Acts and replacing it with “natural appearance” is one example of shared concerns of those living in or close to the Malvern Hills or surrounding commons. Others concern estovers and other ancient rights of commoners. In the context of the trust’s rights to grant land access easements, the residents fear that the changed wording will invalidate previous case law and counsels’ opinions on what might affect the natural aspect, leaving the door wide open for future developments to be facilitated. “Natural aspect” continues to be used and understood in the planning context and neither the conservators of Epping Forest nor of Wimbledon and Putney Commons have chosen to remove those words from their governing Acts.
An important issue raised by many petitioners is whether or not MHT is a public body. Last year, I tabled a Written Parliamentary Question on this point and it was confirmed by the Government that MHT is not a public body. However, very recently, the ONS has undertaken a reclassification exercise and determined that MHT is indeed a public body. My understanding is that the ONS did not consult with MHT before making its conclusion public, which was rather surprising when MHT is in the course of putting a private Bill through your Lordships’ House.
If it is a public body, MHT might be subject to freedom of information requests, but it is not well enough resourced to deal with them. I am not a fan of FoI, although I have used it to good effect myself. Can the Minister tell the House what she thinks the new position is regarding FoI and MHT?
Some of the petitioners make compelling arguments that MHT is a public body because it takes in the precept as its main source of income. Car parking charges are considerable, but those are for the provision of a service. Charitable income is negligible. If it was a normal charity, funders could walk away if they disagreed with how it was being run. Instead, they must pay a compulsory levy.
No doubt MHT will consider the implications of this latest development. The committee will have to consider it because there are several potential consequences; these might include distinguishing between the legal and statutory requirements of being classed as a public body as distinct from its role as a charity receiving donations. As a public body, the trustees could have a duty to the levy payers rather than acting only in the best interests of the charity—a point touched on by the noble Lord.
I have identified two major issues of concern for the residents of the Malvern Hills area; that is, the area in the jurisdiction of the trust. They are the subject of my instruction to the Committee, and they are both linked. The first is the long-standing anomaly that some residents pay the precept while others also in the MHT landholding area do not. Although existing Acts provide that the levy-paying area can be applied to commons and wastelands at any time and from time to time, the provisions have never been used. However, the new draft position at Clause 71(6) appears to give the power only on lands acquired in the future, so the residents in those existing areas will never bear a portion of the precept. I also question whether orders made by the Secretary of State under Clause 71 really require the affirmative order process.
On the one hand, the trustees recognise that some paying the levy and some not is illogical and unfair. But, of course, there is no financial advantage for them in changing this because the total precept received would remain the same but there would be some increased costs for the trust. On the other hand, existing precept payers argue that they are exposed to an increased burden on costs, especially as some 46% of the trust’s landholding is outside the precept area and the trust continues to have the power to purchase more land. Parliament owes it to residents in the Malvern area to have the matter of the precept very carefully considered.
The second issue is the electoral and appointment arrangements for trustees. The noble Lord has carefully explained the new arrangements for the trustees. The proposals to have all the levy-paying parishes combined into a single electoral area is of concern to the residents because they believe they will lose their democratic right to elect their own representative. Their concern is that the new arrangements will extinguish the practice established in 1884 of ensuring that the individual needs of the different parishes—rural, urban and agricultural—are properly considered through their local trustee. That may now become particularly relevant if MHT is a public body.
A further concern is that non-levy payers, many of whom live in the rural areas, may have no voice at all. Extending the precept area could resolve these anomalies and be fairer. Matching the precept area to the landholdings of the MHT was envisaged in the 1884 Act, because, if the conservators acquired land in the future, they had the powers to levy the relevant parishes and they would be entitled to appoint a conservator.
The removal of the 18 trustees appointed by local councils across the whole of the area under MHT’s jurisdiction, to be replaced by the appointment of six independent trustees, via a new nomination committee, from anywhere in the country with no necessary connection to Malvern whatever, will further dilute the residents’ ability to have a voice in the trust. Surely the necessary expertise could be found from within the Malvern area or at the very least from within, say, 35 miles of Great Malvern Priory and all of Birmingham.
However, the question remains whether the complete severance of the link with all local councils is the best way of managing the hills effectively. Perhaps the residents of Malvern would be better served if the trust bought in some or all such expertise as and when needed and instead increased the numbers of elected trustees to give a fairer representation.
In addition to some of the concerns that I have had time to mention, I am concerned that, over time, the new arrangements would mean that it would be too easy for the trust to be taken over by a single-issue pressure group, with serious adverse consequences—a point recognised by the noble Lord.
In conclusion, I hope the whole House will welcome the principle of having a new Bill. It is essential that we instruct the committee to look specifically at the two areas I have suggested. However, the Committee will have to consider the petitions and other matters as well, and I fear that the Committee’s task will be somewhat onerous.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who has clearly carefully applied himself to the details, in both his speech and instruction. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for so ably introducing the Bill.
I have the misfortune not to have a special connection to the Malvern Hills, although I have been a visitor there a number of times, but I have had representations from people who are very concerned about their future who have asked me to speak today. They are passionate about the future of the hills and they support the Bill and the way forward. A really important point, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, stressed, is that this is a charity and is under the governance of the Charity Commission, which we know is important for keeping a sense of direction and for bodies following their aims.
I have to reflect briefly on why we here in Westminster are debating this Bill. According to Google Maps, it would take us one day and 20 hours to walk to the top of the Malvern Hills—I do not think I would do it in that time myself, but that is the maximum record. It would take more than four hours by public transport. That being about 120 miles, it means the average speed is 30 miles per hour, which is something of an indictment of the public transport. None the less, the question is: why do we have a system of government that means that we are here in Westminster debating the future of a local area? Would it not it be much better if it was local people having the debate in that local area? However, we are where we are and we have to do the best we can, and that is what noble Lords are doing.
There are a couple of points that I particularly wanted to make. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has outlined so much that I am not going to go over anything like all the ground that he did, but it is important to make the point about the reduction in the number of trustees from 29 to 12. That figure is the maximum number generally recommended by the charity governance code and the Charity Commission guidance. I think most noble Lords in this Chamber and elsewhere will have found themselves on many governing bodies, trusts, boards, et cetera, over the years. Twelve is a very large board, and we know how difficult decision-making can be in those sorts of situations. It is also important to stress that, if the Bill is enacted in its current form, the proportion of elected trustees increases from 38% to 50%. This is a modernisation and a moving forward—that is the overall direction of the Bill—for an area that sees 1.25 million visitors a year, according to University of Bristol figures.
It is worth noting—and many people have commented on it—what a good state the Malvern Hills are in. I looked this up. The word Malvern derives from the Celtic, “moel bryn”, which means “bare hill”. That is obviously an historic name, but we know that we live in one of the most nature-depleted corners of this blighted planet. I am sure that we can do better by nature; we can do better by those many visitors, and we know how important green spaces are to public health to make those spaces as good as they can be for visitors, for the farmers, and for the communities. This is an attempt to make a step forward, a modernisation. Ideally, we would not be doing this here at all, but given that these are the rules we operate under, I support the direction of the Bill.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for their more detailed and comprehensive look at this Bill. Several years ago, when I was working for the Local Government Association with councillors in Malvern Hills, I came to enjoy being in the town. I found a super B&B on the main road and particularly enjoyed the backdrop of the wonderful Malvern Hills. However, I also heard of issues and concerns—even back then—with the Malvern Hills Trust, as it likes to be known. When I saw this Bill coming forward, therefore, my interest was piqued. It did not take very long research to see that the changes in the Bill were meeting considerable opposition—and I emphasise “considerable”.
As a former elected mayor, I am no stranger to some vocal members of the public opposing any modernisation within any organisation, however they are constituted, and, indeed, being resistant to any change whatever—do not get me started on development. However, the opposition to this Bill is something of a completely different order. As a member of our office staff said to me yesterday, “I have close friends in Malvern. They said the whole town is talking about it” and the evidence confirms that they are, so the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, should be assured that they are having the debate, but it is mainly in acrimonious public meetings.
That the House has received more than 50 individual, highly articulate, well-intentioned petitions, including petitions from the local county, district and parish councils, from former chairs of the Malvern Hills Conservatives and even from a group of current trustees is a red flag. Raising substantive concerns in respect of this Bill, they surely tell a tale in themselves. I think the House has received more petitions in respect of this Bill than it has received in total for the past 10 years for all Private Bills. That their concerns appear to be completely ignored begs the question as to the motives behind these changes. What will the Bill change? What powers is it granting that are causing such a furore of public opinion?
I do not doubt that the trust could and should be improved, which is why I am not opposing this Bill but think that it must and should be improved. However, I do believe that the trust’s PR has been dire, or we would not be in the situation that we are in now. The noble Lord said how wonderfully things have been managed and how good things are, but “Oh, but we have to change”. I would argue that the trust has not made the case for change to the general public. That is in how it has conducted its affairs and its consultation, which needs to be looked at.
It is clear that the promoters, as well as consolidating the existing five Acts, wish to be granted substantial additional powers while being governed by a much smaller and— as outlined well by the noble Earl, Lord Atlee—less democratic board. For example, if one of the six elected people stands down, the other six can appoint a person in their stead, so it is easier to be taken over by a single-issue pressure group. The evidence suggests that little, if any, thought has been given by the promoters to the substantive concerns raised by the levy-paying public in Malvern who fund this—and I am going to use the words—public body. I commend the work of the Malvern Environment Protection Group in bringing these issues to the attention of the public.
There is even a dispute as to the constitutional nature of the trust. Several noble Lords have referred to it as a charity, yet we hear that as recently as last month it was deemed by a KC to be a public body, and that is usually defined by the amount of taxation that it gets as part of its revenue—which, again, was well expressed by the noble Earl. This must be clarified, because noble Lords will be very aware that there are significant legal differences as to whether you are a public body or a charity in what you can do, what you cannot do and to whom you are accountable. This lack of clarity is making members of the public nervous and, whether rightly or wrongly, question the motives and intentions of the trustees.
This has, understandably, set hares running, and, it might seem, with good reason, because something starts to smell not quite right. As mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, its former chair could not find out how much a senior official of her trust was being paid. We all know that if you are the chair of any board, you are responsible, so to not be able to have that information tells you that something is a bit rotten in the state of Denmark. These anxieties and fears were further fuelled when, at recent meetings to discuss this Bill and the financial arrangements regarding it, eight trustees were, in effect, gagged from speaking or voting. Moreover, in successive board meetings, the level of transparency and accountability would appear to have fallen significantly below what would be expected of any public body or, indeed, any well-run charity. In such circumstances, I am quite shocked that they are pushing ahead regardless. Surely, with this level of concern and with so many unanswered questions—including from some of their own trustees—they should think again.
Yes, I too am deeply concerned about the governance arrangements. These proposals remove 140 years of accountability to local councils and the public, which should not be cast off lightly. I sense the public feel that they have not been given good reasons for this change. “Everything’s going wonderfully; everything’s terrific; it’s all managed well, but we need to modernise and move forward”. What does that actually mean?
If power could pass to a small group of people to take over and run the trust, there is a fear that corruption will increase and of course that changes will be made to alter the nature of and access to the hills—and also that it could make significant amounts of money. The Bill erodes the rights of taxpaying residents to question and challenge this new body on how that money is spent: a right they have enjoyed for 140 years. Retaining or clarifying its status as a public body is vital to ensure that the organisation remains subject to a judicial review and the ability to be subject to freedom of information.
In summary, therefore, I welcome the proposals from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and to a large extent those from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. However, I think the issue about access, the one line in her proposal, should be left to trustees and not be down to us to dictate. I feel that we need to consider the arrangements concerning the appointment of board members and the scope of the levy-paying area. I also urge noble Lords to carefully consider the application for a general power.
What might be of interest to your Lordships—and please indulge me on this; it is probably because I am married to a historian—is that, when the Act was discussed by noble Lords in 1993, Baroness Macleod of Borve said:
“It would empower the conservators to change the face of Malvern forever”.
Lord Hampton added that the conservators were
“seeking powers well beyond those needed to carry out their prime functions”.
Lord Moran commented that there was
“no explanation of why the conservators thought that they required these comparatively sweeping powers”.—[Official Report, 8/3/93; cols. 870-76.]
These objections seem to me to be still valid because they have not been answered, because of the lack of good engagement and good consultation.
Finally, I urge the promoters of this Bill to very carefully consider the costs they are incurring. There was yet another acrimonious meeting, where questions went unanswered about the amounts of money. That too is not good. If you are funded mainly by taxpayers, they want to know what you are spending their money on and how much this is all going to cost. There are estimates that the true final cost could be well over £1 million, compared with an annual income of £1.4 million. Had the conservators actively engaged with those who articulated their concerns, I believe they would have saved themselves a great deal of time, effort and expense.
There is still an opportunity to do this now. It should never have been necessary for five trustees to have to petition this House, with the consequence that they and others appear currently arbitrarily suspended from matters relating to that Bill. I believe that the committee will have its work cut out, but, having been on a Private Bill Committee, I have no doubt that it will do it and do it well and that the suggestions for its work from the noble Baroness and others are going in the right direction.
I really feel that the conservators should answer the questions raised and conduct themselves in a more open and transparent manner than it would appear is happening at the moment. Then we can come to an amicable situation where we can satisfy most of the people. One of the things I have learned over the years in politics is that you can never please all of the people all of the time. I used to settle for pleasing some of the people some of the time.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
That puts a different light on things.
I support my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester in supporting this private Bill. I also commend the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for explaining his points in detail, as did the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner. I understand the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, made about the difficulties faced in Malvern, but there are two points I would like to make.
First, the Malvern Hills really are of not just local, regional or even national significance but of international significance and importance. In a way, I suspect that, if a private Bill—which after all 140 years ago set up the trust—is to be used, it is being used because the Malvern Hills are so utterly important to our country. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, I have served on private Bills in the other place. The Select Committees do a very thorough job and I have no doubt that the Select Committee which your Lordships will appoint to deal with this Bill will do an equally thorough job, and clearly it needs to do precisely that. Let us see what happens, but that is the mechanism we have in front of us and that is why it is such an important issue.
Secondly, I just want to touch for a few moments on why I as a Welshman am interested in the Malvern Hills: after all, we have a few hills of our own in Wales, including in my former constituency and where I live, my valley, Mynydd Maen. They rise to 1,500 feet above sea level—100 feet more than the Malvern Hills. I am not sure they are quite as beautiful as the Malvern Hills and I would not have said that when I was the Member of Parliament for that constituency.
The Malvern Hills are a wonderful part of our scenery in England. It seems to me that we are doing this, as I said, because of their huge significance and importance in our society. I fell in love with the Malverns in the 1960s, and indeed I was there during the last month on two occasions. I always remember the first time I approached those hills from Ross-on-Wye; you go up to Ledbury and see these magnificent Malvern Hills. But to me, they were always associated with my other love, Sir Edward Elgar, our greatest British composer in my view. Some of your Lordships might be—I am, certainly—old enough to remember Ken Russell’s black and white film on the life of Elgar. It opens with a young Elgar riding across the top of the Malvern Hills to the sound of the introduction and allegro. Every time I go, even now, after all these years to the Malvern Hills, that music is in my ears.
Remember that Elgar himself was a Malvern man. He lived for 76 years, and for 55 of those he lived in Malvern. His grave, and those of his wife and daughter, lie in St Wulstan’s Catholic church in the foothills, in Little Malvern. To those of us who love his music, I say that the “Enigma Variations” and the “Dream of Gerontius” were actually written, among other things, when he was within sight of the Malvern Hills. So I think there is an importance of acquainting or associating the work of this great composer and British music with these wonderful hills. That is why it is important to me.
There are all sorts of other reasons why the Malvern Hills are important. I cannot climb them; I walk them, I even ride a car across them—it is only eight miles. Nevertheless, to me, those hills are something so very special that something like this means that they deserve the sort of scrutiny and the sort of attention that a Select Committee of the House of Lords can give them.
I conclude by saying to your Lordships that in 1934, the year that Elgar died, not long before died, he wrote of his cello concerto:
“If ever after I’m dead you hear someone whistling this tune on the Malvern Hills, don’t be alarmed. It’s only me”.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to contribute to this debate and it is a huge pleasure to follow other noble Lords. I think it has been an interesting exposure so far of not only the passion that people have for this wonderful part of our country but the interest in what has brought the Bill to this point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, talked about local people and the local area. Interestingly, the Malvern Hills Trust area is enveloped within an AONB but, as has already been pointed out, one of the reasons why we are in this rather unusual situation is that it was recognised, well over 100 years ago, that not only should this area be protected but that a levy needed to be created to help contribute towards that. We know that the 1949 Act allowed the creation of the national parks and AONBs, and there is something to be said here in thinking about the governance. It is not a suggestion I want to specifically recommend to this House or to the Committee, but one of the things that has come up in this situation is around governance: is it a charity, a public body or even a public authority? This special situation is why we have the Bill here today. This is not the first private Bill I have been involved in; as a Defra Minister, I was involved in the Middle Level Act 2018. It is interesting to see a DCMS Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross—here today, because of that link to the charity.
We should bear in mind that the trust itself says it became a charity in 1984 only because it was legally required to do so. The other thing that has not been set out to your Lordships today is that a different approach was considered a few years ago. In the two Charities Acts—in particular the Charities Act 2011—a process was initiated, and which went a long way, to consider whether some of these modifications could be changed, recognising the provisions that have been put in place thanks to Parliament to simplify some of this process. However, given the degree of concern and opposition, the Secretary of State at the time, through the Charity Commission, rejected the approach of taking it through the parliamentary procedure of the Charities Act, and said that it should come back as a private Bill to get the full scrutiny that the petitioners quite rightly expect.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for his expert navigation of the Bill so far, and to my noble friend Lord Attlee. I am conscious that the noble Lord has perhaps engaged more than I have in thinking some time ago about how to make the governance a particular focus of discussion. That has been a key issue which has been raised in several of the petitions.
I am also conscious of what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, and she is right to raise those concerns. There is certainly trouble at mill. It is not a happy ship, and it should not necessarily need Parliament to be involved. However, recognising the situation we are in, and recognising that nobody wants this trust, this conservators’ body, to be collapsed and simply absorbed into the AONB, here we are. It is right that we have a Select Committee consider these important issues.
One reason I put my instruction in is because the private Bill is rarely used in Parliament. There are only a handful of other places in a similar situation, such as what happens with the Conservators of Ashdown Forest, and perhaps the New Forest—which has a far more ancient aspect of governance, but which was still put into statute. Then there is the much smaller, but still similar, Wimbledon and Putney Commons trust. What the Malvern Hills Trust has in common with the Wimbledon and Putney Commons trust is the ability to, in effect, require a levy. That is what lends itself to the governance, and to people being concerned that, under their own volition, and also by being part of the Charity Commission, the trustees, who are also the board of directors—they are holding the two posts simultaneously—are saying that they have to follow what the Charity Commission is saying, not necessarily the original status of what was put forward. That is why I understand why people are concerned that changes in representation could have an impact on the future of this very special part of our country.
As has been mentioned, there are other situations where a proportion of trustees or directors—whatever they are going to be called—are elected directly, and others are appointed. We seem to have almost a National Trust Council situation, where there is a balance. But I raise the point, which is also being put forward by some of the councils which have petitioned, that all the 29 appointed bodies today—apart from the Church Commissioners—are, I believe, elected in their own right, and will appoint somebody to do that. This is a changing point, which is why—as has been pointed out—it has attracted attention from a record number of petitioners on a private Bill. This Bill is not the same as a hybrid Bill, and HS2 certainly got more, but, according to the clerks, it received a record number of petitioners for a private Bill.
I am interested in this because it is a very special part of the country, and because, through my experience as a Minister, I understand how passionately people feel about a very special place where they live, and which they treasure and want to continue to be special. They are nervous about not only aspects of the governance but some of the clauses in the Bill. I do not know where the equivalent here of the under-gallery is, but I appreciate that the parliamentary agent is almost certainly going to be here somewhere. I am not suggesting that they are going to try to strike out a number of the petitioners, but we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that some people who are currently on the board and have made a petition to express publicly their concerns are now in a particular procedure and process.
To that extent, one thing that can happen is that, if certain petitions are struck out, the Select Committee is not required to consider the issues that they may have raised. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, is accurate to say that I have basically copied and pasted—recycling is classic environmental stuff—the instruction of the departed Baroness Macleod of Borve for consideration today.
I deliberately did not put the commercial side in because I think that there is a lot of sense in trying to increase the opportunity for the trust to raise money itself in a variety of ways; at the moment, it seems somewhat constrained in that. I do not intend to go through all the different petitions, but there are some very valid discussions about aspects of the Bill. I am sure that the parliamentary agent will work with the promoters to tidy up parts of the Bill that just do not work today—there are references in it to subsections that do not exist. That is not necessarily a matter for the Select Committee, but it needs to be tidied up.
I come back to this key question about whether it is a charity or a public body. There is no actual legal definition of what a public body is. I am mindful that, in response to a question posed by my noble friend Lord Attlee, the Government said that it was not a public body. Meanwhile, the ONS has come forward to say that it is some kind of public body or public authority, and I am not surprised by that classification. I cannot think of another example—except potentially the Wimbledon and Putney Commons trust that I referred to—that can require a levy to be imposed on people and not be considered some kind of public authority. I do not want to get into the details about FoI and the like, but I notice that, on its own website, the trust refers to the fact that it is under obligation through public law regarding biodiversity. I know, because I wrote that obligation. I passed that regulation myself, and it is only for what are considered to be public authorities.
Although the Bill puts in a lot of powers to the Secretary of State, it is unclear right now—I would be grateful if, when she speaks, the Minister could clarify—whether that means it is the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport or the Secretary of State for Defra who will make these determinations in the future. It is those sorts of things that, as a consequence, have got people’s backs up, because this is where part of the governance element comes through, when it is said, “You’re not here to represent areas; you’re here to do what the charity says”. This is why this really does need some careful scrutiny. My noble friend Lord Attlee has put down a perfect instruction. Mine might have been copied and pasted, but it was made with the intention of making sure that other issues that have been brought forward by the petitioners are carefully considered.
I am conscious that access is a really important matter of debate. There has been a recent Supreme Court ruling, again, linked to legislation in this House— I am of course referring to Dartmoor. That legislation and that Supreme Court ruling do not apply anywhere else in the country. They apply only to Dartmoor, and that is because of the wording of the Act. That is why, overall, I really am keen for the Select Committee to consider carefully all the factors that petitioners have raised, and why I have put forward an instruction to make sure, in spite of what other processes might go on in Parliament, that these are considered.
I do not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will give it fair consideration on behalf of all the petitioners and, importantly, on behalf of Parliament.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, in speaking in the gap, I apologise for not putting my name down. I did not think that I was going to have time, but it turns out that I do. I must also declare an interest that I grew up within sight of the Malvern Hills and I went to school in Malvern Link and in Malvern Wells.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, slightly took the wind out of my sails by quoting my father, but I will quote a little more of what he said at Second Reading on 8 March 1993:
“I love the hills as they are and I do not anticipate with pleasure any major change. I have not followed the arguments in the Malvern Gazette as carefully as perhaps I should have done. I was first alerted to the proposals by someone who said that the Malvern Hills conservators were seeking considerable extra powers to build houses, offices and warehouses, to make roads and to fence areas off”.
I will, if I may, also quote my cousin, Baroness Macleod, in the same debate:
“However, my noble friend will know that if the Bill goes through in its present form it is possible, and even probable, that the Malvern Hills will be ruined forever. That is one of my reasons for putting down the Instruction to the Committee. Worcestershire is the most lovely county and the Malvern Hills the most beautiful range of hills in the country … I start with Clause 3, which is the first clause that matters. It would empower the conservators to change the face of the Malvern Hills forever. They would have the power to build a McDonald’s, a Little Chef, and fish and chip shops. All of those eating places are welcome in the right place, but not on the Malvern Hills”.—[Official Report, 8/3/1993; cols. 864-70.]
We had dire predictions in 1993 but, when I was there last, the Malvern Hills were as beautiful as ever. There is always a suspicion of change when anything comes in but, as it is, this seems a very sensible Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to an important and interesting debate on a much loved and important British institution—or rather, not necessarily an institution, but the hills themselves. I thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner for his explanation of the Bill and its importance to the Malvern Hills Trust. I am also grateful to the trust for preparing a briefing note for Peers on the Bill explaining its aims and key provisions. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, the Malvern Hills are a spectacular area rich in wildlife and much loved by local communities and visitors alike. As my noble friend Lord Murphy said, they are a wonderful part of our scenery.
As my noble friend Lord Faulkner outlined, and as was referred to by a number of other noble Lords, the Malvern Hills Trust has been endowed since 1884 with the responsibility of protecting and managing the iconic Malvern Hills—not only an area of outstanding natural beauty but one of only 159 national character areas as well as a site of special scientific interest. I note that the Bill will not alter the trust’s core charitable purpose of protecting, maintaining and conserving the natural aspects of the hills and keeping them unbuilt-on as an open space for public recreation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, noted that the intention of the Bill is modernisation. DCMS will always welcome charities working to ensure that their governance follows the best practices of charity law and governance. It is clear from the number of petitions that there is significant local interest in the Malvern Hills Trust and the importance of observing open access to the hills for future generations. I particularly enjoyed the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, in the gap. It must be unusual to have your father quoted in a debate from decades ago, and even less usual to be able to quote two close relatives from the same debate.
I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for the instructions they have tabled. These will ensure that the Bill receives detailed scrutiny as it proceeds to Committee. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for asking about the implications of the recent Office for National Statistics decision to classify the Malvern Hills Trust as a public body. As the noble Earl said, the ONS recently announced that it has classified the Malvern Hills Trust as part of the local government sub-sector of the public sector for the purposes of economic statistics. I am grateful to the noble Earl for helpfully drawing this to my attention. It will be for the Malvern Hills Trust itself to consider what, if any, implications this classification decision has for the charity. In response to the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornhill and Lady Coffey, I can say that it is perfectly possible to be both a charity and a public body.
In answer to the noble Earl’s point about the extent to which the MHT will be subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the ONS classification does not mean that the Malvern Hills Trust is subject to that Act. Separate legislation would be needed to bring the trust within the scope of Freedom of Information Act requests. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raised the number of complaints and petitions from local residents against the Bill, which was alluded to in a number of speeches, including that by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. It is clear that there is significant local interest in the role of the Malvern Hills Trust in preserving the Malvern Hills for the benefit of future generations. This level of public interest is to be welcomed. I note that a large number of petitions have been lodged against the Bill, and I would encourage the trust to work with petitioners to respond to their concerns and find workable solutions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, raised the use of the general power in Clause 83, and asked whether it was required. General powers are very common in the charity sector. The Charity Commission’s published model governing documents for charities includes a general power. In relation to the Malvern Hills Trust, the general power could be used only to further the charity’s work in pursuance of its charitable objectives and would not alter anything in the way in which the sale of land and the granting of easements are dealt with.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked why the changes proposed were not being made through secondary legislation. Given the nature of some of the charity’s proposals, coupled with the strong public interest locally, DCMS and the Charity Commission agreed that it would be more appropriate for those measures to be delivered through a private Bill. This approach allows greater scope for public and parliamentary scrutiny and debate than would be the case under a Section 73 procedure, whereby such measures are not always debated in Parliament. The noble Baroness also asked which Secretary of State was being referred to. It would be the Secretary of State with policy responsibility, so primarily Defra in most instances, but MHCLG in others.
As noble Lords will know, the Government do not adopt a position on private Bills unless a Bill contains provisions considered to be contrary to public policy. We take the view that this Bill does not contain any such provisions. Therefore, as is the tradition with private Bills, the Government will not be adopting a position on this Bill. I am sure, however, that the trust will want to reflect carefully on the points made by noble Lords in today’s debate as the Bill proceeds to Committee.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, may I say how delighted I am by the tone and content of every speech made in this debate, particularly that of my noble friend the Minister? She answered a number of the issues raised by others as the debate has gone on, which I therefore do not need to repeat now. What I would like to do, though, is first to endorse what my friend Lord Murphy said about the international status of the Malvern Hills—the fact that it is wider than Malvern, wider than Worcestershire, wider than the West Midlands. They are an international icon, and it is the determination of everybody concerned with the trust in future to make sure that that goes on.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, talked about his ancestor—his father, I assume—and the dire predictions he uttered in 1993. It is interesting that the hills have not been ruined over the last 32 years: there is no McDonald’s or Kentucky Fried Chicken there. The hills are in as good a condition today as back in 1993, and the Bill today is to modernise the governance and levy-paying arrangements and to ensure consultation with local residents. I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. She is a great critic, I think, of the trust and of the consultation, but it is fair to say that the trust went to great lengths—
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I am a critic not of how the trust has managed the hills’ affairs—the general management —but of how it has managed the Bill process. I hope that that came across to everyone. I would not dream of commenting on that; I am not in a position to do so.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her clarification, but she is presumably aware that 15,000 leaflets were distributed to households in the area. Posters were put up, businesses and cafes were leafleted, there were advertisements in the local press and on social media, and there were drop-in sessions. With an issue like this, you cannot please all the people all the time—which is, I think, almost exactly the words she finished her speech with—but I am certainly satisfied that it has done the best it could. I am certain that the points that have been made in the debate tonight will be taken on board by the Select Committee, which will look at the petitions and consider all the other points that have been made today.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, whose contribution I am delighted to pay tribute to—his interest in the formulation of the Bill deserves the highest praise—expressed concern about the possible dominance of single-issue candidates such as those, perhaps, who oppose further housing in their area. I imagine that the committee will consider this in detail, but there are one or two points that can be made in response. First, this could happen where there is a single electoral area, as proposed in the Bill, or, as now, where candidates are elected by individual parishes or wards. It is also worth bearing in mind that the exercise of democracy and the election of trustees has not been entirely without problems. One example is that under the present arrangements, most seats go uncontested: eight of 11 seats were uncontested at the last election. If interest in the election can be enhanced by the creation of a smaller board of trustees, then that change is worth while.
I do not intend to answer the question, “public body or charity?” The Select Committee will want to look at that, but it seems to me that it does not have the dire consequences that some people think.
As for the levy, which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, mentions in his instruction, it is important to remember that the trust is under a constraint which means it cannot incur expenditure on promoting provisions in the Bill which are materially different from the existing levy legislation. The Bill brings together the existing levy arrangements into one clause with modern drafting and preserves the status quo.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, briefly turned to the Dartmoor judgment, the question of open access and the freedoms which visitors on Dartmoor have. The trust has been studying the judgment and it will obviously take account of any elements that have implications in the drafting of the Bill; and it is something I imagine the Select Committee will want to hear about. However, the existing Malvern Hills legislation and the by-laws make provision to prevent camping on the hills, so I cannot see the Malvern Hills being turned into a giant campsite as a result of the Dartmoor judgment.
I hope that either the Minister or I have been able to address most of the points that are of importance to noble Lords. The promoters of the Bill have, as I mentioned earlier, continued to work hard to conserve the natural beauty of the hills, and I am delighted that so many of your Lordships have referred to their natural beauty. But the time has undoubtedly come to modernise the way the trust is constituted and to update and consolidate its powers.
Alluding to my predecessor in moving a private Bill on the Malvern Hills, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, I hope that your Lordships will see that as a matter of principle, it is wholly reasonable to try to bring the legislation up to date, subject, of course, to getting it right. As a number of noble Lords have said, that is the point of a Select Committee procedure. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will give this Bill a Second Reading and establish the Select Committee. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee
That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Malvern Hills Bill is committed that—
(a) notwithstanding that the promoters themselves are under a restriction which prevents them from promoting provisions in the Bill which would have the effect of changing the existing levy arrangements materially, the committee considers the provisions in the Bill relating to the levy paying area; and
(b) the committee considers the provisions in the Bill relating to the composition of the board of the Malvern Hills Trust and the proposed arrangements for electing and appointing trustees.
Baroness Coffey
That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to whom the Malvern Hills Bill is committed that—
(a) the committee considers to what extent if any the powers proposed to be granted by the Bill go beyond what is necessary for the Malvern Hills Conservators (to be renamed under the Bill as the Malvern Hills Trust) properly to manage the land within their jurisdiction; and
(b) the committee pays particular attention to the provisions which would impede or restrict public access.
Special Educational Needs: Dyscalculia
Baroness Bull
To ask His Majesty’s Government what provision is in place in schools for identifying and supporting students who have special educational needs, particularly dyscalculia.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, it is a privilege to introduce this debate, the first in either House to focus on dyscalculia, and I look forward to the contributions of all noble Lords on a range of educational needs and disabilities. I am grateful to the Dyscalculia Network, Michela Barbieri, Professors Brian Butterworth and Jo Van Herwegen and Doctors Kinga Morsanyi and Carla Finesilver, on whose work I will draw.
Two years ago, Rishi Sunak announced his “maths to 18” proposal, and my 10 year-old great-niece lost no time in explaining the impact it would have on pupils like her who struggle with maths. Till then, I had never heard of dyscalculia, and I soon discovered I was not alone. Everyone I asked returned the same blank stare. Dyslexia, yes. Dyscalculia? No.
I found no definition of dyscalculia on the DfE website and no guidance for parents and teachers, and no mention in the NHS A to Z of conditions, although dyslexia and dyspraxia are there. Hansard records that while 459 MPs and Peers have raised dyslexia, only 13 have ever mentioned dyscalculia. My biggest surprise was to find that teachers—even maths teachers—do not learn about dyscalculia while training, despite prevalence rates of one in 20 suggesting there is at least one dyscalculic child in every classroom across the UK. With similar rates to dyslexia and impacts as severe, dyscalculia’s low profile is hard to explain.
Dyscalculia is a specific neurodevelopment condition with a biological basis. You are born with it, and it lasts throughout life. Maths learning difficulties exist on a spectrum, but the 2025 SASC guidance says that the defining factor in dyscalculia is
“a pronounced and persistent difficulty with processing numerical magnitude”,
despite adequate intellectual ability and age-appropriate education. Put simply, dyscalculic pupils are more likely than typical learners to struggle to understand place values and the ordering and structure of numbers. This can affect their ability to recognise which of two numbers is greater, even when they are orders of magnitude apart, such as 100 and 10,000.
For most of us, this is hard to imagine; we take for granted that adding two numbers makes a larger one, but for someone with dyscalculia it is as nonsensical as suggesting that adding A to B results in a larger letter. They may also fail to intuit number-pattern links—for example, needing to count the corners of the square to know there are four. As a result, dyscalculics may rely on finger counting and struggle to remember number-based facts or estimate quantities. These challenges spill over into other subjects and everyday tasks such as managing time and money.
Without effective intervention, dyscalculia is likely to impact educational, career and even health outcomes, and it is not a massive leap to surmise that the well-evidenced effects of low numeracy could be even more significant for those with dyscalculia, particularly as they are so rarely diagnosed and supported. Most experts agree that targeted interventions improve outcomes, and the earlier they start, the more effective they will be. Mathematical development is like a staircase—each step depends on the one below.
But early intervention depends on early identification, and formal diagnosis is rare—a dyslexic child is 100 times more likely to be diagnosed. Dyscalculics say diagnosis helps them get the right support, understand their struggles and avoid the shame of being labelled “stupid” or “lazy”, but the £900 cost is often beyond reach. This points to school as the place where dyscalculia might first be identified, underlining the pivotal role of SENCOs and teachers.
The Government’s position is that all teachers are teachers of special educational needs. The new framework for initial teacher training and early careers deliberately does not detail approaches specific to particular additional needs but prioritises high-quality teaching as key to addressing SEND. Schools are required to identify needs and implement personalised support plans that meet the unique needs of individual pupils. In principle, this approach is laudable; in practice, it works only if all teachers and SENCOs can recognise specific learning difficulties and are up to date on interventions for support.
For dyscalculia, this is not the case. A 2023 study found that 43% of teachers were not familiar at all or only slightly familiar with dyscalculia, and both teachers and SENCOs are likely to harbour myths about the condition. A study this year found no relation between knowledge about dyscalculia and years spent teaching, indicating that knowledge is not required through daily work and highlighting the importance of CPD. This is doubly concerning, because while the new framework does contain more content relevant to supporting students with SEN, it implies that learning about specific needs will be covered primarily during school placements, whereas, as we know, knowledge and awareness are likely to be low.
This is not a criticism of schools and educators—rather, of the inherent logical lacuna in government’s approach. In a climate of low awareness, and absent any training on dyscalculia and how it manifests, how can this condition-blind approach to teacher training deliver a learning experience that meets the unique needs of dyscalculic pupils?
I ask the Minister: how will the Government review the effectiveness of the framework in delivering for pupils with specific learning difficulties? Will they consider dyscalculia screening alongside the year 1 phonics check to enable early intervention? Will they review the take-up of the relevant CPD and promote the use of educational resources such as UCL’s ADD UP toolkit?
Throughout the school journey, standard maths teaching and assessment unintentionally disadvantage dyscalculic pupils because of the sheer volume of content and pressure to get to the right answer fast. Research suggests that the best methods to teach dyscalculic pupils have no place in the classroom for typical learners: they take time, focus on fundamentals and often involve revisiting material the wider class covered years earlier. Assigning a teaching assistant to work one-to-one on what the others are learning en masse is unlikely to work. The TA may well not be aware of dyscalculia, and just trying harder is not the answer to a learning difficulty.
But perhaps the biggest barrier to the dyscalculic learner is maths GCSE, which functions as a gatekeeper to A-levels, to all manner of degree courses and even to careers in the Armed Forces. In 2024, 40% of students in England failed maths GCSE and, at resit, 80% failed again. This dispiriting cycle of repeated failure impacts mental health and creates barriers to opportunity that may even breach the Equality Act 2010. The case for reform has been made by the OCR exam board and the Science and Technology Committee of this House. Will the Government listen to growing calls to introduce accessible alternatives to maths qualifications that focus instead on functional skills and real-world numeracy?
In repeatedly highlighting differences with dyslexia, I do not suggest that one condition be prioritised over another but, rather, that research and understanding of dyscalculia lags 30 years behind. Will the Government commit to closing the funding gap between dyslexia and dyscalculia? Will the DfE move to collect differentiated data on specific learning difficulties so that we can see dyscalculia prevalence and co-occurrence? We cannot know what we do not measure.
Over the last two years, I have come to suspect that dyscalculia suffers because of a societal acceptance of poor numeracy that we would not countenance for literacy. We would never accept that a child could not learn to read and write, and yet being bad at maths is seen as normal. Literacy and numeracy are equally important to life chances, but literacy is so often prioritised. Indeed, the new teacher training framework has multiple mentions of literacy and nothing on numeracy. It is deeply ironic how often successive Governments point to the importance of STEM in addressing the challenges of growth, innovation and productivity, while failing to grasp the UK’s stubborn problem with low numeracy, which affects over half the adult population.
It is against this backdrop that dyscalculic children must try to have their needs identified, understood and met. Some have the great fortune of supportive parents or a teacher who gets it, but others do not. Even where there is support, we should not underestimate the isolation, stress and anxiety of learning with dyscalculia. I do not doubt the intentions of the Government or the commitment of schools and teachers, but unless steps are taken to increase the awareness and under- standing of dyscalculia among policymakers, educators and the wider community, dyscalculic learners will continue to have the odds stacked against them.
Some 17 years ago, the Government Office for Science recommended that, because of its low profile and high impacts, dyscalculia should be raised as a government priority. The Government then, and Governments since, have all failed to act. I ask the Minister: will this Government be the one that make the difference?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to take part in today’s debate for two reasons, the first of which is personal. After 27 years in your Lordships’ House, I had not anticipated that I would talk about this. I failed my maths O-level four times and still managed to get good enough A-levels, including one in economics, to be accepted at the London School of Economics and Political Science. On reflection, I seem not to have had problems with concepts, but I did have problems with numbers. Nevertheless, the lack of a maths O-level means that, today, I would not even be allowed to take my A-levels, let alone be admitted to the London School of Economics.
When I was a Government Minister, I occasionally told my officials that any important numbers that I had to speak aloud needed to be put in words as well as in numbers, as I had a tendency then—and still do now—to reverse them. Telephone numbers are a particular issue. A close member of my family has long been diagnosed with dyscalculia as well as dyspraxia, with the two often going together. They had a maths tutor from the age of 11, whose job it was to get them through their maths GCSE—with success. But that of course is not open to most families.
Secondly, the article by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, in the House magazine in March absolutely hit the spot. My friend, Emeritus Professor Brian Butterworth, is one of the founding fathers of the modern approach to mathematical cognition. His expertise in this area and that of his colleagues mean that we are all very well briefed indeed.
This is a timely debate and one that I hope will push the policy agenda forward. The priority here, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has explained, is to seek recognition for those who struggle with maths in the same way in which we recognise the importance of support for children who have speech and language delay and for those who are dyslexic. This recognition needs to be built into our SEND programmes. I need reassurance from the Minister over the Neurodivergence Task and Finish Group, established by her department to provide advice and recommendations on how best to meet the needs of neurodivergent children and young people within mainstream education settings, which seemed at the outset not to include children with speech and language development challenges and, most relevant to this debate, children with developmental dyscalculia. Can my noble friend assure the House that this issue has been remedied?
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has explained eloquently what dyscalculia is, and surely the fact that this affects the numeracy skills of between 4% and 7% of children, thereby reducing the probability of them achieving five or more good GCSEs. That significantly reduces education and life chances, which highlights the inequality faced by this cohort of children, young people and adults. It is important and requires the Government to do several things. Fortunately, much of the research and work has already been undertaken. For example, in 2020, the paper Current Understanding, Support Systems, and Technology-led Interventions for Specific Learning Difficulties drew together for the Government’s Office of Science at the time a series of four rapid evidence reviews to help inform a project carried out by the then Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology. The paper explored how technology and research can help improve educational outcomes for learners with specific learning difficulties, including dyscalculia. The proposal for action in this paper and many other documents provides a good pathway for dealing with this challenge.
Does my noble friend the Minister recognise the need to give developmental dyscalculia legal status as well as an official definition in the UK? Will the Government be developing the policy framework from which action can flow—such as teacher training, special needs assessments and advice for parents, to name just one or two? Is any consideration being given to this issue in the SEND review taking place at the moment and as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull? Raising awareness of this condition, as Dyscalculia Day will do, is the first step towards creating an environment in which all children are given the support they need and deserve to fulfil their potential and live the life they want to lead.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. Like everyone here, I thank my noble friend Lady Bull for her strenuous efforts to get this important topic debated and her thought-provoking opening speech.
As ever, I must declare an interest in that I still teach weekly at a state secondary school in Hackney. I am actually a teacher of maths—15% of the design and technology curriculum is maths based—and I have to admit that I did not know much about dyscalculia before researching for this. An irony here is that dyslexia is difficult to spell and dyscalculia is tricky to say. What is it about these learning disabilities that we have to give them such complicated names? I am told it rhymes with Julia, so I have to keep on remembering that.
At school, I talked to the head of SEND and was told that we assess for dyslexia but not dyscalculia. If there are concerns about dyscalculia, which are rarely reported and usually flagged by parents, as opposed to teachers, we usually advise that they self-refer through their GP. In maths, students are placed into sets according to their year 6 CAT scores, and additional support is then given according to need.
But there we have a problem: according to the recent letter from the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee to the Secretary of State for Education, the Government are
“failing to recruit as many maths teachers as it has targeted for over a decade, and almost half of all secondary schools needing to use non-specialist teachers for maths. It is part of a wider shortage in STEM graduates going into teaching (and being retained in the profession)”.
Once you have non-specialist teachers teaching maths, there is inevitably going to be a drop in levels of help for those who struggle most in maths.
The Dyscalculia Network puts it more starkly:
“In recent published data around Prison education 55% of prisoners who lack a maths qualification had a Learning Difficulty confirmed at their initial screening. Once identified, these people often went on to obtain maths qualifications, ranging from Entry Level through to Level 2. They experienced success. The issue is not in Prison education; the problem sits in lack of recognition of maths learning difficulties in previous educational settings”.
I return to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee:
“Our witnesses argued that the rigid focus on obtaining a Grade 4 at GCSE in the current educational system disadvantages many students. There is an argument for the creation of a widely recognised, criterion-based, functional mathematics qualification in the UK that allows school leavers and adult learners alike to demonstrate the numeracy skills needed for life. This could be set up by dividing the GCSE curriculum into functional mathematics, with a practical focus on applying the basics, and more the abstract, pure mathematics required for further study, or through expanding and formalising existing criterion-based numeracy qualifications”.
This is actually what I teach in design technology, both at GCSE and A-level. All the maths problems are based on real-world product design issues: the amount of varnish needed to coat a table, the tessellations of a product to save material or the amount of sheet metal that you would have to order for a production run. This means that even those students who find maths boring or difficult can see how the maths will help them in their design—how different from a student who finds maths difficult or even impossible facing a double GCSE maths lesson on a Monday morning.
The maths curriculum needs to change, I have long argued that children should be taught how to build and populate a calculating spreadsheet in year 6. They would love it and see the point to it, rather than fearing Excel, as most adults do.
The Dyscalculia Network goes on to say:
“All citizens need foundational mathematics skills and general quantitative literacy for daily life, including personal finance and general employment. We need mathematics curricula that set people up for life and tools to support those that struggle”.
By insisting on a rigid maths curriculum, we are failing not only those with dyscalculia and many different types of neurodiversity, but anyone who thinks vaguely differently from the norm.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, when I saw a debate about special educational needs and dyscalculia, I thought, “Wow, what a wonderful combination here”. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, who introduced the debate today was kind enough to recognise the desires of my right honourable friend Rishi Sunak when he introduced the Multiply scheme. Unfortunately, the funding has ended for that. It was a genuine attempt to recognise that numeracy is not all about getting A-levels in maths and was really important to help people prosper in this country in their own lives and in aspects of productivity that have been referred to.
I have not heard of this before, but it has long been recognised that people, to some extent, reach a certain level in their capabilities on maths. As has already been eloquently said, we do not just assume that because people do not grasp instincts straightaway you do not try to help in that regard, such as how you work out whether something is a square or not.
It has to be said that sometimes it feels that in parts of our education, looking for differentiation by child, quite rightly, trying to recognise that there are seven different ways of learning can be quite a struggle when putting together a lesson plan, but it is important that teachers do that. I value not only what happened in my childhood but what I see in schools in different parts of the country.
It is good to see the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, in her place. Having been a council leader, she had not only the statutory duty for children but considerable knowledge of how to be practical in how we help children reach their full potential and recognise some of the challenges of special educational needs being mainstreamed, but also how wonderfully it can be addressed. I am delighted also to see my noble friend Lady Barran, because she and I discussed a particular matter which I will be raising regarding the future of a special needs school in Suffolk.
Going back to these challenges about numeracy, I was also struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said about non-specialist teachers, in effect, and teaching CDT, I think he said. I must admit that I found numbers very easy when I was a child, but when I got to A-level it started getting a bit complicated. It was only when I went to university and I had an engineer as a tutor that I actually got the whole concept of mechanics. I wish I had had that, in a way, rather than the specialist maths teacher, with whom, however they tried in my sixth form, I just could not quite grab the concept on some of the points. There is an element to what he suggests—using practical solutions or examples is a good way to engage people who do not necessarily follow the traditional way of learning.
I was also struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said about, I think, her fourth attempt to pass her O-level—I assume it would be, although I do not wish to be ungracious to her. I think there is something here about what we do in setting qualifications. One of the challenges when I was at the DWP—we went through this in quite a lot of detail with employers when we were trying to get people back into work, particularly after Covid—is that when we were engaging with employers, routine job descriptions would normally include two things. Everybody had to have a driving licence, and everybody had to have GCSE English and maths. Quite regularly, we would say, “Why? That job does not need you to drive, and you may need to be numerate and do other things, but does it really require you to have a specific qualification?” The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, referred to qualifications. I think there has been developed a practical qualification that is equivalent to a GCSE, and that is a good thing and something we should continue to stress.
I am conscious that there has been a significant increase in awareness of children with special educational needs, and we have been through a variety of phases of what has happened about so-called mainstream schools—they are just schools, as far as I am concerned, for a neighbourhood; ideally, equipped to teach every child in that community—and how we try to accommodate those children who do not fit the norms, as has already been adequately said.
The vast majority of people in this country really struggle with anything to do with maths beyond the basic GCSE. That is why we should be reconsidering how we continue to support the strengthening of teaching that is available—particularly, I would say, in primary school, not just in secondary school—thinking about how we build those foundations and why I hope that the Government will reconsider aspects of something like the Multiply programme in recognising the opportunities that will bring for prosperity for all.
I turn finally to the situation in Suffolk. I respect that the current Government have to assess programmes, but in the town where I live, a school that had acquired a specialist interest in special educational needs was also a free school, and it ended up that it just was not viable in quite the way that it had been. My noble friend Lady Barran agreed, after careful consideration working with officials, that a particular site—the site of Saxmundham Free School—should become a special educational needs school for provision for the east of Suffolk. There is another one in Felixstowe run by the same trust.
It is my huge disappointment that, although that school closed in the summer of last year, there was quite a lot of deliberation about whether a new school needed to be built on a site that was there. The clear intention was that there would be a school ready to open this coming September. I am sad to say that there is no such school. I posed a Written Question to the Department for Education on this and it is still saying, “We’re still considering this”. There are a lot of children who desperately need some specialist support, as well as children in neighbourhood schools. I would really encourage the Minister to take back from this debate my real concern about the children in east Suffolk; I hope that that Saxmundham school site can be opened as quickly as possible to provide special educational support for those children who desperately need it.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for bringing this debate before your Lordships tonight. It is profoundly important. As we have heard, dyscalculia is a profoundly difficult condition that has many different consequences for the child who suffers from it. In many cases, dyscalculia is accompanied by other conditions such as dyslexia and dyspraxia—or DCD, as that is sometimes called.
In these few minutes, I will concentrate for a moment on the impact of some of the less well-known consequences of dyspraxia. Dyspraxia is often described as clumsiness or, more specifically, the inability to manage gross and fine motor movements: the child who cannot carry a cup of tea to his mother without spilling it, who has difficulty riding a bike, who falls regularly, whose handwriting is difficult to decipher and looks very untidy, sometimes with bits of the words missing. The United States National Center for Learning Disabilities says that dyspraxia
“can interfere with virtually all areas of a child’s life: social, academic, athletic, pragmatic. Difficulty with fine motor integration affects a child’s writing, organization on paper, and ability to transition between a worksheet or keyboard and other necessary information which is in a book, on a number line, graph, chart, or computer screen”.
Dyspraxia is caused by neurological difficulties that disrupt the usual pattern of brain activity so that messages from the brain are transmitted in a disordered way, often leading to major difficulties, particularly in the classroom. Children may suffer from audio and visual processing disorders. Children with dyspraxia are often highly intelligent and develop coping strategies but, really, they need help. I will give noble Lords an example. A little child with dyspraxia does not necessarily hear what is said to her in the manner in which the sentence is spoken. If a teacher says four things, the child may hear, “Open your book. Look for the words which are nouns”. Because of the condition, they may be incapable of receiving and restoring the end of the instructions: “Draw a circle round each noun, then look for the adjectives and do the same thing”.
What often happens then is that the child asks the person sitting next to them what the teacher said. That child will tell them—maybe fully, maybe not. Then the child cannot do the work properly, so they have to ask again, or perhaps look at what the other child is doing to make sense of what they are being asked to do. In many cases, such children are described as disruptive, lacking attention and possibly having ADHD. The child knows that they are not capable of doing what is being asked of them and can become very discouraged, affecting their whole educational progress.
A child may be able to read a book, but dyspraxia can affect their ability to read off a whiteboard or a blackboard. The child may be simply unable to understand what is on the board and what they are being asked to do there. For some children, dyspraxia is accompanied by dyscalculia. For others, it is accompanied by dyslexia. For some, it is both. Imagine being a little child sitting in a classroom where what is going on is shrouded in mystery, confusion and incompleteness.
The Dyspraxia Foundation reports that children with dyspraxia are less likely than their peers to achieve five or more grades 9 to 4 at GCSE. The link between qualifications and earning potential is very well known to all of us. Parents seeking help will eventually want to acquire an EHCP—an education, health and care plan, formerly a statement. This is a long, difficult and complicated process. If the child is given an EHCP, it will specify what is required and funding may even, but not always, be provided to the school.
The problem for many parents is accessing the diagnosis of these conditions. A child can wait years to see an educational psychologist, a paediatrician or an occupational therapist. What plans do the Government have for improving access to diagnostic facilities and thereby enhancing the experience of a child with these difficulties, both in and outside school?
Occupational therapy is key to providing help and identifying the impact of the condition on each child. However, a recent survey by the Royal College of Occupational Therapists showed that 86% of therapists reported an increased demand for OT services within the preceding 12 months, and 79% reported that people were presenting with more complex needs because of delayed interventions. This is another regrettable example of our failing and broken healthcare provision. What plans has the Minister to enhance the level of provision? Even getting a private assessment is very expensive: around £900 outside London, maybe £1,000 inside London.
Teachers need additional resources, and very often those resources are not available. Inclusiveteach.com gives a list of ways to improve the learning experience of children with dyspraxia. They include adapting your teaching methods; breaking down tasks into small steps, so that children with dyspraxia can remember and work through them; providing additional time; using assistive technology such as speech-to-text software; encouraging peer support and providing peer buddies to give assistance with tasks, et cetera; and, probably most importantly, promoting self-esteem and emotional well-being, so the child is not frustrated and does not lack confidence because of their difficulties, and celebrating their achievements and helping them understand that everyone has difficulties and challenges in life.
Much work has been done to identify processes which will assist the child to realise their full potential. Often, the adjustments are not very costly, but the recognition of the problem and the identification of its impact on a child is hard to access. Left unassisted, these children may even abandon education; helped, they can achieve much. Increasing provision for helping children is not only an investment in their future but may well enable them to make the contribution to society of which they are capable and which society needs.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for securing this important debate but, more importantly, for making me aware of the many challenges that thousands of schoolchildren suffer from every single day.
I am taking part in this debate not only as a parent but as someone who has dyslexia. I was pondering whether I should make a confession after the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made hers a little earlier. I only managed to take my GCSE maths exam three times. I never quite managed to get to the fourth occasion—but, who knows, in later life I might decide to take GCSE maths for a fourth time.
The challenges that I faced in my early days at school, when I spent time in what was described then as a special class, were a bewildering and confusing experience. I am very pleased to say that, since then, special educational needs provision has changed for the better. The experience I faced growing up helped me understand my eldest daughter’s journey, as she is dyslexic. I was able to see the early signs—the confusion, frustration and the quiet resilience needed to thrive in an education system that was not built with her in mind—and help to support her.
But I have also seen what happens when support is in place. Her confidence grew, her ability shone through and the label of difficulty became a gateway to understanding. Much of the support came from her parents, who are often forgotten in the journey but are, in my view, fundamental. That journey taught me something deeply personal: if it is recognised and supported, difference does not need to mean disadvantage.
Today I want to turn to a specific learning difficulty that affects the ability to understand numbers and carry out basic arithmetic. It is often described as the mathematical equivalent of dyslexia, yet in terms of awareness and support, it lags far behind, as we have heard this evening, and that is what I want to focus on. I can say to the Minister that I will not be asking for huge amounts of extra money, but I have one or two suggestions that may start to make a difference to children, families and our communities.
Up to 6% of the population may be affected by this learning difficulty—roughly one child in every classroom—but it remains underidentified, misunderstood and rarely provided for. Although the SEND code of practice recognises it, in practice many teachers are not trained to spot it, as we have already heard. We must ensure that initial teacher training and ongoing professional development include strategies for recognising and supporting children.
The awareness now common with dyslexia must be extended to mathematical learning difficulties. Parents often face lengthy delays accessing assessments, or they are told that their child’s struggles are not severe enough to qualify. In some areas, no assessment is available at all. That is totally unacceptable.
I recently had the pleasure of meeting a company based in west London, delivering its EHCP tool to local authorities in the SEND and education space. The tool brings together insights from professional reports, analyses them using AI and drafts personalised high-quality EHC plans, cutting down the time spent on manual writing and giving SEND teams more capacity to focus on children and families. Educational technology can play a key role. Tools now exist to help detect related problems and tailor learning to each child. These platforms can flag up issues early before a child reaches crisis point, and offer multi-sensory, scaffolded approaches proven to help. But schools need access to these tools and training to use them effectively.
Sadly, many parents are left to navigate the system alone, with inconsistent advice and little clarity. We need better signposting, clearer communication from schools and consistent local support. Parents must be seen as partners, not obstacles, in the process of identifying and meeting children’s needs. In supporting parents with more information, I believe that we can start to make a real difference. It was my own experience that helped me support my daughter, but many others were able to understand. Awareness takes the pressure away from our schools and our teachers. They must play a key role, but I want parents and grandparents to understand how they can not only provide support but understand the signs and start the early intervention that is required at home.
Awareness is the foundation of change. Without it, this problem remains invisible to educators, policymakers and, too often, the children themselves. A survey in 2023 of UK teachers highlights the problem, with over 40% not being familiar or slightly familiar with it. Let us compare that with dyslexia, where just 15% were in the same position. This is not a surprise, as awareness around dyslexia is strong. I am looking forward to attending an event tomorrow evening that Channel 4 is hosting to hear more about Jamie Oliver’s struggle with dyslexia. I also look forward to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, perhaps hosting an event next year with Channel 4, to which we could invite Bill Gates, Robbie Williams or perhaps even Cher.
I urge the Government to support a national awareness campaign, in partnership with educational charities and neurodiverse advocates. This could include training for all school staff, public information materials and visibility at leadership level. Let us give teachers the tools, parents the clarity and young people the confidence they deserve. With understanding comes opportunity—let us offer both, to every child in every classroom.
Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green (CB)
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for securing this debate and for her relentless efforts to raise awareness and understanding of this most overlooked of subjects. I share some of the difficulties in pronouncing it, but I will do my best: dyscalculia. I refer to my register of interests and declare that my King’s College intern, PhD student George Kinkead, a maths teacher for over a decade, has told me about his experiences and what might help. I reflect his views in this contribution.
When considering this debate, I was shocked to discover that despite dyscalculia being as common as dyslexia, dyslexia is 100 times more likely to be diagnosed. I am dyslexic and I was lucky—I went into a small room with a lovely woman who tried to teach me to juggle. We did things differently in Wales. I remember the matter-of-fact way it was established that my reading up and down a page rather than across, my difficulty following a sequence of instructions, and my ongoing need to hold my left hand up in an L-shape to establish which was the left side, simply indicated that I worked in a particular way.
My love of stories broadened my vocabulary, so the apparent problem I have with simple word recognition was alleviated. Old English posed some challenges in my first year as an undergraduate, but I suspect they were exacerbated by the access to a subsidised bar that came into my life at the same time.
My point is that a diagnosis of dyslexia was helpful. It helped me, my teachers and my parents alter our approach to my learning, and it meant I did not lose my confidence when I took a different route to get to the same place as my peers. I suspect that the lack of stigma around dyslexia that perhaps existed for my generation has led to some of the creative solutions we have seen to it. My computer is well equipped with different packages that enable me to type and read in a different way. I have had acetates to lay over things since I was quite young. The same innovation has not happened around dyscalculia.
It is clear from what we have heard so far in this debate that the woefully inadequate diagnosis of dyscalculia is exacerbating the lifelong exclusion that children can experience if their challenges are simply dismissed as ineptitude. My clever PhD student, George, explained to me that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, maths is hierarchical. Unlike other subjects, each topic builds on foundational skills. Missing even a short period of instruction can prevent future learning. If one finds long division in primary school utterly baffling, the quadratic equations that come in year 8 will be a complete mystery: failure builds on failure. A simple diagnosis and a shift in approach as a result can help children. Instead, as we have heard, children feel incapable, tell themselves that they are useless and are ruled out of careers because of it.
The pressure on teachers is immense and requests for additional training seem never-ending. But it seems that even a most cursory introduction to dyscalculia would be of benefit to pupils and teachers, support early diagnosis, and help to restore confidence to those pupils who are ruling themselves out at a young age. In 10 years as a maths teacher, George has never received any statutory training on dyscalculia.
It is also clear that the transition from primary school to secondary school creates another risk for pupils. Research conducted by Glencross and Wallen in their 2020 study on transitions from primary school to secondary school found that informal personal knowledge about individual learning support is often lost, which can be especially challenging for students with neurodiverse conditions.
I wonder whether an opportunity is presented by the proposed introduction of the single unique identifier in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The Government are rightly taking care to think about what data about children should be saved and shared, and it is perhaps possible that sharing information about neurodiversity, including dyscalculia, can help schools support children to keep working through those mathematical hierarchies even if they change schools.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, achieves her aim of ensuring that dyscalculia becomes a government priority. It has historically been a low-profile issue that is perhaps now slightly higher profile as a result of her efforts and this debate. But it is clear that some simple arrangements can make a significant difference to young people in this country.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, on securing this debate. I also thank her for educating us. I have to confess that I had never heard of dyscalculia before preparing for tonight’s debate. If the excellent briefings produced by our Library and the Dyscalculia Network are anything to go by, I am in good company.
I relate to the issue on two levels, both personal. First, as a disabled pupil today, I would probably be assessed for SEN support. As a child in the 1970s and 1980s, such provision was not available, at least not to my knowledge. What was not so much available as expected was that all disabled children should be sent to special schools and segregated. I mean no criticism of special schools, but I will always remember my mother, who spent a lifetime in teaching, being horrified when the headmaster of one special school boasted that, the year before, a pupil had achieved one CSE.
My limited time at that special school, when I had to use a wheelchair full-time following yet another fracture, made an indelible impression on me. Even as a 10 year-old, I was aware of the low expectations. It was just assumed that disability was synonymous with underachievement. Indeed, the title of the noble Baroness’s article on PoliticsHome of March this year,
“Dyscalculic children have been let down for too long”,
could so easily have been applied to children with disabilities generally. They were let down by the system. Helping children with SEN realise their potential simply did not come into the equation.
I like to think that the damaging culture of low aspiration which informed such attitudes then is being challenged by teachers and SEN co-ordinators now. I want to put on record my recognition that they do incredibly important work, and I take this opportunity to thank them for responding to what, at the end of the day—and I know from my parents that a day in the classroom is often long and always demanding—has to be a vocation. Ultimately, a good teacher answers a vocation to help shape a child’s future and instil in them a belief that they can make a worthwhile contribution to life, especially beyond school.
Secondly, I relate to the issue as someone who got an A in Latin O-level and a C—just—in maths. Indeed, my maths teacher had so much confidence in my innate ability with figures that he decided he would enter me for both O-level and CSE. I scraped a pass in both, but he obviously was not taking any chances. As with the noble Baroness’s nieces, my heart sank when a previous Prime Minister made great play of his plan for all children to be required to study maths beyond GCSE. My own experience—and, I believe, the experience of other noble Lords who have spoken in tonight’s debate—is that, however much we would wish otherwise, our brains are wired differently. Maths is simply not for everyone.
That would appear to be especially the case for children with dyscalculia. As someone who really struggled with anything numerical at school and knows what it is like to have one’s confidence undermined, both because of the unkind taunts that go with the territory of living with a disability and, specifically, because of finding maths so challenging, I hate to think of how much the one in 20 children with dyscalculia must suffer, and, worse, how much their suffering is compounded unnecessarily by ignorance.
Of course, teachers and SENCOs are not to blame if they are not aware of dyscalculia, but surely that only underlines the strong case that noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has made for improved support, particularly the call for mandatory training in dyscalculia for teachers. Does the Minister agree that these children need to be taught that dyscalculia is not their fault and that they have potential worth realising? It seems to me—and, I suspect, to other contributors in tonight’s debate—that their life chances depend on it.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lady Bull on securing this debate and making such a strong case for action in just under 10 minutes.
On Monday, we released the final report of the Maths Horizons Project, which I have had the privilege of chairing for the past eight months. This project has taken an in-depth look at the maths curriculum and assessment, with a view to informing the Government’s review chaired by Professor Becky Francis.
The abilities of children in our schools for any characteristic follow a Gaussian distribution, probably better known as a bell curve. In the Maths Horizons Project our aim has been to try to identify strategies that would help not only those in the top two deciles for mathematical ability but those in the bottom two deciles—the bottom 20%—who would have failed to get a grade 4 in maths GCSE even after multiple resits.
Our second recommendation—out of seven—we believe will help both groups. It is:
“Rebalance content from upper primary to lower secondary, allowing more time for knowledge to be secured when it is first introduced”.
Giving more time to teachers to focus on core concepts in early primary school would provide children the opportunity to develop and embed the foundations they need.
The better balance of content between upper primary and lower secondary will also enable high attainers not to become bored and lose interest in maths during key stage 3, as often happens today, when much of the current teaching focuses on revisiting key stage 2 content. The main benefit, however, will be for those children who struggle with mathematics for more general cognitive reasons. Although it is unlikely to be sufficient for children with severe number-processing difficulties—and I have waited that long to introduce dyscalculia—we identified this group as a special group in our Maths Horizons Project.
Three numbers have kept coming up in this debate. With a prevalence of about 5%—the first number—it is likely that there is at least one child with dyscalculia in every class of 30, the second number. Although the prevalence of dyscalculia is similar to that of dyslexia, a child with dyscalculia is 100 times—that is the third number and probably the most shocking—less likely to be diagnosed. But it is encouraging to be able to report some recent progress here. A member of the executive group for the Maths Horizons Project, Professor Camilla Gilmore from Loughborough University, has been part of a working group developing an up-to-date evidence-based dyscalculia diagnosis methodology. This was released in March this year by the SpLD Assessment Standards Committee.
This enables a solution to the issue of diagnosis but does not deliver it as there is a lack of suitable training for dyscalculia assessors. Most current SpLD assessment training courses leading to an approved qualification focus on literacy skills and the identification of dyslexia, with very limited content on mathematics, so I urge the Minister to intervene to ensure that approved qualifications also include the identification of dyscalculia.
Another recommendation of the Maths Horizons Project would increase the likelihood of diagnosis. Our fourth recommendation is to introduce
“low-stakes gateway checks of fundamental knowledge, to be administered nationally at specified points in new knowledge-progression maps”.
A low-stakes gateway check at key stage 1 would allow teachers to identify at an early stage those children who are struggling to grasp foundational concepts in mathematics, meaning that a diagnosis of dyscalculia could be made between the ages of five and seven. Of course, we should acknowledge—as has been pointed out—that problems will persist, even with high-quality specialist intervention following a diagnosis.
When a child with dyscalculia reaches secondary school, the interventional strategies could include apps that run either on a smartphone or a computer tablet, such as an iPad. Earlier, it was my pleasure to meet some people with dyscalculia here in the cafeteria, and some of the young ones told me that they do use apps to help with their dyscalculia. The Maths Horizons Project team was broadly in favour of digital tools for education, provided that these are introduced in the classroom in the right way, at the right time and in a carefully sequenced progression.
If you look on the web, you will see there are plenty of apps to help children with dyscalculia that can be downloaded from the Apple App Store or the Google Play Store, but only those that are high quality and evidence-based should be used. A simple measure that the Department for Education could take would be to establish a working group to make recommendations that will help parents and teachers identify suitable apps.
As we have heard, we have made huge progress over the last 20 years in diagnosing and supporting children with dyslexia. For a child with dyscalculia to thrive, early identification is also likely to be crucial. Low-stakes gateway checks at key stage 1 would help to spot those in need of an up-to-date assessment. This would require one or two teachers per school to be sent on training courses to gain an approved qualification that focuses on dyscalculia. Simple, low-cost intervention strategies with counters can help children at primary level who have had a diagnosis, before they are supplemented or replaced by evidence-based digital tools at secondary level. It is now time for children with dyscalculia to be given the same opportunities to progress through our education system as children with dyslexia.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, first, I declare my interests: I am dyslexic, I am president of the British Dyslexia Association and I am chairman of a company that deals with assistive technology. Having done that, I welcome two more Members to the “mafia of misspelling”. We would take over the world, but one of us would jot down the name of where we had the first conspiracy wrong and the other one would misread it—so you are comparatively safe for a bit.
When she started this debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, put her finger absolutely on why this is important: the gateway subjects to progress in this country are GCSE maths and English, and this has driven much of our recent education policy. If we ignore that reality, we are not going to get anywhere. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, mentioned that we are now moving back towards more practical-based, relevant knowledge-based subjects. Everything he said about maths being a practical subject has been said to me about English. It may have been a great original thought, but I am afraid he has friends out there.
I thought that I was the going to be first person to speak about technology and apps, but no, somebody has beaten me to it. I am not sure whether this is irritating or reassuring, but there is a degree of consensus here. We have to work around this problem. If we still take these two subjects as roadblocks, we are going to have problems. It is also fair to say that, in our society, it has been more acceptable to be bad at maths than bad at English.
Those are the two gateway subjects, but you used to be able to get around it and say that it was fine and did not matter. Good old sexism also kicked in: we do not spot girls with special educational needs as easily because they tend to handle the classroom better and do not kick off as much. All these are reasonably accepted factors. However, to deal with this, if we accept that we need education to happen, we have to start taking the maths side more seriously. The first thing the Government could do is to say that dyscalculia is the appropriate word or come up with another one, because it is not recognised at the moment. That is a small change, but if the Minister could address that in her answer, it would be very helpful. I would like a reason why it has not happened yet, because it is just a word.
If noble Lords think that this does not matter, let me take them to a conference. It is a dyslexia conference but, hey, the BDA does cover dyscalculia on its website and does work on it, so we are not all bad; it is not often that I say that we have come across as the big bad bully who gets all the attention. Had noble Lords been with me at this conference, we would have got to the great bane of the modern education system—the lawyers, making presentations about how you get your education, health and care plan. This was at the start of the process, because we needed them to fight through. This lawyer said, “Oh no, you don’t need that, because dyscalculia is a special educational maths problem”, and he went on for about half an hour. Of course, everybody is going to learn that, are they not? One word really would help. If it is not dyscalculia—I thought I had problems with pronunciation, but it would appear that I have cracked this one and others have not—could we come up with another one or a better definition?
Knowing and having a reference point will help, because you will know what to refer back to. Saying that it is “dyslexia with numbers” does not help. As it was explained to me, it is about finding the actual concept of mathematics very difficult—the difference between one and many and everything in between, or having problems with counting backwards. You cannot do it, and you have to start again; you just do not get the concept.
Although the Government have made this wonderful statement that every teacher is a teacher of special educational needs, if they do not know what they are doing then I would wish that they were not. Sticking with English and maths, they will have already failed in these two basic subjects. If you have already failed in a classroom and the help is more of the same, you will get more failure. We must remember that we need specific help for this; we cannot use the same apps or the same teaching techniques. We must address that. If we are to have this wonderful change, with everybody teaching special educational needs, where is the training? Where is the focus? Where is the training to do no harm—to borrow from medicine? Let us not compound failure. I thought I might make a joke about it taking me only three attempts to pass maths, and mine was only a CSE, but let us forget about that.
We have to think about how to address this problem properly. It is not about having more of the same, and it is not “Try harder”—I am very glad that nobody here has said that. As the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, put it, it is about expectation. We need to make sure to move the barrier to allow somebody to have realistic expectation. I have not said anything about dyspraxia; we will save that for another day. Making sure that the teachers know what they are doing is the first step.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. She rightly brings the House’s attention to the important issues of SEND in general and dyscalculia in particular. Maths is of course a vital area for securing economic growth, and I would like to pay tribute to the work done by the Maths Horizons Project, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, on maths education in the age of AI.
Nationally we have seen great progress in recent years in our international rankings for maths, being a top country outside south-east Asia, and with a marked improvement in the last 30 years in the standard pass rate for maths at GCSE to around 80% by the age of 19. But when we turn to the wider issues facing children with special educational needs and disabilities, the situation is much less rosy.
The system we have created to respond to children with SEND is a product of the Children and Families Act 2014. Before the 2014 reforms the SEND system was widely criticised for being fragmented: education, health and social care operated separately in different silos. It was described as bureaucratic and slow, parents suffered lengthy delays, and it was very complicated to get any support. Families felt disempowered and unable to input into decisions that affected their children. As my noble friend Lord Shinkwin said, the system was low in ambition; there was a culture of low expectations.
As we know, the Act introduced education, health and care plans, support to the age of 25, the concept of co-production with families, and the requirement for local authorities to publish comprehensive information about available SEND services. I labour these points for two reasons. The first is that across this House we all know that the system we have today is not working well, but it is a function of these reforms. They look so sensible on paper, yet in practice they have created a set of incentives that ended up pointing in the wrong direction.
I dwell on this also because the Government are currently taking action. We are debating, in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, major reforms to safeguarding systems, and I know they are planning to bring forward further reforms in relation to special educational needs. I think that will be later this year; maybe the Minister can confirm the timing.
Whether in relation to the broader reforms or to specific interventions for dyscalculia, it is important that we test and pilot and really are confident, and that we focus on implementation. The importance of that cannot be overstated. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has rightly focused this debate on the resources in schools to identify special educational needs and to support students with a range of needs. She mentioned some of the changes made under the previous Government to the early career framework and the support for early-career teachers. Those were bolstered by an investment in early years SENCOs and a revised practical SENCO qualification.
Some of the problems that we still face go beyond those reforms. I will touch briefly on two areas in particular. First, most of the discretionary funding in the system is available for children with an education, health and care plan, and there is no real incentive for successful early intervention to support children with special educational needs and integrate them into mainstream education without an EHCP. Because of the shortage of places in specialist schools, which my noble friend Lady Coffey mentioned, we need to be able to integrate more effectively and incentivise schools to deliver effective early intervention.
Secondly, there is no equivalent of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for SEND. I am told repeatedly by school leaders that some of the support suggested for children, including those with dyscalculia, has literally no evidence base to support it—but if it is on the plan they have no choice but to deliver it. All too often we see the least qualified members of staff in a school being allocated to a child with complex needs, when actually that child needs much more specialist support. I would grateful if the Minister could comment on whether that is on the shopping list of things that the Government might consider in their reforms.
In closing, I echo some of the questions that have already been put by other noble Lords. Will the Government consider a formal definition of dyscalculia? Will they respond to the call by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, to track the incidence of cases and indeed the impact of interventions to support those children? As my noble friend Lord Shinkwin said, this is all about securing opportunity for children—something that, across the House, we can all support.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin, of course, by expressing my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for opening this important debate on supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities generally and particularly those with dyscalculia. I know she is a champion in this space, and for all those who struggle with maths, and obviously has personal experience. She has raised this on several occasions, and we all thank her for that, and I know that she is not going to give up either. She has identified herself as a real champion and I am sure there are many people who are grateful to her for that.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I will not be able to respond to everything in the short time I have, but I value the richness and, in particular, the honesty from lived experiences, which make these debates so real and so important. We are talking particularly about children, about their progression into being young people, into the world of work, into adulthood, and we should always keep that at the absolute centre of everything we do.
Just referencing a couple of very quick points, I think that the insights of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, on self-esteem were critical, as was the personal testimony of the noble Lord, Lord Mott—I think he has set something in motion, with a potential event in the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, spoke about juggling; I am going to keep that in my mind’s eye going forward, although it certainly would not have worked for me, I have to be honest.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, so much for his honesty about his experience with maths. Maths can be tough in many different ways and there is that whole issue of making sure that we instil confidence and make young people realise that so many things are not their fault. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, as always: we await with interest to hear about additions to his mafia.
I want to be clear from the start that this whole area around SEND is an absolute top priority for this Government, and I hope that the announcements that the Government have been making have made that clear. I appreciate the honesty from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I think we can all see that the SEND system is on its knees, and we have to be honest about that. Children’s needs are not being met. Parents are forced into a position of fighting for support. As a local authority leader, I know that only too well, as well as all the issues around funding that go with it.
We have put at the centre of our plan for change making sure that we restore the trust of parents and making sure that schools in particular have the tools to identify and support children before things get to a crisis point. We want to commit to ensuring excellence for everyone in every area that we cover, and nowhere could be more important than that. I hope that that is appreciated and that it is reflected in the extra funding that we have been able to put in thus far, both on the teaching side and on the capital side, which of course is incredibly important.
Our ambition reflects the many reports that have highlighted the challenges facing the SEND system. It is difficult for parents, carers and young people to navigate, and outcomes for children can be very poor. I am pleased that the Education Select Committee is undertaking its own inquiry, which is underscoring the significant challenges we face.
I repeat that it is a priority for the Government that all children receive the right support to succeed in their education and lead happy, healthy and productive lives. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that special schools will always have a place in this system. I cannot go into detail about specific sites, but there will be many, and they are all of course being looked at and worked out in terms of priorities.
We know that it takes the whole school workforce to help children and young people thrive in education. I mean the whole range, from teachers and teaching assistants to support staff, special educational needs co-ordinators, early years educators, and as we have heard from the contributions, allied health professionals. We are investing to improve outcomes and experiences right across the country. Of course, specific professional development training will be key to this.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and my noble friend Lady Thornton on the importance of early intervention. It is critical to prevent unmet needs escalating. This is often referred to for early years educators, but early intervention with any problem as it arises is critical. We have to address emerging needs through early years work. We have launched new training resources to help them support children with developmental differences and announced further training places for early years SENCOs, for example, targeted at settings in the most disadvantaged areas.
I am sure Members will be aware of the work around the national professional qualification for SENCOs, to make sure that they get the additional knowledge and skills that they need. We are supporting the kind of teaching that will support children with SEND, including those with dyscalculia.
High-quality teaching is critical, as we know. Recruiting and retaining expert teachers is fundamental. We cannot get away from this, which is why we are committed to recruiting an additional 6,500 new expert teachers across secondary and special schools and in our colleges over the course of this Parliament, and, as I have said, introducing a range of training reforms to ensure that teachers have the skills to support all pupils, including those, I stress, with dyscalculia. It is an area which will move up the agenda as we talk about our general approach to SEND.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, for sharing his experience in the important project that he has been involved in. We are also funding the maths hubs programme, a school-led network aimed at improving the teaching of mathematics for all pupils in publicly funded schools. This includes training and making sure that learning is sequenced coherently so it makes sense to pupils. That is what has come across, and through that, recognition and understanding of the needs of children with dyscalculia are going to be fundamental.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, raised the importance of maths in transition. We need to make sure that we have the appropriate online provisions as well. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, mentioned the key point about qualifications linked to the curriculum assessment that is happening in the review we are undertaking, which will come out in the autumn.
We are well aware that support given across the system is variable and we want a consistent, inclusive approach to supporting neurodivergent children and young people in mainstream education. That is why we are delivering the PINS programme, deploying specialists from both health and education workforces to upskill primary schools to support neurodivergent children—I hope that answers the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and the noble Lord, Lord Mott.
The whole-school approach is so important, so we are not reliant on a specific diagnosis. That has come up several times and we must recognise the support and the range of needs that are out there. Not waiting for a diagnosis and getting early support in right across the system—effective early identification—are absolutely key to this.
Our Neurodivergence Task and Finish Group will be building on this and providing further insights on what provision and support in mainstream educational settings will look like within an inclusive system. We have been gathering evidence from across the piece. Professor Guldberg, the chair of the group, recently met stakeholders with lived experience, particularly representatives of those with dyscalculia and the Dyscalculia Network.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, again, for his contribution to the teaching profession and his dedicated interest. It is important to hear this. Just picking up one of his points: in all of this drive to improve teaching, AI should be seen as a really valuable tool in helping us go forward.
I could say a lot more on the curriculum and assessment review, but we will get other opportunities to move that forward. Responding to my noble friend Baroness Thornton, I agree with her analysis, and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, that dyscalculia has not received the same recognition or attention as dyslexia or those who struggle with speech and language. I also agree that parents should not need private capital to pay for specialist maths teachers and they should get the support as a right. That is why we are investing in the school workforce, to meet the needs of all children, including those with neurodivergence such as dyscalculia, and we are investing in our maths hubs and early intervention, with the needs of children at the heart of it.
I am very conscious that my time is coming to an end, but, in closing the debate, I will say that we must recognise those working across all of the systems, in the interests of our children and young people. The knowledge and understanding of children with SEND are increasing.
I want to reinforce the reason we are reforming the SEND programme. I cannot be specific about when that will come, but it is urgent. Another important aspect is that we want to make sure that we pull together children with lived experience and put their voices at the heart of everything we do. We are committed to an approach rooted in partnership, with all our work across the piece being guided by this, making sure that front-line professionals, leaders and experts listen to children and their families. We will work together in an integrated way going forward. We can transform the outcomes of all young people with SEND only if we listen and work together on solutions.
Again, I make a special plea. We all know that effective early identification and intervention can reduce the impact of the special need or the disability in the long term. There is so much evidence around this. We all have an obligation to move forward, working within the community, and improving inclusivity and expertise so that we can move forward. Again, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, I would like to pay tribute to those professionals who have worked tirelessly to help move this forward. We have several reviews coming forward and I know we all look forward with interest to making sure that our part of that interest is reflected in the reforms that we need to make, improving lives and improving the life chances of so many young people.