Business Before Questions
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
Local government reorganisation will lead to better outcomes for residents and save a significant amount of money that can be reinvested in public services and improve accountability. It is for councils to develop robust, financially sustainable proposals that are in the best interests of their whole area.
Gregory Stafford
The rushed local government reorganisation means that Waverley borough in my area will be forced to join other authorities that are debt-ridden, such as Woking. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that residents in my area do not pay a financial price for the woes of other authorities?
Angela Rayner
As set out in the invitation letters, and as with previous restructures, there is no proposal for council debt to be addressed centrally or written off as part of reorganisation, but the Government accept that Woking and Thurrock councils hold significant unsupported debt that cannot be managed locally in its entirety. We have committed to providing an initial amount of debt repayment support for these councils in 2026-27 ahead of the reorganisation. This is unprecedented Government support.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned by media comments over the last week that suggest that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill may render sites of special scientific interest protections meaningless. Will the Secretary of State clarify the Bill’s position on this and outline what protections there will be for SSSIs like Lodge hill in my constituency with its important nightingale population?
Angela Rayner
I am sure that those on the Conservative Benches have an interest in areas of natural beauty as well, and I am sure that the Minister for Housing and Planning will address this point when we discuss the Planning and Infrastructure Bill later today. We take natural beauty and history seriously, and we think that the Bill will be able to do nature recovery and enable us to build the houses that we desperately need.
Mr Speaker
Order. I remind Members to look at the question on the Order Paper and make sure that their supplementary question is related to it.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government continue to progress the implementation of the reforms to the leasehold system that are already in statute, while at the same time undertaking the work required to bring forward the wider set of reforms necessary to end the feudal leasehold system for good. We remain on track to deliver our ambitious leasehold and commonhold reform agenda, as set out in the written ministerial statement that I made on 21 November last year.
Chris McDonald
I thank the Minister for his positive engagement with me on the issue of a safe crossing at roads on the Wynyard and Queensgate estates in my constituency, but can I also bring to his attention the issue of service charges at the Willow Sage Court estate? Does he agree that our leasehold reforms must ensure fair service charges? I can send him further information about this case if he wishes.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point, and I would like further information on that case. The Government recognise the considerable financial strain that rising service charges place on leaseholders and tenants. Overcharging through service charges is completely unacceptable. We intend to consult in the very near future on the measures in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 designed to drive up the transparency of service charges to make them more easily challengeable if leaseholders consider them to be unreasonable.
David Pinto-Duschinsky
I congratulate the Government on the bold action they are taking to end the feudal leasehold system for good, which will ensure that future flat owners will never again be treated as second-class homeowners. But as the Minister is well aware, there are millions of existing leaseholders, including thousands in my constituency of Hendon. Will he update the House on the work the Department is doing, building on the path forward outlined in the commonhold White Paper, to strengthen protections for existing leaseholders, including on the conversion of leaseholds, ground rents and right to manage?
Matthew Pennycook
The Government remain committed to providing existing leaseholders with greater rights, powers and protections over their homes. We commenced the right-to-manage measures contained in the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 on 3 March. We remain firmly committed to tackling unregulated and unaffordable ground rents, and we will deliver that in legislation. We will set out further detail on our proposed approach to enabling the conversion of existing leaseholds to commonhold in our draft leasehold and commonhold reform Bill later this year.
Ms Minns
Inflation-busting estate management fees for little or no service plague residents across the country, including those of the Brackenleigh, Greymoor Meadows and Denton Mill estates in my Carlisle constituency. What assurances can the Minister give my constituents and those of other hon. Members that the Government’s actions will curb those atrocious practices by estate management companies?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point; I recognise that many hon. Members across the House are affected by this issue. The Government remain committed to protecting residential freeholders on private and mixed tenure housing estates from unfair charges. We will consult this year on implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act’s new consumer protection provisions for the millions of homes subject to the charges affecting my hon. Friend’s constituents, and we will bring measures into force as quickly as possible thereafter.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I am glad to see the Government starting to tackle some of these issues. Will the Minister assure me that people on freehold housing estates with covenant issues in places like Basildon and Billericay will also be included in any legislation? They often face service charge increases of tens of per cent every single year, and they need that same assurance being provided to leaseholders that the Government will think about that and take action.
Matthew Pennycook
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are thinking about the plight of residential freeholders alongside leaseholders. As I just said, we will consult this year on implementing the provisions in the 2024 Act, which provides those residential freeholders with new consumer protection provisions. They will have that immediate safety to come in, as we look at how we reduce the prevalence of such arrangements in the longer term.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Leaseholders at South View on Upperton Road in Eastbourne face an extortionate bill of up to £40,000 each to repair unsafe balconies. The communication from Morgans and Stredder Pearce, who are both responsible for fixing that, has been woeful, and delays are leading to costs spiralling further. Will the Minister urge those organisations to improve the speed and responsiveness of their communications to protect South View’s leaseholders from further costs?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that case. I recognise the problem that he alludes to. We want to bring in as soon as possible measures to standardise service charges in particular and make them more transparent. I wonder if he might write to me and the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), who is responsible for building safety, with details of that case so that we can look into it further.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Developers are now creating facility and management companies, with new homeowners and tenants finding themselves as shareholders without their consent. Will the Minister look at that issue across the country to protect those homeowners?
Matthew Pennycook
If I have understood the hon. Gentleman correctly, he pointed to how a variety of arrangements can be put in place under freehold estates; we need to capture that variety across the country. That is one of the challenges in looking at what measures we might bring forward to reduce the prevalence of such arrangements, and we certainly intend to do that.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The last Government passed the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act, supported by the then Opposition. Labour said in the King’s Speech that it would go further with reform and quickly. Then, the Minister said that would take the whole of this Parliament. Now, the secondary legislation needed, as well as the consultation pending, mean that leaseholders are unlikely to see any reform quickly. Last week, the Government said that primary legislation may now be needed without implementing the law already passed. Is that not just another example of the Government promising one thing but now flailing around, delaying and breaking key promises they made, while leaseholders across the country suffer?
Matthew Pennycook
I must say that the shadow Minister is developing a bit of a habit here; he seems to have conflated a number of separate issues. The Government have a very clear commitment to ending the feudal leasehold system within this Parliament. That requires a wider set of reforms than switching on the powers that are already on the statute book via the 2024 Act, though we are going to do that and are doing so at pace. If he cared to look at the written ministerial statement where I set all this out in a lot of detail, he would see that we remain on track with implementing our reform agenda.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government recognise the strain placed on housing revenue accounts as a result of changes in rent policy, inflationary pressures and increased costs associated with investing in existing stock. The principle of self-financing remains the right one, but we are committed to working with councils to overcome the pressures on their HRAs so that they can invest in new and existing stock.
Will Stone
Will the Minister join me in praising Swindon borough council for its fantastic vision in investing in fixing our council stock—something the previous Conservative administration failed to do for 20 years?
Matthew Pennycook
I certainly will. My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for council housing and highlights that Swindon borough council is putting significant investment into its housing stock over the next five years. The Government recognise that councils, like other registered providers, need support to build their capacity. That is why we consulted last year on a new five-year social housing rent settlement and have allowed councils to keep 100% of the receipts generated by right-to-buy sales. We will set out details of further investment in the forthcoming spending review.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
In Kendal on Friday afternoon, I came across a constituent in a Home Housing property who had been the victim of a house fire several months ago. Although they were still living in the property, it had not been fully restored or fixed. I am on the matter personally and dealing with the casework issues; if I share the details of this case with the Minister, will he take a personal interest in it, and does he agree that it is outrageous for someone to have to live in a fire-damaged property for five months without it being properly restored?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that case. It does sound outrageous; if he writes to me, I will certainly look into the matter further.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
The Government are committed to rejuvenating high streets by empowering local communities. Through the £1.5 billion plan for neighbourhoods, we are providing flexible funding to support our most challenged communities. We are also tackling vacancy with high street rental auctions and legislating for a new community right to buy to support community ownership.
Matthew Patrick
Heswall in my Wirral West constituency is a brilliant place to live and deserves a thriving high street, but unfortunately for too many years now beloved shops have closed and decline has felt inevitable. The people of Heswall deserve better. I appreciate the Minister’s answer, but will he go further in explaining exactly how my constituents can take back control of their high street, so that it can thrive once again and deliver growth and opportunities for them?
Alex Norris
This Government understand the unique challenges that Heswall faces, including as a coastal community. That is why we are driving power and funding out of Westminster to ensure that no community is left behind. Just last week my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced £1.6 billion in funding for the Liverpool city region, including £100 million to upgrade the bus network, which is vital for connectivity to my hon. Friend’s community. I understand that those upgrades will begin in the Wirral next year, and I encourage Wirral council, as I do all local authorities, to take advantage of the new powers the Government have introduced to reoccupy the empty shops that are such a blight on our high streets.
Noah Law
I was elected to this place on the back of a pledge to revitalise the towns in my constituency. With the high street in St Austell in a sorry state, I am delighted to have been able to take the first steps towards revitalising it by ending the impasse at the site of the now derelict General Wolfe pub and moving my constituency office back into town at the other end of the street. However, the fact remains that the high street is on its knees, and many residents feel that our once great town could do much better. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that significant resources are available, beyond just the plan for neighbourhoods, to revitalise towns in constituencies like mine?
Alex Norris
I can say to my hon. Friend’s constituents that he is making good on that election commitment, because we have had this conversation on multiple occasions. Like all future funding, the Government will set out their long-term vision for local growth at the multi-year spending review; but in this year, the recently communicated UK shared prosperity fund announcement included more than £47 million for Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly—a mixture of revenue and capital funding to ensure that places can get going and kick-start economic growth locally, bringing towns such as his into play.
Michelle Welsh
In my Sherwood Forest constituency, high streets are the beating heart of towns such as Ollerton and Hucknall. Ollerton is set to receive record funding from this Labour Government, and I thank the Minister for that. However, Hucknall was badly let down by the previous Government, with false promises of funding that quite simply did not exist. Will he meet me to discuss how this Labour Government can support the future of Hucknall, enabling it to be the glorious high street it once was?
Alex Norris
I fully share my hon. Friend’s anger about the unfunded commitments to Hucknall from the previous Government. I know how disappointing that has been locally. I am pleased we have been able to reprioritise some funding within extremely tight budgets to give the support that she talks about. As she knows, I live only two tram stops from Hucknall, and of course I would be keen to pop on the tram and see her—and if we meet in the Plough, I would be doubly keen. Either way, I will be making sure I get to see her.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
In 2017, I met parents of children with severe disabilities in my constituency. A lack of suitable toilets and changing facilities made it almost impossible for those families to enjoy a day out, and I have been inspired to campaign for more Changing Places toilets ever since. I recently opened a Changing Places toilet just off Leyburn High Street, which will improve accessibility across Wensleydale. Will the Minister join me in thanking everyone involved and commit to supporting more Changing Places toilets across the country, so that families can have both the opportunity and the dignity that they deserve?
Alex Norris
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for Changing Places toilets, which have their roots in Nottingham. Frankly, people will not be able to access the amenities on their high streets if they do not feel they can leave their home without those facilities. I share his enthusiasm and commend him and his community. He sells himself slightly short, however, because I recall that when he was a Minister in this Department, he changed the rules and building regulations to make it easier to develop such toilets, and as Chancellor he made funding available for more as well. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise that and to praise him and the community of Wensleydale.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Houses in multiple occupation throughout Broxbourne—on our high streets in particular—are causing my constituents lots of issues. What will the Minister do to review the powers that my local councils of East Herts and Broxbourne have to stop HMOs where we do not want them?
Alex Norris
This is a really important question. The future mix of our high streets will undoubtably include, yes, traditional retail but also leisure and accommodation. That footfall can be a good thing, but if this is not well planned or well organised, and if communities are not brought along, it will not succeed. I am conscious that we have the Planning and Infrastructure Bill proceedings ahead of us today, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will find an opportunity to make that case to the Minister for Housing and Planning.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
In 2025-26, Surrey Heath businesses will contribute more than £30 million in business rates to Surrey borough council, but because of central Government tariffing, only 2.5% of those business rates will be retained locally. There is a reasonable expectation that locally raised taxes should remain local, so with local government reorganisation on its way, could the Secretary of State and the Front Bench team reassure Surrey Heath businesses that they might have a chance of retaining more of those business rates that should be invested back into our high streets?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the changes we have made to ensure that there are discounts on business rates for certain businesses this year, with further commitments to come at the Budget. He makes the right point. Of course I cannot announce that outside the Budget, but we will consider those points carefully.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Our high streets and small businesses have been hammered by this Government, with big increases in the cost of business rates and national insurance contributions. Can the Minister tell the House what measures he and the team have put forward to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to help our small businesses and high streets in the spending review?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman offers me two opportunities there. First, we talk about challenges on the high street, but I remind the House of the more than a decade of starved demand because the economic policies of the Conservatives and all the impacts that had, followed by—[Interruption.] The stag do on the Opposition Front Bench are making their rattle as usual, but they were all present during that disastrous fiscal event that led to the increased costs that we are still coping with now. The second temptation the hon. Gentleman gives me is the opportunity to resign by leaking details of the spending review here first. Sadly, I will give no succour there.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The December 2021 uplift to energy-efficiency standards means that most new build homes already achieve EPC ratings of A or B. As recently announced, the Government intend to introduce future standards in the autumn that will set more ambitious energy-efficiency and carbon emissions requirements for new homes to ensure that they are net zero-ready.
Charlotte Cane
As well as energy, water is an important utility. In Ely and East Cambridgeshire, we suffer drought and floods. What is the Minister doing to encourage new builds to have proper rainwater harvesting and dual piping, so that we can use rainwater to flush our toilets and for other non-drinking water uses?
Matthew Pennycook
We are looking at how we might make household water use more efficient, as well as a range of other interventions in my hon. Friend’s part of the country to ensure that we make the best use of water and that the necessary infrastructure is put in place to accommodate housing growth.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
In Hartlepool, 24,000 existing homes have an energy performance certificate rating of D or below. That means too many homes are too cold and have bills that are too high. What can the Minister do to accelerate the improvement of those homes to ensure warm homes for Hartlepool constituents?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend tempts me into the responsibilities of another Department, but I will get the relevant Minister from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to write to him to set out what measures are being put in place as part of the warm homes plan.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
In 2010, just 12% of homes had an EPC C rating or above, so those homes were too cold and had bills that were too high. It was 60% by 2024 when we left power. Will the Minister share with the House the ambition and give us a number for the percentage of homes that we should expect to have that basic EPC C rating by the end of this term, which I hope will be the only one the Minister has, so he should make a difference while he can? [Laughter.]
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
That’s a bit harsh.
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Gentleman is certainly not charitable. As I made clear, I recognise the December 2021 uplift in energy efficiency standards means that most new builds that come through achieve an EPC rating of A or B. Off the top of my head, though I stand to be corrected, I think about 84% of new homes meet those standards. But as I said, we have announced that we want to introduce future standards this autumn, which will drive even more ambitious energy efficiency and carbon emission requirements for new homes.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Having long campaigned on the need for much tougher regulations for solar panels on new homes, I was delighted to hear the Government announce last Friday that we will bring forward requirements to do exactly that. That will not just boost EPC ratings, but save new homeowners thousands of pounds in bills, all while reducing energy usage. How can we ensure that we move at speed so that as many of the new homes we build over the course of this Parliament as possible will benefit from our ambition here?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend has been a champion of ensuring that we get more solar panels on to new build homes and other types of building. As I said in answer to a previous question, we want to move at pace to put future standards in place. We are looking at this autumn, and that will ensure more of the new homes coming forward meet those more ambitious standards. It will mean, as he is aware, that the vast majority of new build homes have solar panels on them as standard.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
The Government’s defining mission is delivering economic growth and driving up living standards. That is why we are investing up to £200 million across 10 Scottish towns over 10 years to support regeneration, tackle inequalities and unleash their full potential. That will empower local communities, improve public services and create new opportunities. That is, of course, alongside the shared prosperity fund, which is investing £4.4 million in Fife this year.
Melanie Ward
Many times I have raised with the Minister, as well as with Business and Treasury Ministers, the need for regeneration funding for Kirkcaldy High Street. The brilliant people of our town deserve a modern town centre that makes the most of our incredible seafront and all it has to offer. Ahead of the spending review this week, can the Minister assure me that my message has been heard? Will he also join me in congratulating Davy Russell, Labour’s newest MSP and a strong campaigner for his high street? The people of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse have chosen well.
Alex Norris
I can assure the hon. Lady, her constituents and the House that I do not think a week has gone by without her pushing me on Kirkcaldy town centre. She knows that I cannot run ahead of any multi-year spending review that may be upon us soon, but the point she made, and always makes to me, is a good one. I of course associate myself with her comments about Davy.
Mr Speaker
Order. I will just say that supplementary questions should aim to relate to the original question. This is about funding in Scotland, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s question will be purely about that.
Jim Shannon
The Minister is right to point out the need for regeneration for towns in Scotland. Last week, the Government agreed in this Chamber to funding for England and Wales. That leaves only one part of the United Kingdom left out: Northern Ireland. [Laughter.] What will be done to ensure that Northern Ireland gets the same as the other three Administrations?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman knows that I talk with my counterparts in all the devolved Governments, including Scotland and Northern Ireland, and I will continue to do so. The shared prosperity fund is a sign of our commitment in that direction. We will, I am sure, see future plans shortly.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
The Government recognise the need to expand and upskill the construction workforce to meet our ambitious plan-for-change milestone of delivering 1.5 million safe and decent homes in this Parliament. We are working closely with industry to provide high-quality house building training opportunities, and we welcome the £140 million industry investment late last year in 32 pioneering new home building skills hubs, which will create up to 5,000 more construction apprenticeships per year.
Alison Hume
The construction skills village in Scarborough is an innovative real-world training environment for the specialist trades that we desperately need to build homes. Does the Minister acknowledge the importance of independent training providers in our plans to build 1.5 million new homes, and will he meet me to discuss how we can ensure that ITPs, which deliver the specialist skills that the construction industry is asking for, are included in our plans to train 60,000 new construction workers?
Matthew Pennycook
The Government are investing significant amounts of money to train more construction workers. We appreciate fully the importance of independent training providers in training the workforce needed to deliver more homes across England. I suggest that my hon. Friend and I find time to meet Baroness Smith from the Department for Education to discuss matters relating to ITPs, including the CSV in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to supporting skills training in the construction sector. Does he agree that skills training needs to be particularly focused on the sustainable skills, and will he join me in congratulating the low-carbon technology training centre in my constituency, as well as the new university in Hereford—its first cohort of engineers graduated just last month? Does he welcome such initiatives, and will the Government put more funding into supporting the construction and engineering skills that our building sector will need?
Matthew Pennycook
I hope that the hon. Lady recognises that we are putting significant amounts of investment into construction skills. In the spring statement, the Government announced a £600 million investment that will recruit an additional 60,000 construction workers by 2029. I am more than happy to recognise the contributions made by initiatives of the sort that she mentions in her constituency. We absolutely need skills across the built environment to meet our targets.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
In our first eight months in office, we have announced £800 million in new funding for the affordable homes programme and £2 billion as a down payment on future investment. The previous Government handed back precious cash for social and affordable homes. This Government will get those homes built. The Chancellor will set out details of new investment at the spending review.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to social and affordable housing. I know that she will be concerned by the new analysis by the National Housing Federation, which finds that local authorities in England with the most severe shortage of social housing now have waiting lists exceeding 100 years for a family-sized social home. With nearly 6,000 people on the waiting list in Salford alone, will she outline what support she will give local authorities and the social housing sector to deliver desperately needed social homes?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have a housing crisis in this country, and it is felt particularly acutely by those who need social and council housing. That is why we have been absolutely clear that we want to deliver the biggest increase to social and affordable housing in a generation. We have already outlined a number of measures, including allowing councils to retain 100% of right-to-buy receipts and making long-term funding settlements for rents. We have set out the investment that we have put into the sector, but we will say more at the spending review.
Baggy Shanker
Having access to a safe and secure home is a basic human need, but the Tories absolutely ignored this when they cut Government funding by £4.8 billion in just five years, and Derby has suffered the consequences. Last year, waiting lists for social housing in our city reached record highs. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to lift people stuck on these waiting lists out of limbo and into good social housing?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is a great champion for Derby and many Members across this House can understand the acute pressures he mentions. The fact is we have not been building enough homes, and we certainly have not been building enough social homes. Therefore, we have already set out some steps, as I mentioned briefly earlier, around the right to buy receipts, and we are consulting on new long-term rent settlements to give providers confidence to build, and we will be investing billions of pounds into social housing. I cannot pre-empt the spending review this week but the Chancellor will set out more then.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
When a developer pledges to build 40% minimum of affordable housing and obtains outline planning permission on the basis of that pledge, and then, less than 20 months later, seeks to reduce the 40% to 0%, is that acceptable?
Angela Rayner
I am not going to stray into individual cases, but what I will say is that since gaining office this Government have confirmed the changes to the national planning policy framework, in particular around section 106, to ensure that when developers seek planning permission and pledge that they are going to do something, they are kept to those pledges.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Reform)
My constituency is seeing approximately 60,000 new homes being built across the Basildon and Thurrock areas. Basildon hospital is consistently running at 98% capacity, and a school I visited today, which I was very proud to see in such a good state, has roughly 1,100 pupil applications for 300 available spaces each year. Along with housing, my constituents are deeply concerned about the level of infrastructure being developed and the state of the existing infrastructure. What reassurances can Ministers give them about those concerns?
Angela Rayner
Coming back to the point that we do need housing, including social and council housing, we have been clear in the changes that we have been making, including in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, to ensure that that infrastructure is there, because that is one of the barriers leading to people rejecting some proposals because the transport connectivity and the facilities are not available. Therefore this Government are committed to ensuring we get the right type of development that supports local need and also, importantly, has the infrastructure alongside it.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister has repeatedly stuck to her commitment that 1.5 million homes, including social homes, will be built over the lifetime of this Parliament despite everybody knowing that she will not achieve it. And today, the latest people to say she will not are Savills, who have forecast that the true number she will build over this Parliament is just 840,000, and that means fewer social homes too. Now that she has emerged from the dark rooms of the Treasury to capitulate to the Chancellor, will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that more social homes and 1.5 million new homes will be built by the end of this Parliament: yes or no?
Angela Rayner
The Opposition cannot have it both ways: one way they are saying we are failing to build the homes; and the other way they are saying we are concreting over the green belt. We said that planning reforms alone will not deliver our ambitions, which is why we have committed to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. And I say to the hon. Member, as I have said to many people in my life, underestimate me at your peril.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Jess in my constituency had all her possessions and bags put on the pavement outside the hotel and was locked out of her bedroom with her baby by hotel management—shocking behaviour on their part. With £2 billion being spent by local authorities on temporary accommodation, would it not be better to have a national target for the number of social homes that are going to be built? What steps will the Government be taking to set such a target?
Angela Rayner
I am disgusted to hear about what happened to that young person and her baby—that is absolutely terrible. The number of people, particularly children, who are in temporary accommodation at the moment is shocking, which is why this Government are committed to the biggest wave of social and affordable housing in a generation. We have not put a particular number on that, not least because we do not have the spending review results—they are coming later this week—but we are clear that we want that number to ramp up and we need that proportion to meet the target of 1.5 million new homes, so I ask the hon. Member to wait just a little bit longer.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
The Government have delivered a settlement that begins to fix the foundations and makes available over £69 billion in 2025-26. In 2026-27, an improved approach will direct funding where it is needed most and provide certainty through the first multi-year settlement in over a decade.
Amanda Hack
Leicestershire, alongside other authorities, has been campaigning for fair funding in recent years, following 14 years of poor funding settlements by the last Government, meaning cuts to vital services. A lack of fair funding also means that schools in North West Leicestershire have some of the lowest levels of funding per student in the country. How will the Minister approach a fair funding settlement that considers the unique challenges faced by rural communities?
Jim McMahon
I thank my hon. Friend for her work in championing those issues. We are fundamentally reforming how we assess councils’ relative needs and resources, to ensure that funding is distributed to where it is needed most. That includes accounting for councils’ ability to raise resources locally, which the previous Government promised to do but ultimately failed to do in balancing the numbers. Targeting funding in that way will enable councils that have had to scale back services the most to be able to catch up and to ensure that everybody, across the whole of England, is able to access decent public services.
Natasha Irons
Despite an increase in council tax of 27% since 2022, £136 million in exceptional financial support this year and brutal cuts to services, Croydon council’s finances remain broken. As an outer-London borough with inner-London problems, Croydon has historically not received the funding it needs to cover the costs for demand-led services like temporary accommodation, so even if Croydon’s debt was wiped out, it would still need exceptional financial support. Will the Minister outline how councils like Croydon will get the resources they need to meet the complex challenges they face and provide the frontline services that our communities deserve?
Jim McMahon
The questions that have been raised demonstrate why the fair funding review is needed, and why it has to take into account all the different factors that have an impact on whether councils can provide good public services or not. I appreciate, understand and accept that pressures that were previously felt in inner London are now felt in outer London, and in rural areas too. My hon. Friend will know that in February we provided £136 million in EFS support for Croydon council, and we will continue to work with it. We have met and talked about the issues a number of times, and I know that she understands that those are not small problems to deal with.
Helen Hayes
The statutory override to special educational needs and disabilities deficit comes to an end in just 10 months. Without a plan from the Government for the end of the statutory override, more than half of all local education authorities face effective bankruptcy. The need for a resolution to the issue is now long overdue. When does the Minister expect to be able to give local authorities the certainty they need?
Jim McMahon
We are laying the groundwork now, ahead of the provisional settlement, which will be the first multi-year settlement in over a decade and will deal with a lot of the structural issues. If it is any help, the Government understand and accept that it is not right or acceptable for councils that have done everything that has been asked of them and provided good public services, particularly for young people, to find themselves at the financial cliff edge as a result. We have an absolute commitment to work through those issues.
Terry Jermy
Pockets of deprivation in many rural communities, like my South West Norfolk constituency, are often masked by more affluent surroundings. Will the Minister reassure me that financial support from the Government for local councils in rural areas reflects those concerns about isolated deprivation?
Jim McMahon
This month, we are consulting on an updated assessment of need that we will implement from 2026-27. Importantly, that includes the indices of multiple deprivation, a designated national statistic, and it will drill down to deprivation levels of between 400 and 1,200 households in each of those units. Our intention is to address the issues found in the pockets of deprivation in every community, including rural and coastal communities where they are sometimes drowned out because of the sea of affluence around them. It is important that we get to deprivation wherever it exists.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
As an outer London borough, Havering has been hugely disadvantaged by a funding formula based on outdated population figures. We heard today that the Mayor of London himself is concerned that this Labour Government will level down London altogether. Will the Minister confirm that the fair funding review will report by this summer—I have been told that previously by a Minister—and will specifically address the disparities between inner and outer London?
Jim McMahon
I can absolutely assure the hon. Member that we are working through those issues, and we will consult the sector on them. Given all the variations that we will take into account, I hope Members accept that we have listened. We know that the funding formula is out of date and that for it to stand the test it must apply wherever Members represent, whether in coastal communities, rural communities, inner or outer London or anywhere else in between. I assure the hon. Member that we are getting on with that work.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Shropshire council’s finances have been left on the brink by 16 years of Conservative administration. It is the largest landlocked county in England, and it is struggling with about 85% of its budget being spent on social care. When the Minister does his fair funding review, will he look at the difficulty and costliness of delivering services over such a wide rural area and ensure that councils such as Shropshire, which has lost its rural services delivery grant, will be able to sustain themselves in the future?
Jim McMahon
We made available an additional £5 billion as part of the settlement, and £3.7 billion of that was for social care. We understand the pressures and we are directing money to address them, but we know that this issue will take more than one year to fix. We are on with the fair funding review—the third multi-year settlement in a decade—to begin to fix the foundations. We have definitely heard calls from rural communities and councils to take into account the additional cost for rurality and remoteness, and I assure the hon. Lady that those issues are being looked at.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
One way of ensuring that new unitary authorities such as those for Leicestershire have adequate funding is to base that funding on robust business cases. Given that the Department was five weeks late in providing feedback to the local authorities, will the Minister commit to extending the deadline to ensure that those local authorities have the time that they need to build up those plans?
Jim McMahon
In all areas, there is more than adequate time to prepare final proposals. Councils in the devolution priority programme have until September, and all others—the majority—have until November. That is more than adequate time for councils to be able to marshal and get their plans together and make an assessment on that basis.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It has been reported that the Birmingham bin strikes may last until December. How can this Government claim to support workers when they refuse to fund Birmingham city council properly? This dispute boils down to cash, yet the Government are failing Birmingham’s bin workers, residents and businesses. The Government backed our steelworkers. Will they back the bin workers with extra funding?
Jim McMahon
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. On the calls that we have with MPs when we update them on these issues, his tone is quite different. We need to separate the rhetoric from the reality. The reality is that for the first time we had £600 million in the recovery grant, which was about those councils suffering high deprivation and historically low tax bases. Birmingham was the biggest beneficiary of that, receiving nearly £40 million.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Minister knows from his time at the Local Government Association of the impact that asylum has on the budgets of local authorities. With the Home Office’s much-vaunted increase in the grant rate for asylum claims, the Government are pushing thousands of households on to council waiting lists and shunting millions in costs on to council tax payers. What additional funding and measures does he aim to secure to help to mitigate those costs, which are affecting so many of our local authorities?
Jim McMahon
Quite frankly, it is a bit rich for any shadow Minister to critique the current system when the Conservatives deliberately designed it in their 14 years in government. The question is how we go about repairing it. One thing must absolutely be put right; the disjointed system in which different Government Departments work in silos cannot carry on. One of the successes of the leaders’ council is that for, the first time ever, local government leaders are around the table with the Government, including in a meeting with the Home Office and our Department, to work through exactly those issues. That is the change: for the first time, those in local government are being treated as adults.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
As the Planning and Infrastructure Bill enters its remaining stages in the Commons, I thank my hon. Friend the Housing Minister and Members across the House for their continued work on this important piece of legislation that will get Britain building again.
This weekend marks the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell tower fire. I know that I speak for all Members of this House when I say that the 72 men, women and children who lost their lives at Grenfell will never be forgotten. We have accepted the inquiry’s findings, and will take action on all 58 recommendations to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system that will deliver safe, quality homes for everyone.
Alice Macdonald
Many of my constituents are concerned that too often new estates go up without the necessary infrastructure, whether that is schools, GP surgeries or even playgrounds. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is vital to address that issue, and can she elaborate on how we will do so after too many years of inaction?
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government are committed to strengthening the system of developer contributions to ensure that new developments provide the necessary infrastructure that communities expect. We will set out further details in due course. Earlier I mentioned the changes to the national planning policy framework that were announced in December, and we will also support the increased provision and modernisation of various types of public infrastructure.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
As the Secretary of State has said, Saturday marks the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell tragedy. As she knows, I can confirm to her that I will work constructively with her and her colleagues to deliver remediation, building safety and the best outcomes for local communities. The previous Government committed over £5 billion for remediation; will the Secretary of State confirm that the spending review will continue to provide such financial support? Will she also confirm that she will meet the previous Government’s pledge to co-fund with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea the renovation of the Lancaster West estate, and that the £85 million from central Government needed and promised to finish the works will be provided?
Angela Rayner
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for the constructive way in which he has approached this issue. We all remember what happened at Grenfell and the work that the previous Government did, and we are continuing that work, as outlined in phase 2 of the recommendations. The buildings Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris) has been meeting—as I have—members of the community, RBKC and others to make sure we continue on that journey. I hesitate to say, though, that the previous Government made a lot of promises that are challenging. We will always put safety first, and we are working to ensure that we deliver on that.
Kevin Hollinrake
I know that the Secretary of State has had some difficult negotiations this weekend with her colleague the Chancellor. The spending review is critical for the funding of the affordable homes budget. In the past, the Secretary of State has praised the Chancellor’s generosity, as she puts it, not least for providing the extra £2 billion for the affordable homes budget, but will she admit today that that budget is decreasing from previous levels under our Government? Will she say—even if it is after the spending review—exactly how many affordable and social homes she expects to deliver during this Parliament?
Angela Rayner
The shadow Secretary of State has been called a bit later than the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for whom I outlined the reasons we have not put an exact figure on that and confirmed that we will build the biggest increase in affordable and social housing in a generation. I say gently to the shadow Secretary of State that we are delivering for working people by banning no-fault evictions and introducing groundbreaking protections for renters, which the Conservatives promised but did not deliver. We are introducing major planning reforms to build 1.5 million homes; they promised 1.6 million homes, but could not get anywhere. We are also delivering the largest ever single package of devolution measures, pushing power out of Westminster. We are delivering where the Conservatives failed.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I do not blame my hon. Friend for trying, but for good reason we established an independent expert advisory panel—the new towns taskforce—to make recommendations to Ministers on the location and delivery of new towns. The taskforce will submit its final report to Ministers in the coming months.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Residents in Wellington, in Castlemoat Place in Taunton and in Agar Grove—homebuyers—are just some of a sample who have come to me, raising the scandal of house builders not properly finishing the buildings they have created, leaving them unsafe. What steps will the Minister take to bring forward measures to ensure that house builders repair and make safe their properties urgently, without people having to wait years?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
I am grateful for that question, which raises something mirrored in many parts of this country. The duty to make sure that homes are safe is the responsibility of builders and owners. Where they fall short, there are legal powers for the local authority and for the fire and rescue service to compel them to change. As with all hon. and right hon. colleagues across the House, I would be happy to help, if I can, with any specific examples that the hon. Gentleman has.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Alex Norris
As my hon. Friend rightly identifies, fire is a devolved matter. In England, stand-alone fire and rescue authorities will see an increase in core spending power of nearly £70 million in 2025-26. Those fire and rescue authorities are required to plan for foreseeable risks in their area, including wildfire and flooding, and to decide where to direct resources. On co-operation, I assure him, as I did the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), that I am talking to my counterparts in the devolved Government to make sure that we are tackling common problems and sharing that insight.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Matthew Pennycook
No. We are confident that the protections in place for the green belt—the tests that have to be met for grey-belt release—are robust. It is ultimately for local planning authorities to conduct green-belt reviews and to bring forward those sites as part of local plans.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
We have invested almost £1 billion in tackling homelessness and rough sleeping, and we have recognised the scandal of temporary accommodation, which we inherited. We are taking action to ensure that there is a cross-Government strategy to get us back on track to ending homelessness.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Alex Norris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to talk about community ownership of those locally loved assets. We know such places endure during difficult times; they provide good employment for local people and they normally employ a more diverse workforce base. We were pleased in the previous round to get money out to a number of schemes through the community ownership fund. We will legislate for an improved community right to buy, too. We are very much aligned in this space on the exceptional importance of community ownership.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Alex Norris
In addition to my previous answer, my hon. Friend will have heard me talk about the importance of targeting resource at deprivation and need. I think that is the right approach to funding. It also goes a bit beyond funding, to power, which all communities can benefit from. Whether it is high street rental auctions, an enhanced community right to buy, local planning processes or local communities taking those opportunities to shape place, local authorities are important in that conversation. I know my hon. Friend is pushing his in that regard.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Matthew Pennycook
There are legitimate reasons why developer contributions can be held by local authorities—for example, so that they can complete phased development, or bring forward other sites over a period of time—but we are aware that certain local authorities hold, in some cases, significant sums, and we are giving the matter some attention.
Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)
The Shared Health Foundation recently published a vital report on children living in temporary accommodation, which revealed the scandalous fact that all too often, children living in such accommodation are not safe, secure or able to thrive. Does the Minister agree that it falls to this Labour Government to fix that wrong, on which there has been silence for too long?
Rushanara Ali
My hon. Friend is right. We have inherited record levels of homelessness and rough sleeping, but this Government are determined to take action and address those challenges. Through the third round of the local authority housing fund, we are providing councils with half a billion pounds to house some of the most vulnerable people in the country, and have announced an injection of £2 billion to deliver up to 18,000 new affordable social homes.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Angela Rayner
I might like a pint; and wouldn’t he like to know?
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
People have lived in Earsdon View in my constituency for more than 15 years, but the estate remains unadopted due to an ongoing issue between the landowner, Northumberland Estates, and the developer, Bellway, involving the securing of sewer adoption. I continue to press all parties to resolve the problem, but how can we ensure that people are not left in this situation for decades, often paying management fees on top of council tax, and that developers deliver?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend has been a doughty champion of leaseholders and residential freeholders in her constituency. We must start to provide the consumer protections that are already on the statute book, but as I have made clear, we are determined to end the injustice of fleecehold entirely, and will consult later this year on legislative and policy options to reduce the prevalence of private estate management arrangements.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I broadly support unitarisation on a strategic scale, but I am concerned about how historic debts will be treated in Surrey, especially those of Woking and Spelthorne councils. How will those debts be handled as our councils come together, and will the Minister assure my constituents in Virginia Water and Englefield Green, in the well-run borough of Runnymede, that they will not foot the bill for this as part of the reorganisation?
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
That is one of the reasons why the Surrey arrangement was accelerated. We recognised the lack of balance between the debt liability and the assets and incomes. We also recognised that the unitaries would have to be financially viable, and we are well on track to delivering that, in partnership with the local councils.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the enhanced protections for tenants in the Renters’ Rights Bill, but data from The Londoner shows that for London tenants, there is only one enforcement officer per 7,500 private rented homes. Given the new enforcement burdens that the Bill places on councils, will the Minister please ensure that they have the resources to protect private tenants?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend will know that in the Bill we have taken a “polluter pays” approach. Local authorities will be able to levy fines on landlords to raise revenue, but—my hon. Friend can check the transcript on this point—we did commit ourselves to “new burdens” funding as appropriate.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Given the environmental importance and scarcity of chalk streams, may I urge the Deputy Prime Minister and her team to support amendments to this afternoon’s legislation that would protect those streams? They are vital, and they need as much protection as we can give them.
Matthew Pennycook
As the hon. Gentleman will know, chalk streams already have protections in national planning policy, but I am sure that we will continue this discussion on Report of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill later today.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Will the Minister meet me and residents of Beech and Willow Rise in Kirby, where a combination of failed leasehold law, previous corporate entities and inadequate regulation risks leaving residents facing unaffordable costs and eviction?
Matthew Pennycook
I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend. I know she has had constructive conversations with the Minister with responsibility for building safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), but I am happy to meet her.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Three hundred social homes are at risk in my Chichester constituency, despite having outline planning permission, because developers are rejecting offers from registered providers. Will the Minister commit to action to stop developers evading their obligation, and will he meet me to help me protect the delivery of these social homes?
Matthew Pennycook
We recognise the challenges around uncontracted section 106 units. A complex array of factors has led us to this point, but we are giving serious consideration to how we unblock the problem, and how we get those section 106 homes allocated and people living in them.
Chinese Embassy Development
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government what assessment she has made of the United States Government’s national security concerns regarding the proposed Chinese embassy development at Royal Mint Court.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
This Government are committed to the probity of the planning process at all levels to ensure robust and evidence-based decision making. The process includes a role for planning Ministers in deciding on called-in planning applications and recovered appeals, so I hope that the House will appreciate why I cannot comment in any detail on specific planning applications at the Dispatch Box. That said, it may be helpful to Members if I set out the process that these cases follow.
The application referred to by the right hon. Member was considered to meet the published call-in policy set out in the October 2012 written ministerial statement, so it will be determined by Ministers. The application is not yet with the Department. All decisions that come before Ministers are subject to examination by an independent planning inspector, usually through a public inquiry. The planning inspector then provides an evidence-based recommendation, and set out their full reasons for that recommendation. The inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national planning policy, which is likely to contain a wide variety of material planning considerations; in this case, those are likely to include safety and national security.
A public inquiry was held on this case between 11 and 28 February, at which interested parties were able to put forward evidence and make representations. Should any further representations be made that raise material planning considerations before the decision is made, they will also be taken into account. At all times, the decision will be dealt with in line with the published propriety guidance on planning casework decisions. The right hon. Member will be aware that the Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary made a joint representation to the Planning Inspectorate ahead of the start of the inquiry. That will be taken into account, alongside all other relevant matters. Once the planning inspector’s report and recommendation is received, the case will be determined by a planning Minister, who will come to a decision based on material planning considerations.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The US Government, and today the Dutch Parliament, have expressed concerns about sensitive cables under Royal Mint Court. Beijing has a recent history of cutting cables and confirmed infrastructure hacks, including embedding malware capable of disabling all that infrastructure. Surprisingly, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said on television yesterday that this issue is “in the planning process” and could be managed. Will the Minister correct the record? The planning inquiry has concluded, and no changes at all can be made to the Chinese planning application.
I remind the Minister that the application contains nothing about cabling. Indeed, the Chinese have rejected only two requests by the inquiry—requests to which he referred; they were made by the Government, in the letter from the Foreign and Home Secretaries. That is despite Ministers regularly saying that the letter should “give those concerned comfort.” Rerouting the cables would, we know, cost millions, if the Government are even thinking about that, so I ask the Minister: why did the Government strongly deny, rather than tell this House about, the presence of the cables until the White House actually confirmed it?
Chinese state media have reported that the UK has given assurances to the Chinese that the UK would allow the development, no matter what. Indeed, The Guardian newspaper reported in 2023 that the Chinese would not apply again unless they were given governmental assurances. Can the Minister confirm, or even deny, any of this? Speaking as one of those in the Chamber who have been sanctioned by China, I see this as Project Kowtow. There has been one denial after another, and one betrayal after another. No wonder our allies believe that this Chinese mega-embassy is becoming a walk of shame for the Government.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the right hon. Member for those questions. I hope he will appreciate, not least because of the quasi-judicial nature of the role of planning Ministers in the planning process, that I cannot comment on the details of the application. As I have said, no decision on the case has been made, and the case is not yet before the Department.
The right hon. Member mentioned cables, but it would not be appropriate to comment on any specific national security issue. On whether the Chinese embassy issue was raised during UK-US trade talks, again it would not be appropriate to comment on the details of those talks. Suffice it to say that we do not recognise the characterisation set out in The Sunday Times article, in which that was referenced. It is important to emphasise that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining this case. As I say, I cannot comment in any detail on such a case, and this case is not yet before the Department.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I understand that the Minister cannot comment on this case, or any individual case, but national security is of the utmost concern to everybody in this country and in this Chamber. When an application comes before the Secretary of State, and in granting applications from foreign Governments, will national security be a material concern for the Government?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I made clear in responding to the initial question, the inspector’s report considers the application against published local, regional and national planning policy, which is likely to include consideration of a wide variety of material planning matters. In this case, that is likely to include safety and national security.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this very important urgent question. Question after question, and letter after letter, the Government have consistently treated Parliament with complete disregard on this matter. They have stonewalled legitimate inquiries about national security, ministerial discussions and warnings from security bodies. I get that the Minister is compromised, in that he has a quasi-judicial responsibility here, but his colleagues in the Home Office and the Foreign Office do not, and they could answer these questions.
As the Government know, their own cyber-security experts, Innovate UK, have warned about the threat to the City of London from the embassy. The Wapping telephone and internet exchange is surrounded on three sides by the new embassy, and there are fibre cables carrying highly sensitive information running beneath the site. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology said yesterday that these matters could be dealt with in the planning process, but the inquiry has ended, so they cannot. If the Government are considering moving the cables, how many millions of pounds of public money will that cost? I recently sent yet another cross-party letter to the Prime Minister, signed by 59 parliamentarians, urging him to pause and reconsider. Since then, the US and Dutch Governments have both sounded the alarm.
Have MI5 and GCHQ been able to submit their own warnings to the planning inspector? Does the inspector have access to unredacted plans of the embassy, which the Chinese Government have refused to make public? Have the Government assessed the potential sinister uses of the secret basement in the so-called cultural exchange building? What discussions have taken place with the Bank of England, given its role in cyber-security regulation in the City? Why will the Government not follow the example of the US, Australian and Irish Governments, who vetoed similar embassies that threatened their national security? The Government are on the verge of making a decision that will lead to a huge risk that will persist for decades. Will they change course before it is too late?
Matthew Pennycook
I appreciate that the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks were written before he listened to my response, but I could not have been clearer about the fact that no decision has been made on this case and no application is yet before the Department—[Interruption.] It was a question. He is pre-empting a decision that has not been made, on a case that is not before the Department. I have been very clear that, should any further representations be made that raise material planning considerations—they may, in this case, relate to safety and national security—before a decision is made, these will be taken into account. But again, as I said to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), on matters of security it would not be appropriate for me to comment. On specific issues such as cables, it would not be appropriate for me to comment. Planning Ministers have a quasi-judicial role in the planning process and, as I have said, the case is not yet before the Department.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I am sure that the Minister can understand the sensitivity of how we all feel about this. China has a track record of aggressive state-backed espionage. Surely this country cannot afford to make a massive underestimation of the risk, should this go ahead as expected. Experts warn that there could be the foreign leverage of signals, interception and monitoring of sensitive Government and corporate communications. To what extent can individuals make representations, because everyone is extremely concerned that such a massive and historic building was sold some years ago? This is pre-empted. This is how China works: it plans years ahead. We cannot not say anything in this House; we must comment on what we see. Please, understand that we must.
Matthew Pennycook
I do understand the strength of feeling conveyed by my hon. Friend and other hon. Members when it comes to the People’s Republic of China. The Government are taking a consistent, long-term and strategic approach to managing the UK’s relations with China, rooted in the national interest. We will always protect our national security and keep the country safe, but those are separate issues from this specific planning application. I understand why she does so, but she tempts me to speculate—again, as I have said—on a decision that has not been made, on a case that is not yet before the Department.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for submitting this urgent question.
The potential approval of the Chinese super-embassy sends precisely the wrong signal at a moment when we should be pushing the Chinese Government hard on human rights abuses and their repression of the people of Hong Kong, both in that city and right here on our streets. Notwithstanding the risk of interception of sensitive comms at the site, Hongkongers and Uyghurs are deeply worried about what it might mean for China’s expanding surveillance capacity here in the UK. In March, alongside other Opposition Members, I spoke at the protest in front of the proposed site. I say the same thing to the Minister as I said that day: the Government must block it. Taking into account the scale of opposition, both domestically and by our allies, will the Minister confirm that representations made in this place will be considered as part of the planning approval process? If I may, I will also ask: considering that the original timetable for the China audit to be published has now passed, will the Minister tell the House when they expect finally to present it?
Matthew Pennycook
On the audit, the hon. Gentleman’s final point, the relevant Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), has confirmed that that will be coming before the summer. He raises two very distinct issues and I must treat them separately. On human rights, we stand firm, including against China’s repression of the people of Xinjiang and Tibet. Human rights issues are raised every time FCDO Ministers meet their Chinese counterparts. On the application specifically, he asks me a very direct question. Should any further representations be made, by Members or other interested parties, that raise material planning considerations that need to be taken into account in a decision, they will be taken into account and they will be considered before a decision is made.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Earlier this year I spoke at a huge demonstration outside the proposed embassy site, which was attended by thousands of British Hongkongers who fear that the hands that throttled their freedoms in Hong Kong are reaching into our society, too. I understand the Minister’s point and the limitations on what he can say on the issue at this time, but this is not just a matter of national security; does he understand that it is also a matter of personal security for many of our constituents, given the increase in transnational repression emanating from Beijing?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend has been a vocal advocate for the Hong Kong community in his constituency and across the country. We will stand with and support members of that community; we have a long, shared history with Hong Kong, and many people from Hong Kong have made the UK their home in recent years. Again—I must emphasise this point, and I will continue to do so as questions on this come in—that is a distinct and separate issue from the planning application that will, in due course, come before Ministers in my Department.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) today; I spoke before him at the rally to which he refers. Those of us who have been sanctioned—I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are among our number—are particularly conscious of the effect that the Chinese state has on our country. Do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, honestly believe that the Minister thinks that the Chinese would look at this proposal in the same way? Do we in this House honestly believe that something threatening our economic security, as highlighted by the Americans and the Dutch, should go through a bureaucratic planning process, with no ability to vary it, because, frankly, them’s the orders? I do not think that is the way China would do it, and it is certainly not the way we should do it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
It is a very clever question, but it is the Minister who is responding.
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Gentleman’s views on China are well known, and he knows my views on China, too—we have discussed the matter in the past. He raises two distinct issues. On sanctioned parliamentarians, let me take this opportunity to make it clear that the sanctions are completely unwarranted and unacceptable, and this issue will remain a priority under this Government. The Foreign Secretary and the Chancellor have raised their case at every meeting with their counterparts, including with President Xi at the G20 in November and Foreign Minister Wang Yi in February. The right hon. Gentleman tempts me to comment on the Chinese planning system. I am very glad that we have a different and more robust system than the People’s Republic of China.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on individual planning applications from the Dispatch Box, but when I speak to Hongkongers in my constituency, they are seriously concerned about the risks that come with transnational repression and that might come along with the creation and construction of this embassy. When I was speaking with Hongkongers in my constituency last week, on the 36th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre—something that can be commemorated in Leeds, but not in Hong Kong—they were seriously concerned that those with £100,000 bounties on their heads might be more at risk now because of the construction of this embassy. I appreciate that the Minister’s portfolio does not necessarily cover this, but what assurances can he give on behalf of the Government that if such an embassy is built, we will do everything in our power to protect those from Hong Kong who have made the UK their home?
Matthew Pennycook
I hope hon. Members will appreciate why I will not comment on hypotheticals, again, on a decision that has not been made on a case that is not before the Department. I have made it very clear that we stand with the Hong Kong community. The Minister with responsibility for Asia and the Indo-Pacific, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), met members of the Hong Kong community in this country, along with my hon. Friend the Security Minister. We will stand by them.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Foreign Secretary have all had recent, high-level interactions with Ministers of the Chinese Communist party—the Chinese Government. Has the Chinese embassy been brought up in any of the meetings with those Ministers, and have those Ministers in any way corresponded with the Minister’s Department on the Chinese embassy application?
Matthew Pennycook
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the details of any talks—
Matthew Pennycook
The right hon. Gentleman is asking for details, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment. On the particular issue of whether representations have been made, as I made clear in answering the initial question, the Home and Foreign Secretaries made a joint representation to the Planning Inspectorate ahead of the start of the inquiry, and that will be taken into account alongside all other relevant matters.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
From a response to a freedom of information request, which I have with me, we now know that just two protests at the Royal Mint Court site in February and March this year required the deployment of nearly 600 officers in total, including 101 in February and 485 in March. The FOI request reveals that the cost of policing these two protests alone amounted to £345,000. This is a staggering use of resources for a site that is not yet operational, and it reflects the serious concerns among the Hongkonger, Tibetan and Uyghur diasporas in the UK. These are communities that fear that the embassy will become a hub for transnational repression. What assessment have Ministers made of the cost implications of this proposed development on policing, and will they commit today to rejecting this super-embassy?
Matthew Pennycook
I am not going to commit to rejecting an application that has not yet come to the Department and, as I keep saying, where a decision has not been made. I have made it clear that we understand the concerns of members of the Hong Kong community and others about the potential—I make clear that it is a potential—approval of this application. When it comes to police resourcing, all I can repeat is that only material planning considerations can be taken into account in determining the case.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I think we can all agree that we would like a decision to be made in this case that does not encourage the Chinese Government to think that we are a soft touch. Let us try another tack. National security is going to be taken into account as part of this planning decision. I ask the Minister this hypothetical question: if there is only a 1% chance that the granting of this planning application causes some detriment to our national security, would it not be better to take a risk management approach and put the embassy somewhere else?
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Gentleman invites me, again, to consider a planning decision that has not been made, on a case that is not yet before the Department. I am clearly not going to set out from this Dispatch Box the decision-making process that planning Ministers in my Department might take to the application once it is submitted.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
Given the serious concerns about national security, can the Minister confirm that his Department has consulted on this issue with UK and allied intelligent agencies, including those of the USA? Can he say whether a full national security review will be conducted before any planning decision is taken?
Matthew Pennycook
As I have made clear, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any specific national security issue. What I have been at pains to make clear is that the inspector’s report, which will come before Ministers in my Department at the point when the case comes to us, will include a wide variety of material planning matters, and in this case they are likely to include safety and national security matters.
Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), the Home Affairs Committee has written to the Metropolitan police asking for details of any concerns it may have about the policing of this site and any particular disorder that might occur around it. I once again put it to the Minister that he must take account of these concerns. There could be very serious and significant concerns for policing in the capital.
Matthew Pennycook
All material planning considerations that have been brought to the attention of the inspector will be taken into account as part of the decision when it is made in due course.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
National security and security is a valid planning consideration, so does the Minister accept that, in the event that the Secretary of State allows this decision to go ahead, regardless of the planning inspector’s recommendation, this Government will essentially be putting our relationship with China ahead of our security relationship with the United States?
Matthew Pennycook
That is pure speculation. As I have said, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on any national security matters.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Does the Minister believe that China will always try to exploit and infiltrate data communication in this country?
Matthew Pennycook
Widespread cyber-activity or interference in our democracy will not be tolerated and will be met with a strong response.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Moving on from national security, according to the documentation—I have double-checked—community safety is a significant material planning consideration. In such a multicultural area, what assessment of risk to community cohesion and the safety of local people is being made? How does taking such decisions more centrally align with the Government’s much-publicised commitment to devolution?
Matthew Pennycook
I do not know whether hon. Members can hear me. I keep answering the questions as posed, and I have answered that question. If the issue that the hon. Lady raises is a material planning consideration, the inspector will take it into account in their recommendation to Ministers to make a decision, once the case comes to the Department.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
China is already revelling in the Government’s spectacular own goal in handing over Chagos. China looks as if it is about to benefit again. Even if the Minister cannot say what amounts are involved, will he say what works would need to be done in advance of the embassy being set up at the Royal Mail site, and who would pay for that? Would it be the Chinese, or would it be the UK Government, and which part?
Matthew Pennycook
As I said, a public inquiry was held between 11 and 28 February, and all the relevant documents submitted to that inquiry are available online. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to go and look at them. Again, he invites me to speculate on matters that are part of the application that the inspector will have considered in making his report and recommendation—when that arrives—to the Department. I emphasise again that no case is yet with the Department.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
If national security is a material consideration, will that be judged only by what is in the inspector’s report? If so, how could that be adequate, since the UK’s China audit will not have been published before the inspector concludes his report?
Matthew Pennycook
At the point when the planning inspector’s report and recommendation is received, it will be determined by a planning Minister, who will come to a decision based on material planning considerations that have been analysed.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I understand that the Minister cannot comment on the specifics, but does he at least agree with the principle that if there is a risk that a nation state will act nefariously against the British state’s interests, the British Government should not reward that state?
Matthew Pennycook
As I have been at pains to make clear, the Government will always protect our national security and keep this country safe. There is a distinct issue from the planning application and the questions about process that have been put to me. On that basis, I cannot comment, as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged, on a decision that has not been made, and on a case that is not with the Department.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
My constituency is home to a growing number of people from Hong Kong who have been forced to flee their homeland as a result of actions by China. I appreciate what the Minister says about this being a quasi-legal matter, and the fact that a Foreign Office Minister is sat next to him speaks volumes about how this is not just a planning issue. Does he agree that this country owes a debt to Hongkongers, whom we need to protect from the Chinese interference that they consider this super-embassy would enable?
Matthew Pennycook
I do recognise that point. As I have made clear, the Government will stand with and support members of the Hong Kong community. As I said—I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber for this—the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), and the Minister for Security met members of the Hong Kong community only recently. We will continue to stand with them.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Minister has made it clear that he will not comment on the specifics of the case, and I will not ask him to, but can he offer a view in principle on why we would ever offer a foreign state with known cyber-espionage capabilities that it deploys regularly easier access to critical cyber-infrastructure?
Matthew Pennycook
Again, the hon. Gentleman is making assumptions that I do not recognise, and thereby tempting me to comment on the case. I am not going to make blanket, in-principle statements, given the quasi-judicial nature and involvement of planning Ministers in the process.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Lee Anderson, are you bobbing or not bobbing?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am somewhat thrown off there.
I thank the Minister for his answers. He will be aware of concerns that Chinese-born residents in my constituency and across Northern Ireland have about the reach, and indeed the overreach, of the Chinese Government in the United Kingdom. I can well understand US concerns and, with all due respect—he knows I always ask my questions with respect—does the Minister truly believe that this massive embassy will alleviate the concerns of those who know best the reach of the Chinese Government’s arm? Should we not be showing that, while we will accord them courtesy, as we do with other national embassies, they are not entitled to a Chinese “Vatican City” in the midst of this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Matthew Pennycook
I do recognise the concerns the hon. Gentleman raises, but—forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker—I have to repeat again that no decision has been made in this case. No case is yet with the Department. I have laid out in quite some detail the process that has been followed in how the application has been taken forward, and what needs to happen for Ministers to reach a decision at the appropriate point, when a case comes to the Department.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Things that seem politically and economically expedient at the time can become things that Governments regret very much in the long term, as I found when I was the telecoms Minister having to lead the £2 billion strip-out of Huawei from our 5G infrastructure. It took only a few minutes for the Prime Minister to change his position on the Chinese embassy after a call from President Xi Jinping. The Minister has said he cannot answer any questions on the substance of the issue, but on a planning level will he commit personally to having a secure briefing ahead of making any planning decision, and also to publishing and sharing with this House details of all the representations he has received on the planning application, including those from his own Government?
Matthew Pennycook
I will take the two aspects of the hon. Lady’s question in turn, if I may. We will be vigilant against the full range of hybrid, cyber, space and other threats from state and non-state actors, including those emanating from China. On her specific question about the planning application, all the representations made to the Planning Inspectorate as part of that public inquiry are publicly available for hon. Members to see. Ministers, when they come to make a decision on the basis of the inspector’s reports and recommendations, will do so taking into account material planning considerations.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Is the planning officer who is considering this case cleared to receive top-secret information?
Matthew Pennycook
A planning inspector is assessing the case as part of a public inquiry. Although I recognise why the hon. Gentleman has asked the question, I am afraid it would not be appropriate for me to comment on national security matters.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
“China is likely to continue seeking advantage through espionage and cyber-attacks, and through securing cutting-edge Intellectual Property through legitimate and illegitimate means.” Those are not my words, but the words of the Government’s own strategic defence review. Given the sub-threshold threat posed by China and its starring role in the SDR, where it is referred to explicitly alongside Russia and Iran, why has China not been included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme ahead of any potential approval of its super-embassy?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend the Minister for Asia and the Indo-Pacific tells me that that particular report is coming forward in due course. Again, on the planning application, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific national security issues but, as I have said, material planning considerations, including those relating to safety and national security, will be taken into account.
Winter Fuel Payment
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
On 21 May, the Prime Minister told this House that the Government wanted to extend eligibility for winter fuel payments to a wider range of pensioners in England and Wales. Today we are setting out how this will happen for the coming winter and the years ahead. This will provide certainty for pensioners and ensure that payments can be made swiftly and automatically, which is our priority. I hope this statement will also answer many of the questions that hon. Members have raised with me and others in recent weeks.
Let me set out for the House how this system will work. All pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will benefit from support, as will all those on pension credit and other income-related benefits. The payment of £200 per household, or £300 per household where there is someone aged over 80, will be made to all pensioner households in England and Wales. Individual pensioners with taxable income above £35,000 will have any winter fuel payment automatically recovered via His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs without the need for them to take any action. This will be via PAYE for the majority, or in their self-assessment tax return for those who already complete one. No one will be brought into tax or into self-assessment just to repay their winter fuel payment. Those that prefer not to receive a payment can opt out of receiving it. As was previously the case before July 2024, where the household is not getting an income-related benefit and there is more than one pensioner in the household, shared payments split across the recipients will be made.
This Government have had to make tough decisions. It is right to means-test the winter fuel payment—[Interruption.] I thought the Conservative party supported means-testing the winter fuel payment. We will find out in this debate shortly. We have had to make take tough decisions because of the disaster left by the Conservative party. It is right to means-test the winter fuel payment on grounds of fairness and fiscal sustainability. Most people accept that it makes no sense to pay hundreds of pounds to pensioners irrespective of their incomes. Those on the highest incomes do not need it, and there are many other calls on public spending.
The Government have, however, listened to concerns about the level of the means test. We are acting to ensure that all lower-income pensioners receive support. The new individual £35,000 threshold is significantly above the income of pensioners in poverty, and broadly in line with average earnings. It will mean that the vast majority—over three quarters, or 9 million pensioners—will benefit from a winter fuel payment. This change ensures that the means-testing of winter fuel payments has no effect on pensioner poverty.
Means-testing the winter fuel payment in England and Wales like this will save around £450 million a year, subject to certification by the Office for Budget Responsibility, compared with the system of universal payments. It will cost around £1.25 billion in England and Wales, compared with the position last winter. Decisions about the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland remain for their devolved Administrations in the usual way. As the Prime Minister has previously set out, these are changes that will be fully funded at the next fiscal event, the autumn Budget. That will ensure that final costings and funding decisions come alongside the latest forecast from the OBR. We will ensure that the Government’s non-negotiable fiscal rules are met.
We are setting out these changes before the summer to ensure that more pensioners receive support this winter. Regulations will be laid in the coming months to ensure that the payments are made, and tax changes will be legislated for in the Finance Bill.
I want to spell out clearly today that pensioners do not need to do anything. Winter fuel payments will be paid automatically this winter to all pensioners who receive the state pension, pension credit or anyone who has previously received a winter fuel payment. Similarly, payments will be recovered automatically through the tax system for those with an income of over £35,000.
Pensioners will also continue to receive wider support. Our pension credit take-up campaign has seen almost 60,000 awards made. I thank hon. Members on both sides of this House, local authorities and charities for their work on that campaign. Over 12 million pensioners right across the UK are also benefiting from the triple lock. The full new state pension is set to increase by up to £1,900 a year over this Parliament as a result. I commend that support for pensioners, and this statement, to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I feel for the Minister, sent here by his bosses to complete what must be the most humiliating climbdown a Government have ever faced in their first year in office. For nearly a year, the Conservatives have campaigned against this cut, and for nearly a year, the Government have tried to hold out. Just four weeks ago, I stood here and asked the Minister how long this tone-deaf final stand could go on for. Loyally, he held the line. He defended the cut one final time. He said their plan for pensioners was right on track. Well, today he has been sent to end that “courageous” last stand, and—unless it is coming next—he has been sent without the one thing that pensioners up and down the country deserve: an apology.
Let us be clear: the Government made a choice to cut the winter fuel payment. It is outrageous to claim that the economy has somehow improved from the day they made the cut, and they know it. In fact, by almost every metric, the opposite is true. Inflation was at the 2% target—now it is 1.5 points higher; 150,000 more people are unemployed; and growth forecasts have been slashed in half by the Office for Budget Responsibility. In the meantime, the Government have gone to town with the country’s credit card. Borrowing is up. Debt is up. Who is the Chancellor trying to fool when she suddenly says she can afford this when before she could not? The fact is that last winter she gave pensioners’ fuel money to the unions. Now she realises how unpopular that was, so she is pretending that everything has changed. Perhaps the most surprising thing is that she thinks anyone is taken in.
According to the Government’s own analysis, 50,000 pensioners were plunged into poverty this year and 100,000 extra pensioners ended up in A&E this winter. Their mistake has hurt people, and it is cowardly not to own up to it. Just like their personal independence payment reforms, there were no consultations or proper assessments—just a self-righteous insistence that what they are doing should not be questioned. There is certainly no thought for those affected or concern for the anxiety that their government by press release is causing. This is what happens when a Government come into office with no plan, no principles, no idea what they want to achieve and no idea how to achieve it. They just bumble from one mistake to another, breaking promise after promise. Did they think they could try out new policies like trying a new mattress—unwrap it, see how it feels, sleep on it for a while, but if it causes a political backache, send it back?
This rushed reversal raises as many questions as it answers. It is clear that when the Prime Minister stood up and made his big U-turn announcement in PMQs, he had no plan and no idea how he was going to pay for it. It is a totally unfunded spending commitment. Where is the £1.25 billion needed to pay for this U-turn coming from? I note that the Minister has kicked that can down the road until the Budget. The Government claim that the change will not permanently add to borrowing, so does that mean it will permanently add to taxation?
On the plan itself, is this really the best system of means-testing that the Government could come up with? Is the Minister sure that they have thought it through, or will this unravel, too? What happens if a pensioner earns over £35,000 a year through non-taxable income? Will they have to register for self-assessment and start filling out a tax return in their 80s or 90s? [Interruption.] You didn’t cover that.
Why should someone earning taxed income be disadvantaged? Is it fair that a millionaire pensioner and their spouse might receive a payment, but two people earning £36,000 will not? What happens if someone dies in the period between receiving the payment and having to pay it back? Will the Government go after the deceased person’s relatives?
I have two final questions. After all this, the savings for the Treasury for this coming year may be as little as £50 million. Does the Minister think it is worth it, and will he apologise?
Torsten Bell
I will deal directly with two of the questions raised because it is important to provide reassurance. The right hon. Lady asks what will happen with the estate of someone who is deceased. I want to be clear that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will never pursue any estate for the winter fuel payment alone. She also asks about the level of savings. As I set out in my statement, the savings will be £450 million a year in England and Wales. That is very clear, and it is a significant saving.
More broadly, the hon. Lady talks about an apology. She comes here representing the party of Liz Truss and lectures anybody else about apologies; she comes here representing the party of flatlining wages, rising debt and a 200,000 increase in pensioners in poverty, and asks anybody else to apologise. I have never heard such nonsense. We have listened to pensioners. For all her sound and fury—she was at her most furious today—I still cannot tell what the Conservatives’ policy is, 11 months on. For all the rhetoric and shouting, it sounds like she might support the means-testing of winter fuel payments. After all, that was the policy of her party’s leader, who once also supported means-testing the entire state pension in one of her bolder moments.
Conservative Members say that the policy is not much comfort to pensioners, but Age UK says the exact opposite: charity director Caroline Abrahams said that this announcement is
“the right thing to do”.
Martin Lewis says that it is a “big improvement”. [Interruption.] There is a lot of chuntering from the Conservative Front Benchers. Maybe their Back Benchers can work out what the Front-Bench policy is by the time they get to their feet in a few minutes’ time. I have no idea whatsoever what the Conservative party’s policy is.
More widely, when it comes to pensioners, the Government’s priorities are to raise the state pension and rescue the NHS. The triple lock will see state pension spending rise by £31 billion annually over this Parliament. Some £26 billion is being invested into the NHS because we inherited in England a disgraceful situation in which more than one in five pensioners aged over 75 were on waiting lists. There is no excuse for that legacy from the Conservative party. Neither of those forms of progress—raising the state pension and investing in the NHS—would be possible without the difficult decisions that we have had to make on tax. Those are difficult decisions that every Opposition party has opposed. Only this Government can provide that crucial support for pensioners, because we will do what is necessary to turn that support from rhetoric into reality.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Members on both sides of the House will have had a large volume of correspondence on this matter, so I thank the Minister for his statement. This fair policy change saves our public services £450 million by ensuring that the wealthiest pensioners do not continue to receive the winter fuel payment. Does he agree?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend sets out the principle case for means-testing the winter fuel payment very well indeed. I do not think that anybody with common sense thinks it right that millionaires receive each year from the Exchequer hundreds of pounds towards their winter fuel payments—people have recognised that for years. The Government are making the tough choice of saying that that we will no longer pay the winter fuel payment in that way.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Our country needs stability. I fear that this policy is from the book on how to botch running the country. Although last year’s decision was wrong and this change is right—the Liberal Democrats had long campaigned against those proposals, and it is important to acknowledge Independent Age, Silver Voices and Age UK, which have all driven the change—a Government who wobble do not give us the stability we need for our economy.
Some 300,000 pensioners in Devon and Cornwall have been worried sick about the proposals, so why did the Government not implement this approach 12 months ago? The Government comms have not been clear on single pensioner households, about which there are grave concerns, so will the Minister provide clarity on that matter? What about households in which there are pensioners on higher and lower rates—how will they be treated? Finally, may I have assurances that the Government will continue to push hard on pension credit? For the poorest pensioners, it can offer a boost of £11,000 a year to their income, which is the real way to tackle pensioner poverty in the UK.
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his comments and his welcome for this change; he called it the right change. He asked about different treatment of single and couple households; I can explain that in a bit more detail. Single households will receive the entire household’s winter fuel payment to the one individual, whether that is £200 or £300. If the individual’s income is below £35,000, they will keep that in full, and if the individual’s income is above £35,000, that will be recouped by HMRC unless they choose to opt out. With couples, the situation for those not receiving means-tested benefits will be as it was before July 2024, which is split payments, half to each member of the household, and then they will be individually tested against the tax system.
I thank the hon. Member for giving me the chance to clarify that point. I also entirely endorse his statement about pension credit. The reason we want to see higher rates of pension credit take-up is not because of winter fuel payment per se, because that is small relative to the financial gains that come from people who are entitled to a pension credit receiving it. We absolutely must maintain the progress on pension credit take-up in the months and years ahead. As I said in my statement, I welcome the work of MPs in their constituencies, and of local authorities and charities, in driving up those rates.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ageing and older people, I really do welcome the reinstatement of the winter fuel payment for 9 million pensioners, but since the announcement to remove it, the energy price cap has gone up £281, so will the Minister take a look at the value of the winter fuel payment and perhaps turn to the industry, which over the last five years has profited by £207 billion? Perhaps it can make a greater contribution to help our poorest pensioners.
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is right to raise questions about energy prices—an issue for households of all ages that have been living through the cost of living crisis of recent years. The good news is that the energy price cap will be coming down in July, although I think everybody across the House would like to see it fall significantly further. This Government have been taking steps over the last 11 months to make sure that more households are getting support with their energy bills. Members will have seen the consultation on the doubling of eligibility for the warm home discount, the work to significantly increase the spending on warm home insulation—over £3 billion this year—and the extension of the household support fund. Right across the piece, for households of all ages, not just for pensioners, we do need to make sure that this is a country where more people can afford to heat their homes.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The truth is that the Chancellor made a chilling political choice last July and has now had to make a screeching U-turn following pressure from people across the House and outside this Chamber. Will the Minister take this opportunity to send an apology to all the low-income pensioners in West Worcestershire and elsewhere who had to shiver through last winter?
Torsten Bell
As I was saying, we do need to make sure that low-income families right across the board are receiving the support they need. That is why we set out changes to free school meals last week and it is why we will be coming forward with a child poverty strategy in the weeks ahead. I have already explained why the original decision was taken and set out that we have listened. The important thing is that it is right to maintain the principle of means-testing winter fuel payments but to do so with a higher threshold. As I have set out, the changes we are bringing forward today will mean that the vast majority of pensioners—over three quarters—will receive it in future.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s announcement, because this news will not only bring more money to Scotland; it also demonstrates that this is a Government who listen. The winter fuel payment is devolved in Scotland, as it was at the time of the original announcement, and the Scottish National party’s current policy robs poorer pensioners to fund payments for millionaires. Does my hon. Friend agree that the SNP must now re-examine its own policy in the light of this game-changing announcement today?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is always quite right. I spoke to Ministers in the devolved Administrations today to set out in advance the details of this policy and to spell out, for example, to Ministers in Edinburgh that if they want a fairer system that means-tests the winter fuel payment and the equivalent in Scotland for those on the highest incomes, HMRC is ready to support that, but so far they have chosen not to means-test the system—to have a system that is not fair to poorer pensioners.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The politics of U-turns are not always bad; this is a welcome U-turn by the Government as people will benefit. It would have been helpful for the Minister to have said, “We made a mistake, but we are going to put it right”, but that is by the by. However, I have had many letters and communications, as I am sure have many other hon. Members from across the House, about a group of people who are still suffering: something like 750,000 pensioners who are eligible for pension credit, and therefore theoretically for the winter fuel payment, applied for the winter fuel payment but have not received a single penny for last winter. Whatever other changes are made, will the Minister commit to putting that situation right, so that those pensioners will receive the money that they should have had during the winter?
Torsten Bell
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the issue of low take-up of pension credit and he refers to the figure of more than 700,000 pensioners, which unfortunately was true under the last Government. We have seen unprecedented levels of pension credit applications over the past year because of the campaign by the Government and by hon. Members from all parties. Those applications are very welcome, but I agree that we need to keep up the momentum. In the short-term, we are writing to all new housing benefits claimants who we think could be eligible for pension credit and encouraging them to apply; we are engaging in new research about what has worked in the drive for pension credit take-up, which largely seems to be awareness of the benefit; and we are looking at better data sharing with local authorities and across central Government Departments, including between the Department for Work and Pensions and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
I welcome today’s announcement. It is right that, despite the horrendous financial situation that this Government inherited from the Conservative party, they are reinstating the winter fuel payment for 75% of pensioners and specifically targeting those in the most need. Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter), will the Minister outline what discussions he expects to have with Scottish Ministers about the Scottish Government’s universal approach to winter fuel payments in Scotland? At a time when public services in Scotland are facing significant peril, the SNP’s position is to continue to give winter fuel payments to millionaires at a time of deep hardship for people in Scotland.
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the targeting. Setting the means test threshold at £35,000 ensures that it is well above the income levels of pensioners in poverty and is around the average earnings level. On policy in Scotland, an important principle of devolution is that those are decisions for the Scottish Government, but they are also decisions for which they will be held accountable.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Over several fiscal events over seven years, the option of removing the winter fuel payment from the wealthiest was resisted by the previous Government because there was not seen to be an effective rationing mechanism and there were considerable presentational challenges. Will the Minister confirm that pensioners with no mortgage and with significant tax-wrapped savings in individual savings accounts or venture capital trusts, but with a monthly pension of £2,500, will still be fully entitled to receive the winter fuel payment?
Torsten Bell
I always enjoy discussing technical details with the right hon. Gentleman. I set the position out clearly in my initial statement: means-testing is based on taxable income of £35,000, which answers his question.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The original decision to cut the winter fuel payment was the wrong decision; today’s decision is the right decision and a much fairer decision. In my constituency, 2,000 more pensioners will, quite rightly, get the winter fuel payment again. It is clear that the Government have listened, so I ask them to listen again to the growing calls in the Chamber and to scrap their planned, devastating cuts to disability support.
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming today’s policy announcement. We will continue to discuss with him all aspects of how his constituents are treated in the social security system. On the wider questions that he raises, I will say that the Government have obviously set out the position—I think the position of most people in the country—that we cannot continue with a position where one in eight young people are out of work or where we see 1,000 people a day flowing on to personal independence payments. We need a better system, focusing on supporting those who can work into work—the Minister for Social Security and Disability is setting out the case on that. I do not think anybody should support the position of leaving the status quo as it is.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
No matter how the Minister tries to dress it up, the Chancellor made a monumental political mistake last year. While I welcome the news that the payment is being reinstated, it is cold comfort to those pensioners who missed out last year and faced really difficult choices over the winter. Will the Minister look at this issue again and reinstate the winter fuel payment for all those who missed out?
Torsten Bell
This is why I am confused. What is the position of the Conservative party? Is it to support means-testing of the winter fuel payment—yes or no? Are you going to send out the shadow Chancellor to give a speech—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. “Are you going to send?” I do not think the Minister is speaking to the Chair.
Torsten Bell
Is the Conservative party going to send out the shadow Chancellor to give a speech in which I cannot tell whether he is apologising for Liz Truss, then come to this House the very next week and call for universal winter fuel payments? If the Conservatives are calling for universal winter fuel payments, they need to set out how that will be funded. This is a Government who have made their choice. It is right to means-test the winter fuel payment, because millionaires should not receive it. If the Conservatives do not know what their policy is on that, they will not know their policy on anything else.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
I have not met anyone—other than John Swinney, perhaps—who thinks that millionaires should get the winter fuel payment. I have met a lot of constituents who felt that the threshold was too low, and the Government have recognised that today. However, the Minister knows better than most that while some pensioners still struggle, pensioner poverty has fallen in recent times, whereas child poverty has gone in the opposite direction. Will he use some of the nearly £500 million saved through this measure and direct it towards the grandchildren, rather than the grandparents, and to where poverty is most acute in our society?
Torsten Bell
As always, I thank my hon. Friend for his well-put thoughts. He is absolutely right that pensioner poverty fell significantly, halving under the last Labour Government, before unfortunately rising by 200,000 people under the Conservatives, but we must not be complacent about the headline of falling pensioner poverty, because there are wider problems. [Interruption.] I am glad that the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) welcomes it. The point I am coming to is that the stagnating incomes of working-age households under the last Labour Government moved across to stagnant incomes for pensioners and no falls in absolute poverty for pensioners under the Conservatives. There are subsets of pensioners, such as single pensioners, private renters and others, where we see lasting problems. It is important to see this in the round, but my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) is absolutely right to say that we must move further on child poverty. He will have seen last week’s announcement on free school meals in England, with consequentials for the devolved Administrations, and we will come forward further with a child poverty strategy soon.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I welcome this Government’s U-turn. Countless pensioners in Woking suffered last winter, so I am pleased that that will not continue. The Minister stated that £36,000 is the threshold that he and the Government have chosen because it is the average earnings. Will the Government commit to increasing that threshold going forward when average earnings rise?
Torsten Bell
That is an important question. There is always a judgment in choosing a threshold for any means-tested benefit, and I want to be completely straight with the House about that. We have chosen a threshold that is well above the income level of pensioners in poverty, and it will ensure that more than three-quarters of pensioners receive the benefit of the winter fuel payment in England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is currently in line with average earnings. It is important to have clarity for pensioners—a point that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), just made. We will leave the £35,000 at the current level, as all thresholds in the income tax system are frozen for the coming year, so that pensioners know that that is the threshold and there are no surprises. Decisions about future uprating will be for future Budgets.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Minister’s statement today—it is the right thing to do to lift pensioners out of poverty. I am sure that both he and the Chancellor also agree that it is right to lift children out of poverty, so can he reassure this House that he and the Chancellor are doing all they can to outline plans to lift the two-child cap on universal credit as soon as possible?
Torsten Bell
As my hon. Friend knows, we have said clearly that all levers to reduce child poverty are on the table. The child poverty strategy will be published in the autumn, but we are not waiting for that—as I said earlier, we have already seen action on free school meals. It is another reason why we need to see more support for energy bills, and for insulating homes in particular, because it is younger families with children who are struggling most and having to turn off their heating. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue, which is one of the core purposes of this Government. We cannot carry on with a situation in which huge percentages of large families are in poverty.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I assume that because the Minister cannot find the word “sorry” in his vocabulary this afternoon, he expects pensioners in North Dorset and elsewhere to be saying thank you to him for this screeching U-turn. However, just a few weeks ago, what he has announced today was predicted to cause financial Armageddon. When should the City of London, mortgage payers and everybody else now expect the run on the pound that was predicted by the Leader of the House of Commons?
Torsten Bell
What this Government are doing is sorting out the mess in the public finances left by the Conservative party, and not repeating its irresponsibility. All Opposition parties oppose all of the tax rises set out in the autumn Budget, yet claim that they support the spending on the NHS and on pensioners—they cannot have it both ways. The party of Liz Truss has not learned its lesson.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
No one I have spoken to in Derby thinks that millionaires should be receiving the winter fuel allowance, but many will welcome the lifting of the threshold so that more people receive it. Does the Minister agree that this shows the Government listening; it shows money being targeted at where it is needed; and it shows what can be done with a stable economy?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is completely right. As I say, we have set the threshold at a level that means that the vast majority of pensioners—not just in her constituency, but right across England and Wales—will receive support in the coming winter. Importantly, we are announcing the threshold now, to make sure those payments can be made in time for this winter.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
When the Chancellor slashed the winter fuel allowance last year, she told us that it was necessary, urgent and the responsible thing to do. It turns out that it was not necessary, urgent or the responsible thing to do after all, so is the Minister going to apologise to the millions of pensioners who were put through the wringer so cruelly and unnecessarily? I think he knows that they deserve an apology from this Government. Having performed one U-turn, will the Government now do the same for the country’s poorest families and abolish the two-child cap?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I have just referred to the progress that needs to be made on reducing child poverty, not just in England and Wales but in Scotland. We will set out that strategy in the coming months, and he is absolutely right to say that we should all want to see very significant progress on that issue in the years ahead. When it comes to the winter fuel payment in England and Wales, the equivalent benefit is obviously devolved in Scotland, so that is a question for Ministers in Edinburgh.
Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)
I welcome the decision today, and I am delighted to hear the announcement from the Minister. Let us be crystal clear: this is a direct result of the progress that this Labour Government are making in turning around our economy. For my constituents, however, the future of the winter fuel payment—or its equivalent—lies in the hands of the Scottish Government. Can the Minister confirm that the Barnett consequentials to Scotland resulting from today’s announcement will exceed what the Scottish Government are already planning to spend on their equivalent of the winter fuel allowance? [Hon. Members: “Will the hon. Lady give way?”] Will he join me in urging the Scottish Government to follow suit and ensure that the additional funds that are provided due to today’s decision will restore the full winter fuel payment to all those who need it in—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Please be seated. I do not need any help with managing the Chamber, but questions need to be short. Minister, let us have a short, sharp answer.
Torsten Bell
My short, sharp answer is that wages have grown in the first 10 months of this Government faster than in the first 10 years of the last Conservative Government. Interest rates have been cut four times. My hon. Friend is right to say that progress is being made, and that needs to continue. We need to ensure that more people feel the benefits of that growth in their pockets. The changes we are making to winter fuel payments today are one of those benefits. I can confirm that there will be a block grant adjustment exactly as she sets out.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I appreciate that this has been a humiliation for the Chancellor and that her credibility is in tatters—no wonder she is not here today to announce her own U-turn—but now that she and the Government have got a taste for climbdowns, may I urge them through the Minister, who unfortunately drew the short straw today, to reverse the equally ridiculous national insurance contribution rises, which are destroying jobs, and the inheritance tax changes, which are destroying farms and family businesses?
Torsten Bell
It is usual for a Minister to thank the Member for their question, but I actually mean it in this case, because the right hon. Lady has completely proved my point that the Conservatives have learned no lessons whatever. They think they can come to this Chamber and call for more spending and oppose every tax rise—and they expect to be taken seriously ever again? They will not be.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
As a Labour MP who voted against the winter fuel payment cuts, I welcome this change in position, but I urge the Minister and the Government to learn the lessons. One of them is to listen to Back Benchers. If the Minister and the Government listen to Back Benchers, we can help the Government get it right and help them avoid getting it wrong. We do not want to be here in a year or two’s time with a Minister sent to the Dispatch Box to make another U-turn after not listening to Back Benchers on disability benefit cuts. If they listen now we can help the Government get it right.
Torsten Bell
It is important to listen to Back Benchers and to Front Benchers. It is even important to listen to Opposition Members on occasion, particularly when they are digging their own grave with their party’s policies. More seriously, the point that my hon. Friend raises is important: everybody on the Government Benches wants to make sure that this is a fairer country that is growing again—that wages are growing, that poverty is falling, that inequality is coming down. That is what we need to deliver. Sometimes that will involve tough choices, including all the ones that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) opposes. Those choices will need to be made, because we are a party of government not a party of protest, but they are made in the interests of our values and of a fairer country and a fairer Britain.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Minister comes to this House almost triumphant, having voted to take away winter fuel payments a minimum number of months before winter, and now says that we should be thanking him for this reinstatement. Anguish, anxiety, uncertainty—that is what my pensioners suffered. Will he apologise?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Gentleman is trying to put words in my mouth and he will not succeed. We have been clear. What I said in my statement is that we have come to the House today, before the summer recess, particularly to deal with the issue that he is raising, which is to provide absolute certainty for pensioners in England and Wales that they will be receiving the winter fuel payment this winter if their income is below £35,000. I agree with him that that is an important level of certainty to provide, and that is why I am here today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I give another reminder to colleagues that questions must be short, as must answers. Otherwise, many colleagues will be disappointed.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I share the deep concerns of my constituents about the loss of the winter fuel payment, which the Minister will know I relayed to the Department. I am glad that the Government have acted on those concerns and reviewed the threshold so that the majority of pensioners will receive the payment this winter. Does the Minister agree that in stabilising the economy we are now in a better position to do what Labour Governments have always done best: protecting the vulnerable in our society?
Torsten Bell
That is exactly the point I have just made: what are Labour Governments here for? Building a fairer Britain. What did the last Labour Government do? They brought down child poverty, halved pensioner poverty and raised wages year after year. That is what this Government will do again.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I have listened to the Minister’s statement and read the words, too, and nowhere can I see an explanation for why this decision has come now, 11 months after it was first announced. Why has this decision come now? Will we have to wait another 11 months for the Government to rethink their cuts to disability benefits?
Torsten Bell
I have just explained why we are making this announcement now: we want to ensure that the payments can be made in time for the winter. I have not hidden from the fact that last year we made the difficult decision to means-test the winter fuel payment, and that was the right choice to make, but we have listened, which is why we have announced a higher means test. I have directly answered the hon. Member’s question.
This is important, but we do need to make some tough decisions. I know that the Liberal Democrats want a universal winter fuel payment, because they think it right to pay hundreds of pounds to millionaires, but I take a different view. I think it is that kind of wishful thinking that created, in 2010, a Liberal Democrat Government who promised to scrap tuition fees and ended up trebling them.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement, which I know will be greatly welcomed by my constituents. Over 14 years, we became used to a Government who did not listen and did not change course when circumstances changed, so I for one am grateful for a Labour Government who do so.
While there was an uptick in pension credit—
Kirsteen Sullivan
Will the Minister commit himself again to working with local government and devolved Administrations to increase the number of people receiving pension credit, so that pensioners on the lowest incomes do not lose out but receive the support that they need?
Torsten Bell
That is a very important point. Whatever the views expressed in the House today, I say to all Members that if any of them want to suggest ways in which we can continue to drive up pension credit and ensure that the poorest pensioners receive the support to which they are entitled, I will always be happy to talk to them.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) ably recalled, the Minister’s superiors told us that there would be a run on the pound unless pensioners took a hit on winter fuel. Given that every economic indicator was worse last year, can the Minister tell us whether the pound is safe with this U-turn, or whether this is just another example of his seniors’ talking utter bilge to justify their terrible decisions?
Torsten Bell
It is the hon. Member who is talking bilge. Growth was the highest in the G7 in the first quarter of this year, interest rates have fallen four times, and wages have risen faster in 10 months than they did in 10 years under the Conservatives. What is happening is that we are sorting out their mess and putting Britain on a better track.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that, given that ours is now the fastest growing economy in the G7 and interest rates have been cut four times, now is the time to ensure that our public services will be protected and that pensioners who do not need the winter fuel payment to heat their homes will not receive it, while those who do need it to heat their homes will receive it?
Torsten Bell
I should have got out of the way, because my hon. Friend has given a direct rebuttal to what was said by the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez). He is entirely correct in every detail of the important points that he has raised. A Labour Government investing in public services and ending austerity: that is what we will be hearing about in the House on Wednesday, and I look forward to hearing Conservative Members explain how they tried to support that spending while opposing every tax rise that was necessary to make it happen.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, not least because it will offer much support and reassurance to so many of my constituents. As he knows, no system is perfect and mistakes will be made, so may I ask whether there will be an appeals mechanism for those who are entitled to the winter fuel payment but, for whatever reason, do not receive it?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member, my near neighbour, for that question. No bureaucracy is perfect, but in such cases we do not need an appeals mechanism; we just need to ensure that those people receive the payment as soon as possible. As I have said, we have made this decision to ensure that we can automatically make winter fuel payments to people who are receiving all the benefits that I mentioned, and who also received the payments previously. The success rate of that payment mechanism is strong, which is why I have made this announcement today. However, if any Members have any constituents in that position, I ask them to get in touch with me immediately.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s decision, and thank them for listening to Members on both sides of the House. Many of my older constituents live in houses that are not energy-efficient, which results in higher bills, so can the Minister say more about what the Government are doing to increase energy efficiency in homes to keep them warmer and bring down bills?
Torsten Bell
That is such an important point! One of the biggest mistakes that we made in previous decades was saying, “We will not see the benefits of work to improve the quality of the housing stock for years, so let us slash it.” That is exactly what happened in 2013, when there was a 90% cut in the level of insulations under the energy company obligation scheme, and we have paid the price for that ever since. This Government are not going to make the same mistake. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has been ramping up the warm homes programme, and we need to be out there insulating homes and improving lofts every day until Britain has a housing stock of which it can be proud.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Many of my elderly constituents had an unnecessarily cold and miserable winter, and the uncertainty to which the Minister constantly refers was of his Government’s own making. Will he take this opportunity to apologise to my constituents?
Torsten Bell
The right hon. Member is right to highlight that we need to provide support for older people, and for all households, with their energy bills right through the year, which is what this Government have been doing. We have not been waiting. As I said, the warm homes discount is being extended to almost 3 million extra households, we are rolling out the improvements to the insulation programmes that I have just mentioned, and the household support fund has been extended for future years. That is exactly what we need to do, while at the same time improving our energy security and our energy generation to make sure that, in future, we do not see the disaster of the last five years, when global wholesale gas prices sent electricity and gas prices here in the UK through the roof.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, which will be warmly welcomed by constituents, particularly pensioners who were just above the threshold and who lost out last winter. Does he agree that measures such as rolling out free breakfast clubs—I visited one this morning at Goodyers End primary school—are making a real difference by tackling poverty and that that is what this Government are doing across the board in all age groups?
Torsten Bell
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We need to make sure that we are seeing child poverty fall and seeing extra help for families through free school meals, as well as through the breakfast clubs that she mentions. We also need to see more progress on pensioner poverty. That is why today we are saying that the threshold will be well above the incomes of pensioners who are in poverty. We do not want to see that poverty in the years ahead, which is exactly why we have made this change today.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
While the Government buried their heads in the sand, countless pensioners suffered, such as my constituent who, despite having a terminal disease, had to cut back on heating and food, and spent the winter “freezing cold”. Can the Minister explain why no impact assessments were conducted last year before winter fuel payments were stripped from millions of pensioners?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but the equalities analysis was done. Unusually, the poverty impact analysis was also published over the last year. I do not agree with the statement that she has just made, but she is right to say that we need to make sure that we are improving things for pensioners. As I said before, this Government’s priority is to keep raising the state pension and to rescue the NHS. As I said, one in five over-75s are currently on an NHS waiting list, and the funding to make that happen is possible only because of the tax rises that I hear the Liberal Democrats oppose week in, week out.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement and the change in course from the Government. Many of us were uneasy about the low threshold for the winter fuel payment, especially in deprived communities such as mine—I have the most deprived borough in the country. Will the Minister assure my constituents that all pensioners under the threshold will automatically receive the new winter fuel allowance and will not have to do a single thing in the winter to come?
Torsten Bell
That is an absolutely crucial point and has been central to the work that we have done to decide on the policy. We want a system of automatic payment, so that pensioners do not need to do anything to claim the payments, and one that is automatic for those who have incomes above £35,000, so that they do not have to take action if they need to have the funding recouped, unless they choose to opt out. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need a simple system that supports pensioners.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Minister talks about the NHS, and I wonder whether he recognises the number of elderly people who had to use the NHS as a result of having been cold because of his policies. I want to ask him a very specific question. He said:
“All pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will benefit from support”.
He also said:
“Individual pensioners with taxable income above £35,000 will have any winter fuel payment automatically recovered”
through the tax system. Where a household has two individuals over the eligible age, what happens when one earns more than £35,000 and the other earns less? Will they get some, all or half of the winter fuel payment?
Torsten Bell
I think I have answered that question, but I am happy to lay it out again, if that is helpful. There is a long-standing principle of individual taxation, which I think is supported by all parties in this House. Where a couple are not receiving a means-tested benefit, they will each receive half of their household’s winter fuel payment. Whether they continue to keep that or it is recouped through the tax system will be based on their individual taxable income. For example, if one has an income above £35,000, their payment will be recouped by HMRC automatically, but if the other has an income level below £35,000, they will retain the winter fuel payment. I hope that clarifies things.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend help clear something up? The opposition parties seem to be claiming that they urged us to make this decision, but that is not true, is it? They actually urged us to give winter fuel payments to millionaires at the expense of our public services.
Torsten Bell
I can clear that up, in the case of the Liberal Democrats and Reform. They have the same policy—not for the first time, I might add—which is definitely to give winter fuel payments to millionaires. I have no idea what the position of the Conservative party is, and I have been here for an hour and a quarter. Actually, I have been in the House for the last 11 months, and I have still not been able to fathom what the Conservative party’s policy is, but I think it is to not learn any lesson from Liz Truss.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
During the general election campaign, that well-known political giant, “a Labour spokesman”, said that Labour had no plans to change the winter fuel payment, but within weeks, the Government had cruelly cut it, withdrawing it from millions of pensioners, and 13 months later, the Minister is performing this screeching U-turn. Given the hokey-cokey nature of this policy, can he give an assurance from the Dispatch Box that what he is announcing will apply not just this winter, but every winter in this Parliament?
Torsten Bell
The point about certainty for pensioners is important—I think that is the point the hon. Gentleman is making. As I said earlier, we are setting the £35,000 threshold so that people become aware of it in the coming months. It is a round number, and we do not intend to change it in the years ahead, although further in the future, yes, there will be questions about uprating, which will be considered in the normal way.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that the Government are responding to the huge public pressure and are expanding eligibility for winter fuel payments. I am concerned that we are about to make a similar mistake, which, once again, we will come to regret, in cutting disability benefits. Will the Treasury drop those cuts before they cause harm to our constituents, instead of reversing them after the fact? I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. To be clear, I am not asking him to keep the status quo, or to not support people into work; I am simply asking him not to cut disabled people’s benefits.
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, and we always have interesting conversations. The Minister for Social Security and Disability will have heard the point she made. I gently say that the number of people receiving personal independence payments is forecast to continue to grow in every single one of the years ahead. That is after changes were set out by this Government. That important point sometimes gets lost in this debate.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome the fact that the Government are finally listening to the public and doing a U-turn on winter fuel payments, which is long overdue. However, in a truly strategic approach to tackling fuel poverty, we would make sure that every home could be heated affordably and was well insulated. Will the Government commit to investing in the national asset that is our housing stock, and to properly funding the warm homes programme, so that no pensioner, no child—nobody—is condemned to fuel poverty in a cold home?
Torsten Bell
Yes, that is exactly what we are doing, and we are funding that, because this Government know that we need to make difficult decisions, and will make them, so that we can deliver priorities such as investment in better housing stock.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I welcome this news, which will mean that more pensioners in Bracknell Forest receive this important benefit, and the Government’s recommitment to the triple lock. Does the Minister agree that a Conservative party that cannot decide whether it supports giving winter fuel payments to millionaires, whether it backs the triple lock, or even whether Liz Truss is a member is in no position to govern this country every again?
Torsten Bell
Obviously, I agree with my hon. Friend in lots of ways, but it is really important to dwell on the point that he made at the beginning of his question. Through these changes, the vast majority of pensioners— over three quarters—will receive winter fuel payments this winter. We can give them the necessary reassurance that they do not need to do anything for that to happen, even if they are on a higher income.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Minister is at pains to say that pensioners do not have to do anything to get this payment, but of course they had to do something—they had to write to, email and call Labour MPs, and tell them that this cut was wrong. At the time, the justification Labour MPs gave for the cut was the economic circumstances. Given that inflation and unemployment are higher, and growth is lower than it was going to be, was not the time for Labour MPs to listen before the cut, not after it?
Torsten Bell
No, because this Government were formed on the back of disastrous public finances. The Conservative party had announced public spending commitments without having a penny to pay for them. We will not apologise for doing the right thing to put this country back on an even keel.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
On 3 September, I said in this House that I represent England’s coldest and snowiest constituency, where even people on a living wage can be in fuel poverty, as can children and pensioners. That is why, as the Minister knows, I pressed the Government not only for the changes that he has announced today, but to widen the eligibility criteria for the warm home discount scheme, which is the smartest mechanism we have for tackling genuine fuel poverty. He has only gone and done both those things, so can I thank him for listening not to me, but to the people I represent? What assessment has been made of the impact of these changes on lifting children out of fuel poverty?
Torsten Bell
I obviously thank my hon. Friend for his question, but I have to disagree. I do not deserve any credit for doubling eligibility for the warm home discount; the Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), who is here on the Government Front Bench, deserves it. On fuel poverty estimates, over 5 million households should benefit from the warm home discount next year. That will make a real difference to households right across the country.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I greatly welcome this overdue U-turn, but if £35,000 is the correct cap, why did the Government impose misery on millions of pensioners last winter? Is not a basic part of getting something wrong saying sorry? It is not enough to say, “Look at all the things the Conservative party did.” That is not the point. The point is that this Government think they are better than everyone else. Why will they not say sorry?
Torsten Bell
Over the past year, this Government have been getting on with providing more support for pensioners, raising the state pension, ensuring the triple lock, extending the household support fund and investing in the NHS, the state of which is the single biggest betrayal of pensioners in England. We believe in and support the principle of means-testing the winter fuel payment, but have listened, and have looked again at the threshold. That is what I have set out today.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I very much welcome raising the threshold for the winter fuel allowance. As I am sure the Minister knows, the threshold was at the heart of my concern about means testing, although the principle of means-testing is absolutely correct. Morecambe and Lunesdale has an older than average population. Can the Minister assure me that my pensioners will not have to do anything special—make any application—to get their winter fuel allowance?
Torsten Bell
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. We want to make sure that the vast majority of pensioners can receive winter fuel payments. We want to make that as easy as possible, which means making receipt automatic.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Minister seems unable to say sorry, but does he at least regret that more than 90,000 more elderly people went to A&E last winter than did the year before, in the last winter under the Conservative Government?
Torsten Bell
Over the last few years, since 2020, energy bills have risen for all households, and far too many people have been struggling. That is absolutely right, and the Government are focusing on addressing it through the warm home discount and the warm homes scheme, which provides the insulation that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) mentioned. We need to do that right across the board, including, in the long run, by fixing our broken energy system.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I have spoken to many people in North East Derbyshire who, although they acknowledged that we should not give this payment to millionaires, were deeply concerned that the threshold was too low. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that those who are eligible for the payment will not have to apply for it?
Torsten Bell
I absolutely can. As I said, we need to provide the reassurance that the vast majority of pensioners will receive this support, and will not have to do anything to get the payment in their bank account.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The cut to winter fuel allowance and the subsequent U-turn have caused much anguish, distress and misery to the parliamentary Labour party. Judging by the questions from the Minister’s Back Benchers, it seems that we will have two further U-turns, on PIP and on the two-child benefit cap. To save his colleagues the anguish, will he let us know now when those U-turns are coming?
Torsten Bell
What Labour MPs want is a Labour Government who bring down child poverty, and that is what we will do. They want a Government who take responsible decisions, including difficult ones on tax and on means-testing the winter fuel payment, so that we can invest in public services and turn around the disgrace that there has been in Britain’s public realm for far too long.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I welcome this announcement, as will the 26,000 pensioners in my constituency, where we have particularly cold and harsh winters. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that automatic payments will be reinstated, and will there be any change to the date on which payments will be made?
Torsten Bell
I will not adjudicate on which Member has the coldest constituency in England, as my hon. Friend invites me to. She raises an important point that has not yet been made, so I should spell this out: we will bring forward the regulations on the payment of the winter fuel allowance over the summer, and they will set the qualifying week as that of 15 September, as it has been in past years. That means that payments will be made in November and December, as in past years.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
A shocking 75% of Scottish pensioners said that they were left cold in their home last winter. Does the Minister agree that the Scottish Government must use the additional funding from today’s announcement to ensure that pensioners in Scotland receive the same amount of winter fuel payment as they did under the previous UK Conservative Government?
Torsten Bell
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, those are decisions for the Scottish Government. However, as I said, I have spoken to the relevant Ministers in the Scottish Government today. There will be a block grant adjustment to reflect this higher spending in England and Wales.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement, and for the extensive time he spent with the Work and Pensions Committee last week. Our inquiry on pensioner poverty has found that this issue is multifaceted and complex. Can the Minister assure me that he will work cross-Government on a policy that will ensure that pensioner poverty is a thing of the past?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend raises the important issue of the complexity of pensioner poverty. I will just give one example, which does not get mentioned in these discussions often enough. The growth rate—the value people are getting; the returns on every pound saved into a private pension—absolutely needs to be as strong as possible. Private pensions support the living standards of our pensioners. We need a pension industry that is focused on driving the best possible value for savers.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
There appears to be universal support for this damascene conversion by the Government. Last year, they told pensioners that the right course of action was to scrap the winter fuel payment for millions, but they are now telling them that a means-tested system is right, so how can pensioners possibly believe anything that the Government say?
Torsten Bell
Did we actually get a Conservative party policy there? Is the hon. Member saying that the Conservatives support today’s announcement? [Interruption.] That is a no. We do not have an answer yet, after an hour and 10 minutes, on what the Conservative party’s policy is. I can give him the answer that he would like: yes, we will provide certainty that this is the policy of this Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We could have gone faster in the past hour and 10 minutes if the Minister was faster with his answers.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I have worked hard with Citizens Advice Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole in my constituency to get pensioners on to pension credit. However, on the doorstep, I have met far too many people, especially single women, who are £10—or even £1—over the threshold for pension credit. I welcome the statement, and thank the Minister for listening to my constituents’ concerns about the threshold. Does he agree that this policy shows the difference between this Government and the previous one? This Government are doing what is necessary to get stability in our economy, what is fair to get money back into our public services, and what is right to protect the vulnerable in our society.
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and, in particular, for her hard work to drive take-up of pension credit. Forget winter fuel payments—pension credit is a really important lifeline for low-income pensioners. It is worth an average of £4,000 to those receiving it, and far too many are missing out. I thank my hon. Friend for her work, and I hope that it continues.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Today’s U-turn is an astonishing victory against the Government, whose support has dried up after less than a year in office. When the Government announced their cruel cut to the winter fuel payment, costing 64,000 Bradford district pensioners vital support, experts across the country warned that up to 4,000 lives could be at risk as people were forced to choose between heating and eating. Now that the majority of the winter fuel payment has been restored, do the Government dare to produce a figure for how many pensioners may have lost their life as a result of the Government’s choice to remove the winter fuel allowance?
Torsten Bell
That is a serious matter. There are poorer households, with people of all ages, that have been struggling with energy bills in recent years. I am sure that all of us across this House want to see those problems addressed. We have also seen increases in food prices over the last few years that are higher than we would like, and it is lower-income households that spend a higher proportion of their budget on essentials such as food, energy and housing. It is the policy of this Government to ensure that we are dealing with all those issues.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The median average income of a pensioner in Rochdale is £15,000, which is way below the amount we expect people to live on with the national living wage, so I thank the Minister for today’s announcement. Does he agree that it proves that the Government have listened not only to Opposition MPs, but to MPs in the Labour party who have pushed for this for so long and, more importantly, to the pensioners we represent?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is right that we had to make difficult decisions last year, and I understand that Labour Members have raised those with the Government. It is why we looked again at the threshold and are sticking to the principle of means-testing while setting a higher threshold so that the vast majority of pensioners—over three quarters—will now receive winter fuel payments.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I welcome the partial reinstatement of the winter fuel payment. When we met, the Minister and I discussed the cliff edge that existed last winter, which meant that people in receipt of pension credit could in some cases leapfrog the income of people in receipt of a small private pension. Can the Minister indicate whether the new means test will remove that eligibility cliff edge?
Torsten Bell
I remember discussing exactly that with the hon. Member. All means tests have pros and cons, but by having a much higher threshold—in particular a higher threshold relative to the level of payment, with £100 or £200 being received by individuals—the large unfairness he talks about, where small differences in income led to large differences in outcome, is far reduced.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
I used to work for Age Scotland, so may I say how welcome it is that the Government have listened to older people’s charities and made today’s announcement? I understand it will mean some £100 million additional funding for the payments in Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that SNP Ministers should now rethink their plans and instead endorse Scottish Labour’s plans, which were first proposed last November and would mean more generous payments for the pensioners who need them most?
Torsten Bell
I am glad to hear about my hon. Friend’s previous role, and it is encouraging to see what charities representing older people have put out over the last few hours. As I said earlier, Age UK has said that this is the right thing to do and that it will bring much-needed reassurance for older people and their families.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I appreciate that the Minister did not get a chance to spend long on the Back Benches—such has been his accelerated rise up the ministerial pole—but would he like to spare a thought for his former Back-Bench colleagues and join me in thanking and congratulating the small band of Labour Back Benchers who went public, broke cover and opposed this dreadful policy?
Torsten Bell
I agree that we should welcome all Labour Back Benchers, because they are the people going through the Lobbies every day to keep in place a Labour Government who are saving public services, taking tough but fair decisions on tax—decisions that are opposed by all the Opposition parties—rescuing our public services and driving down poverty. That is what a Labour Government is about, and that is what everyone on the Labour Benches agrees on.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I welcome today’s statement. As one of the MPs who spoke against the decision to means-test the winter fuel payment last year, I pay tribute to all the campaigners who have lobbied hard for a change in policy. Does the Minister agree that means-testing has once again failed and that effectively what we are seeing today is the return of Labour’s commitment to universalism and to using the taxation system to get money back from those who are better-off?
Torsten Bell
I think I agree with my hon. Friend, in the sense that the tax system is a progressive tax system. That is the purpose for which it is being used in this case—to drive fairer outcomes for pensioners, and so that millionaires do not receive the benefit of a winter fuel payment but all lower and middle-income pensioners do.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Northern Ireland Executive is to receive a consequential budget adjustment. May I ask the Minister when it will receive that adjustment, so that we can ensure that our Northern Ireland pensioners get a winter fuel payment in the coming winter?
Torsten Bell
I absolutely recognise the hon. Member’s question, and I spoke to the Northern Ireland Executive earlier today. We will ensure that the Executive receive the budget adjustments in year in order to provide the same support, in line with the principle of parity under which the social security system in Northern Ireland operates. The answer is yes, that support and funding will be there.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Away from the knockabout of Westminster politics, I and people in Telford welcome this change. The principle of means-testing was right, but the level was too low. Does my hon. Friend agree that millionaires, MPs who happen to be of pensionable age and those who are living abroad should not receive this payment?
Torsten Bell
I almost always agree with my hon. Friend, so the answer is yes. He also provides me with an opportunity to clarify a point that has not been covered in the last hour or so: the payment will continue not to be exportable for those not resident in the UK.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that those pensioners who missed out on their payment in the winter of 2024 and will qualify under these rules should be reimbursed for the money they lost?
Torsten Bell
My view is that all pensioners are being supported by our higher level of the basic state pension and the new state pension, supported by the difficult decisions that the Government have been able to take. All pensioners will be supported by a functioning NHS, which is what we are putting in place after the disgrace of the last 14 years. To answer the hon. Member’s question directly, we are setting out the system for future years and not for the past.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
This is welcome news that will bring even more money to Scotland on top of the record funding settlement that our Chancellor delivered in the Budget. Does the Minister agree that my constituents fear the Scottish Government and John Swinney’s plans to pay out just £100 in Scotland? Those who need it most will now get more in England and Wales than the SNP will pay out to pensioners in Scotland—double, in fact—because the Scottish Government seem determined to pay out to the very wealthiest millionaires in Scotland. Should they rethink that?
Torsten Bell
I cannot compete with my hon. Friend in making a powerful case that the SNP Government in Edinburgh do need to think again.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
In my constituency, over 15,500 pensioners lost the winter fuel allowance, of whom 5,000 were over 80. Would the Minister like to apologise to the gentleman who wrote to me who had cancer and could not keep his heating on for the winter of worry he was put through?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for raising that point. It is important that those in need of healthcare, in particular, receive support. It is not that we see higher levels of challenge in keeping the heating on among older generations; it is about the consequences of that, particularly in cases such as the one she raises. That is exactly why we need to ensure that we are turning around the NHS, which all the constituents of hon. Members in England are relying on. We are seeing improvements to waiting times in Wales as well.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his leadership on this issue. If he is looking for examples of how to increase the uptake of pension credit, he is welcome to visit my constituency to see the work that the Community Help and Advice Initiative is doing with Gate55 to maximise benefits. If he comes along to one of those sessions with the Dove Centre, he can also get a warm meal and a game of bingo. But the £35,000 threshold is much more generous than I, as a tight-fisted Scotsman, would have expected, so will he explain how he reached that value?
Torsten Bell
It is a fair question. All means-test thresholds do involve judgments—I have been completely honest with the House about that—and the judgment we have come to is that we want to see the vast majority of pensioners receiving the winter fuel payment. We want to be absolutely sure that no lower-income pensioners will miss out. That is what brought us to a £35,000 threshold. It also means that those on higher incomes—the richest 20% or 25% of pensioners—will not receive it.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister may be in denial, but this U-turn is a humiliation for the Chancellor, who claimed that economic stability demanded taking money from vulnerable pensioners, and for all the Labour MPs who voted for it. Why did the Government not listen sooner to those who campaigned against these cruel cuts? Will he now apologise to my constituents and those across the country who were cold last winter?
Torsten Bell
This is a Chancellor who has brought stability and growth back to the economy and got wages growing once again; one who is driving investment in our public services, which will rescue them; one who has driven up public investment, which is crucial to showing that, once again, we are a country that can do the basics like building houses, filling potholes and the rest.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
When the policy was originally announced, I, hon. Members across the House and constituents of mine all shared the same basic view that means-testing is fair but the threshold was far too low. I therefore welcome the Government’s decision today and the fact that they are listening. Over the last winter, working with the citizens advice bureau in Hartlepool, we secured nearly £1 million of additional annual income for Hartlepool pensioners. Does that not show the work that needs to be done on all those unclaimed benefits not going to the pensioners who need them?
Torsten Bell
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he and others have been involved in in Hartlepool. Driving up the take-up of all benefits so that people get the support to which they are entitled is important for ensuring that more poor households are able to eat, to heat their homes and to live a decent life.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I do not know where Scottish Labour MPs have been for the past six months, but the Scottish Government have already made it abundantly clear that we will reintroduce a winter fuel payment—and we would have done that with or without this embarrassing, screeching U-turn. Here is another place where the Minister can follow the Scottish Government: the two-child benefit cap. We vowed to ensure that it will disappear in Scotland. Will he now make the same pledge across the UK?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Gentleman asks where Scottish Labour MPs have been, so I will tell him: campaigning in Hamilton, making sure there is a Labour MSP and that in a year’s time there will be a Labour Government in Edinburgh once again.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Away from some of the consternation of this place, a glance at His Majesty’s Treasury distributional analysis will reveal that the original decision to protect the most vulnerable, the Budget that followed, the spring statement and—I hope—the spending review have been some of the most progressive fiscal decisions we have seen in recent years. Will the Minister join me and the many wealthier pensioners in my constituency who agree that means testing is the right decision, the progressive decision and the Labour decision?
Torsten Bell
That is absolutely right. I think every Member of this House will have heard from people on higher incomes who think it makes no sense at all that they receive hundreds of pounds from the Government each year. With the sensible decision to means-test—yes, to the higher threshold—we have brought that to an end.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Government’s cuts to the winter fuel payment was estimated to have impacted 16,766 pensioners in my constituency, so I welcome today’s U-turn. Those affected include my constituent Chrissy, who was just above the threshold and now has the added fear that she will lose her personal independence payments. Does the Minister understand why Chrissy is so angry and afraid?
Torsten Bell
I have already discussed with the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) the question of people just over the pension credit threshold. I recognise that issue and I have spoken to pensioners in that situation. As I say, we have listened, and that is why we have put in place a much higher threshold, which means that Chrissy, if she is near to the pension credit threshold, will be receiving winter fuel payments this year.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his statement, which pensioners in Harlow will welcome. The fastest growth in the G7, three trade deals and four interest rate cuts—is that the context in which the Minister feels we are able to provide more pensioners in Harlow with the winter fuel allowance?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend always does a good job of not only representing Harlow, but remembering the economic progress that is being made. If anyone did not hear what he just said, he talked about rising growth, rising wages, interest rates falling and a country back on the path to success.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Almost £85,000 was paid out by Dorset Community Foundation through its “Surviving Winter” campaign, including to many in my constituency. The foundation has noticed that many more people are relying on oil and liquefied gas, especially those in park homes and rural areas. What is the Minister doing with Cabinet colleagues to push down the price of power for those who do not have a choice?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Lady’s question gives me the opportunity to praise the work done by all kinds of charities—in some cases through supporting pension credit uptake and, in the case of better funded foundations, providing direct support to pensioners. That is all very welcome. She is right to raise the wider question about sources of energy, but of course the winter fuel payment is a cash benefit that can be used for all kinds of energy.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
The decision to restore the winter fuel payment to those earning under £35,000 a year is the right decision. I thank the Minister and his predecessor for their constructive engagement with representations from my constituents in Stockton, Billingham and Norton on the threshold issue, but does he agree with my constituent who wrote to me to say that, although welcome, the winter fuel payment is not a silver bullet, and this Government’s commitment to the triple lock stands in stark contrast to the previous Conservative Government’s breaking of that triple lock in 2022, which is still costing my constituents hundreds of pounds a year?
Torsten Bell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and he is right to say that we should focus on the big changes we are making to support pensioners, which in England are rescuing the NHS and raising the basic and the new state pension.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. I very much welcome the decision to give the winter fuel payment back to pensioners. Raising the threshold to £35,000 means that many will now qualify, and I thank him for that. On behalf of all of those pensioners who have struggled for the last 10 months, will they receive back pay from the Government to pay off the credit cards or the loans they have had to take out in order to make it through the last winter, bearing in mind that the cold weather over the last few weeks has meant people are still having to turn their heating on and racking up even more costs?
Torsten Bell
We have been making sure that there has been support over the course of the last winter, and the hon. Gentleman will have seen the increase in the state pension at the beginning of April, including for many of his constituents. The question for the Northern Ireland Executive is how they wish to handle this, but on the principle of parity, we would say that the same change should take place in Northern Ireland so that his constituents receive the winter fuel payment this winter.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
I represent over 20,000 pensioners in Plymouth—more than a quarter of my constituents. I have had hundreds of conversations over the past year, and I know that people understand that the winter fuel payment should not be given out to everyone in society. The richest in society do not need it, and I warmly welcome the policy announced by the Minister today. What economic measures have this Government taken to allow us to make this change now?
Torsten Bell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We have gone from competing over temperatures to competing over volume of pensioners, but both are important. The point he makes will echo with lots of Members around the House who have had similar conversations with pensioner constituents who are on a higher income and who do not think it makes sense for them to be receiving hundreds of pounds from the Government every year. In future, they will not be, but the vast majority of pensioners—over three quarters—will be receiving support this winter because of today’s decision.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that it is the strong economic foundations that this Government have been building that have enabled us to provide this extra support to pensioners and working people, and that as the economy continues to grow, we must focus ever more political attention and resources on the younger generation, particularly people starting their careers, so that perhaps one day they may have a triple lock?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is that as economic growth returns, as it has over recent months, what matters is that it feeds through to rising living standards, particularly for poorer middle-income households. We need to be honest about this: the reason why wages did not grow under the last Government was that growth was not there. That is exactly what we need to make sure never happens again.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
My constituents are people of common sense, and they tell me that they do not think millionaires should get the winter fuel allowance, but they did feel that the threshold was too low, so they will no doubt welcome today’s announcement. However, after 14 years of being let down by the Conservatives, they are wary of Government announcements, so can the Minister reassure my constituents that support for pensioners by way of the triple lock, pension credit and NHS investment will remain?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that faith in the system has been strained by the failure of the last 14 years—economic failure, public service failure and a failure of basic behaviour in politics—and that is what we need to turn around. She can tell her constituents that wages are growing, pensions are rising, waiting lists are falling and Britain is back.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is the end of the statement. I will allow the Front Benchers a moment to shuffle over.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Monday 9th June 2025
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 June 2025 - (9 Jun 2025)
First day | |
|---|---|
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. | The moment of interruption on the first day. |
Second day | |
New Clauses and new Schedules relating to the subject matter of, and amendments to, Part 4, Part 5 and Part 6; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; remaining proceedings on Consideration. | One hour before the moment of interruption on the second day. |
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Monday 9th June 2025
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 June 2025 - (9 Jun 2025)
22:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 113 / Noes: 335 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:20 - The House divided: - Ayes: 167 / Noes: 334 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 73 / Noes: 323 - Question accordingly negatived.
22:46 - The House divided: - Ayes: 180 / Noes: 307 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
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: “(zg) Development likely to affect an area covered by a National Landscape Partnership The relevant National Landscape Partnership”” “(zg) Development likely to affect historic parks or gardens The Gardens Trust”” “(zg) Development which is likely to affect operations of ambulance services The ambulance trust concerned (zh) Development which is likely to affect operations of fire and rescue services The fire and rescue service concerned”” ‘(zg) Development involving Battery Energy Storage Solutions The relevant fire authority’” zg Development falling within any area covered by an Internal Drainage Board The relevant Internal Drainage Board”” Number of homes in development Number required to meet Building Regulation M4(3) Up to and including 9 homes A minimum of 1 home Exceeding 9 homes 10% of all homes, rounded to the nearest whole number” “cross–pavement charging solution section 105(1);”.
New clause 1—Steps to be taken when exercising functions under Part 3—
“When exercising any function or fulfilling any duty under Part 3 of this Act, the Secretary of State and Natural England must take all reasonable steps to—
(a) avoid, prevent and reduce any identified significant adverse effects on the environment, and only permit such adverse effects where they cannot be avoided and where the adverse effects will be compensated for;
(b) enhance biodiversity;
(c) permit a significant adverse effect on a European site or Ramsar site only where justified by imperative reasons of overriding public importance and where the adverse effect will be compensated for, and
(d) prevent the loss of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and veteran and ancient trees, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and any loss will be compensated for.”
This new clause would ensure that the Secretary of State and Natural England must take all reasonable steps to avoid causing adverse environmental effects.
New clause 2—Zero carbon standard for new homes—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to require that new homes must—
(a) be built to a net zero carbon building standard, and
(b) include provision for solar power generation.
(2) Regulations must include a presumption that, as far as is reasonably practicable, new developments will include facilities for the rooftop generation of solar power.”
This new clause would require that new homes to be built to a net zero carbon building standard and include provision for the generation of solar power.
New clause 3—Transfer of land to local authority following expiry of planning permission—
“After section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, insert—
“91A Transfer of land to local authority following expiry of planning permission
(1) This section applies—
(a) where a development includes the construction of 100 or more homes and has not begun within the applicable period, and
(b) where section 91(4) of this Act does not apply.
(2) There is a compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory purchase under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985 of land on which any such development was permitted provided that such purchase is—
(a) in accordance with the terms of the Land Compensation Acts, and
(b) complies with the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.
(3) In this section—
(a) “applicable period” has the meaning given in section 91(5) of this Act;
(b) ”Land Compensation Acts” means—
(i) the Land Compensation Act 1961;
(ii) the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965;
(iii) the Acquisition of Land Act 1981;
(iv) any other relevant Act which the Secretary of State may specify.””
This new clause would mean that, where permission for a development of 100 homes or more is not used within the applicable period, there is automatically a justifiable case for the compulsory purchase of the land under the Housing Act 1985.
New clause 4—Sustainable drainage—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—
(a) bring into force Schedule 3 (Sustainable drainage) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and
(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities, land and property developers and other relevant stakeholders on how to incorporate sustainable drainage into new developments.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and provide guidance on the building in of sustainable drainage in future developments.
New clause 5—Local planning authority discretion over affordability of housing—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, provide guidance to local planning authorities on how to define or classify new or prospective developments as affordable housing.
(2) The guidance must make clear that a local planning authority may, while having regard to national or general guidelines, determine what is to be understood to be affordable housing in its area based on local needs and circumstances.”
This new clause would enable local planning authorities to use their discretion to determine whether certain housing is to be “affordable housing”.
New clause 6—Development plans to aim to improve health and well-being—
“(1) Any national or local plan or strategy relating to the planning or development of an area must be designed to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of the people who are to reside in that area.
(2) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to local planning authorities on how local plans and strategies can be designed to achieve the aims outlined in subsection (1).”
This new clause would require national or local development plans to be designed in a way that aims to improve the physical, mental and social health and well-being of residents.
New clause 7—New car parks to include solar panels—
“(1) No local planning authority may approve an application for the building of an above-ground car park which does not make the required provision of solar panels.
(2) The required provision of solar panels is an amount equivalent to 50% of the surface area of the car park.”
This new clause would require solar panels to be provided with all new car parks.
New clause 8—Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before Part 3 of this Act comes into force, establish an independent body to monitor the administration of the nature restoration levy by Natural England.
(2) The independent body may request information from Natural England relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy additional to the information and reports provided to the independent body by Natural England under section 66(5).
(3) The independent body may report to the Secretary of State on—
(a) any concerns relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy, and
(b) any other matters relating to Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy as the independent body deems appropriate.”
This new clause would provide for independent oversight of Natural England’s administration of the nature restoration levy.
New clause 9—Environmental infrastructure in new developments—
“(1) Within six months of to the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 for the purpose of protecting and enhancing biodiversity.
(2) Regulations made under this section must—
(a) take account of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out in sections 1(2), 1(3)(c), 11 and 14 of the Environment Act 2021;
(b) include measures to enable the provision in new developments of—
(i) bird boxes;
(ii) bat boxes;
(iii) swift bricks;
(iv) hedgehog highways; and
(v) biodiverse roofs and walls.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to protect and enhance biodiversity in new developments.
New clause 10—Inclusion of wildbelt in planning considerations—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act—
(a) create a category of protection for wildbelt areas in England for the purpose of permanently protecting such areas from or during development, and
(b) issue guidance for local planning authorities and other relevant parties on how wildbelt land is to be protected.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “permanently protecting” areas means protecting or restoring the natural environment in a wildbelt area, and in ecosystems functionally connected to a wildbelt area.
(3) Guidance issued under subsection (1)(b) must—
(a) provide assistance to local planning authorities and others on the identification of wildbelt sites;
(b) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the development of spatial development strategies regarding—
(i) the use of Local Nature Recovery Strategies to protect and enhance wildbelt;
(ii) the reporting of progress towards the development of wildbelt sites; and
(iii) the reporting of progress towards the use of wildbelt designation to increase public access to nature.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “wildbelt” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify in guidance, but must include—
(a) areas of land;
(b) bodies of water and adjacent land;
(c) wetlands.”
This new clause would enable the creation of new wildbelt areas and associated ecosystems, and require guidance to be issued regarding the use of provisions of the bill to protect wildbelt areas.
New clause 11—Register of planning applications from political donors—
“(1) A local planning authority must maintain and publish a register of planning applications in its area where—
(a) a determination has been made by the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning, and
(b) the applicant has made a donation to the Secretary of State responsible for housing and planning within the period of ten years prior to the application being made.
(2) A register maintained under this section must be published at least once each year.”
This new clause would require a local planning authority to keep and publish a register of applications decided by the Secretary of State where that Secretary of State has received a donation from the applicant.
New clause 12—Considerations when deciding an application for development consent—
“In section 55 of the Planning Act 2008 (acceptance of applications), after subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) When deciding whether to accept an application, the Secretary of State must have regard to the extent to which consultation with affected communities has—
(a) identified and resolved issues at the earliest opportunity;
(b) enabled interested parties to understand and influence the proposed project, provided feedback on potential options, and encouraged the community to help shape the proposal to maximise local benefits and minimise any disbenefits;
(c) enabled applicants to obtain relevant information about the economic, social, community and environmental effects of the project; and
(d) enabled appropriate mitigation measures to be identified, considered and, if appropriate, embedded into the proposed application before the application was submitted.””
This new clause to the Planning Act would require the Secretary of State to consider the content and adequacy of consultation undertaken with affected communities when deciding an application for development consent.
New clause 13—Removal of statutory consultees—
“(1) A party may only be removed from the list of consultees—
(a) in or under section 42 of the Planning Act 2008, or
(b) in Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009,once Parliamentary approval for the removal has been signified.
(2) Parliamentary approval may be signified by—
(a) the approval of a relevant statutory instrument;
(b) the agreement of a relevant motion.”
This new clause would make the removal of statutory consultees subject to parliamentary approval.
New clause 14—Electricity distribution networks: land and access rights—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, consult on and implement measures to give electricity distribution network operators powers in relation, but not limited, to—
(a) the acquisition of rights over land for new and existing overhead lines and underground cables;
(b) the acquisition of land for new substations or the extension of existing substations;
(c) the entering into of land for the purposes of maintaining existing equipment;
(d) the entering into of land for the purposes of managing vegetation growth which is interfering with the safety or operation of overhead equipment.
(2) Any powers granted must be compatible with the need to complete works related to development in a timely, inexpensive and uncomplicated manner, and may include the provision of compensation to relevant landowners.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on giving electricity distribution network operators powers in relation to the acquisition of and access to land.
New clause 15—Extension of permitted development—
“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—
(a) make provision for the following to be included as permitted development—
(i) upgrading of existing lines from single to three phase;
(ii) alteration of conductor type;
(iii) increase in the height of distribution network supports to maintain minimum ground clearances under the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;
(iv) increase in the distance of supporting structures by up to 60m from their existing position when replacing an existing overhead line;
(v) in relation to new connections from an existing line, an increase in nominal voltage to a maximum of 33kV and related increase in pole heights;
(vi) upgrading of existing lines from 6.6kV to 11kV;
(vii) installation of additional stays supporting wood poles;
(viii) upgrading of existing apparatus, including the increase of capacity of pole mounted transformers, subject to the provisions of section 37(1) of the Electricity Act 1989 and the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002;
(ix) temporary placement of a line for a period of up to two years.
(b) consult on the introduction of further measures for the purposes of enabling distribution network upgrades and reinforcements to be delivered as permitted development.”
This new clause would expand permitted development rights for upgrades to the transmission network.
New clause 16—Preservation of playing fields and pitches—
“(1) A local planning authority must, when exercising any of its functions, ensure the preservation of playing fields and playing pitches.
(2) The duty in subsection (1) may, when granting permission for development, be met through the imposition of conditions or requirements relating to—
(a) the protection of playing fields or playing pitches affected by the development; or
(b) the provision of alternative, additional or expanded playing fields or playing pitches.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “playing fields” and “playing pitches” have the same meanings as in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010.”
This new clause would require local authorities to preserve playing fields when granting permission for development.
New clause 17—Community benefit from major energy infrastructure projects—
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme under which communities with a specified connection to a major energy infrastructure project are entitled to financial benefits.
(2) In subsection (1), “major energy infrastructure project” and “specified connection” have such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify, provided that any such definition includes all newly consented renewable energy projects.
(3) Financial benefits provided for by a scheme under this section must—
(a) be provided by the owner of the relevant major energy infrastructure project, and
(b) amount to 5% of the annual revenue of the relevant project.
(4) Where a major energy infrastructure project is onshore, regulations made under this section must—
(a) provide for two-thirds of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid to the council of that community, and
(b) provide for one third of the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the council.
(5) Where a major energy infrastructure project is offshore, regulations made under this section must provide for the financial benefits accruing to a community under this section to be paid into a strategic fund operated by the relevant council.
(6) Regulations made under this section may, among other things—
(a) specify the powers, purposes, responsibilities and constitution of a council strategic fund;
(b) make further provision determining which communities are qualifying under this section, and defining community for this purpose;
(c) confer functions in connection with the scheme;
(d) provide for delegation of functions conferred in connection with the scheme.”
This new clause sets out a scheme for providing financial benefits to communities in areas connected with major energy infrastructure schemes.
New clause 18—Local Area Energy Plans—
“(1) All local authorities and combined authorities must create a Local Area Energy Plan.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “Local Area Energy Plan” means an outline of how the relevant authority proposes to transition its area’s energy system to Net Zero.”
This new clause would require all local and combined authorities to develop Local Area Energy Plans which set out how they will meet their Net Zero goals.
New clause 19—Extension of use classes C5 and C6 to England—
“In article 1(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2022, after “Wales” insert “, except in relation to articles 2(e) and 2(f), which apply in relation to England and Wales”.”
This new clause of existing regulations would extend use classes C5 (Dwellinghouses, used otherwise than as sole or main residences) and C6 (Short-term lets), which currently only to apply to Wales, to England.
New clause 20—Change of certain use classes to require permission—
“In article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, at end insert “, subject to paragraphs (1AA) and (1AB).
(1AA) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C3, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C5 or Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land.
(1AB) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C5, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C6 (or vice versa) is to be taken to involve development of the land.””
This new clause would require planning permission to be obtained to change the use of a dwelling to a second home or to a short term let use class and for changes of use between those classes.
New clause 21—Local plan compliance with Land Use Framework and nature recovery strategies—
“When developing a local plan, a local planning authority must consider whether the plan complies with—
(a) the Land Use Framework, and
(b) any nature recovery strategy relevant to the area covered by the plan.”
This new clause seeks to ensure that Local Plans comply with the Land Use Framework and local nature recovery strategies.
New clause 23—Review of drainage performance of new developments—
“(1) A review of a development’s drainage performance must take place five years after the completion of the development.
(2) Where a review recommends that action be taken to improve the development’s drainage performance, the developer must implement such recommendations, giving priority to those relating to flood risk.”
This new clause requires developers to review the drainage performance of a development five years after being built.
New clause 24—Housing needs of ageing population—
“Any plan or strategy produced by a local planning authority which proposes the development of housing must include an assessment of the housing needs of an ageing population.”
New clause 25—National Landscape Partnerships to be statutory consultees for planning applications—
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
This amendment to the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 would ensure that National Landscape Partnerships are included as statutory consultees in planning applications which impact their areas.
New clause 26—Environmental improvement duty: nature restoration levy—
“(1) Subsection (2) applies where Natural England agrees to a request to pay the nature restoration levy.
(2) The Secretary of State has a duty to ensure to a high degree of certainty based on an objective assessment that significant and measurable improvements to the conservation status of each identified environmental feature is achieved within the period covered by the EDP.”
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure significant environmental improvements for protected features during the EDP period.
New clause 27—Gardens Trust to be statutory consultees for planning applications—
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
This new clause would ensure that the Gardens Trust are included as statutory consultees in planning applications.
New clause 28—Pre-application consultation of emergency services—
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
New clause 29—Support for small businesses and charities affected by roadworks—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) any building or development works require or involve works to or on the road network, or otherwise result in road closures,
(b) such roadworks or closures have lasted, or are expected to last, for a period of six months or more, and
(c) any small business or charitable organisation suffers a material financial, access or other detriment resulting from the roadworks or closures.
(2) The Secretary of State must make provision for any affected small business or charitable organisation to receive financial compensation or other equivalent support to recover or mitigate the detriment suffered.”
New clause 30—Permitted development for ponds—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, make regulations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to amend Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 so as to include the creation of ponds with a surface area of less than 0.2 hectares as permitted development.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “pond” means a permanent or seasonal standing body of water with a surface area not exceeding 2 hectares.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow the creation of new ponds under 0.2 hectares in size without planning permission being required.
New clause 31—Thresholds for affordable housing provision—
“Where an application proposes or is required to provide affordable housing, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the amendment would result in the amount of affordable housing to be developed failing to exceed the higher of—
(a) the relevant authority’s affordable housing threshold, or
(b) twenty per cent of the total amount of housing provided in the development.”
This new clause would place lower limits on the amount of affordable housing developments which intend to provide such housing must provide.
New clause 32—Housing plans to include quotas for affordable and social housing—
“(1) Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must include specific quotas for the provision of—
(a) affordable housing, and
(b) social housing.
(2) Where a national or local plan or strategy includes quotas for the provision of affordable and social housing, the plan or strategy must include justification for the quotas.”
This new clause would require national and local housing plans to include, and justify, quotas for the provision of both affordable and social housing.
New clause 33—Power to decline applications based on outcomes of previous grants of permission—
“(1) Where a local planning authority has previously given planning permission to a party (the “initial grant”), the planning authority may decline any future planning applications from the party where, in respect of the initial grant of planning permission, the party has failed to—
(a) build out the structure or development,
(b) make sufficient progress towards the building out of the structure or development within a reasonable time period, or
(c) build out the structure or development at a reasonable rate.
(2) A local planning authority may define how it is to interpret “sufficient progress”, “reasonable time period” and “reasonable rate” as part of its local plan.”
This new clause would enable local planning authorities to decline planning applications from parties which have failed to build, or make sufficient progress on, projects for which permission has previously been granted.
New clause 34—Additional business rates for developers not completing approved development—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, hold a public consultation on providing local authorities who exercise the functions of local planning authorities with the power to levy additional business rates on—
(a) land owners, and
(b) developers who fail to complete the development of projects for which permission has been granted within a reasonable period.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the conclusion of the public consultation, lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) a report on the findings of the consultation, and
(b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to those findings.”
New clause 35—Review of the setting of local plans under the National Planning Policy Framework—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, review the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to the setting of local plans.
(2) The review must consider in particular replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites within their areas which are necessary to meet—
(a) local housing targets, and
(b) the United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the setting of local plans with a view to replacing the existing “call for sites” process with a requirement for local planning authorities to identify sites which meet housing targets and the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal.
New clause 36—Purposes and principles to be followed by parties exercising planning or development functions—
“(1) Any party exercising any function in relation to planning and development must—
(a) have regard to the purpose of the planning system outlined in subsection (2), and
(b) apply the principles outlined in subsection (3) for the purposes of achieving sustainable development.
(2) The purpose of the planning system is to promote the spatial organisation of land and resources to achieve the long-term sustainable development of the nation and the health and wellbeing of individuals.
(3) The principles are—
(a) living within environmental limits;
(b) ensuring a strong, healthy and just society;
(c) achieving a sustainable economy;
(d) promoting good governance including promoting democratic engagement and accountability; and
(e) using sound science responsibly.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “sustainable development” means managing the use, development and protection of land and natural resources in a way which enables people and communities to provide for their legitimate social, economic and cultural wellbeing while ensuring the health and integrity of terrestrial and marine ecosystems and the species within them, as well as the wellbeing of future generations.”
The new clause would define the purpose of the planning system and of planning as promoting the efficient spatial organisation of land and resources to achieve the long-term sustainable development of the nation and the health and wellbeing of individuals.
New clause 37—Right to appeal against approved applications—
“In section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (right to appeal against planning decisions and failure to take such decisions), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Where a local planning authority approves an application for planning permission which—
(a) does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated, or
(b) is a major application,
the parties specified in subsection (2B) may appeal to the Secretary of State against the decision to approve the application.
(2B) The parties are—
(a) any persons who have lodged a formal objection to the application in writing to the relevant planning authority;
(b) any other persons that a person appointed by the Secretary of State uses their discretion to permit to appeal.
(2C) The Secretary of State must appoint a person to—
(a) define “major application” for the purposes of subsection (2A)(b);
(b) consider parties to be permitted to appeal against a decision to approve an application under subsection (2B)(b).””
This new clause would create a limited third-party right of appeal for certain individuals to appeal to the Secretary of State where a local authority has approved a development that does not accord with a local development plan.
New clause 38—Dismissal of appeal or referral—
“In section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (determination of appeals), after subsection (6A) insert—
“(6B) The Secretary of State may dismiss an appeal or referral where, having considered the appeal or referral, the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the appeal or referral is—
(a) vexatious, frivolous or without substance or foundation, or
(b) made with the sole intention of—
(i) delaying the development, or
(ii) securing the payment of money, gifts or other inducement by any person.””
This new clause would enable the Secretary of State to dismiss appeals or referrals in certain circumstances.
New clause 39—Prohibition of solar development on higher-quality agricultural land—
“No permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation where the development would involve—
(a) the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a, and
(b) building or installation at ground-level.”
This new clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation on higher quality agricultural land.
New clause 40—Review of method for assessing local housing need—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review the standard method for assessing local housing need.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) how the method for assessing local housing need should consider different types of property;
(b) basing calculations on price per square metre rather than price per unit.
(3) In conducting a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) local councils; and
(b) any other parties the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must—
(a) lay before Parliament a report which summarises the evidence considered in the review and the review’s final conclusions or recommendations;
(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities and other relevant bodies on how they should calculate and consider local housing need.”
New clause 41—New towns to contribute towards housing targets—
“In any national or local plan or strategy which sets targets for the building of new houses, houses built as part of new towns may contribute to the meeting of such targets.”
New clause 43—Protection of villages—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages.
(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—
(a) preventing villages from merging into one another,
(b) preventing villages merging into towns, and
(c) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages.”
This new clause would provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the NPPF.
New clause 44—Sustainable drainage (No. 2)—
“The Secretary of State must, within one month of the passing of this Act—
(a) bring into force Schedule 3 (Sustainable drainage) of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and
(b) provide guidance to local planning authorities, land and property developers and other relevant stakeholders on—
(i) how to incorporate sustainable drainage into new developments, and
(ii) the minimum expected standards for ongoing maintenance of sustainable drainage infrastructure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the sustainable drainage provisions of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and provide guidance on the building in of sustainable drainage in future developments.
New clause 45—No planning permission to be granted in cases of intentional unauthorised development—
“(1) A local planning authority may not grant consent for development where there has been intentional unauthorised development in respect of the land or properties which are to be subject to that development.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “intentional unauthorised development”—
(a) includes any development of land undertaken in advance of obtaining planning permission;
(b) does not include any unintentional, minor or trivial works undertaken without having obtained the relevant permission.
(3) Where works under subsection (2)(b) are undertaken, the local planning authority may require relevant permissions to be obtained retrospectively.”
New clause 46—Duty to complete development of local infrastructure—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a Development Consent Order is made providing for, or
(b) a Strategic Development Scheme includes provision for, the development of local infrastructure.
(2) Where subsection (1) applies, the developer must deliver the relevant local infrastructure in full.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “local infrastructure” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, but must include—
(a) schools,
(b) nurseries, and
(c) General Practice clinics.
(4) A duty under this section may be disapplied with the consent of the relevant local planning authority.”
This new clause aims to ensure that commitments to provide local infrastructure such as schools and GP clinics, approved as part of a development, are permanent and legally binding.
New clause 47—Development of land for the public benefit—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a developer has entered into an obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which requires the development of local community infrastructure; and
(b) such development—
(i) has not been completed, and it is not intended or anticipated that the development will be completed; or
(ii) has been subject to a change of circumstance which means that it will not or cannot be used for its intended purpose.
(2) Where this section applies—
(a) the relevant land remains under the ownership of the local planning authority;
(b) the local planning authority may only develop or permit the development of the land for the purposes of providing a community asset;
(c) the local planning authority must, when proposing to develop the land under subsection (2)(b), consult the local community before commencing development or granting permission for any development.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“local community infrastructure” means a development for the benefit of the local community, including schools, nurseries, and medical centres,
“community asset” means—
(a) a public park;
(b) a public leisure facility;
(c) social housing;
(d) such other assets as the local planning authority may specify, provided that their development is to meet the needs of the local community.”
This new clause provides that land designated development as community infrastructure under a S106 agreement will not be returned to a developer to use for other purposes in the event that the original purpose is not fulfilled. It provides instead that land would remain under the control of the local planning authority for development as a community asset.
New clause 48—Neighbourhood plans—
“The Secretary of State may only—
(a) grant a development consent order where the Secretary of State believes that the application for consent gives due consideration to any relevant neighbourhood plan;
(b) permit a variation to a neighbourhood plan which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State—
(i) is clearly justifiable;
(ii) is unlikely to compromise the overall intention of the neighbourhood plan; and
(iii) has been proposed in a clear and timely manner.”
This new clause would require due consideration to be given to neighbourhood plans when deciding on an application for development consent.
New clause 49—Review of land value capture—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of land value capture.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the benefits of different methods of land value capture;
(b) international best practice;
(c) how changes to existing practice could assist in the meeting of housing targets and the delivery of critical infrastructure and public services; and
(d) how any changes to existing practice could be incorporated into UK planning law.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the conclusion of the review, lay before Parliament a report on the findings of the review.”
To require a review into methods of land value capture, to ensure the public benefit from instances where land value rises sharply, and for this to be considered to be incorporated into UK planning legislation.
New clause 50—Guidance relating to social rent homes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, provide or update guidance for all parties involved in local or national planning decisions on how they can contribute to the provision of social rent homes through the exercise of their planning or development functions.
(2) Guidance produced under this section must include reference to the number of social rent homes which the Government intends to be delivered each year.”
This new clause requires the Government to set a national target for the number of Social Rent homes to be delivered per year.
New clause 51—Prohibition of solar development and battery storage facilities on all agricultural land—
“No permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for solar power generation or battery storage where the development would involve—
(a) the building on or development of any grade of agricultural land used in food production, and
(b) building or installation at ground-level.”
This new clause would prohibit the development of solar power generation and battery storage on all agricultural land.
New clause 52—Local planning authority powers relating to new towns—
“(1) A local planning authority whose area includes the whole or any part of a new town may—
(a) include any of the area of the new town as land to be developed in any local plan which covers a period between the designation of the new town and the completion of development,
(b) include in the local planning authority’s housing target any houses expected to be provided by or in the new town during the period covered by the local planning authority’s local plan,
(c) include any housing expected to be provided by or in the new town in any consideration of the local planning authority’s 5 year housing land supply, and
(d) disregard National Planning Policy Framework guidance relating to the duty on local planning authorities and county councils to cooperate on strategic matters crossing administrative boundaries as it relates to the delivery of housing numbers originally allocated to a neighbouring authority.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “new town” means a town developed by a corporation under section 1 of the New Towns Act 1981.”
This new clause would provide local planning authorities with the ability to include new towns in local plans and housing targets, and give planning authorities certain powers with regard to new towns.
New clause 53—Prohibition of development on functional floodplains—
“(1) No local planning authority may grant planning permission for any development which is to take place on a functional floodplain.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, issue new guidance, or update existing guidance where such guidance exists, relating to development in flood zones and the management of flood risk.”
This new clause would prevent local planning authorities from allowing developments on functional floodplains.
New clause 54—Assessment of impact of nature restoration levy on environmental protections—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual assessment of the impact of the introduction of a nature restoration levy.
(2) Any report published under this section must include—
(a) an analysis of the impact of—
(i) the introduction of a nature restoration levy, and
(ii) the disregarding of obligations under section 65(3)
on environmental protections; and
(b) an overview of each occasion where—
(i) the nature restoration levy has been paid, and
(ii) obligations have been disregarded under section 65(3).”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish assessments of the impact of the nature restoration levy and the disregarding of obligations under the Habitats Regulations 2017 or Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 on environmental protections.
New clause 55—Impact on major infrastructure on local area—
“The presence, or planned presence, of any major infrastructure project in an area may—
(a) exempt the relevant local planning authority from being required to meet national or local housing targets or other development targets;
(b) be a material consideration in any decision-making relating to further development proposed in that area.”
This new clause would ensure that areas hosting pieces of major infrastructure – such as transport projects, prisons and NSIPs – may not be expected to meet their full housing or other development targets and can have such projects taken into account when decisions relating to further planning applications are made.
New clause 56—Building regulations: biodiversity—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must bring forward regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 for the purposes of—
(a) protecting and enhancing biodiversity, and
(b) contributing to the achievement of biodiversity targets and interim targets set out under the Environment Act 2021.
(2) Regulations under this section must include provision—
(a) for the appropriate installation and maintenance of measures including—
(i) bird boxes,
(ii) bat boxes,
(iii) swift bricks,
(iv) hedgehog highways,
(v) splash-free pavements, and
(vi) biodiverse roofs and walls,
(b) limiting the use of artificial grass in a garden or in or on land associated with a dwelling or building covered by the regulations.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require new developments to include design features that will contribute to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and the achievement of Environment Act targets.
New clause 57—Co-ordination in the development of energy projects—
“(1) Where two or more energy developers are engaged in the development of projects relating to energy infrastructure within the same area, there is a duty on each developer to—
(a) exchange relevant information relating to project design, construction, and environmental impact;
(b) cooperate in the development of shared infrastructure where feasible and appropriate;
(c) take reasonable steps to reduce cumulative impacts on the environment, local communities, and existing infrastructure; and
(d) seek alignment of timelines and operational practices to minimise disruption.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for such developers, which must include—
(a) criteria for determining when coordination is required;
(b) mechanisms for dispute resolution between developers;
(c) standards for joint planning and reporting; and
(d) details of consultation required with affected local authorities and communities.
(3) Where subsection (1) applies, a relevant local planning authority may require the submission of a Joint Coordination Statement by the developers.
(4) A Joint Coordination Statement must include—
(a) an overview of each developer’s proposed works within the area,
(b) an identification of shared infrastructure opportunities,
(c) assessment of cumulative environmental and social impacts,
(d) details of measures proposed to mitigate identified environmental and social impacts, and
(e) a proposed governance structure for ongoing coordination during construction and operation, and must be submitted as part of or in addition to development consent applications.
(5) A party which fails to comply with any of the requirements of this section may be subject to—
(a) a delay in granting, or a refusal of, development consent;
(b) the imposition of conditions on an application for consent requiring such coordination; or
(c) such financial or legal penalties as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(6) For the purposes of this section—
“area” means an area determined by the relevant planning authority or Secretary of State where coordination is deemed necessary due to overlapping or adjacent projects;
“energy developer” means any person or body undertaking or proposing to undertake energy generation, transmission, or distribution infrastructure projects;
“shared infrastructure” includes roads, grid connections, substations, and other physical or operational systems.”
This new clause would require developers to cooperate in the development of energy projects when they are taking place in the same area. It also empowers local planning authorities to require statements detailing such cooperation.
New clause 58—Environment and climate duty: forestry land—
“When exercising any planning or development function relating to forestry land, or when contributing to or participating in the exercise of any such function, the appropriate forestry authority must take all reasonable steps to contribute to—
(a) the achievement of targets set under sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021 and any interim targets set out in the Environmental Improvement Plan;
(b) the achievement of targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008; and
(c) the delivery of the programme for adaptation to climate change under section 58 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”
New clause 59—Regard to existing use of land in exercise of planning functions—
“After section 58B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 insert—
“58C Duty of regard to existing use of land in granting permissions
(1) In considering whether to grant planning permission or permission in principle for the development of land in England, the decision maker must have special regard to the existing use of land within the vicinity of the land in relation to which permission is being considered.
(2) In complying with this section, the decision maker must consider whether to grant permission subject to such conditions that would promote the integration of the proposed development of land with any existing use of land, including such conditions as may be necessary to mitigate the impact of noise on the proposed development.
(3) In this section, “decision maker” means the local planning authority or (as the case may be) the Secretary of State.””
This new clause imposes a duty to have special regard to the existing use of land when considering whether to grant planning permission and, in particular, whether there are any planning conditions that would promote the integration of the proposed development (such as conditions relating to mitigation of noise caused by an existing use). This reflects the “agent of change” principle referred to in paragraph 200 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
New clause 60—Time-limited permission for landfill sites—
“Where—
(a) planning permission has previously been granted for a landfill site,
(b) landfill operations at the site have been ceased for a period of ten years, and
(c) a new party wishes to resume landfill operations at the site,
the party who wishes to resume landfill operations at the site must submit a new application for permission to develop or operate the landfill site.”
This new clause would mean that, where a landfill site has been dormant for a period of ten years, a new planning application is required to resume operations at the site.
New clause 61—Minimum depth requirement for underground cables on agricultural land—
“(1) Where a development involves the laying of electrical or communications cables under land currently in active agricultural use, such cables must be buried to a minimum depth of 1.8 metres from the surface level.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), “active agricultural use” includes, but is not limited to, land used for arable farming, including the ploughing, sowing, and harvesting of crops.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide for exemptions from the requirement in subsection (1) only where—
(a) the developer can demonstrate that installing at such depth is technically unfeasible, and
(b) alternative measures are put in place to ensure active agricultural use is not adversely affected.
(4) Regulations under subsection (4) must be made by statutory instrument and must not come into force until approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause would require electrical or communications cables required as part of a new development to be installed at least 1.8m under agricultural land.
New clause 62—Impact of the Act on biodiversity and nature investment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the impact of the nature restoration levy on–
(a) biodiversity net gain, and
(b) initiatives to encourage investment in nature markets.
(2) A report produced under this section must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
New clause 63—Guidance on planting along highways—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for developers, local planning authorities and other relevant parties on the planting of trees, shrubs, plants or grass alongside highways constructed as part of—
(a) any new transport infrastructure;
(b) any other development for which consent has been granted.
(2) Guidance issued under this section must—
(a) outline how licence conditions under section 142(5) of the Highways Act 1980 (licence to plant trees, shrubs, etc., in a highway) are to be applied and complied with in a way which—
(i) is not unreasonably burdensome on applicants for licences, and
(ii) does not prevent or discourage the planting of trees, shrubs, plants or grass;
(b) provide model licence conditions, standard designs, and planting palettes.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the planting of trees and other plants alongside new highways.
New clause 64—Rural Exception Sites—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, take steps to support the delivery of housing through the Rural Exception Sites mechanism.
(2) Steps to be taken must include—
(a) reviewing the National Planning Policy Framework;
(b) publishing best practice guidance on—
(i) assessing the viability of Rural Exception Sites;
(ii) the setting of incentives for landowners and delivery partners to deliver housing on Rural Exception Sites.”
New clause 65—Provision of green space in new housing developments—
“Any application for permission for the development of housing must include provision for—
(a) green spaces, including private gardens, balconies, and community gardens;
(b) open green space which can be accessed by residents using active transport within fifteen minutes; and
(c) the care and maintenance of the green spaces provided for under this section.”
New clause 66—Fire authorities to be statutory consultees for applications relating to Battery Energy Storage Solutions—
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
This new clause would ensure that fire authorities are included as statutory consultees in planning applications involving Battery Energy Storage Solutions (BESS’s).
New clause 67—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction—
“(1) Where an application to develop affordable housing has been granted, no amendment to the amount of affordable housing to be developed may be made if the reasons for the amendment include—
(a) the affordability to the applicant; or
(b) that providing such affordable housing would make the development unprofitable for the applicant.
(2) This section applies where the provision of affordable housing forms the whole of or part of the proposed development.
(3) For the purposes of this section “develop” has the meaning given by section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.”
This new clause would mean that, where a developer has committed in their initial application to providing a certain number of affordable homes, they would be prohibited from lowering that provision based on affordability or profitability.
New clause 71—Display of new advertisements—
“In section 220(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (regulations controlling display of advertisements), omit “amenity or public safety” and insert “amenity, environmental impact, public safety or public health.”
This new clause amends the section 220 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to add environmental impact and public health to the considerations for which the Secretary of State can restrict or regulate the display of advertisements.
New clause 73—Building regulations: swift bricks—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, introduce regulations under Section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to make provision for the installation of an average of one swift brick per dwelling or unit greater than 5 metres in height.
(2) Regulations must require the installation of swift bricks in line with best practice guidance, except where such installation is not practicable or appropriate.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“swift brick” means an integral nest box integrated into the wall of a building suitable for the nesting of the Common Swift and other cavity nesting species;
“best practice guidance” means the British Standard BS 42021:2022.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to require the installation of integral bird nest boxes and swift boxes in developments greater than 5 metres in height. Swift bricks provide nesting habitat for all bird species reliant on cavity nesting habitat in buildings to breed.
New clause 74—Refusal of permission to reduce affordable housing in large scale developments—
“(1) If an application is made for reserved planning permission relating to a large scale housing development which seeks to reduce the amount of affordable housing originally proposed by a developer as part of an application for outline planning permission, the local planning authority must refuse the application.
(2) Where—
(a) a local planning authority has agreed an application for a modification or discharge of a planning obligation under section 106A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, and
(b) the modification or discharge would reduce the amount of affordable housing from that originally proposed by a developer in the outline planning application, this section applies.
(3) In this section “large scale housing development” means any development which includes more than 500 houses in the outline planning application.”
New clause 75—Change of certain use classes to require permission—
“In article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, at end insert “, subject to paragraphs (1AA) and (1AB).
(1AA) Where a building is used for the purpose of Class C3, the use of that building for the purpose of Class C4 is to be taken to involve development of the land.””
This new clause would mean that converting a residential dwelling into a house of multiple occupation would require planning permission.
New clause 77—Embodied carbon assessments—
“(1) Local planning authorities must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—
(a) require applications for permission for developments which exceed a specified gross internal area and number of dwellings to include an embodied carbon assessment;
(b) consider a relevant embodied carbon assessment as a material factor when considering whether to grant permission for the development.
(2) The Secretary of State must—
(a) approve a methodology for calculating embodied carbon emissions;
(b) provide guidance on how the whole-life carbon emissions of buildings must be expressed; and
(c) establish a centralised reporting platform to which embodied carbon and whole life carbon assessments must be submitted.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“embodied carbon” means the total emissions associated with materials and construction processes involved in the full life cycle of a project;
“whole life carbon” means the combination of embodied and operational emissions across the full life cycle of a project;
“operational emissions” means the carbon emissions from the energy used once a project is operational, including from heating, lighting and cooling.”
This new clause would require the submission of embodied carbon assessments for larger developments as part of the planning application and consideration of these by local planning authorities. The Secretary of State will be required to approve a methodology, issue guidance, and establish a centralised reporting platform for whole-life carbon emissions.
New clause 78—Requirement regarding the provision of social housing under housing plans—
“(1) Any national or local plan or strategy which relates to the building or development of housing must—
(a) state the proportion of social housing which must be provided as part of any such development; and
(b) require any such housing to be delivered to a net zero carbon building standard.
(2) The proportion of social rent housing to be provided under subsection (1)(a) must be based on an assessment of the need for social rent homes in the relevant area.
(3) Any assessment of the need for social rent homes must consider—
(a) levels of homelessness,
(b) the number of children in temporary accommodation, and
(c) the number of households on social housing waiting lists, in the relevant area.”
This new clause would require housing plans to state the proportion of social rent housing to be provided (based on an assessment of need) and require those homes to be built to a net zero carbon building standard.
New clause 79—Duty of cooperation between neighbouring authorities—
“(1) A local planning authority has a duty to cooperate with neighbouring local planning authorities when considering an application for development consent which could affect the area of a neighbouring local planning authority.
(2) In carrying out a duty to cooperate under this section, a local planning authority must—
(a) consult neighbouring authorities on the content of the application;
(b) take account of any neighbouring authority’s response to such consultation when reaching a decision on the application.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a development affects the area of a neighbouring local planning authority if—
(a) it directly adjoins any land within the area; or
(b) the construction, maintenance and occupation of the development would alter the environment, character, or infrastructure of the area.”
This new clause will ensure that Local Authorities have to work together when considering planning applications that will also impact the neighbouring Authority due to its geographical location.
New clause 80—Distribution of s.106 funding between local planning areas—
“(1) This section applies where a person interested in land in the area of a local planning authority has—
(a) entered into a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Act 1990,
(b) the planning obligation requires a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a specified date or dates or periodically, and
(c) the land in question is within a certain proximity of an area of a neighbouring local planning authority.
(2) A local planning authority has a duty to distribute part or parts of the sum or sums to the neighbouring planning authority.
(3) Where the conditions in subsection (1) are met in relation to more than one neighbouring local planning authority, the duty applies in such a way as to require distribution to each neighbouring authority.
(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument specify—
(a) the method by which any sum payable to a neighbouring local authority is to be calculated and distributed;
(b) the meanings of—
(i) “certain proximity of an area”, and
(ii) “neighbouring planning authority”
for the purposes of this section;
(c) any other provisions as the Secretary of State deems appropriate for the purposes of this section.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This new clause will require local authorities to distribute s.106 funding to neighbouring authorities should a development be in proximity to that local authority area.
New clause 81—Subsidy of s.106 agreements prior to development—
“(1) This section applies where—
(a) a person interested in land in the area of a local planning authority has entered into a planning obligation under section 106 of the Town and Country Act 1990, and
(b) the person has received development consent for—
(i) housing, and
(ii) any infrastructure reasonably connected with the provision of that housing.
(2) The person may only begin development if—
(a) the Secretary of State has paid to the local planning authority a sum equivalent to any sum under the section 106 agreement for the purposes of developing infrastructure;
(b) the person applying for permission must enter into an agreement with the Secretary of State to repay to them the total sum paid out under paragraph (a) (a “repayment agreement”).
(3) For the purposes of this section, “infrastructure” has such meaning as the Secretary of State may specify, but may include—
(a) roadways;
(b) utilities;
(c) educational provision;
(d) medical facilities;
(e) recreational facilities;
(f) routes for active travel.”
This amendment will enable the Secretary of State to pay the equivalent of s.106 contributions to local authorities up front for the purpose of developing planned infrastructure, and thereafter reclaim it from the relevant developer.
New clause 82—Play Sufficiency Duty—
“(1) A local planning authority in England must, so far as reasonably practicable, assess, secure, enhance, and protect sufficient opportunities for children’s play when exercising any of its planning functions.
(2) In fulfilling the duty under subsection (1), a local planning authority must—
(a) undertake and publish play sufficiency assessments at intervals to be defined in regulations;
(b) integrate the findings and recommendations of such assessments into local plans, relevant strategies, infrastructure planning, and development decisions;
(c) not give permission for any development which would lead to a net loss of formal or informal play spaces except where equivalent or improved provision is secured;
(d) require new developments to provide high-quality, accessible, inclusive play opportunities which incorporate natural features and are integrated within broader public spaces; and
(e) consult regularly with children, families, communities, and play professionals regarding play provision.
(3) A play sufficiency assessment produced under subsection (2)(a) must specifically evaluate and report on the quantity, quality, accessibility, inclusivity, and integration of play opportunities within the planning authority’s area.
(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify—
(a) the frequency, methodology, content, and publication requirements of play sufficiency assessments;
(b) minimum design standards and quality expectations for formal and informal play provision;
(c) developer obligations regarding play infrastructure contributions to be secured through planning conditions.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
“play” means activities undertaken by children and young people that are freely chosen, self-directed, and carried out following their own interests, in their own way, and for their own reasons;
“play opportunities” include formal and informal play spaces, parks, open spaces, streets, schools, neighbourhood spaces, natural green areas, active travel routes, supervised play settings (including adventure playgrounds), and community recreation facilities;
“sufficient” means adequate in quantity, quality, accessibility, inclusivity, and integration within community infrastructure.”
New clause 83—Housing developments to include children’s play areas—
Any application for the development of new housing where the majority of units comprise more than one bedroom must include provision for adequate outdoor children’s play areas as part of the development.”
New clause 84—Prohibition of battery energy storage systems on higher-quality agricultural land—
“No permission may be granted for the building or installation of provision for battery energy storage systems where the development would involve the building on or development of agricultural land at grade 1, 2, or 3a.”
This new clause would prohibit the development of battery energy storage systems on higher quality agricultural land.
New clause 86—Joint Nature and Conservation Committee Report—
“(1) The Joint Nature and Conservation Committee must publish a report on how best to consolidate the provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 into the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 in so far as they relate to planning and development.
(2) The report required by subsection (1) must be published by the end of 2025.”
This new clause would require the Joint Nature and Conservation Committee to report on how to consolidate the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, in so far as they relate to planning and development.
New clause 87—Designation of chalk streams as protected sites—
“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish proposals to designate more chalk streams as protected sites”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to designate as protected sites more of the 209 out of 220 chalk streams that are not currently legally protected.
New clause 88—Use of grey water recycling in new developments—
“In any application for development, the applicant must include a statement outlining their consideration of and proposals for the use of grey water recycling in the new property.”
New clause 89—Prohibition of cross-subsidy on Rural Exception Sites—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, take steps to prohibit cross-subsidy on Rural Exception Sites.
(2) Steps to be taken must include reviewing the National Planning Policy Framework.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “cross-subsidy” means the use of any financial proceeds from the sale or letting of housing at market rate on a Rural Exception Site for the purposes of subsidising the sale or letting of any other housing on the same Rural Exception Site.”
This new clause would require the secretary of state to take steps to prohibit cross-subsidy on rural exception sites.
New clause 90—Cap on profits for developers—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations which limit the profits which may be made by a housing or property developer.
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) provide that a developer may not make a profit from a development which is greater than 10% of the estimated cost of the scheme to be developed;
(b) where a developer makes a profit of more than 10%, set out procedures for the reclamation and use of any excess profit.
(3) This section applies to all developments which receive consent after the passing of this Act.”
This new clause would limit the profit a developer makes from any development to 10% of the estimated cost of the development.
New clause 91—Extension and application of use classes in planning—
“(1) A local planning authority must prescribe a limit on the number of buildings within its area which are used for the purposes of Class C5 or C6.
(2) Before setting a limit under subsection (1) a local planning authority must—
(a) consult residents of the local planning area, and
(b) publish a report on the outcome of the consultation.
(3) A local planning authority must refuse any application for development consent which would have the effect of increasing the number of buildings used for the purposes of Class C5 or C6 above any limit prescribed under subsection (1).”
This new clause would require local planning authorities to place a limit on the number (or proportion of housing stock) of second homes and short-term lets in their area, and refuse planning applications that would have the effect of exceeding the limit.
New clause 92—Change in use class upon transfer of property—
“(1) Where a building—
(a) is used the purposes of Class C5 or C6, and
(b) there is a change in its registered owner,
the use class of the building is to be automatically amended to Class C3.
(2) In this section, “change in its registered owner” means any change in the ownership of a property which requires a registration, or amendment to an existing registration made, with the Land Registry.”
This new clause would require that when property used as a short-term let or second home changes owners, it reverts immediately to having permission only to be used as a main residence, unless subsequent planning permission is sought and secured.
New clause 93—Permitted development and charging points—
“(1) Part 2 of Schedule 2 to The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph D of class D, after “parking”, insert “or adjacent to a public highway lawfully used for on-street parking where a local highway authority approved cross-pavement charging solution is installed, ”.
(3) In paragraph 1 of class D, after subparagraph (a) add—
“(b) overhang the footway by more than 150mm perpendicular to the property boundary including the cable plug when it is plugged in;””.
This new clause extends permitted development rights to charge points powering EVs parked on-street, where an approved cross-pavement charging solution is present and the charger does not overhang the footway by more than 15cm. Installations still require approval by the Local Highways Authority to control liabilities, maintenance, and parking arrangements.
New clause 94—Installation of digital infrastructure—
“In Section 48 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (streets, street works and undertakers), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3ZA) In this Part, “street works” also includes works relating to digital infrastructure, and any reference to subsection (3) is to be read accordingly.””.
New clause 95—Digital infrastructure planning officers—
“(1) Local planning authorities must appoint persons to carry out functions relating to the promotion of digital infrastructure development within the planning system.
(2) Such persons may—
(a) advise planning officers, committees, and any other relevant person about the inclusion of digital infrastructure within a proposed development;
(b) assess the digital infrastructure needs of any local community likely to be affected by a proposed development;
(c) propose amendments to proposed developments to improve the provision of digital infrastructure;
(d) carry out any other duty relating to the assessment and provision of digital infrastructure within proposed developments as the local planning authority may require.
(3) Any amendment proposed under paragraph (2)(c) may include alternation to existing street furniture and infrastructure provision for the purposes of fulfilling the digital infrastructure needs of a proposed development.”
New clause 96—Assessment of need for banking services—
(1) In any case where a proposed development in a settlement would have the potential effect of increasing the population size of a town and any settlements reasonably considered reliant on the town for provision of public services to at least 5000 persons, the local planning authority has a duty to assess the need for a banking hub within the town settlement.
(2) In meeting a duty under this section, the local planning authority may consult—
(a) residents of the settlement and its local area;
(b) the relevant developer;
(c) the Post Office;
(d) LINK;
(e) providers of banking services, and
(f) any other relevant person.
(3) The local authority must publish a report on its assessment before any grant of permission can be made.”
New clause 97—Flood risk mitigation: planning permission—
“When considering an application for development consent, a local planning authority has a duty to consider whether any development of the land for which consent is sought could have the effect of increasing flood risk, or reducing flood mitigation, to any neighbouring land or development.”
New clause 98—Flood resilience measures for new homes—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations under section 1 of the Building Act 1984 to require that property flood resilience measures are included in any new homes.
(2) Property flood resilience measures under this section may include—
(a) raised electrical sockets;
(b) non-return valves on utility pipes;
(c) airbricks;
(d) resilient wall plaster;
(e) any other measure as the Secretary of State may specify.”
New clause 99—Obligation on developers to consider climate and flood resilience—
“(1) No local planning authority may approve an application for development unless it is satisfied that the applicant has considered how the development would contribute to—
(a) the UK’s climate resilience, and
(b) flood resilience in the area surrounding the development.
(2) The Secretary of State must, every twelve months starting with the day twelve months after which this Act is passed, publish a review of the extent to which applications approved in the previous twelve months would contribute to the aims set out in subsection (1).”
New clause 100—Conditions to mitigate overheating risk—
“In section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, after subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA) Where an application is made to a local planning authority for planning permission for residential development, the authority may impose conditions which require the implementation of measures to mitigate the risk of overheating where local climatic data indicates elevated risk.””
This new clause would allow local planning authorities to impose conditions on residential developments to mitigate the risk of overheating, where local climate data shows elevated risk.
New clause 101—Cooling hierarchy guidance—
“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities which—
(a) outlines a cooling hierarchy; and
(b) provides guidance on the application of the cooling hierarchy in the exercise of a local planning authority’s planning and development functions.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish guidance for local planning authorities on applying the "cooling hierarchy" - a structured approach to reducing overheating risk in buildings, prioritising passive and sustainable design measures.
New clause 102—Overheating risk assessments—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, require all applications for planning permission for residential development to include an overheating risk assessment.
(2) An overheating risk assessment must be conducted in accordance with—
(a) the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers’ design methodology for the assessment of overheating risk in homes, or
(b) any successor standard designated by the Secretary of State.”
This new clause would require all planning applications for residential development to include an overheating risk assessment, conducted in line with the latest recognised technical standard, such as those of the Chartered Institution of Building Services Engineers (CIBSE).
New clause 103—Incorporation of features to mitigate overheating risk—
“(1) When preparing any plan or strategy relating to the development of housing under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, a local planning authority must have regard to the need for residential developments to incorporate passive design features that mitigate the risk of overheating.
(2) Passive design features may include—
(a) cross-ventilation,
(b) external shading,
(c) solar control glazing, and
(d) thermal mass.”
This new clause would require local planning authorities, when preparing housing-related plans or strategies, to have regard to the need for residential developments to include passive design features that reduce the risk of overheating, such as cross-ventilation, external shading, solar control glazing, and thermal mass.
New clause 104—Access to data on overheating risk—
“(1) For the purposes of supporting the making of local plans, spatial development strategies and planning decisions, the Secretary of State must make provision for local planning authorities to have access to relevant data relating to overheating risk.
(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that data on overheating risk made available to local planning authorities is updated at intervals not exceeding five years.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to ensure that local planning authorities have access to up-to-date data on overheating risk, to support the making of local plans, spatial development strategies, and planning decisions.
New clause 105—Regard to flood risk guidance when considering development on flood plains—
“(1) When preparing a local plan for an area which includes a flood plain or considering an application for development on a flood plain, a local planning authority must have regard to—
(a) the sequential and exception tests;
(b) the most up to date guidance on flood risk produced by the Government.
(2) For the purposes of this section—
“sequential test” means steering new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding, taking all sources of flood risk and climate change into account. Where it is not possible to locate development in low-risk areas, reasonably available sites within medium risk areas should be considered, with sites within high-risk areas only considered where there are no reasonably available sites in low and medium risk areas;
“exception test” means that it has been demonstrated that the development would provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the flood risk and that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.”
This new clause would require local planning authorities to have regard to the sequential and exception tests on managing flood risk when considering applications for development on flood plains.
New clause 106—Requirement for installation of flood resilience measures—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, amend relevant Approved Documents to require the installation of flood resilience measures in properties being developed on land which is at risk of flooding.
(2) Flood resilience measures must be specified and installed in accordance with the Construction Industry Research and Information Association’s code of practice for property flood resilience.”
This new clause would require Approved Documents to require the installation, to CIRIA’s code of practice, of property flood resilience measures in properties being developed on land which is at risk of flooding.
New clause 108—Planning applications for homes to address housing need—
“(1) Where an application proposes to provide housing, the applicant must demonstrate how the proposed development will contribute towards reducing the housing need in the local planning area where the development would take place.
(2) A “housing need” under this section—
(a) has such meaning as a local planning authority for the relevant local planning area may determine, and
(b) must be communicated clearly to any applicants proposing to provide housing in reasonable time before any application is submitted.”
New clause 109—Conditions for development on greenfield sites—
“Permission may only be granted for development on a greenfield site where–
(a) the applicant has proved that there are no appropriate alternative brownfield sites which could be used for the development, and
(b) the applicant has held a public consultation on the development of the greenfield site.”
New clause 110—Prioritisation of development on brownfield sites—
“(1) Any local or national plan or strategy which relates to the building or provision of housing must prioritise development on brownfield sites.
(2) The Secretary of State must take steps to support the development of housing on brownfield sites.
(3) Steps to be taken under subsection (2) may include–
(a) the disapplication of certain planning requirements or regulations;
(b) exemption from certain consultation requirements.”
New clause 111—Statements of service charges—
“(1) Where it is proposed that a development of social housing will impose service charges on residents, the application for such a development must include a statement of service charges which are to be applicable to residents of the new housing.
(2) Before granting permission for such development, a local planning authority must consider whether the statement of service charges—
(a) proposes service charge models which are fair, affordable, appropriate, and limited to services directly accessible to the residents;
(b) includes provision for annual, itemised breakdowns of applicable service charges to be provided to residents;
(c) provides for service charges to not apply where units are used as temporary emergency accommodation for individuals or families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.”
New clause 112—Requirement to undertake planned affordable housing construction (No. 2)—
“Where an application proposes—
(a) to develop more than 10 houses, and
(b) that at least 20% of the houses to be developed will be social housing, no amendment to the amount of social housing to be developed may be made if the amendment reduces the amount of social housing below 20% of the houses to be developed if the reason for the amendment is the viability to the applicant.”
This new clause would prevent developers from seeking to reduce commitments to provide social housing on the grounds of viability.
New clause 113—New towns to contribute towards social housing targets—
“In any national or local plan or strategy which sets targets for the building of new social housing, houses built as part of new towns may contribute to the meeting of such targets.”
This new clause would ensure that new towns contribute to social housing targets.
New clause 115—Identification and protection of Green Belt—
“(1) Within two years of the passing of this Act, a local planning authority must identify land within its area which it is necessary to protect from development.
(2) It is necessary to protect land from development under subsection (1) if such protection would—
(a) limit the expansion of large built-up areas;
(b) prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
(c) preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
(d) encourage the development of previously-developed land in urban areas.
(3) A local planning authority may designate as Green Belt any land identified under subsection (1) as necessary to protect, including undeveloped land within, and green wedges of land that extend into, built up areas.
(4) A local planning authority must prevent any development of land designated as Green Belt under this section for a minimum period of 20 years starting on the day on which it is so designated.”
This new clause would ensure that a local planning authority can identify land which it deems necessary to protect from development.
New clause 116—Heritage tree preservation orders—
“(1) A local planning authority may make a heritage tree preservation order in respect of a heritage tree.
(2) The Secretary of State must make provision by regulations for heritage tree preservation orders, which must include provision—
(a) for a heritage tree to have all the protections afforded to a tree by a tree preservation order under section 198 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990;
(b) requiring the owner of a heritage tree, or any other occupier of the land where the tree stands, to advertise appropriately its status as such, and the penalties for harming it, to persons approaching the tree or planning activities in its vicinity;
(c) enabling the responsible planning authority, Natural England or the Secretary of State to order the owner of a heritage tree or any other occupier of the land where the tree stands to take specified reasonable steps to maintain and protect the tree and, if the owner or occupier does not take such steps in reasonable time, to take such steps itself and to recover the reasonable cost of doing so from the owner or occupier;
(d) for the responsible planning authority, Natural England, the Secretary of State or another prescribed responsible body to enter into an agreement with the owner or occupier about the care and preservation of the heritage tree (a “heritage tree partnership agreement”), including about costs;
(e) for additional or higher penalties for breach of a heritage tree preservation order.
(3) The Secretary of State must make provision for the creation, publication and maintenance of a register of heritage trees in respect of which heritage tree preservation orders have been made.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “heritage tree” means a tree listed as such by Natural England on grounds of exceptional historic, landscape, cultural or ecologic importance.
(5) Natural England must create, publish and maintain a list of heritage trees in England for the purposes of this section.”
This new clause provides for the protection of heritage trees.
New clause 117—Development consent for betting shops above street level—
“A planning authority must not consider any application for development consent—
(a) for a new betting shop, or
(b) to change the use of an existing building to, or to include, a betting shop,
unless the relevant premises proposed to function as a betting shop are at least one storey above street level.”
New clause 118—Development of dwellinghouses above shops—
“(1) This section applies where an application for development consent proposes to develop any part of a building which is—
(a) part of a retail or commercial premises, and
(b) is at least one story above ground level.
(2) It is permitted to—
(a) develop any such part of the building for the purposes of dwellinghouses;
(b) include in development safe access and egress to the new dwellinghouses;
that does not require any such access and egress through the existing retail or commercial premises.”
New clause 119—Internal Drainage Boards to be statutory consultees—
“In Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, after paragraph (zf) insert—
New clause 120—Accessibility standards for new homes—
“(1) It is a condition of any grant of planning permission for new homes that—
all planned homes meet Building Regulations M4(2) (accessible and adaptable dwellings); and
the relevant number of homes, as set out in the following table, must meet Building Regulation M4(3) (wheelchair user dwellings)—
New clause 121—Residential development on flood plains—
“(1) Where a development involves the building of residential accommodation on a flood plain, no living or social spaces may be located on ground level.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “living or social spaces” include bedrooms, bathrooms, kitchens and other private or communal rooms or spaces used for social or recreational purposes or for the preparation or consumption of food, but does not include garages or other rooms or spaces used primarily for the purposes of storage.”
New clause 122—Availability of small and medium sized properties to be considered—
“(1) When considering an application for development which would increase the size or number of bedrooms in a residential property which has a maximum of two bedrooms, a local planning authority must consider the availability and affordability of small and medium sized properties in the authority’s area.
(2) Where the authority considers that the extension of a small or medium sized property would have a detrimental impact on the availability and affordability of such properties in the authority’s area, the authority may not grant permission for the proposed development.”
New clause 123—Notices—
“(1) Where a party is required to publish a notice relating to proposed or prospective development, such a requirement may be satisfied by the relevant party providing the information to be included in such a notice to—
(a) affected individuals directly;
(b) a relevant parish or local authority.
(2) Where there is no relevant parish authority, the requirement under this section is satisfied if the relevant party notifies the nearest equivalent authority.
(3) In the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015, omit the words from “; and” in paragraph 13(1)(a) to the end of paragraph 13(1).”
New clause 124—Notices (No. 2)—
“(1) Where a party is required to publish notices relating to proposed or prospective development in the vicinity of the area which is to be developed, the relevant party must—
(a) place such a notice at the main entrance to the property or site or, where there are multiple entrances, at each entrance;
(b) serve notice on the owner of every property located within 250 metres of the external boundary of the relevant site.”
New clause 125—Agreements on adoption of new highways—
“(1) The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 62 (applications for planning permission or permission in principle), after subsection (4A) insert—
“(4B) Where an application seeks permission for development which includes the construction of a new highway, the local planning authority must require that the application includes a declaration specifying the extent of any highway for which the applicant intends to seek adoption by the local highways authority.
(4C) A declaration under subsection (4B) must contain such information and be in such form as the Secretary of State may specify.”
(3) After section 106C insert—
“106D Requirement to enter into highways adoption agreement before occupation
(1) Where the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied, an agreement must be made under section 38(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (power of highway authorities to adopt by agreement) prior to the occupation of land or buildings resulting from development.
(2) The conditions are—
(a) that a declaration has been made under section 62(4B) of this Act which specifies that all or part of the highway is intended for adoption; and
(b) that the land or buildings to be occupied front one or more highway section intended for adoption.
(3) Any agreement must include all highway sections intended for adoption that front the land or buildings to be occupied.
(4) For the purposes of this section, “front” has the meaning given for “fronting” in section 203 of the Highways Act 1980.””
This new clause would require developers to declare, when seeking planning permission, that they intend for a highways authority to adopt the roads they construct as part of their development, and enter into an agreement with the highways authority before occupying any building next to the relevant roads.
Amendment 87, in clause 2, page 3, line 33, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment retains the requirement for the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a statement setting out their response to a resolution of either House of Parliament or the recommendations of a committee of either House relating to a proposed national planning policy statement.
Amendment 128, page 4, line 9, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a response to a resolution made by either House or recommendations made by a committee of either House in relation to amendments to national policy statements. The requirement to do so is otherwise removed by 2(a).
Amendment 145, in clause 25, page 34, line 34, after “electricity suppliers” insert “and generators”.
This amendment would extend the financial benefit scheme for people living near network transmission infrastructure to those living near new energy generation infrastructure.
Amendment 146, page 34, line 38, after “plant” insert “, energy generation,”.
This amendment is related to Amendment 145.
Amendment 147, page 35, line 2, after “system” insert
“or is intended to generate electricity.”
This amendment is related to Amendment 145.
Government amendment 93.
Amendment 3, page 53, line 22, leave out clause 40.
This amendment aims to conserve the listed building conservation area and scheduled ancient monument consent requirements that would otherwise be disapplied for transport projects here.
Government amendments 94 to 98.
Amendment 122, in clause 46, page 58, line 10, leave out “(5)” and insert “(6)”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 123.
Amendment 123, page 58, line 38, at end insert—
“(5A) After subsection (5), insert—
‘(6) References in this Part to public charge points are to be taken as including cross-pavement charging solutions.’”
This amendment will extend the easements being provided to public charge points of installation without the need for a section 50 street works licence to approved cross-pavement charging solutions. Each site remains subject to Local Highways Authority approval, enabling control over liabilities, maintenance and parking arrangements.
Amendment 124, page 59, line 9, at end insert—
“‘cross-pavement charging solution’ means a local highway authority approved device, solution or apparatus to safely convey electricity from premises across or under a footway to a vehicle that is capable of being propelled by electrical power derived from a storage battery (or for discharging electricity stored in such a vehicle);”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 123.
Amendment 125, page 59, line 23, at end insert—
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 124.
Amendment 127, page 60, line 5, at end insert—
“References to public charge points are to be taken as including cross-pavement charging solutions.”
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 125.
Amendment 141, page 60, line 5, at end insert—
“(10) The Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 is amended as set out in subsections (11) and (12).
(11) In section 10 (public charging or refuelling points: access, standards and connection)—
(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (b) insert—
‘(ba) the accessibility of public charging or refuelling points;’;
(b) after subsection (3) insert—
‘(3A) Regulations under subsection (1)(ba) may, for example, require the operator of a public charging or refuelling point to ensure that the point complies with minimum specifications for placement of a charge point display, bay size, and the height and weight of the charging cable.’
(12) In section 14 (transmission of data relating to charge points), in subsection (2) after ‘energy consumption’ insert ‘, accessibility’.”
Amendment 139, in clause 47, page 60, line 12, leave out “(2)” and insert “(1A)”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 140.
Amendment 140, page 60, line 12, at end insert—
“(1A) After subsection (1ZZA) insert—
‘(1ZZB) References in subsection (1) to functions of a local planning authority include recovery of costs to authority resulting from enforcement of any breach of planning permission.’”
This amendment allows local planning authorities to levy a fee or charge to recover any costs to them associated with enforcing planning rules. It is linked to Amendment 139.
Amendment 133, page 60, line 25, at end insert—
“(ba) the requirement for proportionality in the level of the fee or charge, based on the nature and size of the development to which the fee or charge will apply;”.
This amendment would require authorities to consider the proportionality of the level of any fee or charge they set, based on the nature and size of the works to which the fee or charge will apply.
Amendment 126, page 60, line 35, at end insert—
“‘cross-pavement charging solution’ means a local highway authority approved device, solution or apparatus to safely convey electricity from premises across or under a footway to a vehicle that is capable of being propelled by electrical power derived from a storage battery (or for discharging electricity stored in such a vehicle);”.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 123.
Amendment 129, page 61, line 3, after “imposed” insert
“, and must be such an amount as the authority, Mayor or specified person considers to be a proportionate contribution towards the carrying out of their functions under Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.”
This amendment, which is linked with Amendment 130, would expand the planning fees ringfence to allow local planning authorities to spend revenue from planning fees on local plan-making functions under Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
Amendment 130, page 61, line 15, at end insert—
“(ba) functions under Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 129.
Amendment 1, page 67, line 1, leave out clause 50.
This amendment would ensure that planning committees retain their existing powers.
Amendment 74, in clause 51, page 72, line 27, at end insert—
“(1A) A spatial development strategy must prioritise for new development previously-developed land.”
This amendment would require that spatial development strategies prioritise development on brownfield land over other locations.
Amendment 15, page 72, line 29, at end insert—
“(2A) A spatial development strategy must have regard to the need to provide 150,000 new social homes nationally a year.”
Amendment 21, page 72, line 38, at end insert—
“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘infrastructure and public services’ must include—
(a) primary and secondary healthcare provision, including mental health provision;
(b) social care provision;
(c) education, skills and training provision;
(d) infrastructure for active travel and public transport;
(e) sufficient road capacity;
(f) access to such commercial amenities, including shops, as the strategic planning authority deems necessary to support residents of the strategy area;
(g) recreational and leisure facilities; and
(h) publicly accessible green spaces.
(4B) A spatial development strategy must include targets for the provision of strategically important infrastructure and public services which are—
(a) considered to be appropriate by the relevant planning authorities and delivery bodies;
(b) periodically amended to account for changes in population size or dynamic within the strategy area;
(c) annually reported against with regard to the strategic planning authority’s performance.”
This amendment would clarify the meaning of strategically important infrastructure and public services, require targets for such provision to be set, and for performance against such targets to be annually reported.
Amendment 77, page 72, line 39, after “describe” insert
“(subject to the conditions in subsection (5A))”.
Amendment 148, page 73, line 1, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) an amount or distribution of housing the provision of which either—
(i) is considered by the strategic planning authority to be of strategic importance to the strategy area, or
(ii) meets housing need within, or related to, the strategy area.”
This amendment would enable strategic planning boards authorities to choose whether housing allocation based on local need or strategic importance.
Amendment 71, page 73, line 7, at end insert—
“(c) a specific density of housing development which ensures effective use of land and which the strategic planning authority considers to be of strategic importance to the strategy area.”
This amendment requires strategic planning authorities to include a specific housing density in their plans which ensures land is used effectively where it is considered strategically important.
Amendment 149, page 73, line 7, at end insert—
“(c) the timetable for, and annual targets relating to the delivery of, housing specified or described under this subsection.
(5A) In subsection (5) ‘housing need’ has such meaning as a strategic planning authority may determine in consultation with local planning authorities within the strategy area.”
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 148. It requires a strategic planning board to set targets for the delivery of any housing specified under this section, and allows a strategic planning board to define housing need in consultation with relevant local authorities.
Amendment 78, page 73, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) Where a spatial development strategy specifies or describes an amount or distribution of housing, the strategy must not—
(a) increase the number of homes to be developed in any part of the strategy area by more than 20%, or
(b) reduce the required number of homes to be developed by more than 20% in any part of a strategy area which is an urban area,
when compared to the previous spatial development strategy or the amount of housing currently provided in the relevant area.
(5B) In subsection (5A) ‘urban area’ has such meaning as the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”
This amendment would place limits on changes to housing targets in a spatial development strategy.
Amendment 134, page 73, line 7, at end insert—
“(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), any amount or distribution of housing or affordable housing includes Gypsy and Traveller sites provided privately, by local authorities, or by other registered social landlords.”
This amendment would include Gypsy and Traveller sites in the strategically important housing identified in spatial development strategies.
Amendment 16, page 73, line 10, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a strategy area includes a chalk stream, the spatial development strategy must include policies on permissible activities within the area of the stream for the purposes of preventing harm or damage to the stream or its surrounding area.”
This amendment would ensure spatial development strategies include policies to protect chalk streams.
Amendment 70, page 73, line 10, at end insert—
“(6A) A spatial development strategy must—
(a) list any chalk streams identified in the strategy area;
(b) identify the measures to be taken to protect any identified chalk streams from pollution, abstraction, encroachment and other forms of environmental damage; and
(c) impose responsibilities on strategic planning authorities in relation to the protection and enhancement of chalk stream habitats.”
This amendment would require a special development strategy to list chalk streams in the strategy area, outline measures to protect them from environmental harm, and impose responsibility on strategic planning authorities to protect and enhance chalk stream environments.
Amendment 75, page 73, line 10, at end insert—
“(6A) A strategic planning board has a duty to ensure that any development specified or described under subsections (4) or (5) does not take place on green belt land unless there is no practicable option for development in existing urban areas, including by—
(a) increasing the density of existing development, and
(b) regenerating an existing development,
in an urban area.”
This amendment would ensure that a strategic planning board must only propose development on green belt land where development in urban areas is not possible.
Amendment 76, page 73, line 10, at end insert—
“(6A) Where a spatial development strategy proposes the development or use of agricultural land, the strategy must consider—
(a) the grade of such agricultural land;
(b) the cumulative impact of projects developing or using such agricultural land.”
Amendment 17, page 73, line 33, at end insert—
“(11A) A spatial development strategy must—
(a) take account of Local Wildlife Sites in or relating to the strategy area, and
(b) avoid development or land use change which would adversely affect or hinder the protection or recovery of nature in a Local Wildlife Site.”
This amendment would ensure that spatial development strategies take account of Local Wildlife Sites.
Amendment 91, page 73, line 33, at end insert—
“(11A) A spatial development strategy must include policies relating to the provision and protection of land for community gardening and allotments”
This amendment would require planning authorities to include their policies in relation to the provision of allotment and community garden land in their spatial development strategy.
Amendment 67, page 74, line 3, leave out from “means” to end of line 6 and insert
“housing which is to be let as social rent housing.
(15) For the purposes of this section, ‘social rent housing’ has the meaning given by paragraph 7 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2019 and paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Direction on the Rent Standard 2023.”
This amendment would define affordable housing, for the purposes of spatial development strategies, as social rent housing, as defined in the Directions on Rent Standards.
Amendment 23, page 74, line 5, after “2008,” insert—
“(aa) housing provided by an almshouse charity,”.
Amendment 81, page 76, line 29, leave out from “must” to end of line 38 and insert
“consult—
(a) residents of the relevant area;
(b) businesses located in the relevant area; and
(c) representatives of those that the authority considers may have an interest in any relevant area.”
This amendment would change the existing requirement in the Bill for a strategic planning authority to notify specified parties to a requirement to consult local residents, businesses, and representative organisations.
Amendment 18, page 77, leave out line 33 and insert—
“(5) A strategic planning authority must prepare and consult on a statement of community involvement which provides for persons affected by the strategy to have a right to be heard at an examination.”
This amendment would require strategic planning authorities to consider notifying disabled people about the publication of a draft spatial development strategy.
Amendment 72, page 77, leave out line 33 and insert—
“(5) Any person who makes representations seeking to amend a draft spatial development strategy must, if they so request, be given the opportunity to appear before and be heard by the person conducting out the examination.”
This amendment requires that anyone who submits representations to amend a draft spatial development strategy has a right to appear in person and be heard during the examination of the strategy.
Amendment 142, page 81, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) No review of a spatial development strategy may be undertaken within five years of the publication of the relevant strategic planning authority’s first spatial development strategy following the passing of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, except where such a review is consented to by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would mean that an authority’s first spatial development strategy may not be reviewed for the first five years except with the agreement of the Secretary of State.
Amendment 143, page 81, line 26, after “strategy” insert
“, but this may not, within a period of five years following the publication of the relevant strategic planning authority’s first spatial development strategy following the passing of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, take the form of a full review of the strategy and the scope of any alterations must be agreed with the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would mean that an authority may not conduct a full review of its first spatial development strategy in the course of preparing alterations in the first five years.
Amendment 144, page 82, line 5, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply within the first five years of the publication of the relevant strategic planning authority’s first spatial development strategy following the passing of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, except with the consent of the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would mean that an authority may not replace its first spatial development strategy within five years.
Amendment 24, page 89, line 28, leave out clause 52.
This amendment, along with Amendments 25 to 63, would leave out Part 3 of the Bill.
Amendment 6, in clause 52, page 89, line 35, after “to” insert “significantly”.
Amendment 82, page 90, line 4, at end insert—
“(1A) An environmental delivery plan may be prepared by a local planning authority, or incorporated into a local plan or supplementary planning document.
(1B) Where an environmental delivery plan is prepared by a local planning authority, references in sections 48 to 60 to Natural England should be read as referring to the relevant local planning authority.”
Amendment 25, page 90, line 14, leave out clause 53.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 26, page 91, line 12, leave out clause 54.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 7, in clause 54, page 91, line 27, leave out “an” and insert “a significant”.
This amendment would require that an improvement made to the conservation status of an identified environmental feature within environmental delivery plans should be significant.
Amendment 150, page 91, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) An EDP must—
(a) require developers to demonstrate that they have sought to avoid and minimize any negative effects on the identified environmental feature, and
(b) only permit adverse effects on the identified environmental feature where they cannot be avoided and where the adverse effects will be compensated for.”
This amendment would ensure the mitigation hierarchy applies to development covered by EDPs.
Amendment 137, page 91, line 30, after “appropriate” insert
“and if there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest”.
Amendment 83, page 91, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) Subsection (4) does not apply where an identified environmental feature is a protected feature of a protected site and is—
(a) a chalk stream;
(b) a blanket bog.”
Amendment 138, page 91, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) Where an identified environmental feature is a protected species, the EDP should—
(a) set out conservation measures that address the environmental impact of development on that feature within the relevant Local Nature Recovery Strategy area, and
(b) where Natural England considers it appropriate and there are imperative reasons of overriding public interest, seek to improve the conservation status of the same feature elsewhere.”
Amendment 27, page 92, line 10, leave out clause 55.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 28, page 92, line 19, leave out clause 56.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendment 99.
Amendment 69, in clause 56, page 93, line 8, at end insert—
“(10) An EDP must include a schedule setting out the timetable for the implementation of each conservation measure and for the reporting of results.
(11) A schedule included under subsection (10) must ensure that, where the development to which the EDP applies is in Natural England’s opinion likely to cause significant environmental damage, the corresponding conservation measures result in an improvement in the conservation status of the identified features prior to the damage being caused.
(12) In preparing a schedule under subsection (10) Natural England must have regard to the principle that enhancements should be delivered in advance of harm.”
This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place in areas where Natural England considers development could cause significant environmental damage.
Amendment 29, page 93, line 10, leave out clause 57.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendment 100.
Amendment 136, in clause 57, page 93, line 19, at end insert—
“(2A) When preparing an EDP, Natural England must—
(a) demonstrate that there is reliable scientific evidence to suggest that implementing conservation measures as part of an EDP could contribute to a significant environmental improvement in the conservation status of the relevant environmental feature at an ecologically appropriate scale;
(b) be able to establish sufficient baseline data on relevant protected features to enable an accurate assessment of the environmental impact of development on the identified environmental features; and
(c) take account of the environmental principles set out in section 17 of the Environment Act 2021 and publish a statement explaining how it has done so.”
This amendment would require Natural England to provide scientific evidence on the expected effectiveness of the proposed conservation measures when preparing an EDP.
Government amendments 101 and 102.
Amendment 30, page 93, line 32, leave out clause 58.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendments 103.
Amendment 84, in clause 58, page 94, line 14, at end insert—
“(j) any impacted landowner,
(k) sea fishing businesses, where the EDP covers an area which is adjacent to their fishing grounds,
(l) the owners of fishing rights, where the EDP includes or otherwise affects rivers or lakes used for fishing.”
Government amendments 104 and 105.
Amendment 31, page 94, line 31, leave out clause 59.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 8, in clause 59, page 95, line 2, leave out “are likely to” and insert “will”.
This amendment seeks to strengthen the overall improvement test.
Amendment 9, page 95, line 2, after “sufficient to” insert “significantly”.
This amendment seeks to strengthen the overall improvement test.
Amendment 32, page 95, line 13, leave out clause 60.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 33, page 95, line 21, leave out clause 61.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 34, page 96, line 27, leave out clause 62.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 5, in clause 62, page 96, line 33, at end insert—
“(2A) An EDP may not be amended if the amendment would reduce the amount, extent or impact of conservation measures that are to be taken to protect the identified environmental features.”
This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could not amend an environmental delivery plan so as to reduce the measures to be taken to mitigate the negative environmental impact of a development.
Amendment 35, page 97, line 20, leave out clause 63.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 10, in clause 63, page 98, line 8, after “to” insert “significantly”.
Amendment 36, page 98, line 21, leave out clause 64.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendment 106.
Amendment 37, page 99, line 33, leave out clause 65.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendments 107 and 108.
Amendment 38, page 100, line 33, leave out clause 66.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 90, in clause 66, page 100, line 37, leave out from “that” to end of line 40 and insert
‘‘the conservation status of environmental features are maintained and improved whilst supporting development to proceed where ecologically appropriate.”
This amendment would state that the purpose of the nature restoration levy is to enable development while maintaining and improving environmental features.
Amendment 39, page 101, line 1, leave out clause 67.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 40, page 101, line 29, leave out clause 68.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 41, page 102, line 36, leave out clause 69.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 42, page 103, line 9, leave out clause 70.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 4, in clause 70, page 103, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) The regulations must require Natural England to ensure that use of money received by virtue of the nature restoration levy is not unreasonably delayed.”
The amendment would ensure that funding would be available for upfront nature restoration and mitigation on development sites.
Amendment 11, page 104, line 5, leave out “separately” and insert
“to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC8.
Amendment 12, page 104, line 9, after “money” insert
“, and to report to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy] accordingly”.
This amendment is consequential on NC8. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on the use made of nature restoration levy money.
Amendment 13, page 104, line 10, after “report” insert
“to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy]”.
This amendment is consequential on NC8. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on expected charging collection and use of nature restoration levy money.
Amendment 14, page 104, line 16, after “paragraph)” insert
“, and to report to the body established under section [Independent oversight of administration of nature restoration levy] accordingly”.
This amendment is consequential on NC8. This amendment would require Natural England to report to an independent oversight body on money passed to another public authority.
Amendment 43, page 104, line 17, leave out clause 71.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 2, in clause 71, page 104, line 27, leave out from “levy” to end of line 30 and insert—
“(4A) Provision under subsection (4) must include a condition that the nature restoration levy must be paid before development begins.”
This amendment would require that the levy is paid up front, so that nature restoration can begin immediately.
Amendment 44, page 105, line 8, leave out clause 72.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 45, page 106, line 32, leave out clause 73.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 46, page 107, line 18, leave out clause 74.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 47, page 107, line 24, leave out clause 75.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 48, page 107, line 32, leave out clause 76.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 49, page 108, line 19, leave out clause 77.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 50, page 109, line 27, leave out clause 78.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 51, page 110, line 38, leave out clause 79.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 52, page 111, line 9, leave out clause 80.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 53, page 111, line 25, leave out clause 81.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 54, page 112, line 33, leave out clause 82.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 55, page 113, line 29, leave out clause 83.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 56, page 114, line 3, leave out clause 84.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 57, page 114, line 33, leave out clause 85.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 58, page 115, line 10, leave out clause 86.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 59, page 116, line 19, leave out clause 87.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 60, page 117, line 1, leave out clause 88.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 61, page 117, line 10, leave out clause 89.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 62, page 117, line 27, leave out clause 90.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Amendment 63, page 118, line 29, leave out clause 91.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 24.
Government amendments 115 to 119 and 109 to 111.
Amendment 65, page 163, line 12, leave out schedule 5.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 54.
Amendment 66, page 170, line 3, leave out schedule 6.
This amendment is consequential to Amendment 60.
Amendment 20, in schedule 6, page 174, line 37, leave out paragraph 41.
Amendment 131, in schedule 6, page 175, line 1, leave out subparagraph 41(2).
This amendment removes provisions that amend the reasons for the killing or taking of badgers.
Amendment 132, in schedule 6, page 175, line 16, leave out subparagraph 41(4).
This amendment removes provisions that amend the reasons for the killing or taking of badgers.
Government amendments 112 to 114, 120 and 121.
Amendment 64, in clause 109, page 150, line 38, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment is consequential to Amendments 24 to 63.
Matthew Pennycook
It is a real pleasure to bring this landmark Bill back to the House on Report. Let me begin by thanking hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber for their engagement with the Bill over recent months. In particular, I thank the hon. Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) and for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), as well as hon. Friends on the Government Benches, for their considered line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.
Over the past 11 months, the Government have acted decisively to restore economic stability, increase investment and reform our economy to drive up productivity, prosperity and living standards in every part of the country. To build the homes and critical infrastructure we need, we have already delivered the most significant reforms to our planning system in a generation, including the publication of a revised, pro-growth national planning policy framework, which the Office for Budget Responsibility concluded will permanently increase the level of our real GDP by 0.02% by 2029-30—the equivalent of £6.8 billion in today’s prices.
We are making further progress on our plan-for-change mission of rebuilding Britain and kickstarting economic growth this week by progressing this critical legislation. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, helping us to achieve our ambitious milestones of building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England, and making planning decisions on at least 150 major economic infrastructure projects in this Parliament, as well as supporting our clean power 2030 target by ensuring that essential clean energy projects are built as quickly as possible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, the mother body of which is the National Farmers Union. Others will comment on this, but the UFU has told me that it is concerned about losing farmland for housing. Should it not be the policy of Government to ensure that brownfield sites are used first? If they are used first, farmers will have the opportunity to retain their land to produce food, which is important. Does the Minister feel there must be balance in what is put forward tonight to ensure that that happens?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention—he knows I have great affection for him. He tempts me into a debate that does not directly relate to the Bill, but I can tell him the following: the Government’s position is brownfield-first when it comes to development. He knows that we strengthened the national planning policy framework to give greater weight to brownfield release. We have consulted on a brownfield passport to ensure that bringing forward previously developed land becomes the default and that people get a yes in those circumstances. When it comes to agricultural land, very strong protections already exist. They remain in force in terms of what is in the NPPF.
Matthew Pennycook
I will give way briefly, and then I will make some progress.
Greg Smith
When the Minister says that agricultural protections are very strong, that simply is not true, is it? In the new NPPF that the Government brought in after being elected, they removed the important clause that explicitly protected land used in food production.
Matthew Pennycook
I slightly take issue with the hon. Member’s interpretation. We made targeted changes, but the strong protections that apply to agricultural land exist. He knows that, and I have spoken to him before about the fact that, in particular parts of the country, we see high numbers of applications for things like solar farms. But as I have said to him before, even under the most optimistic scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land will be brought forward for solar farm applications, and those protections remain in place, so we are confident that that is robust.
Matthew Pennycook
I will take this one last intervention because these are not matters relating to the Bill, and then I want to move on.
Sir Roger Gale
This relates directly to the Bill. Not only does it relate directly to the Bill, but there are dozens of amendments all relating to this one single issue. The fact of the matter is that, under the proposals as they stand, we will lose vast swathes of prime agricultural land because planning consent will effectively be driven straight through. That is simply not satisfactory.
Matthew Pennycook
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard the point I just made. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, less than 1% of agricultural land will be turned over to solar farm use. Some of the hyperbole that has been associated with the issue over recent months is unwarranted. I say directly to him, because I want to move on and speak to the Bill, that these are matters that relate to the national planning policy framework, rather than to any proposals in this piece of legislation. I am more than happy to sit down with him and talk about them outside of the context of this debate, but I do want to make some progress.
We made a number of improvements to the Bill in Committee to ensure that it operates as intended and that its expected benefits are fully realised. In many cases, the changes were a direct result of constructive feedback from key stakeholders and parliamentarians. The result is the stronger and more impactful Bill before us. I will briefly outline the more substantive changes made to the Bill in Committee, including in relation to the nationally significant infrastructure projects, statutory consultee funding and the nature restoration fund, before turning to further amendments that the Government tabled last week.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the very open way in which he has approached this process so far. He is absolutely right that the Government made many positive changes and concessions in Committee, but he will be aware that many stakeholders remain concerned about the Bill’s impact on nature. As the Bill progresses, is he minded to listen to representations from people who are absolutely behind him on his growth mission but who want to ensure that there is no further loss of natural habitat in one of the most nature-depleted nations on the planet?
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend and I spoke just days ago about that issue. We are of course more than happy to continue engaging with and listening to the views proposed by hon. Members from across the House and by organisations. If he will allow me to make a little progress, I will deal specifically with the nature restoration fund in fairly short order.
Let me begin with the improvements made to the consenting process for critical infrastructure. As set out in my written ministerial statement of 23 April, the Government have removed the overly prescriptive and burdensome statutory consultation requirements for major economic infrastructure projects that were unique to the NSIP system established by the Planning Act 2008. Over this Parliament, that change could result in a cost-saving of over £1 billion across the project pipeline. By speeding up delivery, increasing capacity and reducing constraint cost, it will also contribute to lower household bills.
We have decided to proceed with the change because considerable evidence attests to the fact that the statutory requirements in place are driving perverse outcomes. Rather than providing a means by which engagement drives better outcomes, statutory pre-application procedures have become a tick-box exercise that encourages risk-aversion and gold-plating. The result is consultation fatigue and confusion for communities; longer, more technical and less accessible documentation; and an arrangement that actively disincentivises improvements to applications, even if they are in a local community’s interests, because applicants worry that a further repeat consultation will be required.
In removing the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for NSIP applications, and bringing requirements more closely in line with other planning regimes, the Government are not downgrading the importance of high-quality pre-submission consultation and engagement. We still want the NSIP regime to function on the basis of a front-loaded approach in which development proposals are thoroughly scoped and refined prior to being submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, and we still expect high-quality, early, meaningful and constructive engagement and consultation to take place with those affected as part of that process. Given that such engagement and consultation routinely takes place and leads to improved proposals in other planning regimes without such statutory requirements, and because the development consent order examination procedure rewards high-quality applications, we are confident that developers will continue to be incentivised to undertake it.
To support that change, the Government intend to publish statutory guidance setting out strong expectations that developers undertake consultation and engagement prior to submitting an application. We will work with stakeholders to design that guidance—a public consultation will be launched in the coming months—so that it encourages best practice without recreating the flaws of the current system.
We have also made a number of other changes relating to the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, including by amending the Bill to ensure that promoters can gain access to land to carry out surveys assessing its condition and status and inform environmental impact assessments, and to make the process for post-consent changes to development consent orders more proportionate to the change requested.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My inbox is full of correspondence from Harlow residents who cannot get a home and cannot get on the housing ladder. They find that the planning framework means that it takes too long to get houses built. The main purpose of the Bill is to speed up that process and build people the homes that they need.
Matthew Pennycook
My hon. Friend is right: the Bill does streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. Although the changes I have just referred to relate not to homes but the regime for nationally significant infrastructure projects—big clean energy projects, water reservoirs and so forth—there are other changes in the Bill that do support a more streamlined local planning process.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
Before the Minister moves on, will he give way?
Matthew Pennycook
I am going to make some progress, because I know a lot of hon. Members want to get in and there are lots of points I need to make before I can bring others in.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
Is the Minister not concerned that he has lost the audience among wildlife organisations and trusts that say they are offended by Ministers’ portraying nature as a blocker to development rather than an enhancement to life and the economy, and are now asking for part 3 of the Bill to be scrapped?
Matthew Pennycook
I will come on to address that call, which I know is being made, but in general the Bill aims for, and I have always focused on, a win-win for development and the environment. We had extremely productive engagement with ENGOs in the development of the Bill, and we continue to have fruitful conversations with them, aside from the campaigns that I know are being fought out there in the country and in some of the national media.
While critics of this part of the Bill may be content to maintain the suboptimal status quo, in full knowledge of the fact that it is frustrating the building of new homes and failing to drive the restoration of nature, this Government are not. To those who believe this Government might buckle and scrap part 3 of the Bill entirely, I simply say, “You have underestimated the resolve of this Government and this Minister.” The case for moving to a more strategic approach that will allow us to use funding from development to deliver environmental improvements at a scale that will have the greatest impact in driving the recovery of protected sites and species, is compelling.
That is why so many organisations indicated their in-principle support for the purpose and intent of part 3 when the Bill was first introduced.
Matthew Pennycook
I will make some progress.
As Beccy Speight, the chief executive of RSPB, put it at the time:
“With bold leadership, collaboration, and smart planning through initiatives like the Nature Restoration Fund, we can build a future where nature, climate, people and the economy thrive together”.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I welcome the enhanced environmental protections in the nature restoration fund. My constituency of Bournemouth West has some unique heathland habitats, many of which are protected as sites of special scientific interest. They hold deep value for the local community, so can the Minister reassure me that these unique habitats will be protected as well under this Bill?
Matthew Pennycook
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We must make a distinction between irreplaceable habitats, where the model does not remove the strong protections that exist for them, such as ancient woodland in the national planning policy framework, and habitats where Natural England will be allowed to take a view as to whether conservation measures that apply to them meet the overall improvement test in the Bill, and any intervention in those circumstances will be driven by what is in the environmental best interests of the relevant feature. There are, therefore, protections in place that address my hon. Friend’s concerns.
In recent weeks, there has been a not inconsiderable amount of spurious commentary attempting to convey a false impression of what the nature restoration fund does.
Matthew Pennycook
If the hon. Lady will let me develop my argument a little, I am more than happy to give way to her in due course.
As such, I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. First, some have claimed that the nature restoration fund is driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment and that the Government are creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute—a “cash to trash” model, as some have dubbed it.
In reality, the nature restoration fund will do the precise opposite. I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not—and need not—come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest that the nature restoration fund would allow developers simply to pay Government and then wantonly harm nature. Instead, it takes payments from developers and hands them to Natural England, a public body with regulatory duties to conserve and enhance our natural environment, to develop environmental delivery plans, setting out how various conservation measures will not only address the impact of development, but go further to demonstrate how they will improve the conservation status of the environmental feature.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Minister is making a strong case for the legislation, on which he has worked very hard. However, does he accept that many concerns were raised in Committee, on which we both served, about Natural England’s ability to undertake the duties that he is asking it to undertake, and that he was unable to give an answer about the extra funding that may be needed for that to happen? Will he elaborate on that?
Matthew Pennycook
The shadow Minister’s memory is different from mine: I did provide those assurances. We have already allocated £14 million in the Budget to support the delivery of the nature restoration fund, and through measures set out in the Bill, we will move to a system of full cost recovery so that Natural England has the resources it needs to carry out those functions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Matthew Pennycook
I know lots of Members wish to contribute to the debate but I will make some progress. If I may finish the argument I am trying develop about taking on those misconceptions, I will give way to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) very shortly.
We have been perfectly clear that the new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable, which is why the Bill gives Natural England the ability to request planning conditions to ensure that appropriate actions are taken by developers as part of using an EDP.
Ellie Chowns
I thank the Minister warmly for giving way. He dismissed “spurious” criticism of part 3 of the Bill, but would he use that phrase to dismiss the very expert criticism of the Office for Environmental Protection? In complete contrast to the Secretary of the State’s claim that the Bill does not reduce environmental protections, in its independent expert advice, the OEP says that it does and that the Bill constitutes “a regression” in environmental protection?
Matthew Pennycook
The simple answer is no, I would not characterise the OEP’s advice as “spurious”, but I am characterising some of the arguments that have been made over recent days and weeks as such. The OEP is not saying that the Bill is a “cash to trash” model, but some people out there in the public discourse are making that claim.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not give way again. We have to make this argument to take on the critics of the Bill who are intentionally trying to malign the objectives—
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
On that point, will the Minister give way?
Matthew Pennycook
I will not. I have just been very clear that I am not going to give way again as I want to make some progress.
Matthew Pennycook
The hon. Member for North Herefordshire is more than welcome to have another go at intervening in due course. I know that she will be putting forward her views later. The Government’s view is that the Bill is not “regressive”. As I have said, environmental delivery plans will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation. As the hon. Lady knows, because we had extensive debates in Committee, we are giving very serious consideration to the OEP’s technical advice on how the Bill might be strengthened in various areas.
Another claim that has been put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, that amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation. The very strong protections for important sites set out in national planning policy are untouched by the legislation. It is only when an EDP is in place, following consultation and approval by the Secretary of State, that developers can avail themselves of it to discharge the relevant obligation.
In the same way that developers can build only once they have met existing requirements, development supported by the nature restoration fund will only be able to come forward when there is a credible and robust EDP in place that will deliver better environmental outcomes. The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), has rightly flagged the importance of these plans relying on robust scientific evidence, which is why they will only ever be put in place where they can be shown to deliver better environmental outcomes.
Finally, there has been a suggestion by some that the new approach provided for by the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or for irrecoverable harm. Again, that is patently false. Not only do all existing protections for irreplaceable habitats remain in place, but the overall improvement test in clause 59 simply could not be met if an EDP proposed to allow irrecoverable harm. Natural England would not propose such measures, and the Secretary of State could not sign them off if it did. If any Secretary of State signed them off, they would be open to judicial review on the basis of that decision.
In short, the nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests: it will restore, not harm nature. It is smart planning reform, designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery, while improving the state of nature across the country. By shifting to a strategic approach, leveraging economies of scale and reducing the need for costly project-level assessments, it will deliver a win-win for development and the environment.
While the Government have no time for spurious and misleading attacks on the nature restoration fund, I am acutely conscious of the views expressed both within and beyond this House from those who are supportive of the purpose and intent of part 3 of the Bill—those who are not calling for it to be scrapped, but are not yet convinced that the safeguards within it are sufficiently robust or that there is the required certainty that it will deliver in practice the potential environmental benefits it offers.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I find it remarkable that the Minister repeatedly accused the over 30 leading environmental groups, including the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has described the Bill as a “cash to trash” model, as making “spurious” remarks, given that he quoted the chief executive of the RSPB, Beccy Speight, to try to shore up his own argument. However, the quote that he took was from a much earlier comment made before the debate in Committee. More recently, she has said:
“The evidence clearly shows nature isn’t a blocker to growth. The Government has identified the wrong obstacle to the problem it’s trying to overcome”.
She went on to say that, with no possibility for improving the Bill through amendments,
“the complete removal of Part 3 of the Bill is the only responsible option left.”
Matthew Pennycook
It is for the chief executive of the RSPB to justify why she has changed her view on the Bill when the Bill has not changed. If anything, as I will come on to explain, quite a lot of amendments that the Government made—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The list of Members wishing to speak is extensive, so I hope that the Minister will be coming to a conclusion shortly.
Matthew Pennycook
I was not planning to, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I need to set out some important changes that the Government have made and the amendments that we are proposing. However, on the basis of your stricture, I will not take any further interventions.
The Bill has not changed; if anything, it has been strengthened in Committee in ways that I will set out. To assuage what are entirely reasonable questions in respect of an approach that is novel, we have already made some targeted improvements to part 3 in Committee, including requiring environmental delivery plans to demonstrate how conservation measures will be maintained and over what period; strengthening the overall improvement test by clarifying that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it will be passed by the end date of the environmental delivery plan; clarifying that the negative effect the Secretary of State must consider relates to the maximum amount of development covered by the environmental delivery plan; and ensuring that Natural England has sufficient powers of entry, used only when absolutely necessary, to survey or investigate land alongside appropriate constraints, including notice requirements and introducing further protections in respect of Natural England’s use of compulsory purchase powers. Those changes significantly strengthen the nature restoration fund and, I hope, will be welcomed across the House.
However, as I was at pains to make clear in Committee, and will more than happily restate once again today, I continue to reflect on the reasonable points made by hon. Members and the advice of the Office for Environmental Protection with a view to deliberating on what more might be done to ensure everyone is confident that the outcomes for nature provided for by this part of the Bill will be positive. For the purposes of clarity, that includes giving serious consideration to ways in which we might instil further confidence in respect of the rigour of the overall improvement test, provide for greater certainty in respect of the delivery of EDPs, and ensure that there is more clarity about the evidential basis and environmental rationale for strategic network level conservation measures. As we do so, I put on record my thanks to all those who have continued to engage constructively with the Government with a view to providing reassurance that the nature restoration fund will operate as intended. As ever, I will listen carefully to the contributions made by hon. Members in respect of part 3 of the Bill, and I look forward to a constructive debate on these clauses.
In Committee, we discussed the need to do more to rapidly increase the coverage of swift bricks across the country as an important means of arresting the long-term decline in breeding swift populations. In responding to the debate, I intend to cover some of the ways forward that the Government intend to take.
Madam Deputy Speaker
You just wish to speak at the end—marvellous. [Interruption.]
Paul Holmes
Actually, I will say a few words. Why resist the temptation to say a few things?
I thank the Minister for his hard work in leading the Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee and all Members who served on that Committee over the past few weeks. He spent a long time in Committee saying that he would reflect on a number of really important points that hon. Members across the political divide had made, but he has done no such thing. He said that he has reflected and that he will also reflect after the events of today and tomorrow, but he has made no substantive changes to the Bill based on the real and genuine environmental concerns of many Members across the House.
I do not intend to detain the House too long, because I know that I have a winding-up speech, but we are worried about the centralising zeal of this Government when it comes to planning, as I said on Second Reading. We are worried about the erosion of the powers of locally elected, democratic politicians to make decisions about their local areas, serving their local people.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that local communities should have much more control over what happens to the housing stock in their areas. Will he reflect on his party’s opposition so far to the proposal from the Liberal Democrats for a different category of planning use for both short-term lets and second homes, given that communities such as mine are ravaged by so many homes being unavailable to local people? Will he change his party’s position and show that if the Minister is not listening, he is?
Paul Holmes
The Conservative party has always believed in the rights of locally elected councillors and planning committees to make decisions for the people they serve; we have said that consistently through the passage of this Bill. The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) has tabled new clause 1 to ensure that planning committees have their current powers reinstated under the Government’s proposals. The Minister is saying this afternoon, as he will say tomorrow, that he does not trust any planning committee or any Labour-controlled council to make decisions based on the wishes of the constituents in their local areas. We think that that is a disgrace.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that our constituents expect to have their voice heard on a local planning committee? Provided that councils are well-trained, the system that we have is working quite well.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman says, “Is it?” from a sedentary position, but I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Very few planning applications are refused by planning committees, and very few planning applications do not go through because of the actions of planning committees. We on the Opposition Benches happen to trust our locally elected councillors and local leaders to make decisions for our constituents. It is quite clear that Government Members do not trust them, as they are vesting more power into the hands of the Minister and the Secretary of State.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the party that was in power for the last 14 years. The result of that 14-year period is that we are a nation with a housing crisis and huge numbers of people in inadequate accommodation or no accommodation at all, and that we are the most nature-depleted nation on earth, so the system clearly is not working. Does he have any real sense that there needs to be change, or is he saying that we can carry on with the system that we have?
Paul Holmes
I would have more truck with the hon. Gentleman’s argument if anything that his Government proposed had the intentions that he has outlined. Just this morning, Savills has indicated, knowing what the proposed legislation will do, that the target of 1.5 million homes will not be met and that only 880,000 houses will be built by the end of this Parliament.
When it comes to the environmental protections that the Minister has outlined, it is quite clear that many of the concerns of Members across this House should be listened to. The environmental proposals made by the Minister will have a detrimental impact on local areas by shipping the problem elsewhere.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman asks whether I have any proposals. The last Government built the largest number of houses in history. There are many things that we agree need to be done, and there are some areas of this Bill that we agree with, but the hon. Gentleman needs to realise that taking power away from locally elected councillors is a disgrace. The Minister is saying to the hon. Gentleman and his councillors that they should not be trusted to make decisions on behalf of their local communities. I am sure he will not be happy with that when he gets to his annual general meeting in a few months’ time to be reselected as a parliamentary candidate.
There are other concerns about this legislation. As we have said, the Government have consistently said that they want to build 1.5 million homes, but the independent Office for Budget Responsibility—a body that Labour held in high regard when it was in opposition—has forecast that the Government will fail to deliver on their manifesto commitment and will fall short of that figure. As I have said, that was echoed today by Savills, which estimates that the Government will build just over half the number of houses that the Deputy Prime Minister has promised, even after coming out of her very testing meetings with the Chancellor.
The Government’s proposal to reduce the number of legal challenges available to opponents of major infrastructure developments from three to two—and in some cases just one—should alarm anyone who believes in checks and balances. Legal scrutiny is not an inconvenience; it is the backbone of our democratic system. Infrastructure projects often have far-reaching environmental, social and economic consequences, and by curtailing legal recourse, we are not removing red tape but removing the public’s right to hold power to account. In the name of speed, the Government are undermining the legal mechanisms that protect us from Government overreach.
As I have said, the clear implication of the Minister’s proposals today is that powers will be removed from locally elected planning committees. That is a disgrace, and it is in addition to a gerrymandering housing algorithm that punishes rural areas and rewards Labour councillors in urban centres for failure. We are told that the Bill will speed up planning decisions, but at what cost? Local planning authorities are indeed struggling, under-resourced and overburdened, but granting them fee-raising powers without guaranteed central support is like asking a drowning man to swim harder. More alarmingly, the shift of decision-making powers from elected councillors to unelected planning officers under the guise of efficiency diminishes local democracy. It takes key decisions out of the hands of public representatives and places them in the hands of a bureaucracy increasingly dictated by central policy.
We are also told that the Bill will make planning more strategic. That is a noble aim, but let us not forget that the strategic failure of recent years has been due not to too much local input but to too little co-ordination. The requirement for regional spatial strategies was scrapped by this Government’s predecessors. Now, the pendulum swings once again, with combined authorities being told to draft regional plans; however, those same authorities are being starved of the funding and staff required to do so. We risk repeating history, only this time with fewer safety nets and a weakened capacity to challenge flawed strategies.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I chair the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities, which is concerned that there are 6.3 million properties currently at risk of flooding—a figure that is forecast to rise to 8 million by 2050 because of climate change. However, the Bill does not really address climate change or any kind of flood resilience. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in urging the Minister to consider the amendments tabled by me and others that deal with building properties in areas that are at risk of flooding and lack flood resilience?
Paul Holmes
Of course. We discussed this topic at great length in Committee, and many good amendments were tabled. However, as I understand it and as I think the hon. Lady agrees, having reflected consistently the Minister has not strengthened the environmental protections or the measures to deal with flooding risks to housing that will be built in future. In fact, I would argue that those protections have been weakened. I hope the Minister will go away and look at these issues again.
Turning to environmental protections, we in the Conservative party say that they are under threat. The creation of environmental delivery plans sounds suitably wishy-washy, but this new centralised model turns bespoke ecological assessments into a bureaucratic chequebook exercise. While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask whether this is really restoration, or whether it is greenwashing.
On Natural England, I remind the Minister once again that the Bill Committee held a huge evidence session. He consistently said that he had confidence in Natural England’s ability to undertake the responsibilities he is seeking to impose on it, but time and time again he has outlined that he has allocated what I would argue is a mediocre sum of money to Natural England. He is asking that organisation to make decisions and improve environmental protections for people across this country, but he still has not outlined what funding model will be in place. The chief executive of Natural England herself stated, in very generic terms, that she was not entirely sure that she or her organisation would be able to undertake those operations going forward. The Minister should listen to the huge concerns across this House that Natural England is not the right organisation to undertake those responsibilities—rather, it should be local councils and local mayors. They should be the ones who represent their constituents and speak for local people, and who can make the changes they need on environmental protections.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member recognise that only up to 1% of agricultural land could actually be dedicated to solar panels? Does he also recognise that a former president of the National Farmers Union has said that solar helps farmers to generate income?
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman says “only up to 1%”, but given the international situation, this country should be producing its own food, and that land should be protected. He may need to catch up, because I understand that the NFU now wants the Bill to go further and completely ban solar panels on high-quality land. I suggest that he speaks to the NFU again, and then comes back to this House and backs new clause 39. The NFU speaks up for our farmers, so we should listen if it is not happy with what is in the Bill. Instead of giving me a quote from a former NFU employee, the hon. Gentleman should listen to the NFU’s current leadership, and then maybe change his comments.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member believe that farmers are able to choose how best to use their land?
Paul Holmes
Of course I believe that farmers know how to make best use of their land, but this Government are taking power away from farmers, whether by increasing the power to issue compulsory purchase orders for land that farmers want to use to produce food, or by reducing the money that they will get from the CPOs that the Government are advocating for. Farmers see more and more agricultural land being taken out of use. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill and the measures that the Minister is bringing forward, which undermine our farmers and stop them from being able to do the job that they want to do.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Paul Holmes
I will move on to another clause, because Madam Deputy Speaker probably wants me to sit down soon, as might many other Members. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I knew I would get universal acclaim eventually.
New clause 43 was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. Villages across our country need to be protected, and the Bill simply does not do that. It eradicates the relevance of local plans and power of local people to make decisions to protect the strategic gaps around our villages. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the new clause, which would provide villages with protections equivalent to those provided to towns under the national planning policy framework. It is a vital measure for protecting the character, identity and heritage of England’s villages before they are lost to unchecked sprawl.
For too long, planning policy has prioritised urban growth without giving equal attention to the unique pressures faced by rural communities. New clause 43 seeks to correct that imbalance by requiring the Secretary of State to issue or update guidance that grants villages equivalent protections to those afforded to towns under the NPPF in order to safeguard villages from being swallowed up by neighbouring developments, preserve green buffers between settlements, and protect the historic fabric and rural character that define these communities. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) for her work in bringing about the amendment, following a truly baffling planning appeal decision on green belt in her constituency. That decision would result in the merging of two settlements with completely different characters and identities, simply because one was classed as a village and one was classed as a town. Many Members will have had such problems. The Minister needs to go away and look at the protection of villages and green belt in the Bill, because it is not delivering that.
A number of amendments have been tabled that Opposition Members think would make the Bill better. New clause 82, tabled by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), relates to play areas. Many developments are not delivered with play areas, and those should be brought forward. Amendment 69, tabled by the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), would require environmental delivery plans to set out a timetable for, and to report on, conservation measures, and it would require improvement of the conservation status of specified features before development takes place.
We Opposition Members believe that there need to be changes to planning policy, but the Minister has squandered a chance. He has not listened to Members who genuinely want to strengthen the Bill by making planning policy faster, while protecting our environment and enhancing the role of our locally elected councillors. As a result, he has left us unable to strengthen the Bill by working together. This is a wasted opportunity. He will not deliver his housing numbers. He will take powers away from local communities and stifle the planning process. We Opposition Members will always stand up for our locally elected councillors. It is a shame that this Government simply have not done that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
More than 55 Back Benchers hope to contribute, and colleagues know what time this debate has to end. It is unlikely that everybody will get in, so colleagues may want to reconsider and submit to speak tomorrow instead of today. I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I am mindful of what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will try to keep my remarks short. I rise to speak to the amendments in my name. In this Report stage, I will briefly touch on why the Bill is so vital. It is fair to say that we all, as constituency MPs, have our frustrations with the planning system, but ultimately we must remember why this Bill matters. We are in the middle of a housing crisis. A generation of young people are spending more and more of their income on unaffordable private rents, while the dream of home ownership fades even further. We have 1.3 million households on local authority waiting lists for social housing and more than 165,000 children growing up in temporary accommodation. That figure has risen by 15% in the last year alone.
I am the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and our first report looked at the lives of some of the children in temporary accommodation. What we found was truly shameful. Families are living in damp, cold and mouse-infested homes. Babies are not able to crawl or learn to walk because of a lack of floor space. Most shockingly, we found that temporary accommodation has been a contributing factor in the death of at least 74 children in the past five years.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
As a fellow London Member of Parliament, I recognise everything that my hon. Friend has described. Was she surprised, as I was, to hear from the shadow Minister that the planning system is fine and should not change?
Florence Eshalomi
As I outlined in my opening comments, the planning system does not work. It is broken, just as we have a broken housing market and a housing crisis.
I mentioned the 74 children who died in the past five years; 58 were under the age of one. As Members of Parliament representing different parts of the country, we might disagree with aspects of developments in our constituencies, and we must not let developers off the hook when they often fail to deliver quality in new housing.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and she touches on developers. My new clause 67 focuses on developers’ obligations when they have committed, at the planning application stage, to deliver a certain number of affordable homes. Under my new clause, they would have to stick to that. They should not be given scope to use issues around viability or profitability to reduce the number of affordable homes that they deliver. Does she agree that that option should not be open to developers if they want to build homes?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my constituency neighbour for that important point. We have to be honest: the market facing developers is challenging. Their costs have increased, but we see waiting lists across our boroughs increasing daily. More and more people face an acute housing shortage. It is therefore important that when developers consult and go to planning committees with their development plans, they stick to what they have committed to. Developers must build the infrastructure that our communities need, and we must ensure that homes are built to the highest safety standards. We must be in no doubt that, unacceptably, we have for decades failed to build the homes that we need. If we want to give young people homes, stop families facing the scourge of homelessness, and ensure that every child has the best start in life, we must say yes to building more homes. In particular, not enough new social homes have been built. That is why I tabled new clause 50.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I completely agree that not enough social homes are being built. Does the hon. Lady think we should have a target for social homes in the Bill?
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the hon. Member for that point, and I am coming to some of the points on targets; essentially, this subject is why I tabled new clause 50, and I am grateful for the support of colleagues from all parts of the House. Social rent, as we know, is the most affordable housing tenure, as the rent is calculated through a national formula. Usually, the rent is set at around 50% of local market rents. That is exactly the kind of housing we need if we want to make progress towards ending homelessness during this Parliament.
The Minister told the Select Committee that the Government want to prioritise the building of new social rent homes as part of their social housing ambitions. My new clause 50 would require the Government to set a national target for the number of social rent homes that they want to deliver per year. The target would not be binding on the Government or the sector, but it would demonstrate the scale of the Government’s ambition. Targets are important to how our planning system works in England. Local and national housing targets make sure that our planners, developers and housing associations know how many homes the Government intend to deliver, and they allow communities to plan effectively.
The Government have been clear on their overall national housing targets, but the Select Committee believes that the Government must set out how they intend to hit that 1.5 million target, and we want to ensure that includes a target by tenure. In the absence of a specific housing target, the number of new social rent homes has plummeted from hundreds of thousands in the 1970s to consistently below 10,000 in the past decade.
Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, which we have discussed on the Select Committee. Does she agree that to reach the target of 90,000 social homes a year, we must set clear targets now? Otherwise, we will not be able to get a grip on the housing crisis when it comes to delivering socially rented homes.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank my fellow Committee member for making that point. As the shadow Minister outlined, a number of key sectors have made claims and are worried about the target that the Government have set. It is an ambitious target, and we want the Government to hit it, but without urgent action, that might be difficult for them to do.
In the absence of such a target, far fewer families are getting off the waiting list, out of homelessness and into secure and safe affordable homes. As the new Select Committee has not endorsed a specific number of social rent homes, my new clause does not hold the Government to a target; rather, we want the Government to consider what is needed and, most important, what is possible within the financial constraints and the sector’s capacity. In recent years, several organisations have called for social rent targets at different levels. As we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Naushabah Khan), the most common figure is 90,000 social rent homes per year, which has been endorsed by Shelter, Crisis, the National Housing Federation, the Affordable Housing Commission, and the predecessor of my Committee in the last Parliament.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The hon. Member has made some excellent points about the need to set a target for social homes. I believe that the destruction of council house stock is one of the most regressive actions that the country has ever taken, and that we need to replenish that stock as a matter of urgency. However, I fear that 90,000 a year is not enough. Does she agree that we need to aim for 150,000?
Florence Eshalomi
The hon. Member makes a really important point. What we are asking the Government to do, in the new clause—and what many other Members across the House are asking them to do—is ensure that, within that 1.5 million target, there is a clearer ambition in relation to how many of those homes will be social housing. We need to take a step first before we start increasing that target, but I agree that 90,000 is a drop in the ocean, given the number of people across the country who are on the social housing waiting list.
When he was in office, the former Secretary of State—now Lord Gove—said that he wanted to see at least 30,000 social rent homes a year, which he called a “stretching but achievable” target. My new clause would give the Government six months after the passing of the Bill to set their own target. By that time, we expect the Government to have published details of a new affordable homes programme and a long-term housing strategy. The Minister has told the Select Committee that the long-term housing strategy will set out how the Government will meet their 1.5 million target, and we hope that will include a breakdown of the figure by tenure and a target for social rent housing.
My amendments 129 and 130 are technical amendments to the Bill’s planning fees ringfence. We know that local planning authorities are badly under-resourced. According to the Royal Town Planning Institute, one quarter of planners have left the public sector between 2013 and 2020. The sector has therefore welcomed the Bill’s plan to ringfence the revenues from planning fees so that local authorities must invest those revenues in planning departments. However, in evidence to the Committee, planning representatives told us that the current ringfence in the Bill was too restrictive, as it would not allow planning departments to spend the money on developing their local plans. The Minister is up to date with local plans, and, as he knows, local plan coverage is vital if the Government’s planning reforms are to succeed. The fact is, however, that only a third of local authorities have an up-to-date local plan in place. It therefore seems to be a missed opportunity that the ringfence, as currently drafted, would not allow local authorities to invest in plan-making using revenues from fees. The Government wish to see universal coverage of local plans, so I hope that the Minister might consider making this modest change in the other place to extend the fees ringfence.
With those local plans in place, and with the Government’s wider planning reforms bedding in, hopefully we will start to see real progress towards building the homes we so desperately need. But even then, we must face the reality that planning reforms alone will not to be enough to deliver 1.5 million homes during the current Parliament. The private sector will need to take time to adjust to the new regime, and developers will need years of lead-in time to bring forward those applications. The private sector will build homes only at the rate at which they sell without needing to reduce prices, whereas with social housing a family can receive the keys to a secure home as soon as it is built. We must remember that the last time England was building 300,000 homes a year, more than 100,000 of them were social housing.
The Government have promised to deliver the
“biggest wave of social and affordable housing for a generation”,
and that will require the biggest boost in social housing investment for a generation. In truth, the spending review will make or break the 1.5 million target. It is now time for the Government to be bold, and to deliver on their housing ambition. If they do so, they will find councils across the country ready to match their ambition.
I particularly welcome Southwark Council’s work, and the work of its outgoing leader, Councillor Kieron Williams, in spearheading the “Securing the Future of Council Housing” campaign. In just under a year, Southwark has joined 112 other councils across England in sending the clear message that it is there to get more homes delivered, and to fix the broken housing system. I urge the Government to match that goal, back up their stated ambitions, and set a social housing target following the spending review. We must ensure that social rent housing—the most affordable tenure—forms a substantial part of the new housing that results from the Bill.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. May I remind Members that we are pushed for time? After the next Front-Bench speech, I shall be imposing an immediate five-minute time limit. I now call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos
Let me start by thanking all the members of the Bill Committee, the Clerks, and the officials whose joy at receiving our 78 amendments I can only imagine to have been unbounded. The House will be pleased to hear that I will now be focusing only on those that we have prioritised for this debate.
On Second Reading, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru were the only parties to vote against the Bill. All the others were content to support it; Labour and Green party Members nodded it through, while the Conservatives—the official Opposition—abstained. I hope that they will all consider their position more seriously on this occasion, and reconsider supporting some of the measures in the Bill, but if today the Liberal Democrats are again the only party to vote against the Bill—
Gideon Amos
Tomorrow, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded me. If, tomorrow, the Liberal Democrats are the only party to vote against the Bill because of the harm that it does to the rights of communities and local people, to fairness and to nature, all three of which are cornerstones of what liberals believe in, we shall bear that standard proudly—and we shall do so again.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I have tabled new clause 65, which would require housing development applications to include provision for green space within 15 minutes of new homes, supporting nature and helping people to lead happier, healthier lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have missed an opportunity to require new housing developments to be designed in a way that would be not only good for nature and the environment, but good for the health and wellbeing of residents?
Gideon Amos
I agree with my hon. Friend, who is a great champion of green spaces in development. In our contribution, we are showing how the protections of nature could be strengthened in the Bill without entire chunks of it being deleted. I shall say more about that later.
As we heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), when it comes to rights for individuals, real freedom often depends on decent homes that people can afford and where they can bring up their families. When homes are genuinely affordable for local people, they will command real community consent and support in the planning process. Unless we give a commitment to a massive increase in the number of social and council rent homes, we will not be responding to the needs of those people, and we will fail to meet head-on the criticism that housing developments today are more about profit than about people.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
My constituency contains less than the national average proportion of social rented housing, at 7%. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is shocking that the new Government have been asleep at the wheel, and have lacked the ambition to deal with the desperate need for more social rented housing during their first 11 months in power?
Gideon Amos
I thank my hon. Friend for championing the need for social and council rent homes, which is exactly what the Liberal Democrats are doing. We welcome the £2 billion commitment that the Government have made to social housing, and we are listening carefully to what they are saying about the spending review, but there is still no target for new social homes in either this Bill or any of the relevant Government policy. That absence needs to be put right.
Paul Holmes
We agree with many of the amendments that the hon. Gentleman’s party has put forward. He outlines a target for new social homes. How would he afford that, and where would the money come from?
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman leads me on to the next part of my speech. Our amendment 15, which would support the delivery of 150,000 new social homes per year, would be funded by the taxation proposal set out in our costed manifesto. That would provide an extra £6 billion per year, on top of the existing affordable housing programme and section 106 contributions. According to the Centre for Economics and Business Research, that would be enough to enable us to deliver 150,000 social homes per year by the end of the Parliament.
On the rights of communities, more people engage with their local councils on planning than on almost any other area, but far too often that engagement becomes a dawning recognition that all the key powers and levers on planning have been taken away from local areas by successive Governments, leaving local communities and the elected councillors who represent them increasingly powerless over the development that takes place around them. Housing numbers are set by a formula made in Whitehall and dictated not by population, but by demand and supply ratios, even though studies show that that has never yet reduced the price of a single house. Private builders will quite reasonably act to sustain the price of their product, and adding consents in this context is only likely to unleash development in inappropriate areas.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we saw in the recent Westminster Hall debate that the standard method for calculating the number of homes not only does not reduce prices, but inevitably ratchets them up and increases them?
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend is very perceptive and hard-working on this issue. He raises a significant problem with the current standard method, and I pay tribute to him.
It is not just the standard method that is dictated from Whitehall; so too are rules on second homes and short-term lets, so communities cannot stem the loss of family homes for local people—something that our new clause 20 would put right. Rules on transport and highway capacity are also set by Whitehall, so local authorities such as my own Cheddon Fitzpaine parish council cannot question them. In the battle between underfunded local authorities and developers with big profits to make, Whitehall rules also mean that commitments to deliver affordable housing and infrastructure can all too often be evaded on grounds of viability—something that our new clause 112 would tackle by requiring an absolute minimum of 20% social housing in any development.
No wonder trust in local politics is at such a low. That has only been made worse by the chaos of the previous Conservative Government: with one rule for them and another for everyone else, basic fairness went out the window. The UK may rightly be ranked among the top 20 countries in the world by Transparency International, but nothing undermines fairness more than foul play, even if it is, as we know, very rare. Our new clause 11 would ensure that never again can Ministers favour a planning application from a donor without that being exposed in the public record. It cannot ever be right for a planning decision to be taken by those who will financially benefit from it.
Trust in the fairness of local democracy is so often shaped by how much trust people have in the local planning processes. Our amendment 1 would remove from this Bill the powers it gives Whitehall to control the running of councils, and the rights of councillors to make decisions on planning applications. The powers in this Bill mean that, for the first time, even a unanimous decision by every single councillor will not be enough to enable them to change a decision that their officers or planning consultants made on their behalf. Giving employees and consultants power over the heads of the elected representatives who employ them is a dangerous step, and no Parliament should endorse it.
It is not just elected councillors who will lose their vote on planning. Members of this House will lose their vote when it comes to changes to national policy statements that set the rules for the largest national infrastructure projects, from Hinkley C and Swansea tidal lagoon to the world’s biggest offshore and onshore wind and solar farms. Our amendment 128 would allow the Government to change national policy statements to reflect changes in the law, but it would preserve this House’s right to decide whether national policy on massive projects should be changed.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I agree with some of the things that the hon. Member is saying, but we all want to build faster. Under the local district plan in Stroud, we have been waiting four years for our housing plan, and this Bill will free us from the quagmire that is our current planning system. Last Friday, I met representatives of the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust and the Severn Rivers Trust, who have serious concerns about part 3 of the Bill. Does the hon. Member agree that we should have a short pause on part 3 and keep some of it?
Gideon Amos
I certainly agree that part 3 requires amending. Our amendments seek to do that, as I will come to shortly.
People want to see development that treads lightly on the land and reduces harmful emissions. Our new clause 2 would enforce the zero carbon standard for all new homes, on which the Liberal Democrats and Labour Ministers worked so hard before the Conservatives cancelled the whole zero carbon homes programme in 2015.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Net zero standards cut bills as well as carbon emissions, so does my hon. Friend share my incredulity that a Government who have been forced to U-turn on winter fuel payments are refusing to back new clause 2, which would cut bills for people of all ages?
Gideon Amos
It is absolutely right to say that we should be moving to zero carbon homes. In fact, one study shows that had they been introduced in 2015, new homeowners would have saved £9 billion.
Our new clause 25, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), would give key national landscape partnerships, such as in the mellow and beautiful Blackdown hills in my constituency, a seat at the planning table.
As we see species becoming extinct before our eyes, people want to see new homes and nature thrive together. Crucially, our new clause 1 would put back the pre-eminent principle in all this: wherever possible, we must first do no harm to the environment on the sites that are being impacted. Of course, there are circumstances such as phosphate mitigation, where off-site measures can deal with the problem, but by completely removing from EDPs the hierarchy of mitigating impacts first and foremost on site, the Bill provides what the National Trust has called a “licence to kill nature”.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that the problem with the Bill is misdiagnosis? The problem is not nature holding up house building, or local authorities—which have been starved of cash for the last 15 years— holding up housing, but developers that are sitting on 1.4 million homes with planning permission, because they are land banking and profiteering. That is the problem that the Bill is not getting to. We do not have to destroy nature, and we do not have to undermine our future environmental protections.
Gideon Amos
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the thousands of homes that have planning permission and have not been built, including the 11,000 we have in Somerset. While I welcome what the Government have said about bringing those forward, a real “use it or lose it” power is missing from the Bill. The Liberal Democrats have tabled new clause 3 so that, unless those homes are built, the local authority would have powers to take over the land and to build the houses. That would ensure a real “use it or lose it” penalty for those that do not build out the permissions that they have.
Pitting communities and nature as the enemies of progress and development would be a massive mistake. Taking power away from councillors is taking it away from local people, and taking power away from Members of Parliament is taking it from the hands of the people who elect us to this place. Both are examples of centralisation and “Whitehall knows best” thinking, in which local views count for little and nature for even less. There is another way to build the hundreds of thousands of homes we need. It is to invest in 150,000 social homes per year to pump-prime our industry, give communities the funding for the jobs, transport, green space and energy infrastructure that our constituents want, build the new GP and healthcare facilities before building the houses and homes our communities will need, and build them in ways that will support rather than harm those communities.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, particularly as it sounds as though he is coming to his conclusion, but I want to give him the best possible chance to talk about new clause 115. My constituency of Surrey Heath is made up of small villages divided by green-belt land and Ministry of Defence property. Without the protections afforded by new clause 115, I fear that the distinctiveness and sense of place of those villages will be gradually lost. Can he comment on how new clause 115 would protect the distinctiveness of place?
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point he makes. It is vital to protect the character of existing places and communities that are so valued, which is why we want a more locally driven approach to assessing housing numbers and local plan making.
Finally, if we build the GP surgeries, the healthcare and the other infrastructure before the homes, we will be building in the interests of our communities, not against them. That is the kind of community-led development that Liberal Democrats want and that our amendments would help to bring about, and I humbly urge Members to support them.
Mr Perkins
I rise to set out the case for amendments 136 and 150 and new clause 62, in my name. I am very pleased to hear what the Minister has said so far. The Bill would tackle the long-standing conundrum of how to deliver the ambitious house building targets to which the Government are rightly committed, while protecting the environment and enhancing, not reducing, protections for nature. Before I turn to my amendments, I want to speak briefly about the extent to which the Bill achieves those aims.
I absolutely share the Government’s commitment to freeing up the planning system and ensuring that fewer people are unable to get on to the housing ladder and fewer children grow up in unsuitable, overcrowded and temporary accommodation. I see the impact of this country’s failure to build the homes it needs in my surgeries every single week, so I support the Government’s aims to speed up that process. I also agree that planning has too often been a barrier to those ambitions, and the Government are absolutely right to attempt to remove this blocker.
Freeing up unnecessary restrictions, however, must not mean allowing further nature degradation, nor does it have to. The Government have said that these ambitions will be achieved alongside nature recovery. Wildlife populations in England have fallen to around 67% of their 1970 level; as I said a few moments ago, Britain is now one of the “most nature-depleted” places on earth. Most of England’s rare and vulnerable habitats are in poor condition. Alongside building the homes and infrastructure that our society needs, we must rebuild our natural capital—the air, water, soils and biodiversity —on which our society depends.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It sounds as though the hon. Member, like me, has a deep passion for ensuring that we maintain nature, so does he agree that a simple measure would be to accept new clause 30, which would extend permitted development rights for ponds of up to 0.2 hectares, providing vital freshwater habitats for up to two thirds of all freshwater species, exactly as he has been saying?
Mr Perkins
I thank the hon. Member very much for that intervention, and I look forward to hearing her speech in support of her new clause. I do think that has merit and is worth considering, and I look forward to hearing her make her case in more detail.
The Environmental Audit Committee, which I chair, initiated an inquiry into housing growth and environmental sustainability to scrutinise the Government’s national planning policy proposals. Achieving growth and delivering for people, climate and nature together is a vital but challenging task. There are many provisions in this Bill that I welcome, and I thank the Minister for his efforts and his detailed engagement. I was grateful that he made time to meet me recently to discuss my proposed amendments.
Overall, I support the Government’s intention in part 3, and I think those parties that wish to simply scrap the approach entirely are wrong. It is right to introduce a more strategic approach to satisfying developers’ environmental obligations. If done well, the environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy proposed in part 3 could simplify and accelerate the process of meeting existing environmental requirements, where developments impact protected sites or protected species. Importantly, I see the merit of this strategic approach in delivering larger-scale and more effective nature conservation measures where development has unavoidable impacts on protected sites and protected species.
However, the strength of concern from knowledgeable stakeholders should give the Government serious pause for thought. The Office for Environmental Protection, which was mentioned earlier, published advice for the Government stating that the existing provisions in the Bill would amount to a regression in environmental law, so it is welcome that the Minister continues to be open-minded about making further amendments. I look forward to hearing about the engagement in another place, where I am certain that further amendments will be brought forward.
The Environmental Audit Committee has heard evidence that there must be stronger safeguards for the proposed nature restoration fund to genuinely deliver on its potential for nature. My objective in tabling amendments to this Bill is to engage constructively with the Government’s approach to part 3, and to strengthen it so that it delivers for nature and development at the same time.
To turn first to amendment 136, I very much welcome what the Minister had to say about scientific safeguards, and I look forward to what he comes forward with. This amendment would ensure that environmental delivery plans are used only where there is scientific evidence that they will work. In other words, there must be robust evidence that a particular negative effect on a protected site or protected species can be mitigated or compensated for at a strategic level, rather than on a site-by-site basis.
Although the strategic approaches that will be delivered by EDPs can work well for some habitats and species, such as nutrients or newts, they do not always work for others. This amendment would safeguard against the EDP approach being applied to inappropriate species or habitats. The Government have recognised this principle and have committed to a modular approach to expanding EDPs with new plans applying feature by feature, and existing protections remaining in place for those not yet covered. I support this approach, and I encourage the Government to enshrine this principle in legislation to give certainty that the scientific safeguards to which they have committed cannot be altered by any future Government without revisiting this legislation.
On amendment 150—
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
In view of the pressure on time, I will limit my remarks to amendment 141, in my name. The Bill, as we have heard, seeks to do many things, but one of them is to accelerate the roll-out of electric vehicle charging points around the country to facilitate the move to electric vehicles. Drivers with disabilities, and there are 1.35 million of them, will also be expected to move to electric vehicles, but public charging points are often unsuitable for them to use. The amendment is designed to address that.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of amendments 137 and 138 in my name. I declare an interest as the co-chair of the local nature recovery all-party parliamentary group and a proud species champion for the hen harrier. I am deeply committed to the protection and restoration of our natural world, and I have tabled the amendments to ensure there is adequate protection for protected species.
I recognise the need to take the housing crisis extremely seriously. I support numerous amendments on affordable homes and social housing, including new clause 32, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would mandate that national and local housing plans incorporate and justify specific targets for both affordable and social housing. It is clear that we need to build more housing, but we must ensure that that includes enough social homes, because a just society must care for both people and planet.
In defence of nature we must remember that nature is not a luxury; it is essential. It sustains our health, our economy, our climate and the rich web of wildlife that makes our planet thrive. From the air we breathe to the food we eat and the water we drink, nature underpins every aspect of our survival, yet we are, as has been said, living in one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world and the consequences are becoming impossible to ignore.
Our peatlands, woodlands, wetlands and seas, once vibrant with life, are deteriorating. These ecosystems are not just carbon stores; they are vital habitats for countless species. As they degrade, they not only release more carbon than they absorb, but drive wildlife into decline. Iconic species are vanishing, pollinators are disappearing, and once common birds and mammals are becoming rarer, pushing many species closer to extinction. Without urgent action to restore these ecosystems, we cannot hope to meet our climate goals, or halt the alarming loss of biodiversity. Every species lost weakens the resilience of nature and our ability to adapt to a changing climate. Protecting nature is not just an environmental imperative; it is an economic, social and moral one. The loss of pollinators threatens our food supply. The destruction of our coastal habitats increases our vulnerability to storms and flooding, and the collapse of ecosystems puts both human and animal lives at risk.
My amendments require that if a protected species is identified as an environmental feature, the environmental delivery plan must include a clear strategy for conservation measures to address the impact of the development on that species within local recovery strategy areas. If Natural England determines that that is not possible, or there is an overriding public interest not to do that, it must aim to conserve the same species at a different site. Recognising the realistic risk of local extinctions and the threats facing specific species, this approach reflects a fundamental truth: protecting nature is not optional; it is essential. Our ecosystems are interconnected, and the loss of even a single species can have cascading effects on biodiversity, climate resilience and human wellbeing. By embedding strong, enforceable protections for species into development planning, we are not only safeguarding wildlife but reinforcing the natural systems that sustain our economy, our health and, importantly, our future.
Carla Denyer
Given the really important points that the hon. Lady is making about the environment and how it is so strongly connected to our economy and public health, does she agree with me—I appreciate that this is on a slight tangent, but she will see where it is going—that the planning rules for big digital billboards, which themselves can emit 11 homes-worth of energy, not to mention the light pollution that seriously affects nature and human health, are illogical and inconsistent? The rules say that planning applications can only be considered on highway safety and immunity grounds, and not on environmental impact or on the impact on human health. Would it not be better if local authorities could make decisions on those grounds as well?
Olivia Blake
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point and I am sure the Minister is listening.
In a time of ecological crisis, every action must contribute to halting and reversing nature loss, because nature is not just part of the solution; it is the solution. I hope the Minister will sit down with me to discuss these points further, as the Bill enters the other House.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 59, in my name, which considers the impact of our planning system on our creative and cultural industries and infrastructure. These spaces are the foundation of our world-beating creative industries and are also very important for our local communities. They are the engine of an industry which is growing at twice the rate of the rest of the economy. They are the R&D labs of a sector that is bigger than our automotive, aerospace and life sciences industries combined. Yet the creatives industries are under threat, including from our disruptive planning system and onerous licensing regime.
My Culture, Media and Sport Committee has heard that live music venues will be back to shutting at the rate of two a week by the end of the year. That is in addition to electronic music venues and clubs, which have been shutting at the rate of three a week. My amendment seeks to help prevent those closures by putting a duty on planning decision makers to apply the agent of change principles, which have existed since the national planning policy framework in 2018. They require developers to ensure that their developments do not disrupt existing businesses in future, as well as places of worship, schools, transport infrastructure and so on.
First, the new clause would be good for venues. Of the 86 grassroots music venues that closed in 2024, one in four shut for operational reasons, including noise abatement orders, neighbour disputes and interventions by the local councils. In the previous Parliament, the Committee I chair held a roundtable in Manchester at the Night and Day Café, an iconic venue. We were there to meet representatives of live music venues from across the north, yet the operators could not attend their own roundtable because they were instead attending a court hearing with Manchester city council to settle a three-year noise abatement dispute—a costly and pointless legal dispute at that, as it started due to a single complaint by a tenant who had moved out long before the issue was resolved.
Secondly, the new clause would be good for developers and new neighbours. Consistent application of the agent of change principle will de-risk and speed up planning and development. It will ensure that the needs of an existing cultural venue are considered from the start and save developers from late-stage objections and lengthy, expensive legal disputes down the line. It will require developers and decision makers to think about the presence of existing venues and will benefit future tenants and homeowners, who should be less impacted overall.
Finally, the new clause would help local authorities. It is councils that have the duties to detect statutory nuisance and investigate noise complaints; it is councils that serve noise abatement orders; and it is councils that get dragged into expensive and often pointless bun fights with local venues, as the Night and Day Café example illustrates. Encouraging councils to consider at the planning stage how developers and venues can find a nice equilibrium in their interests can only help to save them time and money, which is surely more efficient than settling matters in court.
The new clause has widespread support. It takes forward the recommendation of the CMS Committee in the previous Parliament and is supported by the whole live music sector, from the operators of our smallest clubs, pubs and venues to the biggest arenas and stadiums. It will benefit the breadth of our cultural infrastructure, from our historic theatres to our pulsating nightclubs. It is built on evidence given by LIVE, UK Music Creative UK, the Music Venue Trust, the Night Time Industries Association and the National Arenas Association.
The new clause is not about venues versus developers; instead, it is about ensuring we have the balance right between building enough good homes and making sure the places we are building keep the things that make life worth living. Everyone in Westminster and our constituencies agrees that our high streets have been in decline, so it is vital that we protect the places that are special to us, our constituents and our communities—the places that provide a platform for our creators and our world-beating creative industries, where we can make memories, celebrate and have fun.
I hope the Government will support my new clause and, if not today, commit to making this law as soon as possible. Live music is in crisis. The Government need to listen.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to amendment 87, in my name and the names of most Select Committee Chairs—certainly most of those who cover Departments—including the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson), the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi), and the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury).
The amendment relates to the Government’s new approach to the consultation around national policy statements, and in particular to the parliamentary scrutiny of those statements. There is currently a process by which Select Committees join forces to examine national policy statements and provide recommendations to the Government, but the Government are proposing to introduce what they call a new “reflective amendment” procedure where an amendment to planning policy reflects new legislation, changes to Government policy or a relevant court decision since the policy guidance was put in place. We all know that the Government’s aim is to speed up the planning process, but we need to be clear that reducing parliamentary scrutiny can have long-term consequences. I am therefore seeking reassurances from the Minister as to how this will be managed.
This proposal will remove the requirement to respond to either a resolution of either House of Parliament or recommendations from a Committee of either House of Parliament on the proposed changes; instead, the Government would write to the appropriate Select Committee at the start of the public consultation period, which is typically six to 12 weeks, and the Committee would then have the option of inviting Ministers to discuss the proposed changes during that time. My fellow Chairs and I are concerned about this change reducing the Committees’ influence and enshrining in law that the Government do not need to respond to the scrutiny or recommendations of Select Committees.
Dame Meg Hillier
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who has tabled a similar amendment.
Gideon Amos
I am grateful to the hon. Lady and the other Select Committee Chairs for taking up an issue that we took up in Committee, and about which there has been concern across the House. The Government may wish to change NPSs in the light of legal judgments, but does she agree that changes to them for policy reasons, particularly when they affect massive projects like Hinkley Point C and Sizewell, should continue to come before the House?
Dame Meg Hillier
If I move on to what will happen, I think the hon. Gentleman will be reassured. There is a bigger point here, which I do not have time to elaborate on in this debate. This change is part of a trend of Government not appreciating the role of thoughtful, thorough scrutiny from outside the Whitehall bubble—this is a disease affecting Governments of all parties—and of scrutiny from MPs with detailed knowledge of the subject matter. The hon. Gentleman, of course, has a strong track record on this issue outside this place, from before he became a Member of this House.
Those who scrutinise through Select Committees often understand the system, and how a change in policy or law can have a different effect within policy guidance because of the interactions it will have. The worst-case scenario here would be that a Committee did not have time to examine a proposal, or, if it did have time, that the Government ignored the recommendations. I am grateful to the Minister and his officials for the time they have spent engaging with me and the Clerk of the Liaison Committee, on behalf of the Select Committees, to try to mitigate those worst-case risks. In theory, these changes could sound quite reasonable, but in practice, there is a risk that the Government could lose a useful voice that also reflects the views of other bodies. Select Committees also get the chance to question Ministers in public, which is important for transparency and accountability. Select Committees can also give force to the views and expertise—shared in public, very often orally—of bodies with knowledge of the technical changes that could be introduced and wrapped into new or revised policy guidance.
We have all been there when, at the Dispatch Box, a Minister promises that another Minister will attend a Committee and be questioned, but we are talking about having as little as six weeks to work with. We have all been in a situation in which a Minister’s diary is so busy that it is difficult for them to attend, and that would not be good enough in this case. I hope the Minister will give some reassurance that he will, through the normal channels in Whitehall, ensure that every Department is aware of the requirement for a relevant Minister to attend within a period that allows the Committee to produce a report or respond to the Government, which does not mean at the end of a six or 12-week consultation period.
I hope the Minister can give me those reassurances. I would like him to be very clear on the record. I acknowledge the efforts made in Committee to talk about this, and some of the pledges made then, but it is important that these changes and the Minister’s views and pledges are made clear in this Chamber. In Committee, the Minister said that
“Ministers will make themselves available to speak at the Committee during that period, in so far as that is practical.”
He also said that
“not all select Committees will respond in the relevant period, therefore elongating the process”.––[Official Report, Planning and Infrastructure Public Bill Committee, 29 April 2025; c. 103.]
I can clarify for and reassure the Minister that it is the intention of those on Committee corridor to ensure that these things are dealt with in a proper and timely fashion.
I hope that the Minister will ensure both that Ministers attend in a timely fashion, and that there is a proper approach that ensures that Committees get advance notice of a new planning policy statement or revised statement, so that they have time to plan and get their ducks in a row in order to enhance the work of Government by giving them, if necessary, critical-friend comments. Scrutiny in whatever form is absolutely vital. If, as I hope, the Minister will put that on the record today, I will not push my amendment to a vote. It is vital that parliamentary scrutiny be protected as much as possible.
Andrew George
It is clear that we are today debating methodologies, rather than values. Certainly, I do not dispute the Minister’s values at all; we all want to see the growing need met, and the environment protected. The question that we are debating today is the best methodologies for achieving those outcomes. I have submitted a number of amendments covering three areas, which I will rattle through as quickly as I can, all of which support the themes that my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) advanced today, and indeed that he has pursued in Committee in previous weeks.
Amendment 148 relates to housing targets. It proposes allowing local authorities to adopt targets that reduce housing need, rather than simply targets to build homes. House building targets are in many areas part of the problem, rather than the solution to housing need. For example, since the 1960s, Cornwall’s housing stock has been among the fastest growing in the United Kingdom. It has almost trebled, yet housing problems for local people have got significantly worse over that time.
Simply setting house building targets results in massive hope value being attached to every single community around Cornwall. Having worked as a chief executive of a charity that tries to build affordable homes, I can say that establishing house building targets makes it more difficult to address the housing needs of local people. Targets that are about reducing need would change the dynamics of the planning system in places that face these problems.
Unfortunately, the approach to house building targets that has been adopted by parties over the previous decade is built on the delusion that private developers will collude with Governments to drive down the price of their finished product. We can no longer carry on in that delusion. We cannot and should not pursue counterproductive methodologies. Amendment 149 and new clause 108 are consequential on the fundamental change proposed in amendment 148.
My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington has spoken about introducing a new class order to address the prevalence of non-permanent occupancy in some areas. The previous Government were looking at bringing in a new class order for holiday lets, but that should be extended to second homes and all homes of non-permanent occupancy. New clause 92, which is consequential on new clause 91, proposes introducing a sunset clause for planning permission to ensure that there is not a perverse incentive for people to apply to change a property’s use in order to enhance the value of their property when they sell it. This is not about the politics of envy but the politics of social justice. I think those who represent areas or constituencies with large numbers of second homes properly understand how these things operate.
Finally, I tabled a number of amendments relating to affordability, including new clause 89 on affordable development and new clause 90. New clause 89 would prohibit cross-subsidy—or at least open-market development—on rural exception sites. Those sites should not be called rural exception sites; they should be called rural norm sites. That should be the methodology for delivering affordable homes in rural areas. It should be driven by wanting to have affordable homes in such locations.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. In North Norfolk, people want house building that genuinely meets local need and helps address the housing crisis, which is affecting everyone in my constituency. On affordability, does he agree that we need to empower local authorities to define what “affordable” means in their areas?
Andrew George
My hon. Friend is right about that. Affordability is defined for rented accommodation—either 80% of market rent or the local housing allowance, whichever is lower—but it is not sufficiently defined for the intermediate market in rural areas, which includes shared ownership and discounted sale. There are ways that affordability can be achieved, and that should be done within local planning. We should give local authorities the power to define, for the purposes of their communities, what is and is not affordable, and we should strengthen the role of neighbourhood development plans in that respect as well.
New clause 90 would put a cap on developer profit. A lot of people do not understand how planning authorities make their viability assessment when developments are brought forward. There is an assumption of a developer profit of 20%, but when developers ask for amendments to the way that their planning applications are viewed, they will often have undertaken two different valuations, and will come with both. One they present to the planning authority, and one they keep in their back pocket. One of the valuations comes with violins, and a sob story about how they will lose out because of the development, and how they are doing it only for the community. The other valuation is the reality. We know that they are making a killing out of other people’s poverty.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I am pleased to support this important Bill and the Government amendments to it, which will deliver the housing, infrastructure and environmental protections that my constituents need.
First, I welcome the Government’s enhancements to the environmental delivery plan. They provide greater clarity, legal safeguards and appropriate flexibility to ensure that the plan restores and enhances our precious natural habitats. The current piecemeal approach to offsetting environmental harm is not working. The Government’s sensible approach maintains existing protections for nature, and adds to them with the ability to fund high-impact strategic nature recovery projects. I am very lucky that there are several significant nature recovery projects in my constituency, such as Sulham woods and meadows, which I had the pleasure of visiting last week. This project is maximising biodiversity on 130 hectares of marginal arable land, and is planting 24,000 trees, 4 km of new hedgerow and a new walnut orchard. We need more big projects like this.
I would like to highlight the opportunity the Bill presents for our country’s chalk streams. I am proud to represent a constituency that boasts many wonderful waterways, including the entire length of the River Pang—a beautiful, winding chalk stream that is a point of local pride. It is said to be the inspiration for the “Wind in the Willows”, and it is loved by families, dog walkers and anglers alike. But the precious Pang is in crisis. In just a few short years, the water quality has plummeted to poor. Citizen scientists and anglers testing the river, such as Professor Mike Wilson and Pete Devery, consistently report samples with completely unacceptable levels of phosphate and E. coli. The phosphate pollution from Thames Water sewage works is so bad that luminous green from the resultant algae can be seen in satellite images.
I thank all the campaigners, citizen scientists and volunteers with whom I have been working throughout my campaign to restore the Pang. I also thank the ARC project, the Rivers Trust, the Angling Trust, Pang Valley Flood Forum and Berks, Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust, as well as all members of the Pang Flagship Chalk Stream Partnership, which supports a range of initiatives to restore the Pang. They are all dedicated advocates whose restoration efforts are making a real difference. Chalk streams are rare and valuable habitats. Their mineral-rich, stable waters are home to a plethora of species.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The hon. Member is talking about chalk streams, which are the rainforests of the UK. A chalk stream in my constituency has had over 4,000 hours of non-stop sewage, and it sounds like the River Pang has been a victim of something similar. Amendment 16 is so important to protect our chalk streams, and local people say to me, as development comes, that this is actually groundwater. Would she support amendment 16?
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. I will come to my view on that amendment.
Given that 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in England, it is right that we consider chalk streams England’s rainforests. We have a duty, as their custodians, to protect them for future generations. While some chalk streams have protections, such as site of special scientific interest status, many, including the Pang, lack even that. The Bill, alongside our landmark water legislation, is an opportunity to expand the protections for chalk streams. I am grateful for the conversations I have had with the Minister on this issue, and I know how committed he is to our chalk streams, so I ask if he will commit to strengthening the protections for our chalk streams as this Bill progresses.
The Bill is an opportunity to build the homes and infrastructure that this country needs, boost our economy, and protect precious habitats like the Pang. I look forward to continuing to support it.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 74 in my name. First, I thank all Members from parties across the House who signed up to my new clause. I also thank Mr Speaker and his team for the novel offer he made this morning on how we might have dealt with new clause 74.
New clause 74 is very simple. It seeks to ensure that promises made to all of us as MPs by prospective developers when considering applications for large-scale housing developments are honoured. I have lost count of the number of developers who have made promises about so-called flagship housing developments, gained the support of the MP and other local community stakeholders, applied for outline planning permission and then been granted it on the basis of a good mixture of homes. In one case—that of Lutterworth East—a pledge was made by the developer to build a minimum of 40% affordable homes. Those developers give the pledge, obtain the support and gain outline planning permission, but then, a few months or a year or two later, they seek to renege completely on the pledges given.
Rachel Blake
I am really moved by what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Many of us will have had similar experiences. We have been hearing so much about the importance of local decision making. I cannot help but think if only there had been the necessary investment in skills in the planning team who made the decision and determination, and that they had had a planning committee behind them who, by all accounts, could have said, “You need to bring the application back in.” Does he agree that we need to invest in local planning teams so that they can resist such totally inappropriate applications from developers?
Alberto Costa
I welcome the hon. Lady’s suggestion, and I would welcome more resources going into local planning teams, but what we have here is a problem, which she may well encounter in her own constituency. Hon. Members should be very careful indeed when developers promise X, Y and Z affordable, social and accessible homes, even with legally binding section 106 agreements, because those agreements can be changed at whim when a local planning authority is put under pressure.
Martin Wrigley
Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Liberal Democrats that, given the unreliability of section 106 agreements and developers living up to them, as he demonstrated, the best way to get affordable homes for his constituents and mine is through an increased amount of social housing delivered by the local council?
Alberto Costa
I would welcome that. The Government need to take into account Lutterworth East and to ask themselves why a Labour parliamentarian and a Conservative parliamentarian have had to go begging to the Government to look into the matter. The Government purport to want to see more social housing, more affordable housing and more accessible housing, but with Lutterworth East they have had the opportunity to look into that and have chosen not to rectify the issue. In concluding—I am aware that others wish to speak—I simply ask the Government whether they are willing to have a meeting with me and the Labour parliamentarian in question to discuss what they could do on this matter, given that the developer, incredibly, is none other than a county council.
Chris Curtis
May we please start by acknowledging something that still has not been acknowledged enough: the current planning system is broken? Nowhere is that clearer than in our environmental and habitats regulation, which part 3 of the Bill is hoping to fix, and which many amendments—amendment 69 in particular—would make significantly worse.
Let us start with a couple of clear examples. First, we have the lower Thames crossing. Some £250 million was spent on a planning application spanning over 350,000 pages. That is more than 250 times the length of “War and Peace” at a cost that is more than Norway paid to build the world’s longest road tunnel. Fifteen years on, not a single spade is in the ground.
Secondly, we are currently building the most expensive nuclear power station in the history of the human race at Hinkley Point. Why? For the last eight years, EDF has been stuck in regulatory wrangling over—I kid you not—a fish disco: an acoustic system designed to guide fish away from water intakes. Millions spent and still not a single resolution.
My personal favourite is the infamous bat tunnel, where £120 million of taxpayers’ money was wasted on a tunnel that might save a handful of bats from a nearby forest, though many experts argue it will more likely put them in harm’s way. That is not planning; it is parody. While we argue about newts and bat tunnels, what is really happening in Britain is that 150,000 children or more are growing up in temporary accommodation, with all the consequences mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi).
Rachel Blake
My hon. Friend said we have not confronted how the planning system is broken. Does he agree that we have not heard enough about how many children are homeless this evening and will be in the months ahead because we are not grappling with the housing crisis, and that we cannot do that until we address the infrastructure crisis?
Chris Curtis
Hundreds of thousands of children will wake up tomorrow morning in temporary accommodation as a consequence of this, and millions of families will continue paying some of the highest energy bills in the western world. When Russian tanks rolled into Europe, we were dangerously reliant on foreign oil and gas because our planning system consistently blocked the clean, home-grown energy generation that we so desperately need. I see some Liberal Democrat Members laughing. I note that, in many cases, it was their councils that blocked that energy infrastructure from being built.
Chris Curtis
In one of the wettest countries in Europe, we could face summer water shortages because we have not built a single major reservoir in over 30 years. Here is the real kick in the teeth: we have paid all those prices for rules that have failed even on their own terms. We have created endless hoops to jump through and poured public money into bizarre mitigation schemes while Britain has become one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth. We have lost over half our ancient woodland and one in six species are at risk of extinction. We have got fewer birds, fewer butterflies and fewer mammals, and yet more paperwork than ever before.
We should ask this: if these rules are not helping people and they are not helping nature, who on earth are they for? We throw money at scattergun mitigation—fish discos and bat tunnels—while failing to invest in strategic, landscape-scale restoration that actually works. We force every project to fit every issue on site, even when that is more expensive, less effective and totally irrational. That means tens of thousands of individual site-by-site protections, which are bureaucratic, inconsistent and scientifically out of date, and all despite the fact that modern ecological science is clear that nature recovery depends on scale and connectivity, not isolated microprojects.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
When I was building the second runway at Manchester airport, I had similar rants to my hon. Friend’s. I came to hate great crested newts, which were getting in the way of building that second runway. Surely there has to be a solution with balance, one that does not cost a quarter of a billion pounds for looking at the land around the lower Thames crossing, but allows Government and local government to put things such as swift bricks into housing. There has to be balance.
Chris Curtis
I start by appreciating the description of a rant—I will keep ranting on this point until I do not have to speak to my constituents waking up in temporary accommodation because of this country’s failure to build. I note that there is a middle ground; in fact, it is even better than a middle ground, because through this Bill and the changes we are proposing we can improve the situation for nature and improve the situation for building, including incentivising developers—for example through the biodiversity net gain process—to put swift bricks in place.
What we currently have is not a conservation system, but a cargo cult, mimicking the symbols of protection while the reality on the ground gets worse. Contrast that with what protecting nature actually looks like, from this Government: a strategic land use framework that supports farmers to deliver climate and nature benefits across 1.6 million hectares of land—more than half the size of Wales; banning bee-killing pesticides; backing a transition to regenerative farming and planting forests on double the amount of land that will be needed to build the 1.5 million homes.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Chris Curtis
I will make some progress.
Now we have a Bill that will finally move us towards environmental delivery plans that take a far more strategic approach to improving nature and increasing the building that this country so desperately needs. I want these changes to go further. We need to look at the culture within our regulators, especially Natural England, which has become too much of a blocker to building, but this Bill is a step forward, and the amendments proposed would be a step backwards.
I end with this plea, especially to hon. Members on my own Benches who seem to find themselves defending this broken status quo: “Before you vote tonight, talk to the people who will still be here after you’ve gone home. Speak to the person cleaning your office this evening, and ask them what it is like when rent swallows up over half your salary because we have failed to build our way out of this housing crisis. Speak to the person who cooked your lunch in the Tea Room, and ask what it is like to raise kids in a country with sky-high energy bills because we failed to build home-grown energy generation. Ask yourself who you are here to serve: the broken spreadsheets or the people who sent us here?” If we keep putting more and more barriers into our planning system, it is hard-working families across this country who will pay the price. Let us fix our planning system and get Britain building again.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I thank the Minister and the members of the Bill Committee for their hard work on this legislation. I regret, however, that the Minister has been so resistant to amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and from others on the Liberal Democrat Benches, which I now rise to support. My constituents in Bicester and Woodstock want to see a planning system that delivers decent, affordable homes for those excluded from housing, that recognises that investment in infrastructure must come before housing development and that does not create a false distinction between development and protecting nature.
Linda and Gary live in my constituency. Gary has complex needs and Linda is his carer. Their property is not suitable; Gary cannot shower or get to the garden by himself. Linda and Gary have been bidding to West Oxfordshire district council for a property suitable to meet Gary’s needs for more than a year, but they have been continually unsuccessful. As many hon. Members have stated, we have a crisis of social housing in this country. That is why Liberal Democrats want to see an additional 150,000 social homes built every year through amendment 15, and why new clause 112 is so important, preventing developers from ducking the delivery of social homes.
We also need developers to develop the buildings that have been consented. In Cherwell district council in my constituency, more than 8,000 homes have been consented but not built. That has led to a crisis, with villages such as Ambrosden and Launton at the mercy of opportunist developers who have hoovered up sites not contained in the local plan. New clause 3 would put an end to the land banking of consented sites, forcing developers to use them or lose them.
Tom Hayes
I rise to speak in favour of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill because it will build high-quality housing, reform energy grid connections and deliver critical energy infrastructure. I also rise to speak in favour of new clause 82, tabled in my name and backed by 71 MPs with cross-party support, to achieve happy, healthy childhoods. We should bring forward a statutory duty in England, like those in Scotland and Wales, to ensure inclusive and sufficient play opportunities.
The foreword to the first and only play strategy to be published, by a Labour Government in 2008, states:
“Time and space to play safely is integral to our ambition to make England the best country in the world for children and young people to grow up”.
That ambition remains, but the strategy was scrapped because, a few years after its publication with a £235 million budget, the coalition Government drew a red line through everything. We need to prioritise play in this Parliament. Why? Because in the intervening years, hundreds of playgrounds in our constituencies have been boarded up and allowed to rust.
This has been especially true in disadvantaged communities. Our poorest communities have been the greatest casualties of austerity, and we know the consequences. Screen time dominates and we have a rise in social media. Politicians are very good at telling children to get off their screens without providing the alternative play opportunities. With more play and less screen time, we can have better mental health outcomes for children. We can have more safety in our streets and we can have better social development opportunities. Play is prevention. When we improve life quality and life chances, we save the public purse significant sums in the long run because we reduce demand on the NHS, on our councils and on our social services.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and he is clearly speaking on the basis of a great deal of experience as a former senior councillor in Oxford. I wonder if he would like to dwell on some other aspects of this, because in many ways, play also benefits children’s social development and their ability to work and concentrate on learning at school. Does he agree that there are many other benefits to play, and will he praise local authorities such as Reading that are actively promoting play areas?
Tom Hayes
My hon. Friend will know that I have spent a lot of time in Reading getting to know his constituents and the community, and I do indeed praise the people that he is talking about. I agree that, with time and space for play, children will have the very best start in life, but this is not just about children; it is also about their families. We are in an ongoing cost of living crisis. With play, and outdoor play in particular, we have free opportunities for parents and guardians to give their children the support, the social development and the leisure opportunities that they need and deserve.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. In my constituency, the Scalby school playing fields long served the community as vital green space, but that space is under threat as the council is seeking to remove protections, which could lead to its being sold. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why this new clause is so necessary, as it would ensure that the council either kept the fields or made equivalent provision of land for children to play on?
Tom Hayes
I make it a habit to agree with my hon. Friend and I will keep that tradition today. I do indeed agree, and she rather anticipates the points that I am about to make.
New clause 82 is so important because it provides key things that our children need. It would require developers to deliver and fund adequate play in their communities. It would ensure no net loss without equivalent provision as a consequence of development, but let me be clear: this is not about requiring every development to have a blanket requirement. It is not about holding every development hostage, because we know that development is important for growth in our communities. It is about ensuring that councils are well equipped and that planning authorities are supported to take a view in the round of what play sufficiency would be in a given area, and indeed to use contributions from developers to fund adequate—indeed, excellent—play provision.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I know that my hon. Friend is passionate about this issue, as am I as a signatory to this new clause. In my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, I have been working with a group of local parents on a joint campaign for safe, inclusive parks for neurodiverse children. Those spaces benefit not just neurodiverse children but parents who also need somewhere safe to go with their children and young people. In recognition of the cost of living crisis, does my hon. Friend agree that these spaces should be provided for all children, not just those who are neurotypical, and that they should provide space for their parents too?
Tom Hayes
My hon. Friend and I have talked many times about the importance of inclusive play, and I commend her as a fantastic champion for children with special educational needs and disabilities to access those play opportunities. I agree with her entirely, and one thing that my new clause 82 would do is to introduce a requirement for planning authorities to assess play sufficiency, particularly inclusive play sufficiency. That is a critically important point.
In a nutshell, we need to have national policy frameworks and national planning actions that will ensure that the voices of children and their families are properly listened to, that they are consulted on their needs, and that planning authorities are required and supported to introduce the outdoor play equipment and areas that can so enhance their life chances. In so doing, we would be building on the work of that last Labour Government that I was just talking about. If you ever want to enjoy a beautiful photograph that sums up all of what the last Labour Government were doing, have a look at Ed Balls and Andy Burnham on a swing announcing the 2008 national play strategy. It is a fantastic sight. Genuinely, you can see in their faces the joy that comes from play and extending play opportunities. You can see that they are Ministers who are fantastically enjoying their jobs, and that is because they are delivering for children. That 2008 strategy was a critical development in the world of play, and the play sector responded so positively to it. It came with £235 million of investment to provide up to 3,500 new or refurbished playgrounds. I still get sent photographs by people who have seen those playgrounds with the Department for Children, Schools and Families logo on them, with its beautiful rainbow, and we should have more of that.
To conclude, this Bill is critical for children’s development. This is also a pro-growth new clause because we have in our play sector small family businesses who contribute to our economy to the tune of £250 million and are powering employment and economic opportunity in our communities. Our country feels like it needs a lick of paint at times. We need potholes filling, we need litter collecting and we need playgrounds repairing. In so doing, we can bring hope back to our communities, and in doing that we can help people to feel positive about the potential for politics to make change.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes). That was an important speech and I concur entirely with his priority there. It is really important that we invest in the social infrastructure of play for the benefit of children, although not necessarily for the benefit of Ed Balls and Andy Burnham—an appalling image was conjured by the hon. Gentleman there—but I concur with his general point.
I want to speak in support of my new clause 87, which would require the Government to designate more chalk streams as protected sites within six months of the Bill passing. We know that 85% of the world’s chalk streams are in this country. There are only 220 of them, so they are a rare and very special habitat. Most of those chalk streams are in southern England, and I am glad to say that most of the most important ones are in Wiltshire. Morgan’s Hill on the edge of my constituency is a hydrological dividing line where a drop of rain can end up in the River Kennet and then the Thames, flowing out to the North sea. Alternatively it can go down the Hampshire Avon into the English channel, or it can go out west along the Bristol Avon and end up in the Atlantic. This is a very significant place, with water from Wiltshire flowing through the whole of southern England.
Those chalk streams are 60 million years old and they have flowed clear and clean all that time until very recently in the modern era. They are over-abstracted; too much water is being taken out because of overdevelopment and bad house building. They are contaminated with agricultural run-off and, of course, sewage spills. I pay tribute and give my sincere congratulations to all the campaigners in my constituency. We will all have similar organisations locally, but Action for the River Kennet in particular is doing great work to support that river and anglers, schools and farmers in our area. I also pay tribute to the Southern Streams initiative that supports farmers across Wiltshire to restore the health of the soil and the water in our area.
The last Government introduced some important new measures to restore and preserve the health of our chalk streams. These included the water restoration fund, which ensured that the fines levied on water companies for sewage spills went to restore nature in the areas that had been harmed. We introduced a storm overflow discharge reduction plan, stewardship schemes that addressed the question of agricultural run-off and, in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, we ensured that chalk streams were considered as part of environmental assessments for new developments. We also introduced the chalk streams recovery plan, which was sadly halted by the Labour Government when they came into power last year. They kept some of our legacy, I am glad to say, but they have paused the sustainable farming incentive and I am afraid to say that we expect cuts to stewardship schemes in the spending review this week. Crucially, they scrapped the water restoration fund itself. Thames Water was fined over £100 million last month because of sewage spills in our area. That money should have gone to supporting natural restoration in the Thames Valley area, including in Wiltshire. It has been taken by the Treasury. We do not know where that money will go. The Government have also scrapped the chalk stream recovery plan.
My concern about the Bill, and why I tabled the amendment, is that it will put additional pressure on our chalk streams. Yes, we need new building—absolutely, that priority is right and what we need—and building in our backyard, but the backyard of Wiltshire is Swindon. We need to see more intense development in urban areas where the real demand for housing is. That will be a great blessing to Swindon and Wiltshire if we can make that happen.
The new clause in my name would protect more chalk streams as protected sites. I am glad to say that the Kennet and the Hampshire Avon are already SSSIs, but we need to see more streams designated in that way. It is not enough to protect only 11 of the 220 chalk streams in this country; the more designations, the better. That would create genuine momentum behind the preservation of chalk streams, so that when developments are being considered, we can be sure that these vital national natural assets are properly protected for the future.
Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)
The Bill before the House has the potential to be one of the most pro-growth pieces of legislation passed by this place for decades and to transform our country for the better, but the amendments proposed will blunt its impact and make us all worse off. We should reject them for the prosperity of our constituents and the future of our country.
Every day in this place has to be about our constituents and the lives they lead. In Chipping Barnet, time and again I see the impact of our failure to build homes. Take Maryam—a victim of domestic violence and mother of a seven-year-old, working a zero-hours contract. She found herself with nowhere suitable to live to the point that she was living in a car. Or take Hayley—a wheelchair user living in a property that is not accessible for her. Due to a lack of available housing that is appropriate for her, she is often housebound because she simply cannot leave her home without support.
These are the stories of Britain today, but it does not need to be like this. This Bill gives us a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fix many of the things holding our country back. For too long, we have not built enough in this country, and we are paying a huge price for that. Under-investment in our homes and infrastructure has made us all worse off, both financially and socially, living in homes that skewer the prospect of a good life. That is why I do not support the Opposition amendments.
I also do not support amendment 69 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which sadly misses the mark. Labour was elected on a manifesto that sought to prioritise growth and making people better off. The Bill demonstrates how that is possible, alongside improved protections for nature. The nature restoration fund is a genuine win-win, but its successful and timely implementation is put at risk by the amendment.
Dan Tomlinson
I will make a bit more progress.
Let us take the example of nutrient neutrality. It is estimated that no fewer than 160,000 homes across the country have been blocked by Natural England on that basis. That is because on-site mitigation on a site-by-site basis is often virtually impossible, and those homes remain stalled. The environmental delivery plans that Natural England will produce will mean that rather than homes being held up by those rules, the very issues causing nutrient neutrality challenges can be addressed in a strategic way—better for building, for nature and for people. EDPs take the challenge of nutrient neutrality seriously and mean that builders can get stalled sites built, providing much-needed new homes.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend may have slightly confused the point of amendment 69, which is merely to address the concerns raised by the Office for Environmental Protection and to ensure that the nature restoration fund works to deliver exactly the points that he describes with the right nature protection.
Dan Tomlinson
I will come to the point my hon. Friend raises in a second.
If the amendment were adopted, the homes that have been blocked to date would continue to be blocked, and vast numbers would face unacceptable delays or, indeed, never be built. What would happen under the amendment, as we can interpret it, is that we would first have to wait for the EDP to be drafted, for the relevant funding to be secured and for the funding to be distributed to the relevant farmers or others who can help with the mitigation. The works would then have to take place; the impact of the mitigation would have to be monitored; and the monitoring would then have to conclude that it had been a success before any new homes in an area could be built where nutrient neutrality is a concern.
Chris Curtis
Does the hon. Member agree that what he has just described would lead to more delays in the system, which would mean that more planning permissions were held up—something that Opposition Members have complained about? If the amendment were passed, the requirement would also add a lot more expense to the system, which would mean more viability problems and fewer social homes being built.
Dan Tomlinson
I agree with those points. It would also make it virtually impossible to meet our manifesto commitment, on which we were elected, to build the 1.5 million homes that we need over this Parliament.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Member knows that I am a big fan of his. He makes a speech about our and other amendments blocking the delivery of homes. Will he therefore criticise his Government, who have reduced the number of homes required in his constituency through reducing the number of houses being built in London under his mayor?
Dan Tomlinson
I expect the hon. Member knows that the housing targets have been reduced in London because of the additional premium that was put on by the previous Government just to make life more difficult for the Mayor of London, which we all know Conservatives love to do. We are trying to be reasonable and proportionate in the location of the new homes.
As I was saying, it is important for us to do all we can to ensure that we can hit our target of 1.5 million new homes. As much as I respect my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and his work in this space, I hope his amendment will not command the support of the House today.
I know my hon. Friend and Members on both sides of the House are strong supporters of social housing, but without the unamended changes in the Bill, we will not get the social homes that we need to be built. People have spoken movingly about those living in temporary accommodation. I spent four years or so as a child living in emergency and temporary accommodation. I was homeless for a number of years. Back then—15 or 20 years ago—there were not that many young children who were homeless and in temporary accommodation. There are now 160,000 children—one in 21 children in London, one in every single class—in temporary accommodation. We cannot allow a system that fails both nature and those children to persist. I implore any colleagues thinking of voting for the amendment to think of those children and the vital homes that could be built, and built quickly and at pace.
Dan Tomlinson
I should make progress so that others can speak; my hon. Friend and I will have to talk later.
This Bill and this Government are all about the economic growth that ultimately is the route to more jobs, more opportunities and higher living standards—a better life for all of us in every part of the country. That is the potential of this Bill, and we must match the scale of the problem with the scale of our ambition. Britain’s economic decline has gone on for too long. Families are suffering with a crippling cost of living crisis, driven by high housing costs in many parts of the country and high energy bills everywhere. We just do not invest as a country; we do not build, and year after year we find ourselves surprised that we are worse off and that we are stuck in a doom loop from which no politicians in recent decades, if we are honest, have had the guts to pull us out.
We finally have a Government elected on a promise to wrest us from this decline, and legislation that takes steps in the right direction to do just that. Of course, there is more to do—much more—but this is a strong legislative start. For the prosperity of all our constituents, I hope the Bill passes unamended today.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 43, 44, 52, 53 and 81, if I have time. Mid Bedfordshire is a fast-growing area and has accommodated more than its fair share of new homes in the past decade. Since 2012, the two districts that my constituency covers have delivered over 35,000 new homes, including the new town of Wixams. Yet this Government would have us believe that those people in my constituency who have seen housing growth outpace services, who are still waiting for the long-promised GP surgery, for train stations and for other infrastructure, and who fear that the character of their historic Ends villages is being lost, are all blockers because they are concerned about what more badly planned development would mean for the overstretched amenities and services in their area.
The Bill is an opportunity to lead. It is an opportunity not to pit blockers against builders but to deliver a system that turns blockers into builders. Regrettably, as it stands, the Bill will fail, but it does not have to fail. My new clause 52 would create a fairer way of managing new towns by reforming the new towns programme, which seems expressly designed to make local communities resent the towns foisted upon them. It would replace that new towns model with one that does not involve a double whammy of house building—currently, communities that want to do the right thing and build the houses that people need find every patch of countryside is hoovered up because the Government have added a new town on top of the developable area in their district.
My new clause 53 would close the loophole that allows planning authorities to grant developments on floodplains. That is a perfectly sensible and pragmatic position. People in Maulden in my constituency know all too well how bad development compounds the risk of flooding. They are honest hard-working people who want to enjoy the warm and dry homes that their hard work has paid for, but the Government are backing big-box developers, not them. The new clause would prevent developers from getting away high and dry with their profits while our constituents pay the price in flooded homes. New clause 44, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), would do the same by ensuring that where development does happen, developers must deliver and maintain sustainable urban drainage infrastructure. The current guidance is too vague and the current rules too lax to ensure that our residents are protected.
My Mid Bedfordshire constituency has lots of beautiful villages, but they are under threat from the creeping spread of urban sprawl that threatens to merge them into a conglomerate mass of development, which flies in the face of the historically gentle and natural evolution of our beautiful estate villages. I therefore endorse new clause 43 for its efforts to stop our beautiful villages from being lost to future generations.
Wendy Morton
To put it more simply, the sense of urban sprawl is about the green belt not just between specific villages but between communities. We see that between Streetly and Pheasey in my constituency on the edge of Birmingham. Does he agree that it would help to tackle the problem if the Government adopted a truly brownfield-first approach by developing the 1.2 million homes that it is estimated are available on brownfield sites?
Blake Stephenson
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Those green spaces on the edge of and between towns are at risk. It is not just the fields that are at risk but people’s access to green space, which is vital for mental health and wellbeing.
Paul Holmes
In relation to new clause 44, which my hon. Friend supports, does he agree that the Government could very easily accept it because it enables and encompasses an existing piece of legislation and could make a vast difference to many of the developments proposed? Why does he think the Minister will not accept it?
Blake Stephenson
The shadow Minister makes the case for me, so I do not think I need to. I absolutely support new clause 44.
I will make a final point so that we can hear from another speaker. I am proud to support new clause 81 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford). Communities such as Wixams in Mid Bedfordshire too often find that the housing-first, infrastructure-second approach that our planning system prefers mean that they get all of the housing but none of the infrastructure—that is just not right. It is not right that, nearly two decades on from the first shovel going into the ground, it is still not clear when Wixams will get its long-promised GP surgery, while more and more houses are planned around it. We must end that cycle and ensure that where infrastructure is promised, infrastructure is delivered. That is what the new clause will do.
We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to build a planning systems that turns blockers into builders. We must do better than this Bill, which I fear will only build more blockers.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I give Members notice that I will take the time limit down to four minutes after the next speaker.
Chris Hinchliff
I rise to speak in favour of the amendments in my name, particularly amendment 69, which has 53 supporters from across the House.
Every family stuck on a housing waiting list, and every child suffering the insecurity of temporary accommodation, represents a moral stain on our country. I welcome Ministers’ urgency in seeking to address those corrosive failures, which, for millions, underpin a lingering sense that our country is deeply broken. However, I fear that the Government have misdiagnosed the root cause of the housing crisis, which is fundamentally that private capital will never deliver the public good that we need.
The evidence is clear that processes that uphold democracy and nature are not the problem; profit maximisation is. The planning system consistently approves more homes than the private sector delivers, and when homes are built, they are too often unaffordable for those at the sharp end of the housing crisis. Last year, less than 2% of homes delivered through section 106 were for social rent. After 20 years of deregulation, hoping that just one more wave will finally make the market deliver is simply not credible. It certainly does not justify stripping away the few protections that we have left for our natural environment, especially when the Government’s own assessment could provide no concrete evidence that it would work.
We are already one of the most nature-depleted nations in the world, and we can spend what little remains of our natural inheritance only once. If the Government press ahead with their proposals, the national account will soon be empty. There is the kernel of a good idea in a nature restoration fund, but the weight of evidence against the way that it has been drafted is overwhelming: nature organisations, academics, ecologists and the Office for Environmental Protection have all raised serious concerns. I welcome the tone of earlier commitments from Government Front Benchers, but amendment 69 gives Ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation by ensuring that environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature, and that conservation takes place before damage, so that endangered species are not pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established.
The amendment outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed. That will protect irreplaceable habitats such as chalk streams. Our natural capital, which underpins all prosperity in this country, declined by a third from 1990 to 2014. This is a chance to reverse that trend. Given that Letchworth Garden City in my constituency sprang into life without a single mature tree being felled, we can build the homes that we desperately need to clear our housing waiting lists in harmony with nature.
To conclude, the primary value to which our politics has sought to appeal has for decades been self-serving ambition, but as the party of change and of the people, Labour has a duty to serve a higher virtue: hope. I am talking about hope for a future in which our nation no longer imagines housing as an ever-appreciating financial asset, and instead builds homes that provide the secure and healthy environment essential for our physical and mental wellbeing, and that allow everyone to put down the roots necessary to grow and fulfil their truest potential; hope for a future in which we create connected communities of friendship and co-operation, rather than having the grey and miserable utilitarianism of commuter dormitories; hope for a future in which we take every possible opportunity to restore the glories of British nature and can meaningfully say, for the first time in generations, that we have left the nation richer than we found it; in short, hope that we choose by design to surround every man, woman and child in these islands with constant proof that life is beautiful.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I declare my interest as co-chair of the all-party group on local nature recovery.
When the Government first introduced this Bill, they branded it a win-win. They said that we could build the homes and infrastructure that this country desperately needs and protect and restore nature. We have seen in my constituency—one of the fastest growing areas of the country, with a Liberal Democrat-run local planning authority—that it is indeed possible to demand from developers both ambitious house building and high environmental standards that restore nature. We Liberal Democrats believe that a healthy childhood for all children includes homes that are energy-efficient and warm, not cold and damp; access to green space for mental and physical health; and infrastructure, including public transport, GPs and schools.
When done well, nature is a partner to the healthy homes and green energy that our country needs. However, through this Bill, the Government risk taking a wrecking ball to good-quality development. Nature is not a blocker to development. We are pointing the figure at the wrong culprit, and this is cheap, false rhetoric. Nature is not to blame. The Government’s own watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, has publicly warned that the Bill in its current form will be a regression from current environmental protections, rather than increasing the number of homes, helping nature and helping us to meet our binding climate and nature pledges. Instead it will remove vital safeguards and put protected sites and species at risk.
Over 30 leading environmental organisations, including the RSPB, the wildlife trusts and the National Trust, have raised the alarm about part 3 of the Bill, with its very worrying plan to move to a “cash to trash” model for the nature restoration fund. I know the Minister has rejected that characterisation, but in the Environmental Audit Committee we heard robust evidence from expert witnesses that we could call it a “pay some amount later for something, somewhere” fund.
Gideon Amos
Does my hon. Friend share my dismay that the Government are not receptive to amendments to part 3 that would restore the mitigation hierarchy and protection for irreplaceable species and ancient woodland?
Pippa Heylings
I completely concur. We appreciate the work done by my hon. Friend and others in the Bill Committee, and by tabling numerous amendments at this stage to help the Government improve the Bill.
Why do we need more stringent regulations and demands on developers, rather than less? Why do we need evidence and mitigations approved prior to development, rather than a “pay later for something, somewhere” nature restoration fund? It is because we have the evidence to show what happens without much-needed investment in enforcement capacity for local councils. On the Environmental Audit Committee, we heard the conclusions of the Lost Nature report: for nearly 6,000 homes across 42 developments, only half of the environmental pledges were kept. The others were missing in action—a staggering 83% of hedgehog highways, 100% of bug boxes and 75% of both bat and bird boxes. We need more. That is why I am speaking to the targeted amendments my hon. Friend has mentioned, to make sure we can have this win-win. His ew clause 1 would reinstate the mitigation hierarchy as a legal duty. Simply put, the duty is: first, avoid harm; then mitigate if that is not possible; and only compensate and offset as a last resort. This principle has underpinned environmental planning for decades and cannot be cast aside.
Amendments 6 to 10 and new clauses 26 and 29 aim to address the Office for Environmental Protection’s concerns and strengthen the overall improvement test for environmental delivery plans. I support new clause 21, which requires local plans to have due consideration to the local nature recovery strategies, which are currently silent in the planning system. Amendments 16 and 70 would give protections to England’s globally rare chalk streams—our rainforest and our groundwater. We have 85% of the world’s chalk streams, many of them in Lib Dem constituencies, including mine, yet they remain unprotected.
I hope the Government will consider amendments to the Bill, because we face a choice: pass this nature-wrecking Bill as it stands, or fix it by adopting amendments to protect chalk streams, restore wildlife and create a planning system that works with nature, not against it. I know what the Liberal Democrats will be voting for.
Naushabah Khan
I rise to speak as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and in support of new clause 50.
For too long, affordable housing has become a catch-all term that means anything but. Shared ownership and discounted market schemes are products that may work for some, but for many, they offer no real housing security. What those people need is not the option of getting a foot on the property ladder in the distant future, but a roof over their heads now. They need security, stability and homes that are truly affordable, and that means social rent. If we are serious about tackling the housing emergency, then clear, national targets for delivery of social rent homes are essential. That is why I support new clause 50, which would bring forward the accountability and direction that we need to get building and start delivering for those who have been let down for too long.
As housing charity Shelter identifies, building more social rent homes is the only lasting solution to the housing emergency. Those homes are genuinely affordable because their rent is linked to local income; there are secure tenancies; and any rent increases are more predictable. In my constituency—I know colleagues from across the House will recognise this from their inboxes—families are trapped in substandard housing or temporary accommodation for years on end. Many of us have, I fear, become desensitised to the stories of families with no kitchen to cook in, no quiet space for children to learn, and no peace in which to rest.
That is the daily reality for far too many families in the UK. This is a national scandal. Let us be honest: it did not appear overnight. For over a decade, the previous Government failed to build the homes that this country desperately needs. They dismantled council house building, slashed local authority budgets, and left the private rented sector unchecked. Those failures have left this Government with an inheritance of a hollowed-out system that responds to homelessness after the fact, instead of preventing it at root.
I welcome the fact that this Labour Government are changing this reality for families in my constituency through significant policy changes, and by allocating £800 million to the affordable homes programme, and I am proud that a significant proportion of those homes will be for social rent, but we need to go further. Publishing or updating planning guidance on how local and national decision makers can contribute to the delivery of social rented homes can make a significant difference. That would align planning, investment and delivery with a shared goal.
We know the scale of the challenge. As many have noted, we need to build 90,000 social rented homes each year, not just for the remainder of this Parliament, but for the next decade, to meet current demand and get on top of the deep backlog. We must equip councils and delivery partners with the resources, planning powers and clarity of mission that they need. New clause 50 supports that clarity, making sure that every local and regional planning decision is pulling in the same direction.
I agree with the Minister on the need for strategic planning, the potential that spatial development strategies have to unlock large-scale regional housing solutions, and the power of land value uplift to fund affordable homes. These are important tools, but they would be better supported by clear targets. Setting a national target for social rented homes is not about Whitehall dictating numbers from above; it is about saying that we are serious about tackling homelessness.
I echo the words of this Government: this country needs builders, not blockers. Central to that sentiment must be setting a clear social housing strategy, so that we know not just that we must build, but how much we must build, and hold ourselves accountable for delivering those homes.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I will be brief as many colleagues are waiting to contribute. I will speak only to new clause 40, which calls for a review of the standard method of assessing local housing need. A couple of colleagues have already mentioned aspects of it, but I will talk about it for three reasons: it puts too many housing development requirements on rural areas, rather than cities; in areas like mine there are physical constraints, such as national parks, which can cause difficulties; and, as specified in the new clause, the system needs to take account of different types of housing and their affordability.
First, the new formula means that too much housing is being put into rural areas, away from urban areas. As we have heard, in some parts of London and Birmingham targets are being reduced, but there has been a 50% uplift in housing numbers nationally and a 100% uplift in my constituency. This is not a north-south issue; it is repeated in rural areas throughout the country, including in the far north-west and the far north-east. It does not correct what some people may think of as an historical imbalance, where all the developments are in towns and not in the country, because over the past couple of decades developments have been disproportionately in predominantly rural areas rather than predominantly urban areas. This is also bad for the Government’s growth agenda because, as the Resolution Foundation and others have pointed out, skewing development towards cities and towns is better for growth because of connectivity.
Secondly, I am concerned about physical constraints such as national parks. Development in a constituency such as mine, where over half the land area is inside a national park, creates particular issues in the areas just outside the national park. The Minister and his officials have been listening and they have been very helpful; I hope that they will continue to give the issue full consideration and that there will be a change.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I rise to speak to my amendment 134, which seeks to address a long-standing and deeply entrenched failure in our planning system: the chronic undersupply of Gypsy and Traveller sites across England.
My amendment seeks to increase fairness in the system and to enable, rather than hinder, the provision of adequate, culturally appropriate accommodation for Gypsy and Traveller communities. For too long the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers have been overlooked by the planning system. Research by Friends, Families and Travellers and Dr Simon Ruston looked at 100 local planning authorities and found that site provision has barely changed since the legal duty to provide them was scrapped in 1994. Of the 149 public sites in those areas, 119 were built before 1994, meaning that just 30 have been developed in the past 30 years—that is only 30 new sites across all 100 local authorities in three decades.
Decisions on Gypsy and Traveller sites have frequently been underpinned by prejudice, whether overt or institutional. Too often, proposed developments are blocked or delayed by local opposition that is not met with political will or leadership. Site delivery also suffers from a lack of inclusion at the strategic planning level, where Gypsy and Traveller site provision can be absent from local plans and excluded from land allocations. This absence is not an accident; it is the result of years of structural marginalisation that the Bill must now correct. I acknowledge the positive steps that the Government took in 2024, which work toward addressing some of those failures. However, we must go further if we intend to support provision and address inequality in the planning system.
We have seen an increase in private sites, which is welcome, but we often hear about the long, drawn-out, difficult and expensive processes that individual families go through to achieve planning permission. It is crucial to acknowledge that, just as with other communities, home and land ownership is not within reach of many and social provision is much needed. We are still seeing a troubling trend: the number of socially rented pitches is declining. According to the Traveller caravan count live tables, the number of socially rented pitches has fallen in the past five years, with a reduction of 179 pitches.
My amendment would ensure that Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs are explicitly included in strategic planning, which means embedding the site provision in the spatial development strategies under proposed new section 12D to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Those new strategies would help to shape housing across whole regions. Leaving out Gypsy and Traveller sites would repeat the mistakes of the past. Other key planning changes need to be addressed in this Bill, but I will speak with the all-party parliamentary group for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma in due course.
Finally, I remind the House that the Government have committed to delivering 1.5 million new homes by 2029. If that ambition is to be truly inclusive, it must include everyone. That means making space—literally and politically—for communities that have been moved on, fenced off and forgotten. I urge the Government to consider these amendments at a later stage, not just for the sake of legislative clarity, but for the future of Gypsies and Travellers across the country.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I rise to speak to new clause 61, on the issue of cable ploughing—specifically, on the plans put forward by Green GEN Cymru. It proposes a 90-km power line, much of which would be suspended on pylons, across the breathtaking Twyi valley, and an additional 65 kilometres of power line across the equally beautiful Teifi valley. This is not just any landscape; it is the heart of rural Wales. These are not just two valleys across rural Wales; they are treasured by communities that have lived and worked there for generations.
From the beginning, residents and farmers made one thing clear: we support green energy, but it does not have to come at the cost of our countryside. We have called persistently for cables to be placed underground so that we can embrace a sustainable future while preserving Wales’s natural beauty and agricultural land. Unfortunately, our voices have gone unheard. Surveyors have come on to the land without proper respect, disregarding the rights of landowners, and in some cases people have felt intimidated and pressured into signing away land that has been in their families for centuries.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I welcome the hon. Member’s contribution, as she is speaking to my new clause 61. This is a huge issue in Suffolk Coastal, where we have National Grid and ScottishPower Renewables making landfall, and farmers in my constituency have a similar experience to farmers in her constituency. After this debate, perhaps we can request a meeting with the Minister and share these examples in person.
Ann Davies
I would love to have that opportunity. I thank the hon. Lady for putting forward her new clause—it was a pleasure to sign up to it.
We should not expect the behaviour that I mentioned from those who claim to be building a greener future. Let us be honest: if Green GEN Cymru had chosen to place the cables underground from the start, as the new clause proposes, it would have saved itself significant trouble. It argues that that is too expensive, but what about the cost of delay and the legal cost of taking landowners to court, which is what has been happening?
There is another cost: the cost of resilience. Just look at what happened over the last winter during Storm Darragh and Storm Éowyn: overhead lines failed, power was lost in my area for up to seven days and compensation from the National Grid had to be paid. If those cables had been placed underground, the impact would have been minimal. Long-term thinking is not just the right thing, but the practical thing to do.
I remind the Chamber that Wales has the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which is a commitment to development that is truly sustainable and does not compromise the ability of our children and grandchildren to thrive just to cut costs today. Let us ensure that the transition to clean energy serves the needs of both the present and the generations yet to come. Let us ensure that it is not done to our communities, but done with them. Let us deliver a future that is both green and grounded.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendment 91, on allotments and community gardens, and to new clause 60, on landfill sites, both of which stand in my name.
The UK currently has a shortage of allotments, with nearly 160,000 people on English local authority waiting lists. We need more space to grow. For the 8 million people in the UK who have no garden at home, shared spaces such as community gardens are a vital lifeline to nature. I am proud that my amendment 91 is supported by the Royal Horticultural Society, the Horticultural Trades Association, members of the National Network for Community Gardening and the National Allotment Society, as well as by Members across the House.
Without being overly prescriptive, my amendment aims to tackle the erratic provision of allotments and community gardens across the country, making them an essential part of all spatial development strategies. In her correspondence with me, the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali), said that because there was “nothing preventing” local authorities from including those green spaces in their strategies, amendments such as mine were not needed. I would like to refute that—that is precisely the problem. A person’s space to grow should not be dependent on their postcode or the whims of their council. That is especially the case given that the loss of allotment land over the past 75 years—60%—has been eight times greater in deprived communities such as mine.
In his 2024 annual report, Sir Chris Whitty said:
“Making…access to green space easier and more equitable, would go a long way toward removing barriers to improving physical activity levels and could significantly improve the health of England’s increasingly urban population.”
These small but mighty green spaces are about more than just vegetables; they are essential to supporting health, nature recovery and food security. They also supercharge biodiversity, because the quality of soil on allotments creates a unique environment in which life can thrive. In the midst of a nature crisis, gardeners and amateur horticulturists are our secret weapon. What is more, allotments create space for education and social projects. With so many on waiting lists or blocked from turning an unloved patch of land into a community garden, and with a desperate need for nature recovery, my campaign represents a win-win for the Government.
I now turn to my new clause 60, which comes in direct response to a gross injustice for my own constituents. Droppingwell tip in Rotherham was closed in the 1990s following a determined campaign by local residents. It was subsequently capped and returned to a natural state. Two decades later, in 2016, a permit variation was granted by the Environment Agency, allowing landfill operations to resume without any notice to residents. While the Environment Agency had the power to conduct a public consultation, it chose not to do so. Its argument was that as planning permission had been granted in the 1950s, no further scrutiny was required. Vital issues such as traffic, noise, pollution, and the impact on neighbouring properties were given no consideration whatsoever.
It cannot be right that landfill operators can so easily evade public scrutiny simply by reopening long-dormant sites, nor can it be right that my constituents’ views have been totally ignored. While my new clause comes too late for Rotherham, it would prevent the rights of other communities from being trampled by ensuring that planning permission for landfill sites would automatically lapse after 10 years of dormancy. Any proposals to resume landfill operations would be required to be subjected to full scrutiny through the planning system. My amendments can make a real difference, and I hope Government Front Benchers will support them.
Greg Smith
I have always been very clear that my top priority is the protection of the Buckinghamshire countryside and all of our farmland for the production of food, not for development. It is through that lens that I rise to speak to a number of amendments that I think will make this horror show of a Bill that tiny bit better.
First, I will speak to new clause 44, which deals with sustainable drainage, and new clause 53, which would stop development on floodplains. I can think of so many examples in my constituency where development has either happened directly on the floodplain or caused horrendous flooding concerns in communities. In Ickford, the developer’s expert said that flooding would be a “once in 100 years” eventuality, in an area that flooded six times in six months. I stood with the water lapping at the top of my wellies before that development was built to try to make a point, and now those homes are built, guess what? On Worminghall Road in Ickford, the houses that were there before are regularly flooded. Likewise, the construction of HS2 has had an impact on flooding in Calvert Green. Calvert Green simply did not flood before HS2 poured concrete into the fields next door, and now, guess what? It does.
I also support new clause 45, which would stop planning permission in cases where illegal development took place. I can think of examples in my constituency, such as between the villages of Askett and Longwick, where illegal development took place, yet the planning inspector has perversely now rewarded that bad behaviour by giving planning permission. Bad behaviour should not be rewarded and that new clause would stop it.
Others have spoken about chalk streams, which are incredibly important in Buckinghamshire, and new clause 87, which would designate chalk streams as protected sites, is incredibly important.
John McDonnell
There have been many references to the housing crisis and impassioned speeches, which I have welcomed. Like every other constituency in London, we have a housing crisis on a scale not seen before, and it has largely been caused by council houses being sold off and not replaced.
What has happened in my area is a salutary lesson about infrastructure developments. Crossrail is going through and the Elizabeth line has now gone through, so land value prices have gone through the roof. In central Hayes, I have more than 4,500 properties being built. We have no lack of planning permissions—in fact, we have planning permissions coming out of our ears—but most local people cannot even think of affording what is being built. Many have tried to become leaseholders, and now they are being hit by huge increases in service charges, and some cannot even sell on their properties as a result.
With new clause 49, which no one has mentioned so far, we are asking the Government to look at how we can capture land value. There is a discussion to be had about a land value tax, and I think its time is coming. Many of those 4,500 properties are described as affordable, but they are not affordable to local people. That is why new clause 67 is so important, because we do not want affordable properties; we want social rent properties. In fact, I would like simply to give our local authorities the resources and to let them start building again, so that we can have places of a decent standard with a rent that people can afford.
Some 45 years ago, I was on the Greater London Council’s planning committee, and I was chair of finance, too. By the way, we should have some confidence in local government being able to undertake infrastructure projects, because were it not for the GLC—and me as well, actually—building the Thames barrier, most Members here would be swimming. That shows what local government can do. We decry local government too often. I dealt with developers throughout that process, and I can say that I have dealt with some good developers and also some atrocious ones. Often they do not deliver, and often they do let us down, and that is why new clause 69 is so important. It merely asks for measures to be put in place during the planning process before a development is properly allowed to go ahead: in other words, the mitigation is there. Deals have been done in my constituency, such as section 106 deals, that have not really stood up, and the developers have walked away leaving us to clear up the mess.
New clause 74, tabled by the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa)—who is not in the Chamber at present—draws attention to a classic example of what almost constitutes betrayal on the part of developers who come along, develop the site, take the profits and walk away. In many instances, our local council does not even have the financial resources to challenge them legally. For that reason, I am also attracted to new clause 33, which says, “If a developer has let you down in that way, do not give them any more planning permissions.” It gives the authority the responsibility of saying, “No more: you are not going to do that to us ever again.”
In our area, we will, if we are serious, have to go for compulsory purchase orders. Amendment 68 would take “hope value” out of the CPO calculations, which is significant because in the past too many compulsory purchases have failed because developers have applied hope value, which has escalated the cost and prevented us from acquiring property.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I wish to speak about my new clauses 46 to 48.
The Bill concentrates entirely on removing perceived barriers to development. Unfortunately, in the Government’s view those turn out to be nature and the general public, and to that end the Bill proposes a huge reduction in the ability of local residents and councillors to make their voices heard, or to have any meaningful influence over outcomes. That is such a pity, because gaining consent is not an impossibility.
Neighbourhood plans were introduced under the coalition Government. Done well, they represent the best version of local knowledge and local wishes, but there is not so much as a single mention of them in the entire Bill. Nothing could reveal more effectively how far the Government’s focus is from the views of local residents, who are to be treated as “hostiles” who must on no account be allowed to have their say. For that reason I have tabled new clause 48, which would require neighbourhood plans to be taken into account in decision making. Otherwise, I am not sure why they exist at all.
I have also tabled new clauses 46 and 47, which are directed at the need for local infrastructure. New housing development comes with two key promises: that it will bring affordable homes for local people, and that the extra funds it brings will mean more civic amenities. Both these promises are routinely broken. For the last decade, the pace of house building has been rapid in my constituency. Residents have been asked to support large-scale development because, they have been told, it will bring new schools and clinics along with it. In reality, they have seen the houses built but not the services. Why does that keep happening? People usually blame greedy developers, but the real fault usually lies with the Government.
Incredibly, although a school may in good faith be written into a local plan, signed and sealed via a section 106 agreement, that guarantees nothing. When the time comes to build the school, the Department for Education will often withdraw its support, and no DfE support means no school. Similarly, an apparently solid commitment to build a new GP surgery is so many empty words if the integrated care board later decides that it does not want to staff it. As budget pressures increase year on year, Government bodies will decide that it is cheaper to cram more children into existing schools, and more patients into existing clinics, than it is to add new ones.
Unfortunately, the Bill does little to fix those problems. Every time the Government mention supporting infrastructure, it turns out that they mean big national infrastructure. That is important too, but it does not solve local problems. The Government are viewing this problem through urban eyes. Urban centres usually already have sufficient infrastructure in place, but in rural areas such as Horsham, settlements are literally doubling in size, but with the same level of services. As a former local councillor, I have experienced at first hand how hard it is to shape development to meet local needs when planning authorities lack control over so many of the essential factors. No wonder residents object to new housing, when all they see is more strain on services that are already at breaking point.
I hope the Minister will support my amendments. They are intended to improve this Bill, not to sabotage it. Local participation is not something to be feared; rather, it should be embraced.
Nesil Caliskan
I was pleased to be a member of the Public Bill Committee, and I welcome the opportunity to speak in favour of the Bill. I will also speak to clauses 4 and 46, and to new clause 55 and amendment 1, which I worry will further frustrate the planning process—the opposite of what the Bill tries to achieve. As the Member of Parliament for Barking, I see and hear at first hand the impact of the housing crisis, as others do in their constituencies. Every week, I meet constituents who share with me their personal and desperate stories about overcrowding, years spent in temporary accommodation, poor-quality housing and sky-high rents.
Let me say this about hope. Hope is demonstrated through the actions of a Government who are committed to delivering 1.5 million homes and who will tackle the housing crisis—a challenge that has been absolutely ignored for decade after decade. Supply is one of the fundamental reasons why communities like mine are facing a housing crisis. Our planning system is hindering supply in a housing market that is already experiencing huge demand. It is a planning system that too often blocks or delays the necessary infrastructure that would support new homes being built, particularly as overall business cases for house building are intrinsically linked to infrastructure delivery.
On Second Reading, I spoke about the pre-application consultation requirements for NSIP. Like others, I have previously highlighted the lower Thames crossing, so I will not repeat that example, but it is really important that Members keep in mind the amount of money that is wasted through such processes. That is why I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister considered representations made by me and others in respect of reforming the pre-application procedure specifically. I welcome clause 4—alongside Government amendments 58, 60 and 67, and new clauses 44 and 45—which removes the statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for NSIP applications. The changes will mean that delays are reduced and essential infrastructure is consented to faster. That will save up to 12 months from the pre-application stage and millions, if not billions, of pounds. It could make the difference between whether an infrastructure proposal is viable or not, and between whether homes are built in an area or not.
To be clear, that does not mean that applicants will avoid a duty to consult. As the Minister outlined in his statement to the House on 23 April, local communities and local authorities will still be able to object to applications, provide evidence of any adverse impacts, and have their say as part of the post-submission NSIP process. As a vice president of the Local Government Association and a former council leader, I understand all too well how important it is that local people have a voice, but I also understand that a national housing crisis needs a national solution, and this Bill is an important step in trying to achieve that.
At the heart of the debate is a recognition that the housing crisis cannot be solved by individual local politicians seeking to gain political favour by campaigning against new homes in their area. I know how difficult it is for local authorities to develop and agree local plans, but we cannot have a situation in which even though 90% of planning decisions are currently made by planning officers, key projects that would see infrastructure delivered in this country are held up, as are the thousands, if not millions, of homes that we need to deliver. I absolutely support this important Bill, and I look forward—
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I rise to speak to a number of the amendments before us. I spent a lot of time with colleagues on the Public Bill Committee, and some of the amendments are very good and some are not so good. I will try to rattle through as many as I can.
I support new clause 43, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). Our villages should have the same protection as our towns. Villages have a unique character across all our constituencies, and I am privileged to represent six of them—Brickendon, Hertford Heath, Great Amwell, Stanstead Abbotts, St Margarets and Goffs Oak. I have seen a local council that has built probably too much development in a village, and I have seen that change the fundamental character of Goffs Oak. We should be trying to protect that character, because when people move to villages, they do so for the rural way of life and their unique character and identity. We should stop urban sprawl, and we should stop villages linking together.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a wonderful point about the new clause I have tabled. Does he agree with me that this is about improving our environment and reducing pollution, and we need to think about all of that when we consider this Bill?
Lewis Cocking
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and of course I agree. She makes an important point, and I fully support her new clause. I know she is a keen advocate for this provision in her constituency; it is about creating communities. As I have said, this Government are interested only in hitting a national target, which I and lot of experts in the industry do not think they will meet.
The Government need to think about how they are going to create the communities of the future and the places where people want to live. That means designing them to be really nice, getting developers around the table and agreeing design codes, and making sure developers really put their money where their mouth is. We should ensure we have tree-lined streets, because when we go out in our constituency, as I am sure you do in yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, a tree-lined street is absolutely beautiful to walk down. It is so much better for the people living there and everybody in the constituency if we make that a reality for lots of our residents. Rather than just focusing on building a set number of houses, we should focus on creating the communities of the future and the places where our constituents want to live.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of amendment 69 and new clause 32, which were both tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff). I commend him for his work on the Bill.
I believe the Government have got it wrong with their changes to nature protection. I appreciate that Ministers will say that they come from a genuine desire to address the housing crisis, but the Bill removes the foundations of our nature laws, including the mitigation hierarchy that requires developers to avoid harm. Nearly every major conservation group opposes the Bill and the Government watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, says that it degrades nature protections.
Amendment 69 offers practical improvements, ensuring that environmental delivery plans achieve their stated purpose of making developers pay to offset damage to nature. It ensures that plans result in an improvement to the specific feature being harmed, so that the Bill does not give a green light to degrading irreplaceable habitats.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The Wild Justice “Lost Nature” report, which was produced by a team including my excellent constituent Sarah Postlethwaite, reveals that housing developers are frequently failing on their legally binding ecological commitments. Its survey of 42 new housing developments, including two in my constituency, shows that only half the ecological enhancements promised, including hedgehog highways, bird boxes, bat boxes and planted trees, were actually being delivered. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while trusting developers’ promises, we must take up-front steps to empower and expand Natural England and other authorities to hold them to account?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
Yes, I wholeheartedly agree.
Amendment 69 also mandates that improvements be delivered before harm occurs. Without that, we risk species being pushed closer to extinction before their habitats are replaced. Worst of all, the Bill still will not deliver the affordable homes we desperately need.
Dan Tomlinson
The explanatory statement to amendment 69 states:
“This amendment would require Environmental Delivery Plans to set out a timetable for, and thereafter report on, conservation measures, and require improvement of the…status…before development takes place in areas where Natural England”—
thinks there could be harm. How long does my hon. Friend think that that would take in the case of nutrient neutrality and a developer who wanted to build a new social home?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I do not have a specific answer to that point. I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer to that.
The Government’s own impact assessment provided no data that environmental protections are a blocker. Nature in the Bill is being scapegoated to distract from a broken developer-led model.
Sean Woodcock
We have heard a lot about the failure of developers to build infrastructure, protect nature and provide enough social housing. Does that not just show that the status quo is broken, and why the Bill is so important and heading in the right direction?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
The current system is broken, absolutely, but I do not think that hard-pressed planning officers are the problem. I think developers are the problem, and that is the point that I am coming on to make.
Last year, less than 2% of new homes were social rents delivered through the planning system. Private developers prioritise maximum profit with high-end luxury builds, particularly in constituencies such as mine. At the current rate, we would need to build over 5 million homes to deliver just 90,000 social rent properties, yet there are over 1 million people on waiting lists. That is why I signed new clause 32 to introduce binding quotas for affordable and social rent homes. If we are serious, as I believe Labour is, about getting families out of temporary accommodation and off waiting lists, local authorities need the power and funding to lead a new generation of council house building.
We also cannot ignore the fact that the developer-led model creates conflict with nature, as under-resourced councils are forced to accept whatever sites developers propose, regardless of how suitable or unsuitable they are for sustainable development. There is no amount of killing badgers or red tape bonfires that will fix that. It is too simplistic to argue that this is a debate of builders versus blockers. The overwhelming majority of planning applications are approved, which is why we had more than a million planning permissions approved in the past decade that have yet to be built. Developers continue to drip feed developments into the system, prioritising properties that maximise profit and are far from affordable for local people.
It is time, therefore, to move away from the failed market dogma and, I believe, to return to Labour values. The post-war Labour Government built millions of homes supported by the planning system our party created, and it is time we did it again.
Wendy Morton
I rise to speak to new clause 84, in my name, and to add my support for new clause 51 on solar and battery energy storage systems, and new clause 39 on solar.
New clause 84 seeks to prohibit the development of battery energy storage systems on higher-quality agricultural land. In a debate on this topic in this Chamber just last week, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) that there is 78 GW of battery capacity that is either operational, awaiting construction having received planning permission or awaiting consideration, which is equal to supplying 200 million homes—10 times the number of houses we actually have. This is ludicrous.
There are numerous questions over safety, fire risk, accessibility and proximity to homes and communities, yet these storage systems are replacing land that could be used for crops and grazing for animals with metal containers, eating into our national food security at a time that we should be increasing food security and strengthening our food chains. Farmland, as we all know in this place, is irreplaceable—when it is gone, it is gone. We are seeing far too many planning applications coming forward that would risk green-belt land being trashed, with the term “grey belt” used to create a grey area that planning inspectors will take advantage of. I hope the Government are listening to this point, and those made by others on solar, as well.
In the time I have, I want to support a number of other new clauses and amendments that I know matter to my constituents, such as new clause 79, on the duty to co-operate. It is not that we do not expect to have targets in constituencies such as mine; we just do not expect to do all the heavy lifting. We do not expect to have to pick up the can and let failing authorities such as Labour-led Birmingham off the hook. The council certainly cannot manage Birmingham’s bins and it cannot manage its housing, either; three years on, none of the properties in the Commonwealth village in Perry Barr has been let.
It cannot be right that housing targets in areas like Birmingham and London are being placed on authorities such as Walsall, where our targets are being hiked up— not least when evidence points to more people wanting to live in towns and centres. Surely what we should be doing is regenerating these areas and building on our brownfield. If we do it sensibly, it will protect the green belt, protect our environment and protect the green and open spaces that we all love and enjoy.
I will also speak in support of new clause 45, on intentional unauthorised development, something that really irks some of my constituents. They write to me and come to see me about developers or individuals who flagrantly breach or ignore planning regulation or permissions, creating misery for their neighbours. How can someone simply get away with doing that sort of thing without repercussions, when others abide by the rules and are left picking up the pieces?
I have already spoken of my support for new clause 43 on preventing the merging of villages. That is crucial to constituencies like mine, which is on the edge of Birmingham, and has communities that are at risk of being consumed into its urban sprawl. Finally, there is so much I could say on Natural England. I worry that the Government are giving more powers over planning to an unelected quango, while taking power away from local authorities and councillors.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I rise to speak to new clause 58 in my name. It would place a clear environmental and climate duty on Forestry England and its parent body, the Forestry Commission. That is a simple but crucial step that is long overdue. Forestry England manages over 198,000 hectares of land across England, and with that comes huge untapped potential. Estimates suggest that around 100,000 hectares of ancient woodland and open habitats such as lowland heath could be restored. Restoration at that scale could deliver a fifth of the Government’s legally binding target to create or restore 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitat, as set out in the Environment Act 2021. That is a massive opportunity that we cannot afford to waste.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I wonder whether my hon. Friend agrees that new clause 56 in my name would also enhance biodiversity. Simple acts such as providing bird boxes and swift bricks can enhance the environment in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.
Alex Sobel
Absolutely. We have seen a huge loss in biodiversity in this country. As Lord Goldsmith, a Minister in the former Government, said in the other place, we are one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. Making small changes in planning law will increase biodiversity.
The duties on Forestry England are simply too weak. Its only existing nature duty is the biodiversity duty, updated in the 2021 Act, but it is ineffective. It requires Forestry England only to consider biodiversity, not contribute to nature recovery. That is not good enough. It lacks clarity, enforceability and, crucially, any tie to our legally binding nature targets. As a result, economic interests too often take precedence. Forestry England continues in many cases to prioritise commercial forestry over restoring biodiverse habitats, including areas of ancient woodland. There are no legal climate duties on it, either. Its climate work, while good, is entirely at the whim of political feeling at any time.
This imbalance is rooted in history. The Forestry Commission was set up in 1919 to promote timber production, and that economic priority still dominates. It is reinforced by the growth duty in the Deregulation Act 2015, which requires the Forestry Commission and Forestry England to have regard to economic growth. However, as the nature and climate crisis has worsened, the law has failed to catch up. The result is missed opportunities, poor outcomes, and actions that directly undermine Government policy, such as grant funding of invasive species and the approval of development on deep peat.
Let us look at the facts. The target for restoring damaged ancient woodland is 5,000 hectares a year, yet under the last Government, in 2023-24, just six hectares were restored. That is indefensible. New clause 58 is a straightforward, cost-effective fix. It would rebalance the scales, and give Forestry England a proper legal duty to contribute to nature recovery and climate goals in a way that is in line with the Government’s targets. That means no more missed changes—just clear accountability, better outcomes and better value for public money. I urge the Minister to look at new clause 58 and consider giving Forestry England the clear mandate that it needs in order to deliver for people, nature and the climate.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
I rise to support new clause 39. Building large-scale solar farms on productive agricultural land is short-sighted. The proposed Maen Hir project, classed as a nationally significant infrastructure project, will cover over 3,000 acres of agricultural land on Ynys Môn. This is not just any land; it is land that sustains rural livelihoods and underpins the economic and cultural identity of the island.
Let us not forget why Ynys Môn is known as Môn Mam Cymru—the mother of Wales. Our island has long been the breadbasket of the nation, playing a key role in food production. This land is not just soil; it is security. Replacing it with solar panels serves developers, not communities. The climate crisis will make suitable agricultural land scarcer, which makes protecting what we have now even more important. Once such land is lost to development, we will not get it back. That is not sustainability but short-term gain at long-term cost.
We see serious inconsistency in how planning policy is applied. In Wales, under the planning process, good-quality agricultural land is considered for smaller-scale developments, but when it comes to large-scale NSIPs, such as Maen Hir, those protections seem to vanish. The contradiction between Welsh and UK Government policy is unacceptable. There must be a level playing field, regardless of the scale of proposals.
We have already felt the impact of energy insecurity in recent years. Let us not repeat the same mistakes with food security. I ask the Government to rethink their approach; to protect our agricultural land, our economy and our communities; and to support new clause 39.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 64 in my name. It seeks to encourage a greater focus on the delivery of affordable housing through rural exception sites. I tabled it to prompt further consideration of the role that this policy can play in addressing the urgent need for affordable homes in rural communities. As many who represent areas with significant rural populations will know, we have a serious housing problem. Waiting lists grow faster in rural areas than anywhere else, and young people are forced out of villages and towns by the lack of affordable housing. Parents face old age without the comfort of their children nearby. Pubs, post offices and shops start to struggle for lack of customers. Those businesses close, and a small village and the whole community feels the damage.
Rural exception sites, which are usually found on the outskirts of small settlements, offer a modest but vital solution. Developed for the provision of affordable housing to those with a connection to the area, they help sustain local economies, retain local people and skills, and keep families together. Because they adjoin villages, development takes place on a gently human scale; houses radiate out from a historical core, respecting the historical and rural situation. These are not soulless, disconnected housing estates. This is development on a scale that ensures that affordable housing is woven into the fabric of our communities, not added on. It preserves and recreates the social mix once typical of our towns, where, as Nye Bevan remembered,
“the doctor, the grocer, the butcher and farm labourer all lived in the same street”.—[Official Report, 16 March 1949; Vol. 462, c. 2126.]
That sort of community is now an exception, but let us reform rural exception sites and offer a route back to that ideal.
Despite the potential, the rural exception site regime is alarmingly underused. Out of 145 local authorities in the country, only 25 used rural exception sites to deliver affordable homes in 2021-22. I thank the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who is not in his place, although he was here for most of the afternoon, for his support for my new clause. Cornwall leads the country by example: 50% of what is delivered on rural exception sites across the whole of England is in Cornwall, and 20% to 30% of housing delivered in Cornwall is through rural exceptions. Why do we not equip other areas across the country, including my county of Suffolk, to do the same? Increasing awareness and engagement will double the output of affordable housing on such sites, so let us encourage officers and local authorities across the country to take a much closer look at the guidance. That will give us a new engagement strategy for delivery partners, who will work with the local community and landowners, which will be crucial.
By giving rural exception sites the prominence they deserve in planning, we increase the supply of affordable homes but maintain the unique character and spirit of our rural communities. I was heartened to read in the Government’s response to the consultation on the revised national planning policy framework that further consideration is indeed being given to exceptions as a means of supporting rural affordable houses. That is welcome, and I am optimistic about the potential for rural exception sites to be brought forward in much greater numbers, delivering small-scale affordable housing that is crucial to ensuring that the English countryside has vibrant and inclusive communities for generations to come. Let us put the life back into the heart of rural England.
Aphra Brandreth
I love trees, which is why I rise to support new clause 63 tabled in my name. I am sure that all of us in this House recognise the value of trees—not just their ecological importance, but the character and beauty that they bring to our communities and high streets. I hope that I can demonstrate why amending the rules to allow for sensible guidance on planting trees can help to liberate local authorities from their default, over-cautious position, and kick-start a tree-planting revolution.
New clause 63 seeks to remove some of the ambiguity and misconceptions surrounding the regulation of tree planting along highways. The Highways Act 1980 includes provision for local authorities to maintain free-flowing roads, but those provisions can and have been misinterpreted to block tree planting. In particular, the licensing rules established in section 142 of the Act should be relaxed to make it easier for local residents to plant trees. Too often, even well-meaning councils impose unrealistic demands. In Windsor and Maidenhead, for example, individuals planting trees must pay between £500 and £1,000 in administrative fees and secure £10 million in public liability insurance—hardly encouraging. Hampshire county council’s strict interpretation of section 142(5) has led to a one-metre buffer around utilities, blocking many ideal planting sites, despite minimal risk to those services.
Let me briefly touch on the environmental case. A Woodland Trust report, “The benefits to people of trees outside woods”, found that roadside trees are highly effective at capturing pollutants—especially important, given that traffic is a major source of air pollution in the UK. A study by Lancaster University even showed that planting silver birch on a terraced street reduced harmful particulate matter inside nearby homes by more than 50%. Trees also play a critical role in supporting biodiversity; common roadside species such as lime and flowering cherry trees are not only beautiful, but vital for pollinators, helping to maintain healthy ecosystems.
Cheshire is a proud dairy and beef farming county. We have some of the most carbon-efficient cows in the world, and we should be proud of that record, but if we can further improve our environmental impact, that can only be a good thing. In rural areas, having tree-lined roads can help to reduce ammonium levels and impacts on habitats and the surrounding environment. Again, placement of trees matters; having more trees near semi-natural habitats that need protection has a greater impact than having more trees in established woodland. Of course safety must remain a priority, and not every road is suitable for tree planting, but where space and conditions allow, trees can improve road safety. Studies have shown that tree-lined streets feel narrower, naturally encouraging drivers to reduce their speed.
There are many more benefits that I could speak to, such as improved soil quality, but time is short, so I will finish by touching on the aesthetic benefit of trees near highways. They really do make a difference. They stand the test of time, they add character to the area, they take on cultural significance, and they improve our mental health, our perceptions and our appreciation of the areas in which we live. By amending this Bill through new clause 63, I hope we can empower local authorities to plant the right trees in the right areas where there is local support, and I am confident that we will notice the benefits of doing so.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I was privileged to be a member of the Bill Committee. I started the Committee as a supporter of this legislation, and I rise to speak now as an equally strong supporter of it.
Many of my constituents in Dartford are also extremely strong supporters of change. Their town is regularly paralysed by overspill traffic from the overloaded Dartford crossing. That has been an issue for decades. The need for a new crossing was first suggested as long ago as the 1980s, yet despite a route having been agreed in 2017, development consent was granted only this year. Hundreds of millions have been spent on the process so far. I strongly support the measures to streamline the NSIP regime and give more certainty on large and much-needed projects such as the lower Thames crossing, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis). This Bill will make changes to dramatically improve the situation, and that fact must not be lost as we debate the amendments today.
Ellie Chowns
I will get straight to the point: there are two big problems with this Bill. First, there is no social housing target, which means that it does not do anything to secure delivery of the fit-for-the-future social rent housing that we so desperately need, as colleagues across the House have said tonight. Secondly, it rolls back vital nature protections, effectively giving developers carte blanche to bulldoze nature to build luxury homes that are accessible only to the richest.
Green MPs gave the Bill a chance on Second Reading—
Ellie Chowns
I am sorry, I will not give way because there are so many colleagues who still want to speak and we are short of time.
Green MPs gave the Bill a chance on Second Reading, because a secure home is out of reach for too many people. Rents are spiralling, over 165,000 children are living in temporary accommodation and over 1 million people are stuck on housing waiting lists. It is scandalous that just 3% of the housing built in the last decade was for social rent, and there is now a wait of more than 100 years for a family-sized social home. I served on the Bill Committee for the past six-plus weeks and I worked hard to persuade the Government to fix the serious flaws in the Bill, but unfortunately those calls have so far been ignored.
I am profoundly concerned that, in the glaring absence of a social rent housing target, this Government are writing a charter for developers’ greed. That is why Green party MPs have tabled new clause 78, to push for safe, warm homes in the communities we love at a truly affordable price. It would require housing plans to set targets for building zero-carbon social rent housing based on local needs, because without an explicit social housing commitment, big developers will be able to line their pockets even further while ordinary people are still locked out of affording a decent home.
I am hugely concerned, as are so many people and the nature organisations that we all trust. By the way, the Bill rolls back nature protections. That is why I have proposed amendments 24 to 63, which would delete part 3 of the Bill entirely, because the Government repeatedly blocked cross-party efforts in Committee to amend part 3 to reduce its harmful impact on nature.
Part 3 is harmful for three key reasons. First, it weakens and undermines the requirement for nature protection to be achieved to a high level of scientific certainty. Secondly, it creates a “pay to pollute” system, allowing developers to skip straight to offsetting, trashing the long-established principle of the mitigation hierarchy—that is, that development should first seek to avoid harm. Thirdly, it upends the requirement for compensation to be delivered up front and creates wiggle room for developers to avoid paying the true cost of the harm they do.
The Government know the nature crisis in our country is severe, yet they repeatedly voted in Committee to reject a raft of constructive amendments to improve part 3 and ensure a win-win for housing and nature. I remind the House that the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto pointed out that
“the Conservatives have left Britain one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world,”
but part 3 will make that terrible situation worse. It is not just the nature organisations that tell us that; it is the independent expert advice of the Office for Environmental Protection, which says that the Bill constitutes a “regression” in environmental law, directly contradicting the assertion of the Secretary of State.
If Ministers insist on bulldozing ahead on part 3, I urge them at the very least to accept my new clause 26. With cross-party support and wide backing, it seeks to match the current degree of certainty for environmental protection. I also strongly support amendment 69, in the name of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which would ensure that improvements are delivered before the damage they are compensating for.
We can and must both protect nature and build warm, affordable, zero-carbon social rent homes. The Government said it is what they want. Sadly, it is not what the Bill delivers. Without urgent change—
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
The planning system certainly needs change, but local people know their area, which is why local planning authorities must retain their current powers, as outlined in amendment 1. As we have heard, each area is different. In my constituency we are fortunate to have the Loddon and Whitewater chalk stream rivers nurturing ecosystems and sustaining biodiversity.
The Labour manifesto promised
“more high-quality, well-designed, and sustainable homes… creating places that increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery.
Chalk streams in this country are at risk. A third are over-abstracted, a third failed their phosphorus targets, and a third failed their fish and plant assessments. Only 11 have any form of protection. We cannot rely on the local nature recovery strategy or the national planning policy framework to protect those ecosystems. These rivers need bespoke national protection written into primary legislation in this House, as outlined in amendment 16. We cannot make reparation after the fact. Once chalk aquifers are destroyed, they cannot be replaced. When we say irreplaceable, we mean it.
The Government also say they want to make the UK a clean energy superpower. My colleagues and I are thrilled that the Liberal Democrats’ call for solar panels on new homes is finally being implemented. Solar power is a key way to harness the power of the natural environment as we develop infrastructure for our communities. Supporting new clause 7 and putting solar panels on all new car parks would be the natural next step in the right direction.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Electric vehicles are key to achieving energy independence, but charging inequalities are simply holding us back, undermining net zero and energy security. Does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities must be empowered to approve safe cross-pavement charging solutions without expensive and time-consuming street work licences or planning applications?
Alex Brewer
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on those policies.
Solar panels do not just soak up the sun and create clean energy; they also provide shade, protect vehicles and, frankly, over a car park they look quite good while they are doing it. We should be prioritising solar panels on the 250,000 hectares of rooftops and car parks across the country, not on our precious green spaces. Car parks are often located in energy intensive areas— near hospitals, shopping centres and office buildings—so it makes perfect sense to generate the power right next to where it is needed.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that car parks and rooftops might be a good place for solar, but this country’s prime agricultural land is not?
Alex Brewer
We must find the right balance between agriculture and renewable energy.
France has already taken the lead by mandating that all car parks with more than 80 spaces must be covered with solar panels. The Bill is the right place for us to implement a similar clause. Solar photovoltaics produce about 10 times more energy per square kilometre than biomass. Solar is efficient, clean and ready to go. I am highly concerned that the Bill is overcommitted to biomass, which is not a form of renewable energy. In Britain, we have the knowledge and expertise to develop new housing, energy and infrastructure with nature in mind. The Government are treating this issue as an either/or, but we could and should be much more ambitious and have both.
Helen Maguire
I rise to speak in support of my new clause 93 and amendments 122 to 126, which aim to tackle the growing electric vehicle charging divide—an issue that is not only about infrastructure, but about fairness, affordability and climate action.
Nearly four out of every 10 households in the UK do not have a driveway. For many of them, the transition to EVs remains a challenge because bureaucratic barriers mean that they face charging costs that are 10 times more expensive compared with those who can charge their car at home. Today, someone with a driveway can charge their EV overnight for as little as 7p per kilowatt-hour, but a driver without one may be forced to pay up to 80p at a public charger. That means over £1,000 more per year, and renters, residents of terraced homes and lower-income families bear the brunt.
My amendments would cut unnecessary red tape and enable local authorities to approve safe cross-pavement charging solutions without expensive and time-consuming street works licences or planning applications. They would give councils control while empowering residents to take part in the EV transition. That is a vital step in closing the gap between those who can charge affordably at home and those who cannot. It would help to reduce reliance on overstretched public chargers, support grid resilience and build confidence in the EV transition, while unlocking green jobs and cutting emissions.
This is also an issue of energy security. Sky-high energy and fuel bills are hurting families and businesses, fuelling the cost of living crisis. Russia’s assault on Ukraine has reinforced the need to significantly reduce the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels and to invest in renewables, both to cut energy bills and to deliver energy security. Electric vehicles can help millions of families to avoid a petrol premium, save on travel costs and strengthen our national security and independence.
If we are serious about hitting net zero, cleaning our air and reducing the cost of living, we must make EV adoption a genuinely accessible and affordable option for everyone, not just for those with a driveway. I urge Members to support my common-sense, future-facing amendments and new clause 93.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to my amendments 145 to 147 and to highlight the importance of new clauses 39, 84 and—if I have time—83.
My amendments seek to correct a clear oversight in the legislation by extending the energy bill discounts to those who live near energy generation sites, rather than simply to those who live near energy transmission sites. Why is it that those who have pylons built near their homes are compensated, while those who have solar farms—such as the proposed Green Hill development near Grendon, Easton Maudit and Bozeat in my constituency —are not? That arbitrary distinction exposes the Government’s proposals as not only inconsistent, but fundamentally unfair. Such disparities understandably rile residents who must live cheek by jowl with solar farms. By simply extending the energy bills discount, the Government would at least put an arm around those who bear the burden, and would encourage communities to embrace renewables. I encourage the Minister to take that forward, but I will not hold my breath.
New clauses 39 and 84 are essential. The number of proposed battery energy storage systems is—if Members will pardon the pun—exploding. They should not be built on higher-quality agricultural land. The Government say repeatedly that food security is national security, but any plans that take agricultural land out of producing food leads the Government and this country down a very dangerous path. We must encourage and incentivise farmers to do exactly that: farm. The Government are creating an either/or situation by allowing battery energy storage systems and solar on higher-quality agricultural land. I urge Members to support these new clauses.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that it is hoped that new clause 82 has been selected to be called for a separate decision of the House. My concern is that the House will be denied the ability to have that separate decision.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that the Member who put forward the amendment has the right to withdraw it and has indicated that they will do so. It is at the Chair’s discretion whether a separate decision is called for, and in this case it is my understanding that the amendment is not going to be moved.
Sir Gavin Williamson
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that the Member should shout and make it clear on the Floor of the House that he does not wish the amendment to be put to the vote, so that Members can voice their opinion.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Member for his further point of order. If I do not call the Member to move his amendment, and it is not my intention to do so, there will be no separate decision.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I am entitled to raise a point of order.
I appreciate your ruling on this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I ask for clarification because it is my understanding that if we have been informed that an amendment is for separate decision, the Chair asks the Member whose amendment it is whether they want to withdraw it, with the leave of the House, and I have never seen that question not being put on the Floor of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for that point of order. It is simply not the case that it has to be withdrawn on the Floor of the House; this has happened on numerous occasions.
I call the Minister.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to rise to respond to what has been a very comprehensive debate. [Interruption.] A significant number of amendments have been spoken to in the course of the debate—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) should not be shouting at the Clerks in that way. I have made my point.
I call the Minister.
Matthew Pennycook
A significant number of amendments have been spoken to in the course of the debate and the House will appreciate that I do not have the time to address the vast majority of them. I will therefore focus on addressing as many of the key amendments and points of contention as I can. I have been extremely generous in giving way in opening the debate, but I hope that hon. Members will now appreciate that to get through as many points as possible I will not be taking further interventions.
The debate this evening has evidenced support from across the House for nature and for ensuring we get the nature restoration fund right. I spoke in detail about the Government’s position in opening the debate. As I repeatedly made clear in the Bill Committee and will reiterate this evening, we are listening to the concerns raised by hon. Members and stakeholders. We are clear that this is the right model to take us forward.
We are of course open to ways to improve the legislation, however, and on that basis, and to emphasise the point I made earlier in the debate, we are giving serious consideration to ways in which we might instil further confidence that part 3 will deliver the outcomes we believe it will, such as providing greater confidence in the rigour of the overall improvement test, as raised by the OEP and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos).
We are also giving due consideration to how we can provide for greater certainty in the timescale for delivering conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), as well as seeking to clarify the evidential basis and environmental rationale for strategic conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). The status quo is not working. The case for moving to a more strategic approach is compelling and I look forward to further consideration of part 3 in the other place.
Turning to the important issue of children’s play areas and playing fields, I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling new clause 16 and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for tabling new clauses 82. I particularly commend my hon. Friend on all that he is doing to make the case for high-quality, accessible and inclusive areas for play. The Government agree that access to play space is vital, which is why strong protections are already in place.
The national planning policy framework is clear that local planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities, and opportunities for new provision, including places for children’s play. In December, we strengthened the strong protections already in place in the NPPF by adding explicit reference to safeguarding “formal play spaces”. That means that those facilities can be lost only where they are no longer needed, or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative
Given the existing policy expectations, safeguards and sources of support, we do not believe that it is necessary to add the sort of legislative requirements the amendments would entail. However, I recognise the importance of what the amendments seek to achieve, and the provision of play space is one of the areas we are considering as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision making, on which we will consult this year. I commit to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East to writing to my counterparts at the Department for Education and at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we are acting across Government to increase spaces for play. I will work with him to broker the necessary ministerial meetings that he seeks. With those assurances, I hope that he and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Turning to swift bricks, which were mentioned several times during the debate, we recognise that they are a vital means of arresting the long-term decline of the breeding swift population. While swift brick coverage is increasing, with nearly 30 house builders having made a voluntary commitment to install one for every new home built, the Government want to do more to drive up swift brick installation. However, there is a principled difference of opinion as to the best way to achieve that objective. Although I understand why many are attracted to the argument that the only way to make a significant difference to swift numbers and other red-listed species is to mandate the incorporation of swift bricks into all new-build properties, through building regulations or free-standing legislation, I take a different view.
In all sincerity, I do not believe that amending building regulations is the most appropriate way to secure the outcome that the House as a whole seeks. As building regulations are mandatory, going down that route would compel developers to install swift bricks in all new buildings, irrespective of what they are or where they are located.
Matthew Pennycook
No, I will not.
Contrary to what hon. Members might assume, amending building regulations is not a quick fix. It can take years for changes to feed through into building design and we do not think that swifts can afford to wait that long. For those and other reasons, I remain of the view that changing national planning policy is the more effective route to securing swift bricks as a standard feature of the vast majority of new buildings.
As the House will be aware, the revised NPPF published in December expects developments to incorporate features that support priority or threatened species such as swifts, bats and hedgehogs. However, as I have made clear to many hon. Members over recent months, we have always intended to go further. We are specifically giving consideration to using a new suite of national policies for decision making to require swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings, unless there are compelling reasons that preclude their use or that would make them ineffective. That would significantly strengthen the planning policy expectations already in place, so that, for example, we would expect to see at least one swift brick in all new brick-built houses.
I believe that is the best way we can achieve the objective of seeing swift bricks used as widely as possible, as the use and placement of swift bricks can be integrated into the planning process and become a standard expectation in the design of new developments. We will be consulting on a new set of national policies for decision making later this year. So that no one can be in any doubt about our intentions here, the Government have today published new planning practice guidance setting out how swift bricks are expected to be used in new developments, as an interim step ahead of the planned consultation.
We also heard from several hon. Members who want to see stronger protections put in place for chalk streams. The measures in the Bill will not weaken existing protections for those valuable areas for nature, but the Government continue to give careful consideration to this matter in the context of ongoing reform to national planning policy and I am more than happy to engage with hon. Members from across the House on it.
I turn to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which would have the effect of preventing the Government from implementing a national scheme of delegation for planning committees. Put simply, it is a wrecking amendment, and the Government cannot accept it for the following reasons. Planning is principally a local activity, and the Government recognise the vital role that planning committees play. However, we must ensure that they operate as effectively as possible. At present, every council has its own scheme of delegation, and 96% of planning decisions in England are already made by planning officers. However, there is significant variation across the country, which creates risk and uncertainty in the system. As such, we believe that there is a robust case for introducing a national scheme of delegation.
Since Committee stage, when we debated these issues at length, the Government have published a technical consultation setting out our detailed plans for reform in this area. I encourage hon. Members to read that consultation, in which we propose splitting planning applications into two tiers, providing certainty about what decisions will be delegated to expert officers and at the same time ensuring that councillors can continue to focus on the most significant proposals for housing and commercial developments to allow for effective local and democratic oversight of the most controversial applications where warranted. I believe that if Members engage with the detail of that conversation, they will recognise that what is being proposed is not an attempt to ride roughshod over local democracy, but a sensible and proportionate change designed to improve certainty and decision making in the planning system. However, on the fundamental point of whether we should introduce a national scheme of delegation, the Government’s position is an unequivocal yes. For that reason, I cannot accept the new clause in question.
I turn briefly to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington relating to the Bill’s new reflective amendment procedure for national policy statements. I reassure the House that our changes are not about eroding parliamentary scrutiny, but about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made, and we absolutely recognise the value that such scrutiny brings to getting important changes right.
As I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, several safeguards are in place that will ensure parliamentary oversight is protected; I will happily restate them for the record. Where we intend to make a reflective amendment, a statement will be laid in Parliament announcing a review and we will write to the relevant Select Committee. Ministers will make themselves available to speak to that Committee as far as is practicable, and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period.
Let me be very clear in response: the Government recognise the importance of Ministers attending Committee to explain the proposed changes, and I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister and I will write to colleagues to ensure that is fully and clearly understood. Importantly, the NPPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted. I hope that clarifies the process and reassures my hon. Friend and the House more widely.
Finally, I will address some of the amendments about provision of affordable and social housing, including new clauses 32 and 50, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The Government are committed to the biggest generational uplift in social and affordable housing, and in our first 10 months in office we have put our money where our mouth is. We have announced new £800 million in-year funding to top up the 2021-26 affordable homes programme, and we announced in the spring statement an immediate injection of £2 billion in new capital investment to act as a bridge to the future grant programme, which is to be announced this week in the spending review.
To date, we have not chosen to define a target for social and affordable housing, and there is good reason why that is the case, including the fact that the sector has faced significant financial constraints and needs regulatory certainty. That was made worse by many of the completely irresponsible and unacceptable decisions made by the Opposition when they were in government over the past 14 years. It would not be appropriate to set a target until after the sector is stabilised, knows what is required and, importantly, is clear on what investment will be available to support delivery, which will become apparent only after the spending review. A range of complex factors contribute to the numbers of affordable houses coming forward in this country and impact on the sector’s ability to build more homes, but we will of course keep that matter under review.
I will very briefly mention the green belt and the protection of villages. As the House will be aware, we recently published guidance in relation to the green belt. None of the long-standing green-belt purposes are touched by those changes, including the purpose of precluding the merging of towns. The guidance does not remove those appropriate and relevant protections from land around villages, and any green-belt land—including land in, or near, villages—that conflicts with the relevant purposes would not be identified as grey belt.
To conclude, I once again thank all hon. Members who have participated in today’s debate for their contributions. The Government will continue to reflect on the arguments that have been made. I urge the House to support the targeted amendments to this Bill that the Government have proposed, to ensure we can realise its full potential.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 69 accordingly read a Second time.
Simon Hoare
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder if you could fill a gap in my ignorance —I am sure you can. Earlier today, Mr Speaker announced that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), whom I will call my hon. Friend because he is my county neighbour, would not move new clause 82, to which I am a signatory. Mr Speaker had said that the new clause would be subject to a separate decision, and anybody would interpret that to mean that there would be a vote on it. My understanding, from previous experience, is that when the principal signatory to an amendment decides not to move it, any hon. or right hon. Member who is a co-signatory to it is at liberty to move it, to test the will of the House. It may well be that the Standing Orders have changed, and that I am negligent of that knowledge. If that is the case, I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what has changed?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Had he been in the Chamber earlier, he would have heard several earlier points of order on this question. He would also have heard me say that a decision on the new clause would be at the discretion of the Chair, and Mr Speaker indicated earlier that there would be a separate decision. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), who tabled new clause 82, indicated that he wished to withdraw it. A decision on it is at the discretion of the Chair. If the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) wishes to question that further, he is at liberty to do so.
Paul Holmes
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] Labour Members may chunter, but I have a right to raise a point of order on process in this House. Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask for your guidance? I am a relatively new Member, but it is my—[Interruption.] I want to raise a point of order, and it is not up to them to say I cannot.
New clause 82 has been signed by over 60 Members of this House. Through the usual channels, I was told, as shadow Minister, as were others, that the Speaker’s Office had selected the new clause for a separate decision. Over 60 Members have signed the new clause, and my understanding of precedent in this House is that any Member who has signed it can move it. It is a new and dangerous precedent if Members can indicate before the debate that they wish to withdraw a new clause, and other Members who have signed it are not given the choice to move it. May I seek your clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker? It seems highly unusual that over 60 Members have signed the new clause but none of them can move it, especially when we were given an indication that it would be subject to a separate decision on the Floor of the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his further point of order on this subject. I have provided the clarity for which he asks. The decision is at the discretion of the Chair.
New Clause 43
Protection of villages
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, issue guidance for local planning authorities, or update any relevant existing guidance, relating to the protection of villages.
(2) Any guidance issued under this section must provide villages with equivalent protection, so far as is appropriate, as is provided for towns in relation to—
(a) preventing villages from merging into one another,
(b) preventing villages merging into towns, and
(c) preserving the setting and special character of historic villages.”—(Paul Holmes.)
This new clause would provide existing villages with protection equivalent to that currently provided to towns under the NPPF.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Business without Debate
Breast Cancer Screening: Bassetlaw
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The first known descriptions of breast cancer date back to beyond 3,000 BC. Hippocrates described the progressive stages of breast cancer in 400 BC, when he outlined his theory for its cause. Although breast cancer mortality rates have been decreasing since the 1970s, approximately 11,400 women and 85 men die of breast cancer every year. That is 32 deaths from breast cancer every single day of the week.
We all know someone who has been impacted by breast cancer—a mother, a sister, a granny, a daughter, a colleague or a friend. For me that was my nan, the matriarch of the family, a character, fit and healthy, who went out daily to clean other people’s houses. We lost her when I was 19 years old. She was too embarrassed to show her breast to her doctor, and explained away her lump as an injury caused by falling off a window ledge when cleaning windows. By the time she finally went to the doctor, it was too late, and she died months later. We lost her too soon. Perhaps it was also fear that kept her away; two of her sisters were also taken by breast cancer.
That is such a familiar story. So many women being treated for breast cancer tell of family members—aunts, sisters, mothers, grandmothers—who have been through the same experiences. My nan was of Jewish descent. It is now known that Jewish people of Ashkenazi heritage have a one in 40 chance of carrying the BRCA gene mutation, which means a much higher chance of developing breast cancer—a one in two chance before the age of 70. For the sake of my family, I am currently having genetic screening to check that, if it was the familial cause, it has not been passed down. I urge every woman of Jewish heritage to do the same. Screening is provided free by the NHS and can be done in the home.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Medical testing of the BRCA1 gene is effective, but polygenic risk factors mean that if someone has a combination of genes, they might be more at risk of breast cancer. Does my hon. Friend think we should be rolling out polygenic risk testing so that, with a better understanding of their genes, women know how often they should have their breasts checked?
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I was diagnosed and went through the journey of early-stage breast cancer during the covid pandemic. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the system understands that breast cancer can present in younger women, not just in older women?
Jo White
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I have sympathy for her experiences and hope that she is now fully recovered. Yes, we must be conscious that women of all ages could have breast cancer, and awareness must be raised so that women continue to check their breasts for it.
What I do know is this: breast cancer screening and early detection save lives. The earlier that breast cancer is detected, the simpler and more effective the treatment is likely to be. Between the ages of 50 and 70, on a three-year cycle, women will get a letter in the post inviting them in for screening. A chance conversation last autumn with a local GP alerted me to his concern that the number of women attending Bassetlaw hospital for screening appointments had dropped dramatically. I asked the chief executive of our local hospital trust to investigate that, and he quickly came back with some worrying figures showing that attendance had dropped in recent times to below 50% of women invited for screening. This was either due to an appointment cancellation or a no-show on the day. NHS England data shows that prior to the coronavirus pandemic 78% of women in Bassetlaw and Doncaster were going for screening. The decline is dramatic and is not unique to Bassetlaw.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this debate forward. I spoke to her before the debate and her concerns are those of us all, and that is why we are here—to try to make lives better. Across England, Wales and Northern Ireland breast screening coverage remained relatively steady over time until 2019, at an average of 76%, but following covid in 2019, breast screening coverage had decreased to 65% by 2022. The covid impact on breast screening is entirely worrying, as is the fact that most trusts are not back to pre-covid screen test rates. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need a co-ordinated approach throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to enhance screening rates? We look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Jo White
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and agree that it is worrying that only half of the trusts in England are meeting the national target of 70% of eligible women going for their screening, but next year we hit a milestone in that it is estimated that almost 1 million women will be invited for screening. I welcome the fact that NHS England is actively encouraging more women to book and attend their screening. Will the Minister provide more detail on that?
To be honest, in Bassetlaw I cannot wait for a national operation to kick in. Last month I launched the “Bassetlaw love your boobs, get them checked” campaign, supporting local women and encouraging women to go for their breast screening. I pay tribute to the wonderful Bassetlaw women who have been active in the campaign—women such as Liz Rew and Maria Charlesworth, who found lumps in their breasts and went for their screening. Barbara Baldwin and Claire Previn joined my campaign as they have had friends taken too soon by breast cancer; I do not want anyone else to have to go through that. Lynn Dixon from Bassetlaw had breast cancer in her family and was first diagnosed at the age of 36 after finding a lump, and she has just recently found another lump and was screened. This week she is facing further treatment for breast cancer. My thoughts and love are with Lynn right now. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Jenny Bailey is a former NHS nurse and midwife in Bassetlaw who had her breast cancer identified following routine screening. The women from Bassetlaw are amazing, using their life experiences to join the fighting spirit, encouraging their friends, family and neighbours to get screened.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady very much for introducing this debate, because it is so important. I could not agree more that screening is incredibly important, but we also need to make sure that modern radiotherapy treatment is available for those whose breast cancer has been detected. NHS England has degraded the availability of radiotherapy treatment in many regions over the last 10 years. I understand that breast cancer patients from Bassetlaw have to travel over an hour, as they do in my area, to receive the radiotherapy that they need. What might the hon. Lady say about the Government’s new cancer plan? I hope it goes a long way to resolving the problem of getting access to radiotherapy, which is so effective.
Jo White
I welcome the hon. Member’s contribution. Women in Bassetlaw have to travel all the way to Sheffield once they have been diagnosed to have treatment and radiotherapy. That is a long journey and it would be better if the cancer could be treated in Bassetlaw. I wait to hear how that can be achieved in future years, because it is so important for people to be treated close to home.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for introducing this debate. She has mentioned several women whom I know personally, having worked with them, and she is absolutely right that they are incredible. I particularly send my sympathy to Lynn and her family. We know that barriers to improving breast cancer screening rates include not only awareness but accessibility; it is about people living in rural areas being able to get to where treatment and screening can take place. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to think not only about treatment but about the way in which people access that treatment when they are in rural areas like mine and hers?
Jo White
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution and I agree with him. In Bassetlaw, we have a single unit, but there are mobile units in rural areas that might encourage a better take-up rate.
The misconception that only women can get breast cancer is far too common. Almost 400 men get breast cancer every year, including my constituent Danny Emmerson from Worksop, who found some lumps in his armpits while he was sitting watching TV. He went to his GP to get checked and was quickly diagnosed with breast cancer. I thank Danny for joining my campaign to raise awareness that men get breast cancer too.
My ask today is that everyone in the Chamber, man or woman, checks themselves, and encourages their wives, partners, daughters, granddaughters, sisters and all the women in their lives to attend their breast cancer screening appointments. This debate is not the end of my campaign. On 29 June, I will be running the Race for Life in my constituency and visiting the Bassetlaw Princess Diana mammography unit to help tell the story of how easy it is for people to get their breasts screened.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friends the Members for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) are in their places. The data for Doncaster and Bassetlaw hospitals covers all of our constituencies. While I understand that we can presume that there are lower attendance levels by those who live in our more deprived wards, will the Minister provide advice on what more the Department can do to ensure that we can get hospital-specific data for breast cancer screening uptake?
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that is critical that we get data at that level, so that our Doncaster and Bassetlaw teaching hospitals NHS foundation trust can target the areas, and perhaps even the age groups, in which women’s take-up is lowest?
Jo White
I agree with my hon. Friend. We have data, but we remain unsure where the lowest uptake is. I would like to go to the wards in my area where uptake is low and knock on doors to encourage women to go to their screenings, so it would helpful to have precise data from the two hospitals in the Doncaster and Bassetlaw hospitals trust.
Several organisations across Bassetlaw support people with cancer, and I wish to highlight the work of Aurora in Worksop, which offers support to people during and after cancer treatment. From exercise spaces to beauty treatments, emotional support or even just a cup of tea with a friendly face and a listening ear, organisations like Aurora in our constituencies are the unsung heroes for people going through the challenge that is cancer treatment.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and neighbour on securing this important debate, and on the campaign that she is leading on women and men being screened for breast cancer early. Uptake is very low nationally, which is a problem in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme. Incredible work is done by organisations like Visit Bawtry. In October last year, over 70 organisations turned the town pink during Breast Cancer Awareness Month, raising £15,000 for breast cancer charities and, most importantly, amplifying the message that it is important to get early detection to save lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that efforts by grassroots organisations are vital, and that the Government must support them, as well as supporting improved screening access and public health messaging?
Jo White
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, and I agree with him. Bawtry is just across the border from my constituency, and it has a very strong community. When I go to through these towns, I see how many people come out on to the street to support one another, so I am sure that the campaign he mentions is very strong. I have come across many charities and organisations working on this issue in my constituency; they often involve people who have had breast cancer, and who want to educate other women and encourage them to be screened. They are very important to the work that we are doing.
Since the beginning of breast screening checks in 1988, there has been a cut-off age of 70. My campaign includes women who are above the age threshold for being invited in for screening. My nan was over 70 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer. Why do women over 70 have to rely on memory and a phone call to get their screening appointment? All women can get breast cancer; it does not discriminate by age or background.
I thank Bassetlaw women Sue Shaw and Barbara Baldwin, who are both over 70 and are now missing out. They argue that the cost of treatment for breast cancer far outweighs the costs of screening. Early prevention not only saves lives, but saves the NHS money. They are calling for the threshold to be eradicated—that is their ask and mine of the Minister. As we have heard, early diagnosis of breast cancer can save lives, and I am doing everything that I can locally to encourage women to attend their screenings when they are invited. My Bassetlaw message is: love your boobs, and get them checked.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) for bringing forward this debate on a really important topic that is close to my heart and, I know, the hearts of so many other hon. Members. It is really important to ensure that as many women as possible take up the offer of screening. They should not feel embarrassed to seek help if they feel something untoward when checking their breasts.
My hon. Friend has spoken really eloquently, and has been supported by other colleagues. As she has done on other occasions, she has highlighted her family’s experience of losing a loved one due to the fear of seeking medical advice, and she is right to raise the issue of the downturn in women choosing to be screened in her constituency and, sadly, across the country.
Survival rates for breast cancer can be good. If breast cancer is found early, at stage one, the five-year survival rate can be as high as 98.2%, but the five-year survival rate plummets to 26.6% when breast cancer is not found until stage four. The earlier breast cancer is caught, the earlier it can be treated, and the more likely it is that the patient will recover.
Everyone is encouraged to check their breasts for lumps. There have been some excellent public health campaigns over the years from various charities explaining what to look for, be it a lump, a discharge or a dimpling of the skin on the breast. If a change is found, it is essential that no time is wasted before contacting a GP. That is why screening is an essential tool in our arsenal when trying to prevent this disease.
A mammogram can identify breast cancer before it is large enough to be felt. The NHS national breast cancer screening programme invites all women aged 50 to 71 to attend a screening appointment once every three years. Mammograms can be uncomfortable, as those of us who have had them know, and many women have anxiety about having to get undressed in front of strangers, but that short discomfort could save a life. It is important that we encourage all women not to put off their scans.
The NHS breast screening programme was badly affected by the pandemic, as we have heard this evening. Screening for breast cancer was paused, and when it restarted, the number of women taking up the offer did not recover to pre-pandemic levels. Even after the backlog of missed appointments had been cleared, the take-up of invitations was low, and data indicates that lots of women are still not coming forward to start their screening journey. The NHS is doing more to help to drive up engagement, and we can all do more to help, as my hon. Friend is doing.
The most recent NHS data shows that breast cancer screening uptake in the area including my hon. Friend’s constituency is reported at 74.1%, with an achievable standard of 80%. That is higher than the national average of 70%, but it is short of that achievable high standard. Also, the percentage of women screened within 36 months of their previous screen is reported at 97.5%, versus the acceptable standard of 90% and the achievable standard of 99%.
While more can clearly be done to increase uptake, I hope that those figures for the entire patch that includes my hon. Friend’s constituency provide some reassurance that women are coming forward to be screened. However, I absolutely take the point made by her and her colleagues that the data needs to be understood at a more granular, local level—particularly data on the women coming forward in areas of high deprivation. I will ensure that my hon. Friend has access to that information following this debate.
I am pleased that the Doncaster and Bassetlaw teaching hospitals breast screening service has made significant improvements over the past year to improve attendance at appointments. I really commend my hon. Friend’s “Love your boobs” campaign, and the work that she has highlighted with local women like as Liz, Maria, Barbara, Claire and Lynn, and with men such as Danny, which makes the point that is important that men also check. The service has recently expanded availability by offering more appointments outside traditional hours. It has extended its clinic hours, and has regular Saturday appointments. The invitation method has also been changed from open appointments to timed and dated appointments, which has been shown to help increase engagement, and the service has met with the Cancer Alliance and commissioners to review ways of increasing uptake. I understand that Doncaster and Bassetlaw teaching hospitals’ breast screening service is planning to invite my hon. Friend to visit a clinic in her constituency. I hope that visit will furnish her with further information about local efforts to increase uptake, and I know she will make sure that visit happens.
In February this year, the NHS launched a national breast screening awareness campaign to encourage more women to take up the offer of screening, and debates such as the one we are having tonight help raise awareness of its importance. We are not complacent: as well as increasing the uptake of routine screening, we need to make sure that the women who are most at risk are screened more frequently. The breast screening after radiotherapy dataset, or BARD, programme is working to identify and invite women who received radiotherapy involving breast tissue when aged between 10 and 35. As we have heard this evening, genetic tracing programmes are also looking at identifying carriers of genes, including BRCA, that predispose individuals to a higher risk of breast cancer. Those women are entitled to more frequent screening, and we need to ensure that they are identified and informed.
The UK national screening committee is considering other changes to the breast screening programme. It is looking at whether women with denser breasts need to be screened differently, and an ongoing trial called BRAID—breast radiography to aid identification of cancers in dense breasts—is looking at breast density. The UK NSC is discussing the first findings of that trial, which I am sure hon. Members will maintain a close interest in. It will continue to review BRAID and other findings as they become available to ensure that early decisions can be made to keep the screening programme updated and dynamic.
We are also investigating the age thresholds for screening. Currently, only higher-risk women are invited for screening below the age of 50. The programme stops at the 71st birthday, although women aged over 70 can choose to opt back into regular screens. A trial called AgeX is reviewing whether an additional screen three years before and three years after the existing age thresholds would increase the effectiveness of this programme and ultimately save more lives, and the EDITH research study is looking at whether artificial intelligence can be used to support the reading of mammograms. If it can, that could relieve pressure on the workforce and allow more screens to take place, as there would be increased capacity to translate the results. The Government have already invested £11 million in that trial, and we keenly await the results.
More widely, the Government are committed to tackling breast cancer and ensuring that women get diagnosed and treated faster and more efficiently. That is why we will publish a national cancer plan later this year. That plan will have patients at its heart and will cover the entirety of the pathway, from referral and diagnosis to treatment and ongoing care, as well as prevention, screening, research and innovation. It will seek to improve every aspect of cancer care to improve the experience of, and outcomes for, people with cancer. Our goal is to reduce the number of lives lost to cancer over the next 10 years.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and other hon. Members for being in the Chamber this evening, giving this House an important opportunity to shine a light on the lifesaving importance of breast screening. My hon. Friend is doing a great service in publicising her work with the NHS, and I wish her good luck with Race for Life. We all have the same goal, and together, we can improve outcomes and increase the number of women surviving breast cancer.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Fleur Anderson)
I beg to move,
That this Committee has considered the draft Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank all Members who have come this evening to discuss this important piece of legislation, which was laid before the House on 6 May 2025. I also thank all those who work towards peace, security and justice in Northern Ireland.
The draft order extends provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 that enable criminal trials to continue to be conducted without a jury in Northern Ireland where certain conditions are met, for a further two-year period until 31 July 2027. Otherwise, the provisions would expire on 31 July this year. The non-jury trial provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, which apply only in Northern Ireland, provide for non-jury trial in exceptional circumstances where certain conditions are met that create a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired were the trial to be conducted by a jury. The decision to proceed with a non-jury trial is made by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, following a request from the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the Public Prosecution Service.
In a non-jury trial, a single judge sits alone to hear the case and must give the reasons for any conviction. Any person convicted before a non-jury trial has a right of appeal on either sentencing or conviction, without leave. The Secretary of State has determined, following a 12-week public consultation and consideration of the indicators previously identified by the working group on non-jury trials, as well as wider information about the security situation in Northern Ireland, that these non-jury trial provisions continue to be necessary to uphold the fair and effective administration of justice in Northern Ireland.
I reassure the Committee that, in Northern Ireland today, there is a strong presumption of a jury trial in all criminal cases. In 2024, of all Crown court cases in Northern Ireland, only 0.7% were conducted without a jury—that is 10 out of 1,501 cases. However, the non-jury trial provisions, in the small proportion of cases in which they are exercised, not only protect potential jurors from the threat of intimidation but often offer certain defendants protection from the possibility of a hostile or fearful jury.
I further reassure the Committee that the Government ran a 12-week public consultation from 9 December 2024 to 3 March 2025. The public consultation received 17 responses: nine were in favour of extending the NJT provisions for a further two years, three were opposed to extending the provisions for a further two years, and five neither clearly supported nor objected to extending the provisions. The responses in favour typically cited the continued presence of paramilitary control and coercion in Northern Ireland communities, meaning that victims and witnesses fear participating in the criminal justice system, and that there is a continued risk of jury intimidation.
Some of the responses against extending the provisions suggested that the alternative non-jury trial provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 could instead be relied upon in Northern Ireland. However, as pointed out by some responses in favour of the extension, the threshold for the use of those provisions is set much higher than under the 2007 Act, which makes it unsuited to deal with the unique challenges associated with Northern Ireland, as it would expose jurors to an unacceptable level of risk of intimidation and potentially undermine the administration of justice.
In addition, while the 2003 Act includes provision for a non-jury trial where there is jury tampering, it does not mitigate against the risk of juror bias, which the consultation responses have demonstrated to be an ongoing risk in Northern Ireland. The full details of those responses to the consultation were published in the Government’s consultation response document, which can be found on the Northern Ireland Office web pages on gov.uk. That was published on 6 May, the day this draft order was laid before the House.
As well as the public consultation, the Secretary of State’s decision has been informed by the indicators identified by the working group on non-jury trials in 2022. That group was established following recommendations by the former independent reviewer of the Justice and Security Act, and was composed of representatives from the Public Prosecution Service, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Court service, the Bar, the Law Society and other independent organisations.
The group developed a set of indicators to assist the Secretary of State in determining whether these non-jury trial provisions remain necessary in Northern Ireland. Those indicators included several indices of the current levels of paramilitary activity and intimidation in Northern Ireland. In conjunction with the consultation responses, the Secretary of State considered those indicators and determined that they demonstrate that it would not be appropriate to remove the non-jury trial provisions at this time.
The Secretary of State and I are aware of the unease that some may feel about the extension of these measures, but I thank those who have worked courageously over the years to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe. From those efforts, real progress has been made since the worst days of the troubles to reduce the threat posed by paramilitarism. However, that threat has not been sufficiently reduced. In the period since the last extension of these provisions, the threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism was severe, until being lowered to substantial in March 2024, where it has remained. Regrettably, the continued presence of paramilitary control and coercion in some Northern Ireland communities necessitates the extension of these provisions.
I am very aware that this will be the ninth extension of these non-jury trial provisions, which were designed to be temporary, but the safety of the people of Northern Ireland is paramount, and the administration of justice cannot risk being impaired in our society—our society that has come so far since the dark days of the troubled past. The normalisation of the justice and security arrangements in Northern Ireland, when it is safe to do so and compatible with the interests of justice, is a priority of this Government.
Therefore, without prejudging any future consultation, the Secretary of State has asked officials over the next two years to examine how Northern Ireland could move away from these provisions, when the time is right. We are not taking this for granted; however, at this time, further progress on the Northern Ireland security situation is required before we can be confident that these non-jury trial provisions are no longer required.
The Government will of course continue to work strategically with security partners to tackle the threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism. That is why this Government have increased funding to £37.8 million for the Police Service of Northern Ireland’s additional security fund, and confirmed £8 million for the executive programme on paramilitarism and organised crime. In March, the Government confirmed £20.4 million for justice transformation measures, which was agreed by the public service transformation board and undertaken by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland.
I hope that I have demonstrated to the Committee that the Secretary of State did not take this decision lightly, and that all the relevant information was considered. I am sure that I can count on the support of Members across the Committee. While our aim is to normalise all security arrangements as soon as it is safe to do so, for the moment these provisions remain necessary to safeguard the administration of justice.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The Conservative party remains wholeheartedly committed to trial by jury, a right that was first recorded in our laws in 997, but is thought to be even more ancient. The jury system obviously has a central place in how we run our justice system. It brings the public into that system, and gives them great confidence in the way in which the system is run. However, we entirely understand the Government’s reasons for wishing to extend the operation of the measures, given the specific circumstances in Northern Ireland. Only last month, we saw a number of minor sectarian attacks in north Belfast and Larne, which remind us that, despite the highly courageous work of the PSNI and others, the stain of paramilitarism persists.
On that subject, will the Minister update the Committee on an announcement that the Secretary of State made in February? The Secretary of State said that he would appoint an independent expert to consider whether there was any merit in talking to paramilitary groups with a view to seeing them disbanded. It has been five months since that announcement, and I think the Committee would be grateful to understand where that thought process has led.
Although we fully support the draft order, I am interested in hearing from the Minister about the circumstances in which the certificates have been used in the past year. I think she said that a right to a jury was withdrawn by DPP certificate in only 10 of 1,501 trials, or 0.7% of cases. Were there any instances in which an application was made for a certificate but the DPP refused to give one? In addition, can she tell us whether there were any legal challenges to certificates that the DPP issued? Also, I understand that three responses to the consultation suggested that the policy should not be continued. For the benefit of the Committee, will she outline what the objections to the continuance of the policy were?
Notwithstanding those small matters, the Opposition are happy to support the draft order.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I start by joining the Minister in paying tribute to all those professionals in Northern Ireland who seek to bring safety, security and justice to all residents and inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
The Liberal Democrats acknowledge with reluctance the need for these provisions to be extended further. In 2024, the number of shooting incidents declined to 17—roughly half the figure from the previous year—and that has to be considered a great advance, but I note with concern that have still been 70 discernible threats and attacks on journalists since 2019. I also note what the Minister said about the ongoing challenges of delivering justice in Northern Ireland. Indeed, as part of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I recently heard evidence in Northern Ireland and here about some of the ongoing challenges of violence against journalists. Those incidents highlight the ongoing challenges to conducting jury trials in a very small number of sensitive cases in Northern Ireland.
Given those circumstances, we fully accept that extending the provisions for a further two years is necessary. However, it is our sincere hope—I am sure that it is the sincere hope of everybody on the Committee—that this may just be the final time that the measures have to be extended. I am reassured to hear the Minister say that the Secretary of State is seeking to work towards the normalisation of the position. We support the draft order, but hope it is the final time that we must do so.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee under your stewardship, Mr Twigg. I have listened to the contributions of people who hold various positions in Northern Ireland, as someone who actually lives there and represents a political party there, the Ulster Unionist party. Our response to this consultation was supportive of the extension of non-jury trials, because normalisation in Northern Ireland is not there yet. As a party that has struggled since 1998 to get us to that position, we still have a long way to go. The extension of these trials is a necessary but unfortunate part of that.
I join others in paying tribute to all those who have served in Northern Ireland to bring about security and peace, and all those who sacrificed their lives in obtaining it. We are in a situation in Northern Ireland where Operation Helvetic is still operational; we have armed services personnel on the streets of Northern Ireland. The counter to that—unfortunately and reprehensibly—is that we still have anti-state paramilitary groups, which continue to affect anyone who is considered to be part of the security services or security structure in Northern Ireland. That extends even to those who serve or will serve on juries.
I note that there are four conditions listed in paragraph 5.4 of the explanatory memorandum. Condition 1
“is that the defendant is, or is an associate of, a person who is a member of a proscribed organisation”.
Condition 2
“is that the offence or any of the offences was committed on behalf of a proscribed organisation”.
Condition 3
“is that an attempt has been made to prejudice the investigation or prosecution”
regarding a proscribed organisation. Those conditions lay out the differential in Northern Ireland: there is still recognition by Government and our judicial system that proscribed organisations have an adverse influence on not just community and society but our judicial system. That is why we support the extension of these provisions, which are needed at this time.
Condition 4
“is that the offence or any of the offences was committed to any extent…as a result of, in connection with or in response to religious or political hostility”.
Have the Government or the Secretary of State considered how that may be extended in Northern Ireland? There are other areas that paramilitaries and proscribed organisations are moving into; their hostilities, attacks and abuses are not solely based on religious or political oversight or beliefs.
The other point that we raised in our consultation response was the need for an oversight mechanism to review the decisions made by the Director of Public Prosecutions and issue a certificate for a non-jury trial. I think that has the support of the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar.
With regard to the work that the Secretary of State is considering, a sentencing council is lacking within Northern Ireland’s justice system, unlike in England and Wales. We believe that a sentencing council must be established for all Crown court cases, but in the interim, it should be in place to support the judge in their deliberations on these decisions. Indeed, that is the basis for a motion that my party is bringing to the Northern Ireland Assembly to be considered tomorrow. I am keen to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.
My other point is on the differential, which I talked about with regard to the first three conditions, when it comes to proscribed organisations. We firmly believe that anyone who is found guilty and receives a custodial sentence should not be given the automatic right to enter the separated prison regime on request. In Northern Ireland, not only do we have non-jury trials but when a criminal is sentenced they can request to be put in a special wing within a prison, where their paramilitary status can be recognised and honoured, and they can still be given the credence that they held as a member of a proscribed organisation—a criminal organisation—within the prison system. It is my party’s belief that there should be an end to that segregated system within Northern Ireland. We believe that the Northern Ireland Office and the Secretary of State should ensure that the criteria for anyone entering the separated prison regime is open to scrutiny.
As we try to normalise Northen Ireland society, it is important that we maintain mechanisms to protect us from those who would seek to undermine our justice system. We must also ensure that our system of justice actually matches the advancements in society. Maintaining limited non-jury trials for another two years while ending the segregated prison regime are important measures that can be taken in the short term.
Fleur Anderson
I thank Members for those contributions, which I will go through one by one.
The independent expert is currently being recruited. The UK Government and the Government of Ireland have agreed to appoint that expert, who will operate within the existing Independent Reporting Commission framework and be asked to undertake a scoping exercise through a broad programme of engagement to consider whether there are barriers to paramilitary disbandment that may need to be addressed through a formal process.
The expert will test levels of public support for any process that might be established to deal with those issues, and produce a final report within 12 months of starting that sets out what they have heard through their engagement and their assessment of whether a formal process would be useful. It is very much about scoping: there is no prejudgment about whether there will be a formal process; they will just consider it. The work to appoint that person is ongoing.
Alex Burghart
By when does the Minister hope to see that independent expert appointed—by the summer, the autumn or the end of the year? Can she give us a sense of how long the process will take?
Fleur Anderson
The process is now up to talking with potential candidates. We want the expert to be in place as soon as possible. I will not give a precise date, but I thank the hon. Member for raising that.
In 2023, the Director of Public Prosecutions issued 20 certificates for non-jury trials and refused three, and, in 2024, issued 17 and refused five, in line with the four conditions. I can provide further information on what the reasons were.
Respondents to the consultation who opposed the extension of the provisions felt that Northern Ireland should move towards normalisation of the criminal justice system by relying on alternative non-jury trial provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Some stated that non-jury trials are now treated as normal, with insufficient consideration given to challenging established narratives, and noted that there is a lack of evidence of jury intimidation due to the long-term existence of non-jury trial powers.
Like all Members present, we want to move to jury trials for all. However, in a small number of circumstances, we have decided to continue non-jury trials. We agree with all of those who responded to the consultation to say that they want to move away from that as soon as possible. That is why we will be looking at this issue for the next two-year period, if that is agreed to today.
I agree that the threatening and intimidation of journalists is a very serious issue for our democracy and for justice, and is therefore pertinent to our discussion today. I commend the PSNI on the progress that it has made to address journalist safety in Northern Ireland directly, including the appointment of journalist safety officers. We should support those measures and everything done to support journalists and their safety.
On the points made by the hon. Member for South Antrim, there are four conditions for allowing a non-jury trial. They are broad and cover a broad range of circumstances. However, the additional test of the risk to the administration of justice must also be met before the Director of Public Prosecutions grants a non-jury trial certificate. Since the provisions have been in place, the Director of Public Prosecutions has shown that he applies that statutory test stringently. As I said, certificates were not granted in five cases in 2024. However, that issue is pertinent and should be part of the conversation for the next two years.
On the oversight of Northern Ireland’s non-jury trial system, in the course of the renewal debate in 2017, when Parliament agreed to extend the non-jury trial provisions, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Chloe Smith, committed to keep the provisions under regular independent review by requesting that the independent reviewer of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 include non-jury trials in their annual report. Recommendations made since then by the independent reviewer have led to more efficient engagement between the PSNI and the PPS, a reduction in processing times and improvements to the administration of the process. Again, this is a good discussion to continue with.
The Northern Ireland justice system is lacking a sentencing council, as the hon. Member for South Antrim highlighted. The justice system is devolved, as he will know very well, and the establishment of the sentencing council is a decision for the Northern Ireland Minister of Justice. In March 2025, the devolved Minister of Justice welcomed the allocation of additional public service transformation funding, which I hope will be a part of the whole story of addressing the need to speed up the criminal justice system and make the other changes needed.
Robin Swann
What are the Minister’s and the Government’s thoughts on whether a specific office of a sentencing council would be a positive thing to have in Northern Ireland, given that there already is a Sentencing Council in England and Wales? On the bid that the Justice Minister made, does the Minister know whether any of that money was actually to consider the creation of a sentencing council in Northern Ireland?
Fleur Anderson
I am not privy to all the deliberations and projects that were considered but then not put through to the public sector transformation board, so I do not know; that would be a question for the Executive, as would the proposal of a sentencing council. I will not give any opinions on that because it is a devolved matter, but I know the hon. Member and others will raise it with the Executive directly.
In terms of a separated prison regime, a person found guilty following a non-jury trial is not automatically entitled to entry to the separated regime. A prisoner may be granted entry to separated accommodation only if they meet a set of six criteria. Matters related to the operation and resourcing of prisons in Northern Ireland are devolved and therefore the responsibility of the Department of Justice. The Secretary of State is responsible only for setting the criteria for entry into separated accommodation. In practice, the Secretary of State’s functions, including decisions on entry into separated accommodation, are carried out by the Department of Justice, which is authorised to do so under the prisons direction, an agreement between the Secretary of State and the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland that is reviewed on an annual basis.
Let us keep talking about this provision, and let us all keep hoping that in two years’ time we will see a different situation in Northern Ireland, and the continuation of the work towards peace and reconciliation there that I see in my work across Northern Ireland all the time. This morning, I was at London Tech Week, meeting with Irish and Northern Irish companies and businesses, and others who want to invest in Northern Ireland as a special hub of tech. Those kinds of conversations are a good counter, and show the progress being made across Northern Ireland. Once again, I thank all those who contribute towards peace and security in Northern Ireland, as we have all done today.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Non-stun Slaughter of Animals
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 700557 relating to the non-stun slaughter of animals.
As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I always find it encouraging to witness public participation in politics, and this is a good example. It is evident that this petition, which has attracted more than 100,000 signatures, has engaged a very large number of people from all across the country. For that reason, I must very sincerely thank its creator, Mr Martin Osborne, who is in the Public Gallery today with a group of his friends and other supporters.
Mr Osborne created this e-petition because he believes that in a modern society more consideration needs to be given to animal welfare and how livestock is treated and culled. He and his fellow signatories believe that non-stun slaughter is barbaric and should be banned, as some EU nations have done. I had the happy privilege of speaking to him last week, and he made one thing very clear to me: he is an animal lover, and he believes that he lives in a country that shares his desire to reduce suffering at the time of slaughter in so far as it is possible to do so. Put simply, I would suggest that his motivation comes from a place of care.
But what Mr Osborne did not do is create this petition with the desire for it to be co-opted as a mechanism for prejudice and discrimination against religious communities in this country that prepare their food differently from him. I trust Members will bear that in mind while debating the topic. I also had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Halal Monitoring Committee and Shechita UK, both of which expressed respectful interest in the debate. Again, I trust that everyone speaking today will return that respect.
I turn to the topic at hand. The current rules on slaughter in England are set by the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015, under which all animals must be stunned, rendering them insensible to pain before they are slaughtered. However, as we know, an exemption to those rules allows slaughter without pre-stunning for religious communities.
In recent years, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has expressed concern about the large increase in the number of animals that have been slaughtered without pre-stunning. In 2024, 30.1 million animals were killed in that way—a significant increase from the 25.4 million in 2022. Of those 30.1 million animals slaughtered without stunning, 27 million were for halal and 3 million were for kosher.
Evidence presented by the RSPCA makes the case for removing the religious exemption on the basis that animals that are not stunned prior to being slaughter suffer
“very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes”.
That is because the neck, cut, sends a stream of sensory information to the brain in the conscious animal, causing intense temporary pain and distress. Only after prolonged blood loss does the animal become unconscious and thus insensitive to the incision. That process can take up to 20 seconds in sheep, 2 minutes in cattle and 2.5 minutes in poultry. As a result, those concerned about animal welfare are calling on the Government to end slaughter without pre-stunning and to ensure that any free trade agreement that the UK signs with other countries excludes the export of non-stunned meat.
If slaughter without pre-stunning is to remain, the RSPCA requests that
“provisions are used in cases where the religious exemption applies only”,
and that we amend the current rules
“to make sure it better protects animal welfare”.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I am very glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the issues surrounding this practice so sensitively. I want to begin by saying that my comments are based on animal welfare issues, as reflected by my constituents. Does he agree that this practice is not only outdated but barbaric, and that it inflicts needless suffering on animals? It also does the consumer absolutely no favours, given that heightened distress and panic in the animal at the time of slaughter leads to meat of inferior quality.
Jamie Stone
My hon. Friend makes her point with some passion; I will touch on that point in a second.
Such provisions include post-cut stunning for ruminants, minimum-stun parameters for poultry and mandatory slaughter labelling. Conversely, it is crucial that we properly and thoughtfully consider the other side of the debate: namely, the religious communities that require this method of slaughter for halal and kosher practices. Proponents of those practices argue that banning non-stun slaughter would violate their freedoms. The teachings of the Jewish and Muslim religions state that an animal must be fully alive before it is slaughtered. Accordingly, the stunning of an animal before slaughter may be interpreted as not being compliant with such religious teachings.
However, in many religions—including my own, Christianity—there are variations in the interpretation of religious laws. Leaders of more liberal branches may be more open to interpreting religious law in the light of modern customs and welfare standards. However, it has to be said that more orthodox factions may still consider changes to traditional methods as a serious offence.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way he is setting out his case, given the sensitivity of this issue. Would he accept—I cannot, unfortunately, speak for the halal rules, but I can speak for the kashrut ones—that there is no school of kosher slaughtering that permits stunning?
Jamie Stone
I am prepared to be informed on that point. In my discussions with both the Jewish and Muslim communities, I actually learned a very great deal myself. I found particularly fascinating the fact that the method used is scripture-based, and I think that is important to remember.
After all that has been said so far, if we thought that the slaughtering of animals according to religious practice went unregulated in this country, we would be very wrong, because there are certain requirements. First, the killing must take place in a slaughterhouse—an abattoir, if people want to call it that—approved by the Food Standards Agency. Secondly, it must be done by someone who has a certificate of competence, known as the COC. Thirdly, and importantly, the slaughter must be done in a way that follows Jewish or Islamic religious practice when intended for consumption by Jewish or Muslim people. Now, this is the gory bit: the animal’s throat must be cut by a rapid, uninterrupted movement, with both carotid arteries and jugular veins severed by a knife of sufficient size and sharpness. There is to be no sawing. These measures are required to minimise animal suffering. I am sorry if that is shocking, but I think we need to be quite clear about the practice as it is.
These existing regulations prompt deliberations on both sides of the argument. In the case of animal-welfare advocates, one could suggest that our current laws are already examples of the way religious practices have adapted in accordance with modern ethical standards, and that it is therefore entirely just for these practices to further adhere to society’s standards as those continue to strengthen. Conversely, to be balanced about this, proponents of traditional religious practice could argue that the current regulations typify compromises that have already been made between religion and law in a society like ours, which—I think this is crucial to the way we go about doing things in this country—actively supports and protects religious freedom or belief. That is a crucial factor.
As an aside, it is important to note that the petition follows the European Court of Human Rights ruling that a ban on the ritual slaughter of animals without prior stunning does not violate the European convention on human rights. This is because the Court accepts that
“the protection of animal welfare can be linked to…‘public morality’, which constitutes a legitimate aim”
for which the state might justifiably restrict freedom of religion. In this case, the Court accepted that it was consistent with these standards to legislate that animals should be stunned before being ritually slaughtered. As I am sure many of us know, several European countries have already introduced a ban, including Denmark, Slovenia, Sweden, Finland and Norway. However, other fellow neighbours, including France and Germany, still allow for non-stun slaughter on religious grounds.
All of this is to say that this debate requires nuance—careful nuance—and sensibility to all the views in the room, regardless of the beliefs that one holds.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he is saying, given the sensitivities around this subject. Hon. Members will understand that fundamentally this country is of Christian heritage. Most of my constituents do not like the idea that an animal should be slaughtered in this way. Does he agree that some things should be done fairly quickly, even if there is not a complete ban straightaway? For instance, the introduction of a mandatory multi-labelling system that included the method of slaughter would allow the public to make better-informed decisions about the food they consume and give them freedom of choice. Surely people who do not want to eat meat that has been slaughtered in that way should have the choice. At the moment, there is no choice. Fundamentally, the British people want to be able to decide whether to consume meat from an animal that has been slaughtered in that way.
Jamie Stone
From my discussions with the Islamic and Jewish communities, I think that the concept of labelling—if I interpret what the hon. Gentleman said correctly—could be quite acceptable to them, if that would give people choice.
I come from the highlands of Scotland, where, to be honest, the 1715 and 1745 rebellions were based on the religious division between Catholics and Protestants, and where there have been huge arguments even within the Church of Scotland in relation to the Free Church. I am therefore very clear that tolerance among religions is crucial to a civilised society.
I have probably said enough. I can see many hon. Members who, I am sure, will make the most interesting contributions, and I look forward to the Minister’s. However, I want to end where I began, by thanking Mr Martin Osborne for the sincere way in which he put forward the petition. I also thank those I have spoken with, who have had the patience to explain the halal and the Jewish kosher points of view. I am grateful to have learned a lot over the past few days.
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. I call Yasmin Qureshi.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
I rise to oppose the petition and the divided narratives that surround it. Let us be clear: non-stun religious slaughter accounts for just 2.9% of all animals killed in the United Kingdom, and 88% of halal meat is already pre-stunned. The remainder is slaughtered in accordance with strict religious guidelines by trained professionals in a regulated setting, with respect for the animal, yet that small percentage is repeatedly singled out in public debate. We have heard religious slaughter described as “barbaric”. MPs such as myself have received emails referring to “Muslim meat” and “dirty men with beards”. That is not the language of animal welfare; it is prejudice—plain and simple.
Although the petition talks about “non-stun slaughter” in general, public focus has almost entirely been on halal. Kosher slaughter uses the same method, but is rarely mentioned. That reveals what many of us have known for some time: this debate is less about animals and more about Muslims.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to the fact that eating meat does mean that an animal has to be killed—that is the gross reality of what we do and what we are talking about. Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned, the context has been taken out of this debate. The Food Standards Agency states that 98% of cattle are stunned before slaughter and just 2% are not. Many constituents in Luton North have contacted me to say that any ban will contravene religious freedoms for both Muslim and Jewish communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that both groups care deeply about animal welfare, but are now concerned about their right to eat meat prepared in accordance with their religious beliefs?
Yasmin Qureshi
I totally agree, and I will come to those points a little later in my speech.
As I said, for many people the debate has been revealed to be less about animals and more about Muslims. If it is truly about animal welfare, will we be talking about the 44,000-plus welfare breaches occurring in the stun industry; the millions of animals affected by failed stunning, painful procedures and transport death; or the use of CO2 gassing in 88% of pig slaughter, which is known to cause severe distress and pain? Instead, attention is focused on a religious practice followed by a minority, which has been protected by our laws for many decades. The right to practise one’s faith should not be up for debate, and it should not be undermined by misinformation driven by culture wars.
The practice seems to be: pick a minority practice, label it backward or dangerous, and claim the moral high ground under the banner of animal welfare. But this is not about welfare; it is about control, scapegoating and singling out faith communities for scrutiny that others are not subjected to. Let us be clear: although the petition refers to non-stun slaughter, the debate outside this room has focused almost entirely on halal meat. That is what is dominating the headlines. Again, as I said, kosher slaughter is done in a similar way, so it is great that at least one community is not being picked on over this issue.
What all of this highlights is a double standard. As I mentioned, the real welfare crisis is the over 44,000 animal welfare breaches that happen in a single year; the failed stunning, which affects up to 31% of poultry and leaves animals conscious; the CO2 gassing of pigs, which causes panic and breathlessness, and is still used on 88% of pigs; the transport deaths, which see over 118,000 chickens die before even reaching the slaughterhouse; and castration, another painful practice, which causes prolonged suffering.
Do hon. Members think that the electric bolts sent into an animal’s head—which quite often fail—are somehow painless? They cause immense suffering, yet nobody talks about them. Why do we not talk about them? Because it is easier to attack visible religious practice.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Even the British Veterinary Association has suggested a permit system for non-stun allowances—for halal and kosher demands—not a blanket ban. Does my hon. Friend recognise that debates such as this can feed division rather than unity? With religious hate crimes against British Muslims rising by 13% last year alone, and many feeling increasingly marginalised by political discourse, does she agree that we should confront the underlying racism and Islamophobia that too often drives these debates?
Yasmin Qureshi
I agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for making that observation.
Jewish and Islamic traditions around slaughter are grounded in clear rules designed to minimise suffering. These are not casual practices. The animal must be healthy. It must not witness another animal being slaughtered; the slaughter must be done individually, with animals away from one another. The process must be swift and carried out by someone who is trained and accountable. It is not a mechanical process; it is solemn and Islamic. As I am sure those who can talk more about kosher practice would agree, this is about recognising that we are taking the life of a living being, so it must be done with respect. In fact, in Islamic slaughter—I think it is the same in the shechita method—the animal is held, or embraced, so that any stress is reduced.
In Islam, all animals must, in effect, be vegetarian. Basically, Muslims eat only lambs, cows, sheep and chicken, because they are considered to be grass-eating vegetarian animals that do not eat other animals. So this is about eating healthy meat, but it is also about protecting animals. The way they are slaughtered is important, and it is wrong to say that it is somehow barbaric. However, as I said, when I have looked at social media, GB News and newspapers, the whole debate has been, “Oh, barbaric! Let’s get rid of halal meat, halal meat, halal meat.” That is almost the mantra that everybody has. Yet, 88% of halal meat is pre-stunned.
I am grateful the Government have taken a sensible approach to this issue. I believe that halal meat and kosher meat should be available in this country, and I am very happy for it to be labelled; it is very important that there should be clear labelling—I do not think anybody has any problem with that—so that people know what they are getting.
Although this has not been mentioned, scientific studies have shown that the Jewish and the Islamic method of slaughter is actually less painful to the animal because it involves a minimum amount of time, whereas gassing animals or putting a bullet through their heads—a lot of times, that actually fails, so it has to be done twice over—is much more painful.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
I am also an animal lover, and it is really important to put that on the record. I think everybody in this room would be happy to be described as an animal lover. However, we are omnivores, and some of us eat meat. As a Muslim, I will only eat meat that has undergone slaughter using the traditional Islamic halal method.
The rhetoric around non-stunned slaughter, and the way this debate is being framed in Parliament today, are deeply concerning not just to me, but to other Members, to organisations and to many of my constituents. I care about animal welfare, which is the supposed topic of the debate, but I am equally disturbed by the undertone—a title dressed as a welfare concern, but sounding like a dog whistle for xenophobia, targeting religious practices, particularly those of Jewish and Muslim communities.
The methods of slaughter we are discussing are long-standing practices already regulated by clear legislation. Previous Governments have ensured that safeguards are in place to protect animal welfare during religious slaughter. So why are we having this conversation again, if not to stigmatise kosher and halal traditions?
The claim in the petition that non-stun slaughter does not reflect our culture or modern values is not just inaccurate; it is worryingly exclusionary and divisive. It shows a lack of understanding of why these practices exist and how they are monitored.
Let us make this conversation what it should be: about learning and inclusion. As the hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) said, many people may not realise that both halal and kosher slaughter practices are centred around minimising suffering. They require the animal to be alive and healthy at the time of slaughter. Animals must not be shown the implement with which they will be slaughtered. They should not be in the presence of other animals that are being slaughtered. If that is not humane, I do not know what is.
A sharp knife is used to make a swift incision, cutting key arteries and the windpipe, but not the spinal cord, causing rapid unconsciousness and minimal pain. Evidence shows that when done properly—the key word here is “properly”; I am a proponent of halal and kosher slaughter done in the proper way—kosher and halal methods can be as humane as stun slaughter, if not more so. In fact, if we flip the narrative, mistakes in stunning can cause suffering and expose animals to bad welfare in pre-slaughter handling, or cause pain and fear.
We have heard how halal and kosher slaughter are performed. In the UK, the main methods used to stun an animal before slaughter include penetrating captive bolts, which are used on cattle, sheep and some pigs. A gun fires a metal bolt through the skull into the brain, causing unconsciousness after excruciating pain. In electrical stunning, which is used on sheep, calves and pigs, an electric current is passed through the brain, temporarily rendering the animal unconscious, but not always. Chickens are often stunned before slaughter using an electrical water bath, which involves shackling the birds upside down and passing them through a bath of electrified water. Does that sound humane to anyone in this room? It does not sound humane to me. We have already heard about gas stunning and killing, which is primarily used for pigs and some poultry. Animals are exposed to mixtures of gases, such as carbon dioxide, that cause unconsciousness and eventually death. Each of those stunning methods can lead to the death of the animal, and the eating of a dead animal by Jewish and Muslim believers is not permissible.
This is not a simple “stun good, not-stun bad” issue. It is far more complex and should be centred around good and well-monitored practice. Assuming that there is only one ethical way to slaughter an animal is not science; it is imposition, and it does not reflect the values of a pluralistic society. To claim that halal and kosher practices are outside of “our” culture is a dangerous path—one that risks vilifying communities under the guise of animal welfare.
If we are talking about welfare, let us talk about factory farming. Are the same concerns being raised about that industry, which still allows animals to live in cages, to be mass culled and to suffer through profit-driven systems from birth to death? Despite the Animal Welfare Act 2006 and subsequent legislation, certain intensive farming practices are still legal and widely used. One is enriched cages for hens. Although barren battery cages were banned in 2012, around 28% of the UK’s laying hens are still kept in enriched cages, which severely restrict natural behaviours. Another is farrowing crates for sows, which prevent mother pigs from turning around or interacting properly with their piglets.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The hon. Member is putting forward his case passionately. Does he agree that this debate is not about animal welfare? We once saw Nazi Germany put into law policies similar to those we are discussing. The justification then, too, was animal welfare, but in context it was a thin pretext for antisemitism. That ban was part of a broader programme to marginalise and dehumanise Jewish people by stripping away their rights and religious freedoms. Does the hon. Member agree that such a ban threatens to have a similar effect on Britain’s Muslim and Jewish communities?
Iqbal Mohamed
We in this place must drive our society to move away from divisive rhetoric, hurtful behaviours, racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia. Any attempts to bring them to the fore should be challenged, and communities should be protected.
Another practice that is allowed is the use of individual calf pens. Young calves can be kept in isolation for weeks, which can cause stress and developmental issues. All the practices I have mentioned are legal under current UK law, but are increasingly seen as inhumane by animal welfare advocates. Many of my constituents in Dewsbury and Batley have written to me in support of the RSPCA’s campaign to end cages that restrict an animal’s movement for life. Why are we not debating that?
These are not questions of belief; these are clear, systemic welfare violations, undisputed and urgent. Yet, here we are instead scrutinising faith-based practices rooted in ethics and compassion. This debate must not become a platform to demonise or criminalise. If we truly care about welfare, we must look at the bigger picture: intensive farming, mass culling, corporate cruelty, the prevalence of illegal fox hunting, and the importing and selling of fur products, which is still permitted. That is where the real, meaningful change lies.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I start by acknowledging that this is an extremely sensitive debate. We have heard some really thoughtful contributions, for which I am grateful to Members, and I really hope that the debate continues in that tone.
Constituents on all sides of this debate have emailed me; I have heard from the local mosque, but also from a number of people who are concerned primarily by animal welfare. I am grateful that the tone of those emails has been appropriate, and not of the sort that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) rightly mentioned. I want in particular to acknowledge the point that she made that the vast majority of meat in this country is non-halal and non-kosher and that, too often, the welfare standards of that meat are poor.
As a lifelong RSPCA supporter, I am strongly of the opinion that our Government should take further measures—I believe that they are—to ensure that the majority of meat consumed in this country is produced to the highest possible standards of animal welfare. One issue that has not been raised is the increasing number of people getting meat from out of home—from a takeaway, rather than a supermarket. Outside of the debate on halal and kosher meat, I know that the Government are looking at that issue. We often do not know the welfare standards of the meat that we buy from a takeaway, which is a problem when more and more of us—I include myself in that—are eating takeaway food. When we buy from a supermarket, we can look for the Red Tractor or free range mark. I think that is an area that needs to be looked at. I also recognise what others have said about how, unfortunately, a lot of people who raise this issue do so not because of animal welfare concerns, but from a place of Islamophobia or antisemitism. That is completely unacceptable.
As a supporter of the RSCPA who has donated to it and volunteered with it all my life, I want to highlight one of its recommendations to Members. It suggests the adoption of a permit system for non-stunned meat, to allow the tracking of the number of animals slaughtered without prior stunning. I want the Government to consider whether that might be of merit, just to ensure that the volume and proportion of such meat is appropriate. That is the only contribution that I wish to make to the debate, and I hope that the Minister will consider it.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I accept that this is a very sensitive debate. We all get along fine in Parliament, so I hope that Members will accept what I say as my genuine view.
One of the greatest joys of being a farmer is raising livestock. We see them born, we feed them, we watch them grow and we care for them. When their time comes, we want the end to be swift, calm, dignified and painless. Right now, today, in abattoirs across the country, we are allowing vile practices that would turn the stomach of any decent person, all in the name of religious exemption. There is no bolt to the brain, no stunning, no anaesthetic, but a blade—a deep, crushing cut across the throat. The animal does not die instantly; it thrashes, gasps and panics—it feels everything. It experiences a minute of pure agony while the blood pours from its body. There is no sedation or stunning, just raw terror and suffocation. As a farmer, I would rightly be prosecuted for treating our animals like that, but in the abattoir, it is legal under religious exemption. It is two-tier slaughter.
Instead of an instant, painless death, these poor beings are put through the most unimaginable pain, all in the name of religion. This is not farming; it is torture. The British people have no idea that this is happening, because supermarkets do not label it, restaurants do not mention it and schools do not highlight it, and politicians in these buildings are too terrified to mention it, out of fear of upsetting the religious minorities. I am afraid I do not care—it is about animal welfare.
Millions of Brits are eating halal meat against their will and without their knowledge due to our deceitful labelling system. The two-tier regulatory arbitrage between our abattoirs and halal slaughterhouses means that economic factors foster a more widespread adoption of the cheaper option, which means that halal meat is seeping into the food chain and the consumer is unwittingly eating it.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The hon. Member mentions halal meat. Does he adopt the same position for kosher meat?
Rupert Lowe
I do, and I will cover that at the end of my speech.
We are all eating halal meat without knowing it. I find that morally repugnant. We should ban non-stun slaughter, we should ban halal slaughter and we should ban kosher slaughter.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member clarify what he proposes? Eighty-eight per cent. of halal meat is pre-stunned. Is he just after pre-stunned meat? Is that the crux of his argument?
Rupert Lowe
The issue of stunning is complex, as the hon. Member probably knows. The halal stun is a lower voltage than the non-halal stun. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) rightly said, chickens are put into an electric bath before they are killed. It is the level of the stun that counts.
Freedom of belief does not mean freedom to cause cruel and brutal pain. When I care for animals, I have the most stringent set of rules to abide by. I am regulated on how I house them, feed them and transport them. There are inspections, paperwork and codes of practice, all to make sure they are treated with dignity.
Rupert Lowe
I am going to finish.
A halal abattoir can brutally butcher an animal alive, and all is fine. Where is the fairness in that? Where is the humanity in that?
This is not a fringe issue. In 2024, an estimated 214.6 million animals were slaughtered for halal meat: 27 million entirely non-stunned and the remainder with some form of weak and ineffectual attempt to ease the animal’s pain, often just causing an epileptic fit. It is state-endorsed butchery. We talk so much in this place about being a nation of animal lovers. It is time to prove it. Let us ban non-stun slaughter, along with any fig leaf of reduced-stun slaughter, which simply accentuates the suffering.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank hon. Members for engaging in the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on the way he has led it. I also thank Mr Osborne for instigating the petition. The debate allows us to directly address some of the myths that pervade the conversation and speak honestly about the implications that it has for our Jewish and Muslim communities.
Let us start with the myths. Everyone here today believes in improving animal welfare. We have heard that time and again. I want to acknowledge the really strong and right feelings of all those who signed the petition. We are right to be proud of our reputation as a nation of animal lovers. Proponents of moves to ban what they call non-stun slaughter argue that stunning is more humane. Their advocacy conjures up pictures of animals gently and humanely put to sleep, shielded from suffering. I am afraid to say that reality does not always conform to that comforting image. As we have heard, modern industrial methods of stunning often involve significant distress and suffering. Animals are suffocated and slowly asphyxiated by carbon dioxide gas, electrocuted by having metal tongs placed around their heads, or maybe even placed upside down and dipped in baths of electrified water. As we have heard, captive bolts are also used.
These processes are used not to minimise pain, but to maximise economic efficiency. They still entail significant suffering, and it is not clear at all that they involve less suffering than traditional forms of ritual slaughter used in the Muslim and Jewish communities. For instance, evidence suggests that animals undergoing kosher or halal slaughter often rapidly lose consciousness. A recent peer-reviewed report in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association suggests that, in the case of kosher slaughter, consciousness is lost within 10 seconds.
Both Jewish and Muslim traditions emphasise the compassionate and humane treatment of animals. A focus on using factory methods of meat production will not reduce the suffering of individual animals, and it will not reduce the suffering of the animals we consume overall. Kosher slaughter accounts for 0.5%—just one in 200—of all animals slaughtered in the UK, and so-called non-stun halal slaughter accounts for merely 2.6%, so 97% of animals are unaffected. If we are serious about improving animal welfare, we should focus on how the 97% are treated throughout their lives, and not how the 3% meet their end. Banning or severely curtailing traditional slaughter will not help animal welfare, but it will hugely impact Jewish and Muslim communities.
That bring us to the implications for those communities, and here I need to declare an interest of sorts. Just as colleagues have declared that they keep halal, I should say that I am Jewish and I only eat kosher meat. I am proud to represent large Jewish and Muslim populations in my Hendon community. I say to the proponents of a ban that keeping the rules of kashrut or halal is not some minor technical issue for observant Jews and Muslims; it is at the core of their—our—religious practice.
To be an observant Jew is to keep kosher and to be an observant Muslim is to honour halal and avoid that which is haram. Banning or restricting halal or kosher meat would strike at the core of religious freedom for Jews and Muslims. It is an affront to the principles of religious liberty upon which this country is so proudly built. It would essentially deny Jews and Muslims the right to practise their religion in our country in the way that they see fit.
I say respectfully that, as we have heard today, proponents of a ban have no answer to that argument. They cannot tell us what they expect Jews and Muslims who wish to be observant to do. They need to be honest about what a ban really means for their Jewish and Muslim friends, colleagues and neighbours.
Some proponents have suggested not banning kosher and halal slaughter, but labelling all kosher and halal meat as non-stun. I say to them that, at a time when antisemitism has reached record levels and Islamophobia has risen dramatically, labelling meat prepared for the Jewish and Muslim communities as inherently cruel not only is inaccurate, but will feed the fires of prejudice.
Of course, for some people in today’s debate, that is unfortunately the whole point, and this is where we need to come to some honesty. The vast majority of people engaged in the debate do so in good faith, but a very small number are not interested in animal rights, compassion in farming or food standards; they are interested only in division. In France and other countries, the far right has used this issue to stir up hatred against minorities. We must not allow it to be used as a weapon to sow the seeds of division between our communities here. We must not allow those who seek to undermine the quintessentially British value of tolerance to do so. The British answer is to maximise animal rights while protecting religious freedom. Banning this form of slaughter is fundamentally un-British.
Animal welfare is critical—I endorse all moves to enhance it—but so is religious freedom. Banning kosher and halal slaughter will not improve welfare. There are other measures that will achieve that far more effectively, and they should be taken. However, imposing a ban would curtail the fundamental religious freedoms of my Jewish and Muslim constituents in Hendon, and I fear that it may feed a rising tide of prejudice. I urge everyone who cares for our communities, and for animal rights, to join me in rejecting the calls for this divisive ban.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a real honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Let me take this opportunity to thank Mr Osborne for bringing this petition to the House, allowing us to debate it in the respectful manner that it has been. I also thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for the compassionate manner in which he set out the petition. I hope to follow suit.
As has been articulated, we are a nation of animal lovers. In the words of Immanuel Kant:
“We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.”
But to truly protect animals, we must look at their entire lives, not just their final moments. Many animals endure terrible suffering in the food system from the farm to the fork: chickens in battery cages, pigs exposed to CO2 and cattle transported for hours in cramped conditions. Yet debates such as this often focus narrowly on the method of death, and occasionally even more narrowly on religious slaughter.
Let us look at the facts. Scientific studies, including those from the European Food Safety Authority and Massey University in New Zealand, suggest that methods such as kosher and non-stun halal slaughter may cause more pain than pre-stunning. But even scientists concede that pain can only be inferred, not definitively measured, through behaviour and EEG data. Meanwhile, pre-stunning methods are far from perfect—everyone would agree with that. As has been mentioned, in the commonly used penetrative captive bolt method, a 7 cm to 11 cm bolt is fired into the animal’s brain. Yet the EFSA found that 4% of cattle are not rendered unconscious after the first attempt of that bolt of electricity. The non-penetrative method, where the bolt strikes but does not penetrate the skull, has a failure rate of up to 30% of animals, causing skull fractures and distress. Electrical stunning, often used in poultry, involves passing a high voltage current through the brain, but if done incorrectly, the animal remains fully conscious.
Let us be honest: no method is entirely pain-free. The idea that one is humane and the other is completely barbaric does not hold up to scrutiny. While we are on the subject of fairness, we must talk about human rights, as has been mentioned by hon. Members. Article 9 of the Human Rights Act 1998 protects freedom of thought, freedom of belief and freedom of religion, including the right to eat in accordance with those beliefs. UK laws reflect that. Religious slaughter is legal as long as it is regulated by licensed slaughterhouses and under the oversight of the Food Standards Agency.
Furthermore, as has been mentioned, 88% of halal meat in the UK is already pre-stunned. In fact, just 2.5% of the 1 billion animals that are slaughtered annually are processed using non-stun halal methods. I may not be able to speak about the Jewish communities, but I am of the firm conviction that many Muslim communities support clear, accurate labelling. Those who do not wish to eat religiously slaughtered meat have the freedom to choose. This is not about hiding anything but about respect and choice for all.
Why does this issue keep returning to the political spotlight? Frankly, we must ask if it is being used as a dog whistle—I exclude the people who may have brought this petition today—by stirring suspicion and division under the guise of concerns for animals. When MPs table 12 questions about halal, only one about kosher and absolutely none about CO2 gassing of pigs or factory farming, that does send a message—either consciously or not—that this may be about faith, not welfare.
If we are genuinely committed to animal welfare, let us raise standards across the board for how animals are raised, transported and treated, and not just how they die. Let us tackle intensive factory farming and support improved enforcement, CCTV in slaughterhouses and transparency in all meat production, including for the food we import such as foie gras, which is the diseased liver of force-fed ducks and geese—how inhumane is that? Let us build a system rooted in science, compassion and dignity for all animals and for the people of this country.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I welcome the opportunity to debate this subject, so I, too, thank the petition author, Mr Osborne, and the signatories for enabling us to do that.
I declare that I am personally against non-stun slaughter. I am not religious, and I would never knowingly buy products from animals that had not been stunned before slaughter. Some 301 of my constituents signed this petition to ban the non-stun slaughter of animals. That is the second highest number of signatories from any constituency across the UK, so it is clear that people in Cannock Chase feel very strongly about this topic. I appreciate that many of my constituents will have signed the petition to voice their concerns about animal welfare—a topic that I am always keen to discuss. I hope that across the House, we can balance that valid question with respect for those for whom non-stun slaughter is part of religious observance.
I affirm that animal welfare is, and must remain, a core concern in the UK. We are rightly proud of our high standards, and it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that our animals are treated with dignity and suffer as little as possible in life and death. Just last week, I was in this room for a debate on animal welfare in farming, discussing low-welfare farming practices, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), who is no longer in his place. I am glad to be in another debate with the Minister so soon.
Although the religious aspect of slaughter methods might make headlines, I have brought my passion for animal welfare to this House long before today, and I will continue to do so long after this debate is over. As representatives of the British people, parliamentarians must recognise that both the Jewish and Muslim faiths have deeply rooted religious practices around slaughter—kosher and halal—which are grounded in principles of respect, discipline and faithfulness to scripture.
In preparation for the debate, I spoke at length with a friend of mine who is a practising Muslim. He told me that in the Koran, cruelty towards animals is considered to be a sin. There are also several rules around Islamic slaughter, as other hon. Members have said. Animals must be well treated before being killed and they must not see other animals being killed. The knife must not be sharpened in the animal’s presence, and the blade must be free of blemishes so that it will not tear the wound.
The demonstration of life protocol is an industry-led initiative that provides assurance to Muslim communities that stunning is compatible with halal slaughter requirements while protecting the welfare of the animals involved. Because of that, already a significant proportion of halal meat comes from animals that were stunned before slaughter, as has been said. Last year, that was 88% of halal meat. There is widespread agreement in the Muslim community in Britain that stunning is compatible with halal slaughter principles as set out in the Koran. As has been pointed out, stunning is deemed incompatible with Jewish requirements, so exemptions for non-stun slaughter are particularly used for the production of kosher meat.
This debate is an opportunity for us to reflect on whether, as raised by the Chair of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), the law should evolve once again. The British Veterinary Association shared a briefing note with Members about changing labelling requirements so that meat from animals that have not been stunned prior to death is clearly labelled, so that consumers can make informed choices. As the Minister knows, I am keenly interested in improving labelling for consumers, particularly welfare labelling, which would give a far broader perspective on welfare than simply “stun” or “non-stun”. I appreciate that we could end up crowding food packets with way too much information, but as part of the Department’s ongoing review of food labelling, I ask the Minister to consider the BVA’s proposals; perhaps he could comment on that.
The BVA also shared ideas on introducing a non-stun permit system to ensure that the number of animals slaughtered without prior stunning does not exceed demand. I imagine that others across the House will focus on those suggestions, so in the interests of timekeeping I will not dive any further into them, but I want to place them on the record as I feel that they are important for us to consider.
Through the National Farmers Union food and farming fellowship scheme, I recently had the opportunity to visit a beef farm owned by ABP Food Group in my home county of Staffordshire. We met abattoir managers who talked to us about how the industry is continuing to innovate and push for higher welfare standards during slaughter. For example, they are introducing new forms of lighting, which mimic the way that light falls in barns, to ensure that animals are as relaxed as possible. Although there are lingering examples of outdated and bad practices, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) rightly highlighted, I hope that innovations in modern abattoirs will ensure that they are consigned to history.
We also discussed non-stun slaughter at Bromstead farm. Contrary to what people might think, there are ways to minimise the suffering of animals being slaughtered without prior stunning. Many of the stunning methods that have been described in this debate are instantaneous, so I do not believe that it is correct to say that they always cause excruciating pain to animals.
Scientific evidence continues to develop, and discussions in faith communities about how animal welfare can be improved are growing. Examples of improvements include shortening transport times or increasing transparency in abattoirs. That brings me to the importance of the role of small and local abattoirs. They must be part of this conversation. Small abattoirs offer something that larger industrial systems often cannot: shorter journey times for animals, more human handling and the possibility for community oversight.
The long-term plight of abattoirs is not spoken about in this House frequently. In the 1970s, around 2,500 abattoirs were operating in the UK, but today that number has fallen to just 200. That collapse in capacity has left many farmers with no choice but to send their animals long distances for slaughter, which increases the animals’ stress and undermines efforts to maintain short, local supply chains from farm to fork. I know that is a concern for some religious communities.
The Food Standards Agency has been consulting on increasing fees and removing a discount scheme on the inspections. Concern has grown in the industry about the future of the current discount, which represents up to 90% of charges for some abattoirs, according to the Association of Independent Meat Suppliers, which states that 45% of small and medium-sized abattoirs could close without this discount. Our commitment to farming and our record £5 billion investment into the agricultural sector needs to support small local abattoirs. They are essential not just for animal welfare but for rural economies, food security and diversity in our food system.
If we are serious about welfare and about balancing our values and standards with religious traditions, we should support a system that allows more ethical, more local and more transparent slaughter. That includes investing in small abattoirs, supporting training for specialist staff, and encouraging respectful dialogue between religious and non-religious groups, vets, farmers and regulators. Our task is to hold all those principles together with seriousness and sensitivity.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for presenting this topic for debate following the online petition. I extend my gratitude to all Members, who have made efforts to treat this issue with the sensitivity that it demands.
However, unfortunately, while there are people looking to promote animal welfare issues, such as Mr Osborne, who I am confident is sincere in his efforts, there are also those looking to make use of this debate to stoke hatred along cultural divides. Although the petition makes no reference to halal or kosher slaughter, it has been welcomed in right-wing echo chambers as an opportunity to marginalise and discriminate against the Muslim and Jewish communities. This selective false outrage is not about ethics; it is a concerted effort to provoke and to marginalise, and to turn the wider population against religious communities by painting their practices as cruel, foreign and incompatible with modern life.
Given there are well-meaning concerns at hand, let us move beyond motive and look at practicalities. We must tread carefully when it comes to imposing a blanket ban on non-stunned meat, as we are looking at a sector that brings £2 billion of trade to the UK economy every year. The demand for non-stunned halal and kosher meat will not cease, because it is a matter of profound, unwavering religious conviction for many. Eliminating the practice outright would not just infringe religious freedom, but British farmers—the very people many of the campaigners claim to support—whose enterprises supply the demand for non-stun slaughter would be the first to suffer. In the blink of an eye, they would lose vital domestic and export markets to overseas competitors as Muslims and Jews are forced to turn to imports. It may be that the price of meat would fall for consumers because the costs of raw energy are so high in this country.
What is more, many of the abattoirs that would ship such products to Britain’s shores do not observe animal welfare regulations as stringently as we do in the United Kingdom. Although some may think they are standing up for transparency or animal welfare, they are really outsourcing the practice abroad, where British regulation and welfare standards no longer apply, all the while harming local farmers and losing millions of pounds in tax revenue. It is not just short-sighted but self-defeating, and it harms entire religious communities.
Let me be absolutely clear. If we want a serious and respectful conversation about animal welfare, let us have one. If we want to debate how best to balance religious freedom and national values, let us do that too. But those discussions must be fair, rooted in evidence and, above all, consistent.
Naz Shah
Following on from my intervention on the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), I have looked at the issue of stunning. I have heard from a slaughterhouse that, particularly for lambs—chickens are slightly different—the same method is used, with the same level of electricity, for stunned meat and halal. Even with chickens, the difference is actually very slight. The same legislative practice applies to the majority of chickens that are stunned. Does the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) share my concern that we are focusing on a minute number here? Ultimately, it is very disheartening that people say they are absolutely mortified to see people are eating halal meat; they would be even more mortified if they knew the real issues.
Ayoub Khan
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. Scientifically, one of the biggest challenges in modern times is to determine the level of pain. That will always be an enormous challenge; it just cannot be done. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest that one method may be slightly less painful than the other, but it will never be factual. When we debate the different methods, we need real understanding, not dog whistles. Hon. Members have talked about the very small percentage of non-stunned meat, but we should be focusing on the wider cruelty, which simply goes unheard.
Britain has a long and storied history of tolerance for religious slaughter practices. Successive Governments have upheld that principle, and I encourage Members to honour it. Every individual has an inalienable right to freely practise their religion without fear of persecution or discrimination, or of the state setting conditions for them. Our society is made richer, more vibrant and more humane when we treat each other with dignity—even when we disagree. That dignity begins when we recognise when an argument is not about what it pretends to be about.
Let me be clear: abuse of the rules that perpetrates cruelty and excessive pain is reprehensible, and abattoirs that do not comply with welfare requirements should be disciplined, but the obligation to reduce animal suffering has its limits. Let us protect our faith communities, stand against veiled bigotry, and stand unapologetically with all affected communities.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman says that this is a long-standing practice for faith communities in the UK. I looked back, and there is UK legislation on this issue from the 1920s and 1930s that supports what he said. It looks like this Government have no intention of changing that. However, I have many constituents who would prefer not to eat animals that have not been stunned, because they are concerned about the pain that those animals may suffer. Would the hon. Gentleman support changes to legislation so that labels are placed on the food so that people know whether an animal has been stunned before slaughter and can make their own choices?
Ayoub Khan
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I was about to conclude my speech, but I wholeheartedly agree. I believe that labelling is paramount, and that people should have the choice to decide what meat to consume based on the methods used in the animal’s final moments.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I want to speak about some of the aspects already referred to, but I just wanted to say that I am slightly conflicted on this, as I speak as a vegetarian. I am a vegetarian because of my religious beliefs: as a practising, Amritdhari, initiated Sikh, I do not eat any meat, egg, fish or any product that derives from them. It is a bit conflicting, as the prevention of cruelty to any being is a key belief that I hold. My own personal belief is that God is omnipresent and within every being, and, therefore, to hurt any being is to hurt God, and that simply will not do. The other conflict that I have in my mind is that I struggle with the concept of the compassion involved in breeding and rearing animals, but for the sole purpose of killing and eating them. Nevertheless, the vast majority of my constituents do eat meat, and I fully support their right to do so. We also have a thriving agricultural farming industry in this country. We export meat to other countries and we have had trade deals recently that will further improve those opportunities, and others have set out why they are so important.
Essentially, where I think the issue sits concerns our great British values. British people have strong beliefs about the humane treatment of animals. We see that in our postbags and when we go around our constituencies; we see it all the time. British people also have strong beliefs about freedom of choice and respect for other religions. We are an incredibly diverse country and although we have our challenges, I, as a practising Sikh, strongly believe we have probably the best model of integration in the world, and that that is something we should be proud of.
I just wanted to touch on the Sikh aspect of this, partly because some of my constituents have asked me to raise it. I have said where I sit on this, but the Sikhs have the Sikh Rehat Maryada, the code of conduct put together by the central Sikh authorities based at the Golden Temple. That states that eating ritually slaughtered meat is not allowed—that is something that we believe—and that meat, when it is eaten, should be from an animal slaughtered by a single strike that instantly beheads the animal. That is thought to be quick, humane, and the most compassionate way. That process is called jhatka, and I recently met representatives of the Jhatka Council, who would like to explore with the Government how that method of slaughter, perhaps using guillotines, could be accommodated in abattoirs in the UK. If people were struggling with the concept of religions getting involved in meat, there is another thing to struggle with.
Laws are seldom perfect and without fault. Clearly, this area is one where our thinking, science and understanding has evolved over time, and will continue to do so. We may get better at identifying pain thresholds and the methods to use for stunning, but I suspect that we will never know for sure exactly where they sit.
At our very best, we are a country that not only tolerates but respects differences, including religious differences. Statistics show that well over 80% of the meat that is butchered in the UK is stunned prior to slaughter, so we are talking about a minority of the animals slaughtered. It seems to me wholly un-British, and entirely out of keeping with our role in this place, to be talking about things that would adversely affect the religious practices of any of our citizens, particularly when the supposed problem is relatively small. Although it is important to debate such issues, the current situation, in which the vast majority of animals are pre-stunned and we can accommodate the religious requirements of fellow citizens, is an excellent, British solution.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the petitioners on bringing this important subject to Parliament.
I start by making something absolutely clear: the Liberal Democrats, and I personally, fully respect the right to freedom of religious belief and expression, and this debate must not be used as a smokescreen for antisemitism or Islamophobia. Too often, discussions about religious slaughter are hijacked by those with an agenda that has nothing to do with animal welfare. That is unacceptable. This debate must be grounded in science, evidence and animal welfare, not in prejudice, and our focus should be on improving welfare standards through respectful dialogue and evidence-based policy, not fuelling division or targeting communities.
To declare my very obvious conflict of interest, I am a veterinary surgeon. As a veterinary student, I had to spend a lot of time in abattoirs learning about the process and about public health. As a vet, I have had to issue emergency slaughter certificates for farms. I was on the policy committee of the British Veterinary Association, and we looked at farm assured schemes and welfare standards at different stages of animals’ lives on farms. As a veterinary profession, we have always been clear in talking purely about stunned and not stunned, and not bringing in kosher, halal or other types of religious slaughter, because doing so would muddy the waters and play into the hands of people who are trying to hijack the animal welfare agenda with antisemitism and Islamophobia.
The science is clear: the evidence shows that stunning animals before slaughter is the most humane method available. Stunning renders animals unconscious and insensible to pain prior to slaughter, and slaughter without stunning causes avoidable pain and distress. That is why, from a veterinary and animal welfare perspective, we want to see a reduction in the amount of non-stunned slaughter and a great uptake of stunning techniques that are compatible with religious practices. It is encouraging that almost 90% of halal meat in the UK is already pre-stunned. That is a clear example that animal welfare and religious observance can go hand in hand.
Dr Caroline Johnson
When doing research for this debate, I found that the RSPCA states that 65% of all halal meat is pre-stunned; the rest of it, presumably, is not. Can the hon. Gentleman explain the difference, and why some meat would be classified as halal when it has been stunned and some would not?
Dr Chambers
If the RSPCA has different figures, I would ask it to explain where its figures come from. Not all non-stunned meat is halal. Some of it is shechita slaughter, and the hind quarters are not considered kosher, so they would go into the normal food chain. That could be why there are some discrepancies, but I am not familiar with how the RSPCA generated its figures, so I would take it up with the RSPCA.
I acknowledge that, as many hon. Members have rightly pointed out, there are failures in stun slaughter as well. That is sometimes due to bad practices and inadequate training in abattoirs, and is one reason why I was pleased to be part of the successful campaign to put CCTV in all abattoirs. We should ensure that legal standards are upheld, that anyone breaking those standards is held to account, and that adequate training is given.
I share the concerns about slaughter in which pigs are stunned with CO2. I eat pork, but I am aware that such slaughter is a welfare concern in the veterinary world. We are looking at how we can improve that experience for pigs.
Iqbal Mohamed
On CCTV and enforcement of existing humane slaughter processes, does the hon. Member agree that the Government must ensure that there are adequate resources for inspectors’ visits and audits of abattoirs so that the right level of treatment of animals is maintained?
Dr Chambers
I totally agree. The resourcing of trading standards and the veterinary profession is a hugely important issue. We know that we are short of vets working in public health and farm animal medicine.
As many hon. Members have pointed out, the British Veterinary Association has made several sensible recommendations, including that the UK Government should introduce
“a non-stun permit system to ensure that the number of animals slaughtered without prior stunning does not exceed the relevant demand of the UK’s religious communities”
and that they should
“stop the export of meat from animals that have not been stunned before slaughter.”
The British Veterinary Association and the National Farmers Union also support greater uptake of the demonstration of life protocol for sheep and goats. Although that protocol is not perfect, it can help improve welfare outcomes, even in non-stun contexts. I urge all abattoirs to adopt it.
The Liberal Democrats believe that consumers deserve full transparency. That is why we back clear and honest labelling that includes information on whether the animal was stunned before slaughter, the conditions in which it was reared and the environmental impact of the product. Our goal is simple: to give people the information that they need to make informed choices—not to stigmatise any group, but to raise welfare standards across the board. Religious consumers who wanted halal meat, for example, would be able to see whether it came from stunned or non-stunned animals. That matters deeply to many of the individuals in those communities with whom I have spoken.
There have been many calls for a way to know whether meat is stunned or non-stunned, and for freedom of choice. I point out that British consumers already have the freedom of choice to ensure that they eat only meat that has been stunned. All farm assurance schemes, including Red Tractor, Soil Association, and RSPCA Assured, have minimum welfare standards throughout the animal’s life, and require stunning before slaughter. Someone like me, who wants to ensure that they eat only animals that have been stunned, can do that with current farm assurance label systems.
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) made a very important point about the need for more local abattoirs, to reduce transport time and stress, and to ensure that more meat is produced and sold within local communities. I commend him for that point.
Let us move forward with a science-based, respectful approach that works in partnership with, not against, religious communities; that improves welfare without fuelling division; and that ensures the UK remains a world leader in compassion and evidence-based policy, while allowing for expression of religious freedom.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is good to see you in your place, Mr Dowd, and it is a privilege to speak in this debate on a petition that has attracted over 109,000 signatures from members of the public across the country.
At the start of my comments, let me acknowledge the importance of this issue, which touches on two fundamental principles: commitment to animal welfare on the one hand, and respect for religious freedoms on the other. Those values should not be placed in opposition one to the other, but reconciled through careful evidence-based policy. The petition argues that non-stun slaughter is incompatible with modern animal welfare standards and urges the Government to ban the practice, as has already happened in some other European nations. It is worth remarking that the European Court of Human Rights has already ruled that such a ban does not violate the European convention on human rights. An hon. Member—I cannot remember which one—made reference to article 9 on freedom of religion, and the court has already found that that can be balanced against legitimate animal welfare concerns.
So there are conflicting positions. We have animal welfare, a cause close to the hearts of many Britons and many of our constituents—we can see that by the large number of signatures to this petition; I sometimes think my constituents prefer their animals to their neighbours. Many would prefer all animals to be stunned before slaughter. The RSPCA, the British Veterinary Association and Compassion in World Farming all argue that slaughter without prior stunning causes unnecessary pain and distress. Their research shows—there has been some conflict between the numbers being bandied around, but the general sense of the numbers has been consistent throughout the debate—that consciousness is lost for sheep within five to seven seconds and for adult cattle within 22 to 40 seconds, although some larger numbers were referenced in other people’s contributions. During that period we have to accept that animals will endure pain and suffering. For that reason, non-stunned killing has been banned for many years in this country, with the religious practice exception going back at least until 1933.
As the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) said in her intervention, we need to recognise that when we eat meat an animal always dies. But I accept the argument from the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), with his expertise as a veterinary surgeon. He said—I have no reason to doubt him—that the science is clear. Contrary to some of the arguments put forward by hon. Members during the course of this debate, welfare is improved by stunning. So where do we go from here?
I very much liked the contribution of the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), who, if I wrote this down correctly, said that there is a British answer: to maximise animal rights while defending religious freedoms. Equally venerable has been our determination as a society to defend religious freedoms. It goes back, as I mentioned a moment ago, as far as the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which contains an exemption for stunning for religious slaughter for Jews and Muslims. That has been repeated more recently in the Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015. Religious slaughter in the UK is permitted under exemptions laid out in those regulations.
That does not mean that we cannot make significant improvements to the current position. One issue raised was that of oversupply: the killing of more animals without stunning than are required for religious observance in this country. That might be because they are being exported. That begs the question: why do we need a religious exemption to fund or support an export market rather than religious observance in this country? Another issue could simply be over-production. There is a wild variety of estimates as to how much oversupply there is in this country; the figures that I have seen vary between 32% over-production and 278% over-production. That could mean that as many as 99 million animals are being slaughtered annually without stunning, despite not being required for religious observance—at least, not in the UK.
Such a huge variation suggests that better data, at the very least, is required. What steps is the Minister intending to take to obtain reliable data on the end use of non-stunned meat? The second significant area where improvements can be made is in the area of labelling. Many consumers are unaware of whether the meat they purchase comes from stunned or non-stunned animals, and that is not the same as saying the meat is halal or kosher. We have heard repeatedly that 88% of all halal-killed animals are pre-stunned. Nevertheless, there are currently no legal requirements to label meat by method of slaughter. That creates a genuine lack of consumer choice—especially for those who, for ethical or welfare reasons, prefer to avoid non-stun meat, or conversely, those who wish to consume meat that has been religiously slaughtered.
Dr Johnson
The Conservative Government had a consultation on food labelling, which was completed last May. The current Government said they would respond, but they have now had more than a year to do so. Does my hon. Friend agree that they need to get on with it and ensure they respond as quickly as possible?
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend has clearly been looking over my shoulder, because I was about to say that the last Government did undertake a consultation; it is very noticeable that there has been no official response from the Government. My next question to the Minister, who I know is keen to provide us with full answers, is this: when will we receive an official response to that previous consultation? What is the current Government’s position on method of production labelling?
It must be right that increasing transparency through clearer labelling could empower consumers to make informed choices. Improved engagement with religious certification bodies could help to promote the wider use of pre-stunned methods, particularly for halal meat: some stunning methods—where the animal is capable of revival, for example—have been deemed compatible with religious standards. I hope that this afternoon’s debate leads to renewed engagement between the Government, communities, scientists, welfare organisations and religious groups, so that we find an accommodation, rather than a conflict, that both respects faiths and honours our shared responsibility for the welfare of animals.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. Can I join others in thanking both the Petitions Committee and the more than 100,000 people who signed the petition, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very important subject? I also commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for opening the debate on this sensitive topic so very thoughtfully, which is very characteristic of his approach.
It is clear from the petition and from today’s discussion that both Parliament and the wider country care dearly for our farm animals and their welfare. I was in this very Chamber at this very Dispatch Box last Tuesday, discussing farm animal welfare standards. I will be returning this time next week to debate another e-petition on cages and crates. I have no doubt that farm animal welfare is an issue the public care deeply about.
I was struck by many of the contributions from hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi), for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) and others, who made a series of wider points about animal welfare. I hope we can continue that discussion as we make progress through this Parliament on improving animal welfare in general.
The topic of non-stun slaughter is clearly important, but, as we have heard from passionate contributions, it is also a sensitive one that understandably evokes deep convictions on both sides of the debate. I was struck by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Gurinder Singh Josan), which I thought was both thoughtful and well-grounded.
Let me be clear from the outset: it is the Government’s preference that all animals should be stunned before slaughter. However, the Government respect the right of Jews and Muslims to eat meat prepared in accordance with their beliefs. We therefore intend to continue to allow the religious slaughter of animals for consumption by Muslims and Jews. We believe that is an important religious freedom, as we have heard; many have spoken passionately about that point.
There is a long history of upholding this freedom, set down in legislation since the Slaughter of Animals Act 1933, which contained an exemption from stunning for religious slaughter by Jews and Muslims. Since then, animal welfare legislation concerning all slaughter methods has continued to develop, with new requirements introduced through EU legislation in 2013 that have now been assimilated into UK law. When animals are slaughtered either by the Jewish method or the Muslim method without prior stunning, there are additional animal welfare rules that apply to ensure that animals are spared avoidable pain, suffering or distress during the slaughter process.
One important requirement stemming from European legislation is for all ruminants that are to be slaughtered in accordance with religious rites to be individually and mechanically restrained. This has resulted in improvements to sheep handling, because sheep are no longer lifted on to tables to be slaughtered. New monitoring procedures have also been introduced to check for unconsciousness and death among all species.
Our slaughter legislation also provides greater protections than those contained in the EU regulation, which sets a baseline for standards in Europe. For instance, we prohibit the inversion of cattle for religious slaughter, which the EU regulation does not prohibit and some EU member states still allow. This ban followed a 1985 report of the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which recommended that cattle inversion should be banned.
Our legislation also specifically requires that any animal slaughtered without prior stunning must not be further processed before a minimum length of time after their cut has passed—90 seconds in the case of meat chickens. This adds an extra safeguard to ensure that animals are not dressed while still conscious.
Cattle present particular animal welfare issues due to the time that it takes for them to become unconscious, so additional national rules also specify that adult cattle have to be restrained in a restraining pen that has been approved by an official veterinarian from the Food Standards Agency. Also, following the neck cut, cattle must not be moved until they are unconscious and at least 30 seconds have elapsed.
The Government pay careful attention to trends in slaughter methods. With the Welsh Government, we jointly commission the FSA to undertake a biennial survey of slaughter methods. This survey is carried out over the course of a week and deliberately avoids any major religious festivals. The most recent iteration was carried out in February 2024 and was published last November. It showed that the majority of animals are stunned before slaughter: 97% of poultry, and 86% of animals that produce red meat. The number of poultry and cattle that are not stunned before slaughter actually decreased between 2011 and 2024.
However, I recognise that the rate of non-stun sheep slaughter has effectively doubled over the same period and is currently at 29% of all sheep killed in England and Wales; to some extent, this answers the questions put by the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew). The data shows that this change is being driven by increases in non-stun halal. However, it is unclear whether those increases are being driven by exports or by the changing requirements of Britain’s Muslim communities. The survey also shows that a considerable proportion of halal meat comes from animals that are stunned before slaughter. For example, in 2024 88% of halal meat chickens in England and Wales were stunned prior to slaughter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) made a very thoughtful speech, in which he talked about the demonstration of life protocol. This is an industry-led initiative. It provides assurance for Muslim consumers that stunning sheep and goats is compatible with halal slaughter requirements while protecting the welfare of the animals involved, and it also supports opportunities for trade. The FSA recently removed its associated fees to promote uptake of this protocol, which the Government support.
I turn to labelling, which a number of Members raised. Concern has been voiced about meat from animals slaughtered without stunning being sold to consumers who do not wish their meat to come from animals that are killed in that way. Clearly, such sales are regrettable. Currently, there are no regulations that require the labelling of non-stunned slaughtered meat. Legally, however, where any information of this nature is provided, it must be accurate and must not be misleading to the consumer.
I think the point was made by a number of Members that it is also worth remembering that the major supermarkets currently have sourcing policies requiring that all their own-brand fresh meat comes from animals that have been stunned before slaughter. Alongside that, they operate limited concessions for halal or kosher food that will clearly be labelled as such. In addition, some farm assurance schemes, such as Red Tractor and RSPCA Assured, also require stunned slaughter, so consumers can look out for such labels. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) made an important point about the out-of-home sector, which is clearly more challenging.
Recently, considerable work has been done to consider the merits of method-of-production labelling. A public consultation on proposals to improve and extend current method-of-production labelling was undertaken last year by the previous Government. The consultation sought views on options for the production standards behind the label, including the period of life that should be covered by the standards. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase also spoke about the BVA proposals, and the potential for a plethora of information on labels.
In the debate on Tuesday last week, the interest in animal welfare labelling was very clear. We recognise that this is an important matter, and are looking closely at all the responses to that consultation before we decide on the next steps, but there will be a response to the consultation shortly. “Shortly” is quite interesting parliamentary language, but Members will not have to wait very long.
The effective monitoring and enforcement of our animal welfare regulations is key to ensuring that our high standards are maintained. Official veterinarians from the Food Standards Agency carry out that important work at approved slaughterhouses, and religious slaughter can take place only in an approved slaughterhouse. Enforcement action is taken when there are any breaches of animal welfare legislation, and that may involve suspension or revocation of a slaughterman’s licence, the imposition of an enforcement notice requiring that the non-compliance be remedied, or a formal investigation with a view to prosecution.
CCTV is an important tool to assist with monitoring and enforcement for all methods of slaughter, including non-stun slaughter. It provides assurance that it is done in accordance with the regulations to protect animal welfare. All slaughterhouses in Great Britain are required to have CCTV recording in all areas in which live animals are present, and they must make the recordings available to the official veterinarian.
In conclusion, the debate today has been wide-ranging, underlining the complexities involved. I understand the welfare concerns of animal welfare and veterinary groups, as well as of many Members who have spoken today and urged the Government to reform the rules around non-stun slaughter. I can assure the House that I have listened carefully to all the points made. As hon. Members would expect, I will engage with religious communities and other stakeholders on these issues.
I reiterate that the Government will continue to respect the rights of Jews and Muslims to continue to eat meat prepared in accordance with their beliefs, but I am also proud that we have some of the highest standards of animal welfare in the world. This Government were elected on a mandate to introduce the most ambitious plans in a generation to improve animal welfare, and that is exactly what we will do. The Prime Minister announced last week that we will publish an animal welfare strategy later this year, and I look forward to being able to outline more detail in due course.
Jamie Stone
I thank everyone who has spoken. People all over Britain who care about animals will be going online and watching this debate. The Muslim and Jewish communities will have been watching—we know that these debates have huge viewing figures. We have conducted this debate in a civilised fashion, and I think that will give people such as the petitioner and others the reassurance that when a petition comes here for debate, it will not just be put in a bag behind the Speaker’s Chair or put on a dusty shelf; it will be properly looked at. I hope I am not over-egging it when I say that that is quite good for British democracy.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 700557 relating to the non-stun slaughter of animals.
Other Correction
Bradley Thomas
Business of the House
The following extract is from business questions on 5 June 2025.
Bradley Thomas
…A recent real-world study in Worcestershire demonstrated that signal is actually 1,000 times worse than operators claim it to be. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is unacceptable and that my constituents deserve better? Will she support my efforts to secure a debate on the Floor of the House and a meeting with the Minister to discuss improvements?
[Official Report, 5 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 470.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas):
Bradley Thomas
…A recent real-world study in Worcestershire demonstrated that signal is up to 1,000 times worse than operators claim it to be. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is unacceptable and that my constituents deserve better? Will she support my efforts to secure a debate on the Floor of the House and a meeting with the Minister to discuss improvements?
Contingencies Fund Advance: Independent Football Regulator
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I would like to notify the House that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has obtained approval for an advance from the contingencies fund of £3,470,000. The independent football regulator is being set up in parallel to the passage of the Football Governance Bill to help ensure that the regulatory regime is delivered as quickly as possible once the IFR is established in law. We have identified the need for targeted spend on delivery activity prior to Royal Assent of the Bill.
Parliamentary approval for additional £1,920,000 capital and £1,550,000 resource for this new service has been sought in a main estimate for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £3,470,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the contingencies fund.
[HCWS688]
Grassroots Sport Facilities
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Grassroots sport has the power to bring people together, creating a healthier nation and increasing opportunities for communities across the UK.
As part of the Government’s plan for change, we are committed to supporting the growth of grassroots sport across the UK. We need to ensure that facilities are high quality, inclusive and provide opportunities for everyone to exercise in a safe environment. By investing in grassroots facilities, we will provide communities with social hubs and allow more people to get on to the pitch wherever they live.
We have today published updated lists of 1,650 projects funded by the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme across 2024-25. The programme delivers funding for communities across the UK through our delivery partners: the Football Foundation—a charity set up by the Government, the Football Association and the Premier League—in England, the Cymru Football Foundation in Wales, and the FAs in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Projects aim to support activity in deprived areas, with a substantial proportion needing to provide for sports other than football, and to increase provision for under-represented groups such as women and girls. A full list of the projects can be found here www.gov.uk/government/collections/multi-sport-grassroots-facilities-programme-projects-2021-to-2025 and I will deposit a copy of this list in the Libraries of both Houses.
With an additional £98 million of funding to be invested in 2025-26, and as we look forward to UEFA Euro 2028, which will be jointly hosted by the UK and Ireland, and develop our bid to host the FIFA Women’s world cup in 2035, we will continue to put grassroots clubs and facilities at the front and centre of our ambition to get more people on to the pitch. Delivery partners are in the process of making decisions regarding 2025-26 funded projects, and lists will be further updated in due course.
[HCWS689]
Protecting Our Oceans
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
The Government are committed to protecting the ocean. Marine protected areas are pivotal to our ambitions to preserve and improve our seas. They are central to our international commitment to protect 30% of global seas by 2030. We have built a comprehensive network of 181 MPAs covering 40% of English waters. Now we are focusing on making sure they are properly protected.
MPAs are protected from the point of designation by the planning and marine licensing regimes that cover activities such as dredging for aggregates and construction of offshore wind farms. Some fishing methods, especially bottom trawling, can have a significant impact on our MPAs, and the Government are legally obliged to address this. Fishing is of course an important source of food, and is critical to our coastal communities. We want to support fishing, encourage it to become more sustainable, and ensure it does not damage protected species and habitats.
We use an evidence-led process to identify the specific measures needed to safeguard our MPAs. We have made good progress. Currently, 60% of English MPAs are protected by byelaws that limit the use of damaging fishing gear, but we need to do more.
The Marine Management Organisation is undertaking a programme to roll-out byelaws to protect all our offshore MPAs where needed. The first two stages of this programme have been completed, with byelaws covering 17 offshore MPAs. Today it is starting a consultation on the third stage, the largest by far.
The proposed byelaws are to protect coarse, sandy and muddy seabed habitats and the species that live on and in them. These include: ocean quahog—which can live up to 100 years old; fan mussel—one of Britain’s largest and most threatened molluscs; and sea pens—part of the soft coral family, which can look like large feathers sticking up out of muddy seabeds. This is a substantial package of proposed measures. It covers a further 42 MPAs and includes proposals to stop bottom trawling over approximately 30,000 sq km, approximately 13% of English waters.
We appreciate that these potential measures would impact fishing fleets, both domestic and European. We encourage them to respond to the consultation, and everyone else who cares about supporting our coastal communities and protecting our seas should also have their say. We recently announced a £360 million fishing and coastal growth fund, in part to help modernise Britain’s fishing fleet.
[HCWS690]
NHS Urgent and Emergency Care Plan 2025-2026
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
Today I am updating the House on the publication of our NHS urgent and emergency care plan for 2025-26. This plan sets out the key actions and milestones across 2025 and 2026 that will support the NHS across England to improve the timeliness and delivery of care to patients requiring urgent and emergency care.
The most recent winter clearly showed that, despite the hard work and compassion shown by NHS staff up and down the country, patients did not receive the standard of care we all expect.
Every day, more than 140,000 people access urgent and emergency care services across England. Since 2010-11, demand has almost doubled, with ambulance service usage rising by 61%.
A&E waiting time standards have not been met for over a decade, while the 18-minute target for category 2 ambulance calls has never been hit outside the pandemic. We know that something has to change.
This Government have committed to a 10-year health plan, which will lead the NHS to meet the challenge set out in the plan for change, here www.gov.uk/government/publications/plan-for-change to build an NHS that is fit for the future.
But we know that we cannot stand still. That is why we asked the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England to work together to develop an urgent and emergency care plan for 2025-26.
This delivery plan focuses on improvement activity in line with the current round of NHS operational planning guidance. It is vital that we have clear, shared objectives, which is why we have instructed the NHS to focus as a whole system on those improvements that will have the biggest impact. We will make sure that this winter is significantly better than recent winters by setting ambitious but achievable targets and increasing transparency about progress.
In hospitals, the plan will ensure at least 78% of patients who attend an A&E department are seen within four hours—more than 800,000 people receiving more timely care than last year. To support care settings, the plan confirms that we will allocate almost £450 million of capital investment, including for same day emergency care and mental health crisis assessment centres, ensuring that patients who would otherwise be unnecessarily admitted to hospital can be assessed, diagnosed and treated on the same day and then discharged without an overnight stay.
We know that at least one in five people who attend A&E do not need urgent or emergency care, while an even larger number could be better cared for in the community. We will renew our focus on improving vaccine uptake, making it easier than ever to access vaccination appointments closer to home. We will also improve vaccination rates among health staff to prevent them from getting flu—reducing the number of sick days and ensuring that staff are well and able to care for patients across the busy winter period.
We will continue to invest in data and digital tools to speed up and improve patient care, ensuring that paramedics across the country can access patient records on the move, enabling them to provide better care and avoid unnecessary admissions.
These measures mark a fundamental shift in our approach to urgent and emergency care—moving from fragmented efforts to genuine collaboration across the whole system—and mean better co-ordination between NHS trusts and primary care to identify patients who are most vulnerable during winter.
[HCWS686]
Taking Control of Goods Procedure: Reforms
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
The Government are today announcing a balanced package of measures about the independent regulation of the enforcement sector and changes to the taking control of goods procedure. These measures aim to protect those facing enforcement action, enabling them to get debt support while ensuring that there is a fair system of enforcement so that public bodies and businesses can recover moneys owed to them.
Rights only exist if they can be enforced. That requires us to have an effective enforcement system—one that makes securing awards made by the courts straightforward and timely, while treating parties who owe money with dignity. A fair and stable enforcement system is one that can deliver better outcomes for all.
The private enforcement sector recovers a significant amount of debt each year, with a sizeable portion owed to local authorities and central Government, which is used to fund public services. There is, however, concern about the impact that some enforcement agencies are having on some vulnerable people in debt and those struggling to pay money owed. Many parties, including the Justice Committee and the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, have called for statutory independent regulation of the enforcement sector. The Civil Justice Council published a report in April 2025 which echoed that recommendation.
Although most enforcement agencies have already signed up to the Enforcement Conduct Board’s voluntary accreditation scheme and are funding its oversight activity, the Government believe that it is necessary to take action so that all enforcement agents, High Court enforcement officers and agencies are regulated to the same standards, overseen by the same independent body. The Government will today open a consultation about how to do so.
As set out in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s regulation action plan, when regulation is designed well it can be an essential tool to promote growth and investment and protect the public. We will introduce independent statutory regulation of the sector, in line with the objectives in the action plan and our work across Government to cut the administrative costs of regulation by 25% by the end of the Parliament. The consultation seeks views, among other things, on how to ensure that a regulator’s statutory objectives are targeted and proportionate, and to consider how it will be held to account for its performance.
The consultation will run for a six-week period. The Government welcome responses from everybody with an interest in this area. The responses will inform legislation to be brought forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Alongside this, the Government have also published their response to a consultation that was held in 2023 about amending the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013 and intend to implement some interim reforms. These aim to increase the proportion of cases that settle at the earliest and cheapest stages of the enforcement process by, for example, extending the amount of notice that people must be given before an enforcement visit, giving them more time to access debt advice and/or set up a payment agreement.
We have also provided an update regarding the outcome of a 2023 review about the fees that the enforcement sector can recover from those facing enforcement, and plan to implement the following changes:
Uplifting the fixed fees that enforcement agents and High Court enforcement officers can recover from judgment debtors by 5%. This will be the first uplift to the fees since 2014. We consider it is necessary to do so to ensure that enforcement firms are adequately remunerated for the work they do in order to ensure the sustainability of the sector.
Uplifting by 24% the thresholds above which enforcement agents and High Courtenforcement officers can recover a percentage fee. The taking control of goods regulations specify that debts over the prescribed thresholds, that reach the enforcement stage, will attract an additional percentage fee of 7.5% of the value of the debt that is above the threshold. Uplifting the value of the thresholds will, therefore, reduce the proportion of cases that will incur this additional percentage fee.
The Government intend to lay a statutory instrument in Parliament to implement the fee uplifts and interim reforms as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The Government recognise concerns around the impact that certain collection and enforcement processes—in particular, council tax—have on vulnerable people. That is why we have also committed to consulting on modernising the administration of the council tax system, including the processes for collecting and enforcing council tax. The consultation will be published later this year by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
[HCWS687]
Online Safety: Super Complaints Mechanism
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Future Digital Economy and Online Safety, Baroness Jones of Whitchurch.
Today, I am laying before Parliament the draft Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025. This important statutory instrument establishes the eligibility criteria and procedural framework for the super-complaints mechanism under the Online Safety Act 2023 and marks an important step forward in fully implementing the Act.
The super-complaints mechanism is a crucial aspect of the Act’s overall complaints handling, reporting and redress mechanisms. A well-functioning super-complaints regime will ensure a transparent and agile approach to online safety. It will perform a vital role in ensuring that eligible entities, such as civil society groups with expertise in online safety matters, can make complaints to Ofcom, the independent regulator for online safety. The regime will allow for complaints about features of regulated services or the conduct of providers, where they are, appear to be or present a material risk of causing significant harm to users or members of the public, significantly adversely affect their freedom of expression, or have other significant adverse impacts on users or members of the public.
This will ensure that Ofcom is aware of the issues users are facing, including issues that it might otherwise not have been made aware of. This process will also help Ofcom to focus priorities, target resources and recognise and eliminate systemic failings. It will also ensure that the voices of users, including vulnerable groups and children, are heard and can be acted upon, if necessary. Ofcom will be obliged to respond to super-complaints submitted by eligible entities within a specified timeframe. This instrument follows an eight-week consultation which ran from 16 November 2023 to 11 January 2024.
Eligibility criteria
The instrument I am laying before Parliament today sets out the criteria which an entity must meet in order to be considered eligible to submit a complaint:
The entity must be a body—such as a civil society group—which represents the interests of users of services regulated by the Act, or members of the public, or a particular group of users or members of the public.
The entity must be independent from the services regulated under the Act, although this does not prevent the entity receiving funding from these services or having representatives from these services involved in their governance, provided suitable mechanisms are in place to maintain independence.
The entity must demonstrate expertise in online safety matters, such as by routinely contributing as an expert to public discussions about online safety matters and media on the subject.
The entity can be relied upon to consider any guidance published by Ofcom.
The super-complaints regime is designed to be voluntary and to impose no significant burden on businesses, charities, or voluntary bodies. These regulations ensure that only eligible bodies, representing the interests of users or members of the public, can submit super-complaints about systemic online safety issues, thereby safeguarding the integrity and focus of the complaints process.
Admissibility
In addition to setting out eligibility criteria, this instrument also outlines the procedural steps required to submit an admissible complaint for consideration by Ofcom, as well as the requirements for how Ofcom must respond to such complaints.
Procedural requirements
Ofcom will determine the eligibility of an entity within 30 days, or 15 days if the entity was deemed eligible within the past five years and its circumstances have not changed.
Eligible entities will be required to ensure that evidence supporting the complaint is current, objective, and relevant. Where a complaint is submitted by an eligible entity, Ofcom is required to consider the complaint, including assessing the admissibility of the complaint itself, within a specified timeframe.
The whole super-complaints process must be typically completed within 120 days, or 105 days where an entity has retained eligibility status. Ofcom can stop the clock during the 90-day period in certain circumstances, or during the eligibility assessment period, such as if additional information is required and the complaint cannot be progressed without it. Entities may only submit one complaint every six months, though they can withdraw a complaint under consideration and submit a new one within six months if necessary. This will maximise the effectiveness of the regime and ensure that Ofcom is able to properly consider any complaints received. Ofcom will also have the power to reject complaints in specific circumstances, for example if the matter is already being considered by another court or regulator, or if a complaint merely repeats the substance of another complaint which has recently been considered.
Changes from consultation
A previous consultation ran from 16 November 2023 until 11 January 2024, and a separate policy response has been published. The responses we received were broadly in support of the proposals; however, we have made some notable changes based on feedback received to simplify the process and expand eligibility criteria— I am grateful to stakeholders for taking the time to share their thoughts and expertise, which have enabled us to make positive changes to the eligibility criteria and procedural matters. A full summary of changes is set out in the policy response, and includes:
Removing the statutory pre-notification period.
Reducing the initial assessment period for determining eligibility from 30 days to 15 days for organisations previously deemed eligible.
Placing restrictions on Ofcom’s ability to pause the timelines for determining eligibility or considering the complaint.
Expanding the eligibility criteria to include newer organisations that are experts in online safety matters, not just “experienced” ones that have a track record of publishing high-quality research and analysis, or collaborating with other organisations.
Altering the restriction on submitting multiple complaints within a six-month period, allowing entities to ask Ofcom to consider a new complaint—complaint B—instead of their initial complaint, complaint A.
Ofcom’s guidance
The regulations will commence on 31 December 2025. Ofcom will produce guidance, which it will consult on later in the year, to support organisations on the process of submitting a super-complaint.
Review and Monitoring
The impact of these regulations will be monitored as part of the broader review of the Act’s regulatory framework. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology will carry out a review between two and five years after the full implementation of part 3 of the Act, ensuring that the regulations remain effective and relevant.
[HCWS685]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Monday 9th June 2025
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Grand CommitteePublic Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-II(Rev) Revised Second marshalled list for Grand Committee - (6 Jun 2025)
Baroness Finn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe where the Government expects it would be appropriate for the Cabinet Office to retain a recoverable amount which has been recovered on behalf of another public authority.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, our amendments in this group seek to understand the sort of relationship the Government envisage between the PSFA and other public authorities, how the PSFA is to be resourced and sustained, and how we can incorporate greater independent oversight into how the PSFA will cover its costs.
Last week, our discussions covered the effect of the costs of counterfraud investigations undertaken by the PSFA on other departments and public authorities. As our Amendment 8 recognised, the Bill’s current proposals permit the recovery of costs by the Cabinet Office from public authorities, which could potentially be to their detriment. As we and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, pointed out, this could create a direct disincentive for those authorities to do the right thing and could lead them to fail to refer cases to the PSFA.
As it stands, the PSFA, as constituted under the terms of the Bill, cannot undertake proactive investigations into public authorities even if it has information which constitutes reasonable grounds for an investigation. This places a massive burden of trust on public authorities to refer themselves to the Cabinet Office before an investigation can begin. This burden of trust is often open to abuse, as my noble friend Lord Maude of Horsham demonstrated to the Committee in his interventions last week.
The Bill creates an additional and major disincentive for public authorities to do the right thing and invite an investigation because, under the its terms, it is likely that they will also be left out of pocket. As we will no doubt hear again in the spending review later this week, money is incredibly tight. Why would any public authority invite the Cabinet Office to undertake an investigation into fraud in its department, given that this would likely cost it money—something the Government have not denied and something they are unwilling to protect against? Amendment 23 seeks to understand this question further and is intended to provide the Government the opportunity to outline when they believe the Cabinet Office would seek to retain funds recovered on behalf of another public authority.
Can the Minister assure the Committee that if the money allocated to a public authority is retained by the Cabinet Office following a counterfraud investigation, this will not come at the detriment of any policies, programmes or schemes the authority in question was planning or already had in progress? Counterfraud investigations should deter fraud, combat wrongdoing and recover funds. If money has been allocated to a public authority, it seems both sensible and correct that any money recovered should be returned to the relevant authority and not siphoned off into the Cabinet Office.
I understand that Clause 10 states that agreement must be reached between the Cabinet Office and the relevant public authority before any money can be retained by the Minister. However, if a public authority has been subject to a counterfraud investigation, is the Minister certain it will have adequate agency in this discussion to make the case that it should have its money returned to it?
Let us imagine that a council has been subject to a counterfraud investigation by the PSFA. The money has been recovered; those responsible have been removed from office and have been subject to penalties under the terms of the Bill. There is no reason to suspect the council is at risk of being defrauded any further, but the reputational damage has been done. The council may even have lost money to the PSFA under the terms of the Bill, stretching its budgets even more tightly. The council is in a desperate situation, but it has done the right thing. The PSFA is asking to keep the money it has recovered.
Is the Minister certain that, in negotiating with the Cabinet Office over this question, a council in this state would have the capacity, resources and, crucially, agency and perceived legitimacy to do so? What are the reasons the Cabinet Office would give to justify why it needs this money? Would this be a conversation the council could expect to do well in or is this pretty much a done deal—the PSFA will keep keep the money it has recovered and the conversation would be more of a formality? Clarity on these questions now will help us and public authorities understand where they stand in these discussions and the extent to which the Cabinet Office will seek to augment its own budgets as a result of claiming funds originally allocated to public authorities.
In a similar vein, our Amendment 25 seeks to ensure greater oversight of the amounts that can be claimed by the Minister when undertaking their functions and exercising the powers provided for in the Bill. The Minister in the PSFA appears to be in a position to determine their own costs and to recover them under the powers outlined in Chapter 4 of the Bill. Our amendment seeks to incorporate greater oversight in this process, and to ensure that there is a check on the Minister’s powers to recover amounts, by introducing a role for a recognised judicial authority. Requiring a court or tribunal to award the reasonable costs incurred by the Minister will prevent the Minister charging potentially unreasonable costs without appropriate oversight. In our view, this is a sensible measure; we hope that noble Lords will support it and that the Government will adopt it as a sensible check on the power of the Minister under this part.
Our amendments in this group provide the Government an opportunity to address some questions that we have around where the money recovered from counterfraud investigations goes and whether the Government are confident that the discussion between public authorities and the Cabinet Office on this question will be a fair one that ultimately benefits the taxpayer. Furthermore, our Amendment 25 seeks to incorporate greater independent oversight over the amount of money that can be recovered as costs to the Minister to make sure both that this is proportionate and reflective and that there are safeguards on the power of the Minister; I hope that the Government will seek to incorporate it. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I see the first amendment in this group as a purely probing amendment to try to clarify matters; I trust and have every hope that, in the debates on the Bill, they will be clarified.
I ask the mover of Amendment 25 and the Minister to clarify something. I wonder about the change to the end of the amendment, which says
“awarded by a court or tribunal in relation to costs”.
I would have thought that that was covered already under Clause 13(2)(b)(i), which refers to
“costs that are awarded by a court or tribunal on or in relation to a claim for a recoverable amount”;
I agree with that. Then there is sub-paragraph (ii), which is about the Minister exercising their powers. Is that not covered by paragraph (b)(i) without adding it to (b)(ii)? This is a purely technical point because I think that it is there already.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
Good afternoon, my Lords. I think that we are going to be as speedy as we were last week; the Chief Whip will continue to approve.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, would create additional burdens for the court system. They would also challenge the future viability of the PSFA and, therefore, its central mission of tackling public sector fraud.
Before I move on, I want to respond directly to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. I believe that what is at stake and what is really being contested here is a matter of approach. As I said in Committee last week, being invited in to investigate by a government agency ensures a collaborative approach. We are hoping that, by working with government agencies rather than imposing ourselves on them—this is what we are learning through our current test-and-learn approach—the agencies will engage with us, meaning that we will be more likely to succeed in getting the evidence base that we need to determine the fraud.
On the specifics, the powers in the Bill let the PSFA investigate fraud against the public sector. A key rationale for this must be the deterrent effect. The PSFA must, therefore, be able to recover the money lost so that it can be used for public good and ultimately show fraudsters that their ill-gotten gains will not stay theirs for long. It is only reasonable that an element of costs recovery for the PSFA is part of this process. Amendment 23 would remove the ability of the PSFA potentially to charge for its services in future. The PSFA will act on behalf of other government departments, developing the expertise and capability required effectively to investigate fraud and recover the money lost. Providing the option to keep some of the recovered funds, subject to agreement with the public bodies concerned, will help fund the development of this expertise and will provide value for money for government and the taxpayer.
I reiterate this point to provide a level of clarity on the issue highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. The PSFA would seek to recoup its costs and not necessarily to retain all the funds awarded. We will agree a portion with the public agency that we are acting on when the PSFA takes the case. That will be agreed in advance.
Amendment 25 limits how the PSFA can recoup reasonable costs incurred in exercising the Chapter 4 recovery powers, meaning that only a court or tribunal can award them. There is already scope in Clause 13 for courts and tribunals to award costs in relation to a claim brought by the PSFA, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. However, this amendment would limit the operational flexibility of the PSFA and create extra burdens on the court system if we had to keep going back to the courts for all costs. A key aim of the Bill is to minimise the burden on the courts while ensuring that there are ample safeguards and protections in place. We already stipulate in the Bill that any costs charged have to be reasonable; we will be transparent about how we work out reasonable costs in our published guidance. However, we should always remember that investigating fraud and recovering losses is an expensive business for the Government. It is not fair that these costs are shouldered by law-abiding citizens. If you have committed fraud against the state, you should pay for this.
On how the PSFA wants to charge for its services, it is important that we recognise that, regarding money between departments and the impact on value for money, it is not uncommon for departments to charge each other for their services. The impact assessment sets out how the powers in the Bill will support the PSFA to recover up to £53.7 million over 10 years under current modelling. A significant proportion of this would otherwise have been lost to government. We create value for money by bringing funds lost to fraud or error back to government so that they can be used for public good. I hope that that explanation reassures the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and that she will therefore not press her amendments.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, we are looking at amending Clause 13(2)(b), on the relevant costs awarded in subsection (1) by a court or tribunal. The costs that are reasonably incurred by the Minister exercising powers in Chapter 4 are not determined by a court or tribunal, and the amendment seeks to see whether the tribunal should also play a role under subsection (2)(b).
As we conclude the discussion on this group, I return to the central questions that our amendments seek to address—how we ensure that efforts to tackle fraud in the public sector are not undermined by asymmetrical powers and make sure that the outcome from the processes set out in this part of the Bill benefit the taxpayer. We are all agreed that fraud against the public purse must be confronted robustly, but in doing so we must not create a framework in which public authorities are financially penalised for their co-operation, nor one in which the Cabinet Office is both investigator and beneficiary, retaining funds without transparent justification or sufficient oversight. As we have discussed, the PSFA cannot currently initiate proactive investigations and the burden falls heavily on public authorities to refer themselves, even when doing so may lead to reputational harm and financial loss. That is not a system that encourages good behaviour; it is one that risks disincentivising it.
Our amendments raise two practical concerns: first, that funds recovered through fraud investigations should as a matter of principle be returned to the authority from which they were taken, unless there is a compelling and transparent reason not to do so. We are concerned that, while agreement between the Cabinet Office and the public authority is required in the Bill, the agency and ability of a public authority to make a legitimate argument for retention of recovered funds may be impeded following a fraud investigation. Secondly, we wish to ensure that any costs that the Minister seeks to recover in undertaking these functions must be subject to independent oversight and not left to ministerial discretion alone. I totally take the point that the Minister made about the cost and burden on the judicial system, but there is also the principle of fairness and independence.
These are not abstract points. They go to the heart of whether this legislation creates a fair and credible system, one that public authorities can engage with in good faith and that the public can have confidence in. Our role in opposition is not only to make suggestions as to how the Government could improve their proposals but to ask questions of the Minister and to seek further clarification on the points the Government have considered. I urge the Government, therefore, to reflect on these proposals. They do not diminish the aims of the Bill but rather strengthen them by ensuring that the powers it creates are matched by the accountability and fairness that must always underpin public service. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw.
“(a) the period for appealing mentioned in section 60(2)(a) has passed without an appeal being brought, or”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 60, page 32, line 25.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, before I outline the amendments in this group, I will refer to government Amendments 30, 31, 104 and 105, as your Lordships will have noticed that these have been withdrawn from the Marshalled List. Together, these amendments had sought to ensure that there was no conflict between the prohibition on a bank telling an account holder that it had received a deduction order information notice from either the PSFA or the DWP in respect of the holder’s account and any possible subject access requests, and would limit how long the prohibition had effect. Unfortunately, we found that the wording of these amendments did not achieve the desired effect. For this reason, they have been withdrawn but we will retable them once they are compliant.
I turn to the amendments in question. The current drafting of clauses in Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill may inadvertently prevent the First-tier Tribunal from exercising its right to extend the amount of time a person has to make an appeal, where there is good reason to do so. Therefore, government Amendments 26, 60, 63, 64, 86, 87, 100, 101, 119, 120 and 125 seek to prevent this from occurring and to clarify drafting across the Bill.
These amendments ensure that the First-tier Tribunal maintains its ability to extend the time limit for an appeal where there is good reason to do so, at the discretion of the tribunal. These amendments do so across the provisions in the Bill where there is a route of appeal available. This will ensure the proper consideration of appeals and that the system is focused on fair judgments. I beg to move Amendment 26 in the name of my noble friend Lady Sherlock.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I note the Minister’s remarks about the withdrawal of some government amendments. I will not go through them all. I look forward to their redrafting. I start by making the small point that there is an element of unpreparedness to the Bill. I realise that there is quite a lot of work in progress. My understanding is that it is an unusual approach to take, to withdraw and then redraft. The Minister will probably say that I am going too far, and I therefore look to a further explanation of that point.
Putting that to one side, the amendments that the Government have tabled appear at least in principle to be sensible changes, which permit a tribunal to extend the time limit for bringing an appeal about a direct deduction order. This relates to a DDO appeal in the public sector section of the Bill but also, as I understand it, in the DWP section, as it applies to the eligibility verification notice in respect of the agreed arrangements between the banks and the DWP. Here I refer to government Amendment 87 in particular.
However, this provides me with an opportunity to do a bit of questioning. Can the Minister outline some of the situations in which the tribunal could consider it “reasonable” to grant an extension to the review period? I suspect she will say that this is up to the tribunal to decide, but it would be helpful to understand the obvious reasons—and some of the less obvious reasons—why the tribunal could offer some leniency.
I presume that the appeal process would include an appeal not just on the DDO but to delay a payment of the DDO and to seek a reduction in the amount payable per week, with the total amount payable over a longer period. Is there an expectation that a longer period has a maximum length of time applied and a cut-off? Otherwise, it could be endless.
In the process of considering and drafting this amendment, I am sure that the Government have had regard to precedent and to how this provision has been used in other Acts. I am aware that similar provision exists in other statutes and, if the Minister could share examples with us of where extensions have been granted to individuals, why and for how long, it would help and allow the Committee to understand the practical ramifications of this amendment. I hope that the circumstances are exceptional, but the wording used in the amendment is for it to be seen as
“reasonable in all the circumstances”.
I hope that that adds to my argument.
Are there parallels to be drawn and lessons learned—for example, from the child maintenance system, for which I had responsibility—where the paying parent is defaulting on DDO payments and the tribunal system is therefore involved? Can some analogies be created?
As I said earlier, there is merit in seeking to allow greater flexibility in granting an appeal. Individuals should have adequate opportunity to exercise this right, but within reason. The amendment is, to that extent, well intentioned and it is something that we support. However, we must also be alive to the risk posed by so-called bad actors. We must ensure that flexibility does not come at the cost of action. We need to make sure that this appeal system allows those with genuine concerns to be heard and recognised, while minimising opportunities for vexatious complaints that are designed to delay and clog up the system, rather than use it responsibly. For example, it could be easy for an individual to claim that he is not able to fulfil his obligations to pay his DDO because, he states, he is suffering from mental health problems or has fluctuating psychotic episodes. What is the tried and tested system for tribunals to assess these claims thoroughly and have the necessary powers to refute or rebut what may be deliberate and vexatious claims?
In seeking precedent here, what is the experience of appeals to tribunals in other sectors—on the volume of cases, the exceptions and the knock-on effect on courts’ resourcing and delays to all cases in the pipeline? It would be most welcome to have some further clarity from the Minister about the considerations that she has towards the amendment, particularly in reference to precedent, which gives us some idea of how this is going to work.
I finish by echoing the words from my noble friend Lady Finn, who said on the last group—and she is right—that fraud against the taxpayer must be confronted robustly. My arguments on this group form the basis of that.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount for his comments, some of which, as he will appreciate, will be explored in more detail as we get to the DWP part of the Bill, Part 2. We will explore all these issues in more detail later in Committee, including some of the examples that he seeks about how all the powers in the Bill have precedent already, although I will touch on some.
However, I will start by querying the noble Viscount and pushing back a little on the suggestion that we were unprepared with this Bill. There was a genuine drafting error. Mistakes happen; human beings are known for making them occasionally. Given the late tabling of some of the amendments, a level of genuine solidarity and collaboration across your Lordships’ House, about how we work and move forward, may be better judged.
Regarding some of the points made, I will start with the specific point about what kind of circumstances would be reasonable to extend the timeframe for appealing an overpayment notice. In all circumstances, it is wholly up to the tribunal to decide what would be a reasonable extension from one month. There are recognised principles to guide the exercise of discretion to extend time periods, or not, which the tribunal will consider. A three-stage approach is applied to consideration of any extension: first, assessing the seriousness and significance of the failure to comply with the time limit; secondly, considering why the default occurred; and, thirdly, evaluating all the circumstances of the case to enable the tribunal to deal justly with the application.
I will address the point made about civil penalties and examples of how they are used from the position of the PSFA. We will address this in more detail with the DWP as we move forward. There is precedent across government for civil penalties to be issued to the civil standard by officials delegated to by Ministers, instead of penalties being issued by court. Examples include the Environment Agency and the APHA. In instances where penalties are issued in the above manner, it is also standard practice across government departments such as the Home Office, the Environment Agency and HMRC for appeals to be made to a court or tribunal as the final route of challenge should an individual feel that a penalty, including the amount, is unfair or incorrect. We are seeking to emulate those powers for the PSFA.
In instances where penalties are not issued by officials and are issued via courts, the courts have the right to extend the specified period within which an individual or business may appeal a decision. This is part of the civil procedure rules. The noble Viscount touched on the Child Maintenance Service. As we progress through Committee, I will use it in many examples regarding the powers of the PSFA and how we will seek to use the precedent already established by the CMS.
With that, I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that these amendments are important to ensure that the Bill as it stands does not interfere with the tribunal procedural rules. Those rules are in place for good reason. While it was not our intention to impact the discretion that tribunals have on appeal timeframes, we want to bring absolute clarity to this. This also creates additional protections for people who want to engage their appeal rights. I therefore hope that your Lordships will support these amendments, which I commend to the Committee.
Baroness Fox of Buckley
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the power of the Minister to make direct deduction orders and instead provides for direct deduction orders to be made only by a court following an application by the Minister to the court.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 27, I will speak also to Amendments 29, 62 and 75, which relate to debt recovery and concerns about the proportionality, even constitutionality, of the Bill’s use of direct deduction orders. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for his support in this endeavour.
The purpose of these amendments, and those in the later group starting with Amendment 102, is to transfer the powers of the Minister in Part 1 and of the Secretary of State in Part 2 to make direct deduction orders and deduction from earnings orders to relevant courts, whether the county court in England and Wales or the sheriff court in Scotland.
Before I look at the substance of this issue, I note that Amendment 29 addresses Clause 19(2) and paragraph 3(2) of new Schedule 3ZA, inserted by Schedule 5 to the Bill, whereby the Minister or the Secretary of State are required only to believe that a person holds the bank account in question. Other provisions require such belief to be reasonable, so inserting the word “reasonably” before “believes” would impose a reasonableness test. Not having such a test removes the balance of proper scrutiny and any threshold for a belief. This needs to be addressed to prevent unscrupulous intrusion. Meanwhile, Amendment 62 probes the circumstances in which orders can be restarted where they have been suspended, because I am confused about why that is necessary.
To return to the fundamental principles at stake in Amendments 27 and 75 in particular, and the broad theme, for centuries the rule of law and the separation of powers have ensured that a person is innocent until proven guilty and cannot be punished by political diktat. The Executive cannot arbitrarily take action against a person, even a debtor, in the manner that the Bill gives the relevant Minister. The Bill allows the Minister to order a bank to supply sensitive information for the purposes of debt recovery, without either judicial oversight or individual knowledge.
On our first day in Committee, we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, the shocking details of how Clause 7 allows relatively junior civil servants in the Cabinet Office to apply for a warrant to enter and search premises and seize anything they have reasonable grounds to believe has been obtained in the commission of fraud. If handing police powers to civil servants was not chilling enough, here are powers that facilitate the state raiding bank accounts.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My name appears on these amendments because I and my party are worried about powers being given to Ministers rather than to the courts. This puts the power in the courts because “the Minister” does not necessarily mean the Minister; someone quite low down in the Civil Service could make this decision. I think it is open to abuse.
I hope that when the Minister replies she can perhaps tell me how this fits in with a garnishee order on a bank. Garnishee orders have long been part of our legal system, whereby a debtor can collect money from the bank direct with an order from the court. I am amazed that we can have such a Bill here—I brought this up at an earlier meeting with the Minister—without “garnishee” appearing in it, because this is part of our current legal system. I invite the Minister and the mover of the amendment to incorporate that in their reply.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the amendments proposed in this group by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, provide us with an opportunity to question the Government on the mechanisms they propose using to recover money. It is vital, as the noble Baroness said, that the powers provided for in this part are proportionate and sensible.
We are particularly interested in Amendment 29, which chimes closely with our belief that a reasonableness test should be incorporated as part of the exercise of powers. In this instance, the Minister must “reasonably believe” that a liable person holds an account with a bank before the bank can be served with an account information notice. We need to recognise that compliance with the provisions in the Bill, however proper and correct, will come at a cost to banks. This amendment seeks to impose a duty of due diligence on the Cabinet Office, which, as the party responsible for issuing the notices, should rightly be held to a high standard before it starts imposing responsibilities and costs on third parties.
As it stands, the Bill risks creating a situation in which the work that should really be done by the Cabinet Office is shifted over to banks. It is feasible that a civil servant in the PSFA, without the need to meet a reasonableness test, could send out information notices to dozens of banks and wait for them to come back to them to confirm whether or not the person in question does, in fact, have an account. I am sure that the Minister currently anticipates that civil servants will send out only a limited number of notices to the banks that they believe are relevant. However, it is not unrealistic to imagine that, during a busy period, someone in the Cabinet Office could be tempted to serve all the banks on their list with a notice and wait for them to revert, having done all the work. More importantly, there is nothing to prevent a civil servant from doing so. This is a serious point: it risks the workload being shifted from the Civil Service over to the private sector, burdening banks with non-profit-making tasks that they are legally obliged to undertake. The Cabinet Office’s civil servants must strive to reach the highest standards; the law should be clear on this point.
Amendment 62, also in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, speaks to a principle that we have identified in our Amendment 55; namely, that a person against whom a deductions from earnings order has been served should not be held to an indefinite order if it has been suspended. The Bill, as it stands, would allow an order to be restarted at any point. For the liable person—and, in the case of orders against a joint account, for the other person with money in the account—this would create a great deal of stress and uncertainty. It also grants the Cabinet Office the ability to wield a great deal of power over the liable person, with few checks. The Cabinet Office should have the power to recover funds from the liable person that has engaged fraudulently, of course, but, in our submission, it should not have the power to threaten a liable person with a suspended deductions order for an unlimited period of time.
If it makes the decision to suspend an order, the Cabinet Office should be tied to a specific period of time in which it can restart the order. The Cabinet Office should be held to this standard, and the liable person should be protected adequately. We disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that a suspended order should never be restarted, although we firmly agree on the principle that this power should be checked and should not be left open for an unlimited period of time.
I hope that the Government will consider these proposals as reasonable checks on the power of the PSFA in relation both to its ability to shift work over to third parties and to how it can wield these powers over liable people. We rightly expect the Cabinet Office to exercise these powers to a high standard. Ensuring that it does not outsource its workloads and that it concludes any checks or procedures within a certain time period are both proposals that speak to this high standard. I am sure that the Minister is confident that the officials in her department will meet these standards and, as such, that she will have no hesitancy in being able to back these proposals.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, given the tone of the debate that we have had so far, it may be helpful if I start by giving noble Lords some clarity on some of the issues that have been discussed.
Direct deduction orders are a mechanism by which public funds lost to fraud and error can be recovered directly from a liable person’s bank account. However, DDOs will be used only if the liable party has repeatedly chosen not to engage with the investigation and to come to the table. This is not the first and only mechanism for engaging to recoup funds; that is an important principle here.
At this point, it is also important for me to clarify exactly what is being said about junior civil servants. The people who will undertake this work are trained members of the counterfraud profession, and the PACE powers have to be approved by a magistrate. The appropriate safeguards are in place. While I am at it, I reassure the Committee that no algorithms will be used by the PSFA for anything to do with financial information gathering and the powers outlined here. I remind noble Lords that the liable person will be kept informed at the outset and throughout the process of a fund recovery.
Amendments 27 and 75 would, together, restrict the use of the direct deduction power, so that it can be used only following an application to the appropriate court. We agree with the sentiment that there should be protections in place to ensure that direct deduction orders are used proportionately and appropriately. However, this would place unnecessary and avoidable additional work on the courts, and reduce the effectiveness of the power and the amount of taxpayers’ money returned to the public purse. By this stage of the process, a liable person would have already agreed that the amount is recoverable or the courts would have made a final determination that it is.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
The noble Baroness mentioned a moment ago that a direct deduction order can be made only when a person has already agreed that an amount is recoverable. Could she point out where that is in the Bill? I cannot find it anywhere.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am assured that it is in the Bill. I ask noble Lords to bear with; as soon as that has been passed to me, I will highlight exactly where in the Bill it is.
It is in Clause 12. That was like magic.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
Could the noble Baroness explain again why a garnishee order—the collection of debt from a third party—is not mentioned in the legislation at all?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, a garnishee order is used to obtain money directly from a third party. That is not the process that we are undertaking; we are regaining money directly from an individual, as opposed to a third party. I am happy to write to the noble Lord with more guidance on that, but that is my understanding.
I move on to Amendment 29, which would necessitate a “reasonable belief”, rather than a “belief”, that a bank account is held by the liable person prior to the PSFA requesting bank statements from the bank to inform decisions on direct deduction orders. In practice, the PSFA will already be operating at this level as it will already, through the course of its fraud investigation, have developed an overview of the liable person’s financial information.
In addition, having thrilled the Committee with my recitations from Managing Public Money last Wednesday, I am excited to be able to quote from another government page turner, The Judge Over Your Shoulder. All “public law powers” must be exercised with
“reasonableness or rationality—following a proper reasoning process and so coming to a reasonable conclusion”.
Making a Minister’s belief a “reasonable” belief therefore has no effect, because they are already subject to it.
In addition, Clause 19 lets the PSFA issue a general information notice to banks, which provides confirmation of the accounts that a liable person holds. The amendment is therefore not adding anything new.
Amendment 62 seeks to remove the ability to restart a deduction from earnings order once it has been suspended. For some context, a deduction from earnings order is a mechanism by which public funds lost to fraud and error can be recovered directly from a liable person who is not in PAYE employment. Having listened to the debate, I have some sympathy with noble Lords; however, it is important that the PSFA remains able to issue, vary, suspend and restart, or revoke a deduction from earnings order, for very human reasons.
We need to be able to suspend and restart a deduction from earnings order due to a temporary change in the liable person’s circumstances; for example, if they were temporarily hospitalised. People’s lives, as we know, can be messy; it is important that we have the flexibility to recognise that. Where it is more appropriate to revoke the order altogether, this is provided for in Clause 47.
The purpose of the amendment therefore overlaps with existing provision which gives the necessary flexibility while maintaining clear communication with both employers and liable persons, maintaining a fair and transparent debt recovery process. If this provision was adopted, an unfortunate consequence would be the end of such flexibility and the reluctance of anyone to suspend payments due to having to restart the process.
I hope that this explanation reassures noble Lords and that the noble Baroness will withdraw Amendment 27.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have a number of points. It was very interesting that the Minister concluded in relation to one of these amendments that “people’s lives can be messy”. It is precisely for that reason that in saying that DDOs will be issued only due to a lack of engagement, without any consideration of why that lack of engagement might happen, it might well be because people’s lives are very messy, to quote the Minister. So I am not convinced by that at all.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
To reassure the noble Baroness, efforts to engage with a liable person would not be just a one-off hit. There would be over a dozen attempts, under my understanding of the Act. So it is not just a one-time effort to engage with each liable person. By the time we got to the process of a direct deduction order, there would have been multiple efforts to engage with the liable person.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
It is quite feasible that I have missed the multiple efforts in the reading of the Bill. Maybe it is there—it might be another bit that I have missed. But I do not think that is clear, so maybe that could be clarified.
I am sure that this is the intention—the problem is the principle. We were given the explanation that I thought we would be given: we are doing this directly and not going for judicial authorisation because the courts just have too much work on. I always worry about an explanation that says that it will cause too much work for the courts. On this basis, we may as well cut out sending anyone to a court and put them into prison—because that court process is so darned long-winded for everything, is it not? But we do not say that, because the court system sets in place safeguards to ensure that people are not unfairly treated. We do not have a direct situation where a Government of the day simply decide that the courts are dispensable with. That is the principle that I was trying to raise here, so I do not think that is a satisfactory answer.
I was also unconvinced by the argument, which I will go through, that HMRC already has powers to deduct money directly from bank accounts under Schedule 8 to the Finance (No.2) Act 2015. Actually, there are statutory safeguards, including the requirement that HMRC retains £5,000 in the debtor’s accounts, and guidance about who HMRC should deem as at a particular disadvantage. That is not in this Bill. It is part of that Bill, which was cited as a reassurance to me.
The comparison with child maintenance is also a false comparison. Child maintenance is money owed by one parent to ensure provision for their dependant who does not live with them. That differs greatly from an individual claiming money from, for example, the social security system, who potentially has been overpaid—as I keep pointing out, through no fault of their own. I do not think those two things count as equivalences at all.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for the amendment on stop-starting DDOs. I have some sympathy with her approach in terms of them being permanently never allowed to start again. My nervousness with it is that it feels so arbitrary. The explanation given was that people have messy lives, which is fine, but I do not want to be in a situation whereby I am nodding through a system that means that people could keep having their direct deduction orders stop and start because of the messiness of government. We are told that it is the messiness of people’s lives, but it is not clear that that would be the only reason why this would occur; it is not in the Bill.
Of course, I shall not press my amendments, but I imagine that I will return with some of them on Report.
Baroness Finn
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to specify a reasonable period of time for the recovery of an amount from a personal bank account, so as to protect the partners of liable persons from having an amount deducted from their joint account after five years.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, our amendments in group 4 are designed to improve the system of debt recovery that the Bill seeks to establish to make sure that adequate protections are given to the liable person, and that the Cabinet Office is held to a high standard in the exercise of the powers it is being granted. It is essential that we recover debt and combat fraud—I think that we are all agreed on that—but we must remember that in this Bill we are creating a system that will engage with and be run by real people. In these amendments we seek to tease out the practical problems that those real people might come up against while using this system. As we have heard, real people might well have messy lives. We have identified several potential such problems, and in this group we want to flag them to the Government so that they can make any changes needed.
Our Amendment 28 seeks to clarify the standards used by the Minister when determining whether or not they should make a direct deduction order to a joint account. The decision to make a deductions order from a joint account is a serious one, as it directly affects a person who is not liable, unless in cases which fall under Clause 18(3). The Minister must therefore be clear that certain conditions have been met before such a decision is taken, so that those who hold a joint account with the liable person are adequately protected from such an order.
The formula outlined in Clause 20(2) is a blunt tool, which we feel will struggle to operate fairly and effectively in practical terms. The formula assumes that the liable person’s interest in a joint account is of a fixed proportion, meaning that if there are two people holding a joint account, the Government will assume that 50% of the funds in that account relate to the liable person.
This has some obvious pitfalls, not least that, upon being informed that they are subject to a direct deduction order, the other account holder could move most of their assets out of the joint account, into a separate one. Say two people had a joint account with a balance of £50,000, split evenly between the account holders. Upon being informed that they were subject to a direct deduction order, the non-liable person could remove £24,999 of their funds into a separate account, leaving £25,001 in the joint account. Under the mechanism provided for in the Bill, the Government are to assume that 50% of these funds regardless belong to the non-liable person.
This mechanism risks creating an obvious loophole, in which the liable person, could, in essence, protect 50% of their assets by keeping them in a joint account. Conversely, the formula could have the reverse effect of penalising the non-liable person, if that person is due more than 50% of the assets in the joint account.
While the Minister is required under Clause 18(1) to assess the liable person’s beneficial interest, there is no requirement that they apply the deduction order to reflect this. Indeed, the Minister “must” presume that the liable person’s interest is proportionate, in line with this formula.
Our amendment makes it clear that the use of the formula to work out a liable person’s beneficial interest must only be a last resort. The Minister must make a proper assessment of the liable person’s beneficial interest before they resort to using the mechanism in Clause 20(2), which has many attendant problems, some of which I have highlighted.
Our Amendment 34 seeks to tie the Cabinet Office to a duty to provide notices to all other relevant persons within seven working days. At present the requirement is that the Cabinet Office undertakes this duty within a time period that it can itself determine. While the recovery of funds is of course right, we must consider the impact that this will have on the liable person. Indeed, it is highly likely that a deduction order will affect not only the liable person but other third parties who are not directly involved. For a person with a joint account, this will be the case.
The Cabinet Office is responsible for ensuring that the liable person and other third parties affected by a direct deduction order are informed of the fact as soon as possible. The Bill currently states that the notice must be given to the liable person
“as soon as reasonably practicable”,
but we believe that the Government should comply with this duty within seven days. Allowing this period to be determined by the Cabinet Office itself is not a secure guarantee, and the liable person should have a right to be informed of this fact within an explicit timeframe, both for their benefit and that of affected third parties.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity presented by this group of amendments to talk about some of the safeguards in the Bill for the recovery powers. The liable person will always be provided an opportunity to voluntarily repay, as I said in the previous group. The Bill affords them rights of making representations, and review and appeal to a court or tribunal. There are set maximum regular deduction rates and we have written into the legislation that deductions must be fair and affordable. Vulnerability will be considered at every step of the way and action taken where appropriate to tailor our approach accordingly.
As the Government have developed this approach, we have had to balance necessary and proportionate safeguards against the requirement for operational flexibility to efficiently and effectively recover money that the liable person should never have had in the first place—money that could and should have been used for the public good. I firmly believe that we have struck the right balance here. Unfortunately, the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, while well intentioned, will negatively impact our recovery activity while not providing any meaningful additional protections.
Amendment 28 would limit recovery from joint accounts if the liable person had a sole account from which the full amount owed could be recovered within five years. To reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, what this amendment misses is that recovery from a joint account is already limited to the beneficial interest of the liable person. I understand her concerns about how that would be allocated but we believe we have a responsible medium here. The joint account holder is able to make representations on this matter to ensure that the funds taken into consideration are solely those of the liable person.
The amendment therefore limits the operational flexibility of the PSFA to undertake recovery action and provides no further protection to joint account holders. The time taken to recover will depend on the facts of the particular case and on the amount being recovered—five years may be suitable for some amounts but may not be where the PSFA is recovering substantially larger amounts and is seeking to do so over a longer period.
There may also be circumstances where repayment needs to take place over a longer period; for example, for those who are vulnerable or face hardship but none the less have the money to make repayments. It is important that the PSFA retains the flexibility required to recover a wide range of debts of varying amounts and to tailor repayments to the liable person’s circumstances.
Amendment 33A would require the PSFA to try to establish the joint account holder’s beneficial interest before using the formula defined in the Bill. This is duplicative and already provided for under Clause 20(3), which states that
“the presumption does not apply where the Minister has reason to believe that the liable person’s beneficial interest is different from the presumed share”;
that is, on review of the statements obtained for the account in question. As mentioned already, all joint account holders will have the opportunity to make representations as to their beneficial interest before any money leaves the account.
Amendment 34 would require the PSFA to provide the direct deduction order notice to the liable person within seven working days of it being provided to the bank. However, the current drafting already stipulates that the order must be shared
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
I cannot foresee many circumstances where this would ever be more than seven days; after all, we want the money back. It is also important to maintain an element of flexibility to ensure that the banks have sufficient time to put in place the restrictions under Clause 26. This is to prevent the liable person from moving money out of their account and circumventing the debt recovery process.
Amendment 50 relates to applications to vary direct deduction orders and would compel the PSFA to set out its reasons behind any decision. This amendment is duplicative. The PSFA would be doing this anyway as a matter of good public law. The liable person should know why applications have been agreed or rejected, and it is necessary they know why if they are then to take up their review and appeal rights. The PSFA would also publish guidance on applications to vary, setting out its high-level approach.
Amendment 53 relates to the unfortunate circumstance where someone dies while a deduction order is in place. It would compel the PSFA to write to the next of kin or estate to confirm the cessation of the order. The Bill already stipulates that the order ceases as soon as the PSFA becomes aware of a death. This simply creates another administrative burden for the PSFA as it would be expected to hold information on next of kin or personal representatives—information that the banks themselves are unlikely to hold as it is not mandatory for this information to be given to banks by account holders.
The suggestion in Amendment 55 is an interesting one. It would prevent suspended direct deduction orders being restarted after a period of 24 months. This would impact the discretion that the PSFA could offer to those who owe money but have experienced an impactful, if temporary, change in their circumstances; for instance, through losing a job or undergoing medical treatment. It would also limit the operational flexibility of the PSFA, which would still have a duty to establish the most appropriate way of responding to such circumstances, balanced against the duty to recover money lost to fraud and error.
For example, someone may come forward to the PSFA after a DDO has been put in place and seek to negotiate because of a change in their circumstances. They may seek to engage directly and to negotiate their payments going forward but then fail to see things through. This could happen over a period of two years; we would then have to start the process all over again. Moreover, the Minister will already have the power to revoke a DDO if the liable person’s circumstances necessitate it.
I hope that these explanations reassure noble Lords and that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
There is one matter that occurs to me in respect of Amendment 53. In the event of somebody’s death, where the deceased has been subject to a DDO, could this be included in the “Tell Us Once” service? That is, where a next of kin registers the death with the registrar, could the DDO be highlighted as part of the “Tell Us Once” service? Of course, this would include the highlighting of that revocation.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount for giving me the opportunity to reassure him that, yes, it can and it will.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
On Amendment 55, I understand that 24 months may not be the right number, but it cannot be right that an order can stay open indefinitely so that, 10 or 15 years later, the PSFA can suddenly start taking money from the account again. There must be some sort of drop-dead point; I wonder where that should sit.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I beg the leave of the Committee to consider that; I will reflect on it and come back in due course.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the Minister. I thank my noble friend for bringing up the “Tell Us Once” service. A lot of people have said that it has brought them a lot of comfort after a relative has died; if this service could be incorporated here, that would be very good indeed.
In this group of amendments, we have made the case that, although the objectives of recovering public money, tackling fraud and commanding support are not in question, as we have constantly reiterated in Committee, the mechanisms by which the Bill proposes to do so raise legitimate concerns that cannot easily be brushed aside. I emphasise that our amendments do not seek to frustrate the intent of the legislation; on the contrary, they are designed to ensure that the framework being created is legally sound and operationally effective.
We are talking about powers that will reach into people’s bank accounts and affect the relationships that they have with innocent third parties, whether they be joint account holders or dependants; I heard very clearly what the Minister said about joint bank accounts but there are still issues here that may have to be worked through or thought about. This is a significant undertaking on behalf of the Government, and it comes with a weighty responsibility to get the detail right.
Today, we have raised not theoretical issues but practical, real-life scenarios where the Bill, as it is currently drafted, could cause confusion, injustice or unnecessary distress. We have heard how a blunt formula could allow assets to be shielded or, worse, wrongly seized. We have pointed to the risk of leaving innocent third parties in the dark. We have also highlighted the critical importance of transparency when powers are exercised and challenged. I should say that, in terms of the innocent third parties in the dark, the “Tell Us Once” commitment is most welcome.
It is not enough to say that the Cabinet Office will act reasonably. The law must require the Cabinet Office to do so. It must give people the right to be informed, the right to understand decisions made about them, and the right to challenge those decisions with the benefit of clear reasoning and evidence. We are not opposing the principle of direct deduction orders. We are simply asking for a system that reflects the complexity of real people’s lives and relationships, and that recognises that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. We believe, therefore, that these amendments are proportionate, constructive and necessary. They would not weaken the Government’s ability to recover funds; they would strengthen the public’s trust in how that ability is used.
I say again: we support the aim of the Bill but, if we are to ask the public to accept a system of such reach and impact, we owe it to them to ensure that it is as fair, clear and humane as possible. I believe that our proposals today are a step towards achieving just that, and I hope the Government will give them the serious consideration they deserve. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw.
Baroness Finn
“(11) In performing their functions under this section the Minister must have due regard to the operational and opportunity cost burden placed on the bank.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Minister to have due regard to the cost burden placed on the bank as a result of the use of powers granted to the Minister under Clause 19.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I apologise to your Lordships. The Committee will be fed up with hearing from me before the afternoon is out. No? Excellent.
We all agree that fraud against the public purse is wrong and must be tackled, but we must also be honest about who is being asked to do the work and at what cost. Banks are expected under the provisions in the Bill to dedicate staff, systems and time to support public sector fraud investigations or enforcement efforts. This may be in the form of complying with information notices, processing and applying deduction orders, or liaising with government departments. These activities are not core business functions for a commercial bank. They are not revenue generating. They do not serve the bank’s shareholders or contribute directly to its customers’ financial well-being. They are, in essence, a form of public service being performed by a private entity.
Here is the crux of the matter: every hour a member of the bank staff spends assisting with a public fraud case is an hour that they are not spending on risk management, product development, client service or revenue generation. That is a real and measurable opportunity cost: the bank is being asked to sacrifice its own commercial objectives to achieve a government policy goal. Regardless of the fact that this is a goal with which we all agree, we need to recognise that this is a burden on banks, even if it is in pursuit of a good objective.
Of course, banks have legal and moral obligations to help prevent criminal activity—and they do. However, we must be cautious about crossing the line between reasonable regulatory compliance and the outsourcing of state enforcement functions to private firms, without proper consideration of the attendant costs and effects that this could have.
It is also worth considering the cumulative effect. Banks are not only being asked to support fraud detection but simultaneously are dealing with sanctions enforcement and a growing raft of compliance burdens. The more we demand of banks in public service roles, the more we divert their resources away from their essential commercial purpose: financing the economy. So, while the fight against public sector fraud is essential, we must be alive to the costs that we are placing on others to carry it out.
Our Amendments 32, 38 and 54 would demand that the Minister has due regard to the costs that they are imposing on banks as a result of the exercise of their powers. We return to our core theme of proportionality: building into the Bill a regard to the cost burden on banks is a way that the imperative of tackling fraud is sensibly and responsibly balanced with the attendant costs that it imposes on private entities.
Further to this, our Amendment 33 would require the Minister to undertake a review of the costs being imposed on banks within 12 months of Clause 19 coming into effect. This amendment works alongside our Amendments 32, 38 and 54 in establishing the principle that the Minister must have due regard to the costs imposed on banks, and furthers this by demanding that the Minister undertakes a review of these costs a year after the provisions in the Bill come into force. In creating a duty to have due regard and combining it with the requirement for a review after a year, we have proposed sensible amendments which impose on the Minister an important obligation to the banks on which the Bill so heavily relies. We must make sure that, in our efforts to tackle fraud, we work alongside partners in the banking and financial sectors, not against them. These amendments will ensure that the Bill does that.
Finally, our Amendment 40 would ensure that the relevant bank is involved in determining the amount of money that it could recover to cover the costs incurred by complying with the demands under the Bill. At present, the Minister is able to unilaterally determine what a bank’s reasonable costs are. As I have outlined in my remarks, in complying with the Bill banks will incur not just an operational cost but an opportunity cost. Banks understand the complexity of their own systems; they know what it takes to divert staff from commercial roles to public service tasks. They are best placed to quantify the impact of compliance on customer service, internal risk management and technical infrastructure. To exclude them from this process of determining costs, to impose obligations without consultation or a mechanism for cost recovery, would be to create an asymmetric relationship in which the state demands and the private sector simply absorbs.
We are not asking for a blank cheque or for banks to name any figure they please, but there must be a structured and collaborative process, grounded in evidence, in which banks have a say in what their involvement truly costs and in how those costs are acknowledged and, where appropriate, reimbursed. This is therefore a sensible amendment which seeks to create that relationship between the Cabinet Office and the banks on which it relies. I hope the Government will consider it as a reasoned improvement to the Bill.
In conclusion, it is important that we do not overlook the practical realities of who is being asked to shoulder the burden of implementation. The provisions in this Bill place real and ongoing demands on the banking sector—not only in staffing and systems but in opportunity costs that affect banks’ ability to serve customers and grow the wider economy.
Our amendments do not seek to weaken the fight against fraud but to ground it in a framework of fairness, partnership and proportionality. By requiring that Ministers have due regard for the costs imposed, that those costs are reviewed and that banks have a say in assessing what they are owed, we introduce essential balance and accountability into this regime. These are moderate, practical and constructive proposals. If we are to maintain the willing co-operation of the banking sector in delivering the public good, we must also treat banks as genuine partners, not simply as instruments of policy. I hope the Government will take these amendments seriously, and I urge noble Lords to support them. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I have amendments in later groups on the EVM section of the Bill with a similar effect to these, looking at the costs to the banks. This is not just about the impact on the banks, however. As many of us know from the experience of being politically exposed persons, when you put onerous responsibilities and costs on the banks that relate to a particular class of customers, you can create a disincentive for the banks to provide services to them. Most of us have probably had the experience of being PEP-ed, and it is not terribly pleasant. Here, if we are putting a load of costs on the banks that relate to benefit recipients, we make it less likely that those vulnerable people will be able to access banking services. The Government need to think about this quite carefully.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was going to make a very similar point. We have to consider the serious consequences of the Government, in effect, turning banks into de facto government inspectors, as well as the unintended consequences such as those for politically exposed persons. Goodness knows that that has not gone well. It has created all sorts of chaos. I am very anxious about private institutions, in effect, being asked to do the Government’s dirty work in many instances.
I want to query, though, banks being able to charge for the hard work they do via new paragraph 8 in Schedule 5, in which there is a provision for the bank to be able to deduct a fee from the debtor’s account to meet its reasonable costs in complying with the order, which is a ridiculous situation. It amounts to state-backed approval of funds being taken directly from the bank accounts of private customers to deal with administrative retrieval of overpayments. By the way, the maximum amount that banks could charge would be set by the Secretary of State via regulations, which is also not reassuring. Although I do not want the banks to be used, I also do not want them to be able to charge their own clients to do the job that the Government have demanded they do. I feel very queasy about all this.
On the discrimination point, if these measures identify a range of types of bank clients who are causing more trouble than they are worth, the obvious decision will be to debank. It makes perfect sense that they would think, just like every other private sector organisation, “Do I really want people on benefits living in my house?” We have seen this discrimination time and again. There is a serious danger of unintended consequences here that the Government have to take seriously.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I did not speak at Second Reading, but the Bill has attracted my interest for the reasons a number of noble Lords have pointed out about procedure and due process. I share the concern about the risk of debanking en masse a group of individuals whom banks will view as not particularly good customers in terms of the money they deposit and as they now come with greater risks. I would also like to know what the Government’s thinking is on that issue.
Looking at this from the point of view of the bank, I am a bit concerned about the relationship between Clause 19(4) and Clause 19(10). Clause 19(4) says:
“The Minister may give an account information notice relating to an account only for the purpose of determining whether to make a direct deduction order in respect of the account”.
If the bank receives such a request for an account information notice, but for some reason considers there may be a different purpose in that request, what is the bank supposed to do? Clause 19(8) says:
“The bank must comply with a notice given under this section”.
However, Clause 19(4) puts a clear limit in terms of the lawfulness of giving an account information notice. Who is to assess whether there is any doubt as to the purpose of that account information notice?
In Clause 19(10), it says:
“Information given to the Minister in response to a notice under this section may be used by the Minister for the purpose of exercising the core functions but not for any other purpose”.
Of course, the core functions are wider than the purpose identified in Clause 19(4), which says that you can give an account information notice only for the purposes of determining whether to make a direct deduction order. But then, in Clause 19(10), that information may be used for wider purposes than enabling the taking of that decision.
That puts the bank in a bit of difficult position. It is told that it must comply with a notice but also that the notice must be only for the purposes of determining whether to make a direct deduction order. If it has any doubt, presumably it owes a duty to its customers and will have to consider how to behave in that situation. Further, it is also told that the information it will be providing may be used for wider purposes than simply the making of a direct deduction order. I would like to hear from the Government how they see the relationship between these various provisions in Clause 19, and where that leaves the bank in that kind of scenario.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, is it not always the case that you get the most difficult question just before you stand up? I am going to speak really slowly until I get a speaking note that gives me the appropriate answer.
I confirm that the Government are extremely mindful of the burdens this Bill places on business, including the banking sector. We want to ensure that it is not subject to disproportionate burdens or costs in complying with these measures. I will start by referring to the Bill’s published impact assessment, which sets out all the expected costs to businesses, including banks, of the PSFA measures. This has been green rated by the Regulatory Policy Committee and sets out the minimal expected costs to businesses where it has been possible to do so, including to banks for Part 1 of the Bill’s measures.
Throughout the development of this Bill, we have tried to strike the right balance between requiring actions from banks in a fair and proportionate way while achieving our policy intent of recouping vital public funds lost to fraud and error. This is why there has been sustained engagement with key representatives of the sector, including UK Finance, individual banks, building societies, HM Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority. Some of this is reflected in government amendments that we will discuss later in Committee.
We know that the sector is supportive of the Bill’s objectives from the evidence provided by UK Finance in Committee in the other place. We have benefited from the sector’s operational insights, which have led us to table a number of amendments as a direct result to ease the implementation and delivery of the recovery powers. The PSFA and the DWP will, for their relevant measures, will continue to work closely with banks on the design and implementation of relevant measures, including consulting on relevant regulations.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Can I just press the Minister a little more? I realise that, as she rightly said, we will explore these matters later in Committee—in particular, when we look at the DWP aspects of the Bill—but it would be helpful to have a bit more information on what the banks are thinking. What is their experience in terms of the work that has been undertaken so far? As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said—she is concerned about the so-called government inspectors approach taken by the banks—obviously, they are not doing this out of the good of their hearts. So it would be helpful to have a little more information, given that the work is by no means done; it is a work in progress. I have certainly been pulled up for calling this whole process a pilot scheme—I think that it is called “test and learn” or something—but some more information for the Committee at this early stage would be very helpful.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, it would be inappropriate for me to speak on behalf of the banks, and I do not think that noble Lords would want me to do so. But as far as I am aware—having said I will not speak for them, I am now going to—the banks are supportive of the approach we are taking. In terms of fraud, we are working very closely with them. The banks, however, want us to be as similar to HMRC as possible, and we are trying to do that. Given that those are regulations they currently work with in day-in, day-out, that is what we are trying to emulate. I think that is as far as I can go. The noble Viscount should be reassured that we are engaging directly with UK Finance regularly, and he might want to reflect on the evidence that it gave in Committee stage in the other place about how comfortable it was with this section of the Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I think it is fair to say that UK Finance and the banks, in terms of all the evidence that I have read, are obviously happy to sit down with Ministers to try and negotiate their way through this Bill. I do not think that is entirely fairly or accurately described as them being happy with this. They are being asked to do things by coercion in this Bill. I am not saying that word to be offensive. I mean they have not chosen to do it—the Government have told them they have to do it. In many instances, banks are required to do what the Government tell them in relation to their own customers or face penalties if they do not. Consequently, they are trying to negotiate the best of a bad deal. That is not quite the same as an enthusiasm for the Bill. I think that is worth noting, as we would not want to mislead.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that what I actually said was that I did not want to speak on behalf of the banks. However, I find the word “coercion” a complete exaggeration and unnecessary. Just to clarify as well, the banks will not face penalties at any point in the Bill, unless I am to be corrected—and if I am wrong, I will correct the record. This is a process of trying to recoup government funds—taxpayers’ funds—to make sure that we get the money back. That is what we are trying to do and that is why this legislation is in place. We are working with the sector to make sure we can get our money back.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I think we all want to see a system that robustly tackles fraud against the public purse but that also recognises and respects the practical consequences of how it is delivered. The debate on the amendments in this group has shown that we need to be honest about the fact that in this Bill we are asking commercial banks to step beyond their core functions and dedicate staff time, infrastructure and internal resources to deliver outcomes for the state. When the public sector is asking the private sector to help to tackle public sector fraud, that is no small ask and should not be treated as such.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, have correctly highlighted the problems when you place onerous responsibilities on the banks in regard to a class of individuals. There is obviously a danger that it is going to make it less likely that vulnerable people can access services because the banks will just decide it is not worth the bother and will debank difficult or troublesome people. Those are very important areas to be worked through.
I really appreciate that the Government are still in discussions, but we are actually legislating here and now, and it is a bit uncomfortable that the discussions are obviously still ongoing while we are trying to refine the legislation. It would be good if we could keep this alive with what the banks actually want to conclude.
The amendments that we have proposed today on requiring due regard for cost, on ensuring review after implementation and on giving banks a voice in determining their recovery of the cost are all designed to introduce fairness, clarity and proportionality in what would otherwise be quite a heavily one-sided obligation. The amendments do not dilute the objective of the Bill, nor do they place unreasonable burdens on government. They recognise that the success of this policy depends on continued collaboration and good will from the financial sector, and that is something that cannot be taken for granted if banks are expected to absorb ever-growing public responsibilities without recognition or recourse.
We have heard much today about partnership in tackling fraud, but partnership requires reciprocity; it means listening, engaging and sharing responsibility—not simply offloading it. These amendments are an invitation to government to show that they understand that principle and to embed it in the Bill.
Before I finish, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, for pointing the potential inconsistency in Clause 19, between subsections (4) and (10). We would be interested to hear how that will operate. This is not a question of principle—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Before the noble Baroness—I hope—withdraws her amendment, I need to clarify something, as I misunderstood the advice that I received from my Box. I need to apologise to the Committee and to make it very clear that there are penalties up to £300 a day that could be on banks —but it is more likely to be £300 under Clause 53, which is why we are working with them on guidance and why there are ongoing conversations.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the Minister.
To conclude, these amendments are not on a question of principle, because we all support the purpose. It is a question of practicality and fairness and maintaining a constructive relationship between the state and the financial institutions on which it relies. I urge the Government carefully to reflect on that relationship and urge noble Lords to support the amendments in the interests of a Bill that is both effective and equitable. On that basis, I beg to withdraw.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that a regular direct deduction order given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office must specify the amounts to be deducted.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments all relate to the determination of deduction amounts for regular direct deduction orders. Government Amendments 35, 36 and 37 amend Clause 23 to ensure that a regular direct deduction order from the Public Sector Fraud Authority must specify the amounts to be deducted. Government Amendment 43 is a consequential amendment to Clause 26.
Government Amendments 110, 111, 112 and 115 make an equivalent amendment for regular direct deduction orders issued by the DWP under Schedule 5 to ensure that the order must specify the amount to be deducted. These amendments arise from the continued engagement that we are having with representatives of the finance industry, as I said in the last group, and seek to address their concerns.
In this case, concerns were raised that the Bill potentially placed an unnecessary decision-making responsibility on banks and financial institutions—specifically, a duty that they may be required to provide or make a calculation of the amount to be deducted when receiving a regular direct deduction order. They requested that we remove these implied duties if it was the Government’s intent to always specify amounts to be deducted. As this is the intent of the PSFA and the DWP, we agree with the proposed suggestion to remove the references to calculations and make it explicit that government should always specify the deduction amount. These amendments achieve that under both parts of the Bill, address this concern and clarify the duties on the banks when making a regular direct deduction. I therefore beg to move the amendments tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Sherlock.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the government amendments in this group are in principle welcome. They sensibly seek to simplify deduction orders and ease the operational burden they place on banks—which, let us be clear, are intimately involved in enabling the exercise of the provisions in the Bill. However, the real issue here is not with the content of the amendments but with the process that led to their necessity. These changes are not minor corrections, nor are they are clarifications. They alter the way in which deduction orders function and work operationally. They exist because the Government have belatedly taken on board feedback from banks and financial institutions—institutions that clearly, and surprisingly, were not properly consulted before the Bill was introduced. As I said in the debate on the previous group, this raises serious concern about how the Bill is being developed.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, specifically her questions as to why calculations for DDOs are in the Bill in the first place and why the need for this change did not come to light earlier. Referencing calculations is established practice in the context of employers making calculations for deduction from earnings orders, hence the drafting reflected here for direct deduction orders. Continued engagement with the financial sector has covered an array of content related to the Bill. As we have moved to discuss implementation, any issues raised have been considered and, where appropriate, acted on by officials in order to smooth the implementation of the powers.
This Government have been engaging extensively with the financial sector. It requested that we remove references to banks calculating amounts to be deducted through a regular DDO. This is because the banks felt that it would create an excessive burden that gave them too much responsibility for making decisions regarding deduction amounts. Utilising the deduction order information notices, the PSFA will already have a fuller understanding than the bank of the liable person’s total financial affairs. Along with its obligation to ensure that deductions are fair and affordable, it is right that the PSFA determines what the deductions will be, and it provides another safeguard. I therefore hope that your Lordships will support these amendments. I commend them to the Committee.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 23, page 15, line 3.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment means that a lump sum direct deduction order given by the Minister for the Cabinet Office must specify the amount to be deducted.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with my other amendments to clauses 26 and 27 to the same effect, would replace the tag “first notice” with “pre-deduction notice”. This has no substantive effect but is intended to be easier to understand.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, this next group of government amendments seeks to bring further clarity to the process of engaging with banks on direct deduction orders. Government Amendments 41, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 113, 114 and 116 seek to clarify the purpose of the previously named “first notice” by renaming it a “pre-deduction notice” for the PSFA and the DWP respectively. It is just changing the name, nothing more. These minor and technical amendments reflect that the Government are acting in response to feedback from the banking sector about the description of notices. It felt that the naming was confusing, so we have changed it. We appreciate the sector’s engagement.
Similarly, government Amendments 106, 107, 108 and 118 follow on from feedback from the sector for greater clarity on the approach to the issue and subsequent processing of the notices, and make the application of the powers easier for financial institutions to understand. They support the intention that all relevant parties impacted by the debt powers of the Bill are correctly notified of the action to be taken. I beg to move.
Baroness Finn (Con)
It is great to be having a dialogue with the noble Baroness. We welcome the Government’s amendments in this group which, taken together, amount to a series of technical clarifications and improvements to the Bill. As the noble Baroness said, they do not fundamentally alter the policy intent, but they help to tighten its operation, provide greater clarity and ensure that the provisions are more workable in practice. We broadly support these amendments and will not oppose their inclusion.
However, I note that even so-called technical amendments can have material consequences for those tasked with delivering the measures in the Bill—whether public bodies, private firms or individuals. It is important that any changes, however minor they may appear, are properly explained and fully understood by those affected.
I also take this opportunity to remind the Committee that, when a Bill is heavily reliant on secondary legislation and technical detail, as this one is, we must be especially vigilant in making sure that these fine-tuning amendments do not obscure bigger questions of transparency, proportionality and accountability. We will continue to keep a close eye on those issues as the Bill progresses. So, while we support this group of amendments, we urge the Government to maintain the spirit of openness and collaboration that they have shown so far as further changes inevitably arise, and to ensure that the cumulative impact of even minor adjustments is properly assessed. With that said, we are content to support these amendments.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for both her engagement and support for this group of amendments and her wider engagement on the Bill.
While these amendments alone are relatively minor, together they reflect the importance of the ongoing consultation with key stakeholders, which is intrinsically linked with a desire to ensure that the legislation is as clear, precise and straightforward to implement as possible. The PSFA has consulted departments, public bodies, academics and non-public sector groups over many years of policy work to identify and resolve gaps in debt management powers across government. The PSFA has continued to work with stakeholders to consult on these powers as they go through Parliament and is committed to continuing to do so during implementation. We have listened directly to feedback raised by the financial sector and are taking the steps necessary to bring the clarity it seeks. I therefore hope that your Lordships will support these amendments.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
In support of my noble friend Lady Finn and in the spirit of agreeing with what is going on, I just want to ask a probing question of the Minister that is perhaps a little unfair. As we have noticed, there are a number of government amendments here and there is work in progress. The agreement between the Government and the banks continues. Does she have any idea when this will end? In other words, as Committee progresses, should we expect further government amendments as the banks and the Government work together to nail down the detail of agreements concerning the Public Sector Fraud Authority and the Department for Work and Pensions?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount. I feel like these may be famous last words, but I am assured that we hope not to table any more government amendments in Committee.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 26, page 16, line 14.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments to clause 23, page 15, line 3 and clause 23, page 15, line 11.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 26, page 16, line 14.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 26, page 16, line 14.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment inserting a new clause after clause 36.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, we recognise that there can be extenuating and difficult circumstances where someone has to take over another’s personal and financial affairs, such as making a power of attorney. Government Amendments 46, 61 and 121 clarify the role of a legal deputy with regard to the direct deduction order provisions for the PSFA and the DWP. These amendments follow our ongoing engagement with the financial services sector, which sought clarity as to how it would carry out a direct deduction order where a legal deputy has been put in place. We have benefited from the operational insight of the banks and have tabled this amendment to ease the operationalisation of the recovery powers.
Government Amendment 61 inserts an additional clause after Clause 36 to ensure that the provisions about direct deduction orders in Part 1 operate effectively where a person acts on behalf of an account holder by virtue of a power of attorney or as a court-appointed deputy. The amendment has the effect that any direct deduction order provisions and requirements have to be carried out by any legal deputies of the liable person, ensuring that recovery action can still proceed effectively.
Government Amendment 46 is a consequential amendment to ensure that the restrictions to prevent someone frustrating the direct deduction order will also apply to a person acting on behalf of an account holder.
Government Amendment 121 makes equivalent provision for the DWP as government Amendment 61 does for the PSFA. This brings clarity to the financial institutions that have to deal with deputies. It also brings protections to the liable person, ensuring that they are not unfairly given a non-compliance penalty if it is in fact their legal deputy who is not engaging with us on repayment or attempting to frustrate a deduction order. I beg to move.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, we welcome the Government’s amendment to make provision for cases where an individual with liability under the Bill has a person with power of attorney appointed to act on their behalf. This is a pragmatic step recognising that in some circumstances an individual may not be capable of handling their own financial affairs, whether due to age, illness or incapacity, and that there must be a clear legal route for compliance and communication to proceed.
It is right that, despite these circumstances, we should continue to recover public money that has been gained through fraud, given that adequate safeguards are in check, which I and my noble friend Lord Younger will address later in Committee. We therefore support the principle behind this amendment. It brings a degree of clarity and certainty to what could otherwise be a difficult area and ensures that the processes set out in the Bill can still function effectively when a liable person is not acting for themselves.
However, we wish to raise a concern which we hope the Minister can provide reassurance on. While this amendment provides for cases where a power of attorney exists, it does not appear to make provision for what happens when no such power is in place. In reality, there will be vulnerable individuals who may not have granted a power of attorney and who may also lack the capacity to manage their affairs independently.
In such cases, how will the provisions about direct deduction orders, as set out in Part 1, continue to operate effectively? Who is to be regarded as liable under the provisions in the Bill? Who will be entitled to challenge a notice or a penalty? Without a mechanism to address this situation, there is a risk that enforcement could falter—or worse, that it could proceed inappropriately without proper safeguards in place for the individual concerned.
We would therefore welcome the Government’s thoughts on how such cases will be handled in practice and whether there are plans to issue guidance or put in place safeguards to ensure that vulnerable individuals without formal representation are not unfairly affected by the processes introduced by this Bill.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for raising those specifics and for the collegiate nature of her contribution, giving me enough time to get the appropriate reassurances from my colleagues. I also thank her because we have not yet really discussed the vulnerability protections that are in place, and this gives us an opportunity to do so. As we progress through Committee, there will be many opportunities to discuss this, but I welcome the opportunity to provide some level of reassurance now.
Existing government standards on vulnerability, such as His Majesty’s Government’s debt management vulnerability toolkit, will be utilised by the PSFA. Vulnerability assessments will be carried out at the start of each investigation. These will review any evidence of financial, social or personal vulnerability and then determine how best to engage with the personal impact and subsequent enforcement action. Vulnerability will be kept under regular review as a case progresses and the vulnerability assessment will be regularly updated. During debt resolution, the liable individual will have additional opportunities to identify vulnerabilities. Debt resolution policy will take vulnerable customers into account and there will be a range of adaptations and forbearances on offer to support them. We will publish further guidance on this issue related to vulnerabilities.
These amendments resulted from direct engagement with the finance sector. We have been keen to seek its insight on how to use these powers and to table amendments that bring clarity to its roles. However, these amendments also ensure that those who act as a legal deputy on behalf of an account holder must adhere to the terms of any deduction order put in place. They set out clear obligations for them and put protections in place for the liable person whose affairs are being looked after by such a deputy. I hope your Lordships will support these amendments.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 26, page 16, line 14.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 26, page 16, line 14.
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to clause 26, page 16, line 14.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes an unnecessary requirement to seek representations from account holders before a direct deduction order is varied in circumstances where their consent is required in any event.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I turn to a group of amendments designed to remove duplication and bring greater clarity to certain parts of the debt recovery powers for the PSFA and the DWP.
Government Amendment 51 seeks to simplify drafting by removing an unnecessary requirement for the PSFA to seek representations on an application to vary a deduction order where, in order to make such a request, all account holders must have already consented. Government Amendments 52 and 117 seek to leave out redundant subsections to remove duplication. The subsections referenced outline that a bank must comply with a varied direct deduction order as per Clause 23(5) for the PSFA or new paragraph 7(5) in Schedule 5 for the DWP. However, Clause 23(5) and new paragraph 7(5) already state that a bank must comply with every direct deduction order. Government Amendments 98 and 99 remove unnecessary references to a payment or credit in Clause 85, both of which are within the relevant definition of “benefit” already as a result of Section 121DA(5) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
These amendments will help make the Bill as clear as possible, which I trust is welcomed by your Lordships’ Committee. I beg to move Amendment 51 tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Sherlock.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly on this group of government amendments which make a number of technical and definitional clarifications to the Bill. We on these Benches broadly support the changes in this group. These amendments serve an important purpose in tightening the language of the Bill and ensuring that the provisions are legally coherent, internally consistent and practically operable. We recognise the importance of ensuring that statutory language is as clear and precise as possible, not only for those who will be responsible for implementing these powers but also for those who may be subject to them.
In some cases, these amendments address minor inconsistencies in wording; in others they bring greater alignment between different parts of the Bill or between this Bill and the existing legislation. These are the kinds of technical improvements that are important to ensure that legislation operates as intended and we welcome the Government’s attention to detail in this regard. It is, of course, always preferable for such clarifications to be made earlier in the process—sorry to spoil it; it was getting too friendly—but we appreciate that, particularly in complex Bills such as this one, a certain amount of refinement is inevitable as the provisions are examined more closely by Parliament.
While there is no need to dwell at length on what are by nature technical changes, we support the amendments in this group and are pleased to see the Bill improved through their inclusion.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. I simply end by stating again that the effect of these amendments is to clarify the drafting and remove redundant drafting that is already provided for. It is important that we have clear and precise legislation to aid implementation of these powers, all of which will be used to tackle the scourge of fraud against the public sector. Therefore, I hope noble Lords will provide their support to these amendments.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment removes a provision that is redundant (because section 23(5) applies in relation to every direct deduction order).
Baroness Finn
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure reviews of decisions to make a direct deduction order are undertaken by an independent person.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, our amendments in this group seek to address an important point—the feedback loop which exists in the review mechanism for direct deduction orders. We believe that in order to have a legitimate review of a decision the review pathway has to be independent from the office which made the initial decision. We need to make sure that adequate checks and safeguards are in place so that the exercise of the powers under this Bill are both effective and fair. This is not only important from a political or constitutional perspective; it is the only way that we will create a legitimate and trusted system to combat fraud.
In practical terms, the Bill means that if a person affected by a direct deduction order or a joint account holder wishes to challenge that decision, the case is sent back to the very department that made it. This is not how we build confidence in public institutions nor how we meet the standards of fairness the public expect. This is, in essence, a legal framework which allows the Cabinet Office to mark its own homework. As the Government have made clear, the PSFA will remain a very small team for the foreseeable future. Under the system currently proposed in the Bill, close colleagues will be reviewing one another’s decisions. It is natural that one should expect this process to be independent but, based on the Government’s proposal before us, this can never be the case.
We on these Benches consider it an impossibility that a review system set up in the way the Government have set out can inspire confidence and hence command legitimacy. We have therefore tabled amendments in this group to give the Government the opportunity both to make these changes and to make the Bill operate with greater effectiveness and legitimacy.
Our Amendment 56 would compel the Minister to appoint an independent person to undertake a review of a decision when an application for a review is made. This amendment addresses the heart of our concern that, on receiving an application for review, the Cabinet Office should appoint an independent person to review what the Cabinet Office has decided. It should not be the case that the Cabinet Office reviews what the Cabinet Office has decided.
In our view, this is a common-sense amendment rooted not in politics but in principle. It reflects a widely accepted and fundamental tenet of good governance: those who exercise power should not also be the final arbiters of whether that power was exercised lawfully or fairly. Independent review is not a novel concept; nor is it controversial. To embed this principle here would be not radical but responsible—and it is essential if the Government hope to build public confidence in a new, far-reaching enforcement mechanism.
Building on that, our Amendments 57 and 58 would permit the independent person to reach a decision as to whether a direct deduction order should be upheld, varied or revoked. These amendments do not seek to hand the power to implement these decisions to the independent person; rather, they would ensure that they can make a determination on one of these three outcomes, which they must then communicate to the Minister, who must then share it with the applicant. We are not seeking to create a rival executive power or trying to strip the Cabinet Office of its authority. We are proposing a balance: the Government would retain ultimate responsibility, but that responsibility would be exercised in the light of a fair and independent review, not an internal second glance.
These amendments would ensure not only that the review process was made independent from the organisation that made the original determination but that the applicant would have sight of the decision that was reached by the independent person in relation to their case. This mechanism would ensure not only that the Minister, with their respective lines of accountability to Parliament, would maintain the power to implement a decision but that reviews of their actions would be truly independent and accessible to the liable person or joint account holder. Ensuring that the sweeping powers provided for in the Bill have proper, independent oversight mechanisms is fundamental to making sure that we balance the imperative of combating fraud with our responsibility to wield these powers proportionately and fairly. People must be assured that they can make a request for a review that will be independent and fair. This is the only way in which we can garner trust and create a system that is truly legitimate in the exercise of its powers.
Finally, our Amendment 59 sets out a proposal for how such an independent reviewer could be constituted as part of the Bill. As is made clear in proposed new subsection (2), the nominees for appointment to the position of the independent reviewer must, or should, undergo a pre-appointment hearing before the Public Accounts Committee; this would build in some accountability to Parliament ahead of the final appointment being made.
I emphasise that, although this amendment sets out just one vision of how the independent reviewer post could be formed, it speaks fundamentally in support of our view that the review mechanism built into the Bill must be independent of the Cabinet Office. The review process has the potential to impact significantly on how a deduction order is applied to a liable person or a relevant joint account holder. It is important that the process for review is effective, legitimate, independent and fair. The only way we can see this being achieved is through the incorporation of an independent review mechanism, a proposal for which we have set out in this group of amendments—Amendment 59 in particular.
Ensuring that liable parties can be assured of a fair review is a duty that we owe to those over whom Cabinet Office officials are exercising these powers. Providing a review process that relates back to the original body that made the decision is inadequate and, in our view, does not fulfil the obligation to provide effective avenues of appeal and redress. We must always remember that a person affected by a direct deduction order may have legitimate grounds to request a review of the decision. They deserve to know that, if they do so, they will be heard not by the same body that sanctioned them but by someone who is genuinely independent, impartial and fair.
The Government have argued that the powers in this Bill are necessary to tackle public sector fraud, but powers without independent scrutiny are at risk of creating overreach. If we are asking the public to accept strong measures in the name of fraud prevention, we must also guarantee that those measures will be exercised with proportion, accountability and justice. To allow the Cabinet Office to be judge and jury in its own cause does not meet that test. Our amendments, therefore, offer a sensible solution. They provide a pathway to restore confidence in the process—a pathway to fairness, legitimacy and the rule of law. I urge the Government to adopt them, and I urge noble Lords to support them. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the spirit of this group of amendments. I am not clear that I understand entirely how the independent review process might work, but I do understand the importance of having an independent review process; the case for this was made convincingly by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn.
Despite the fact that we are whizzing through these amendments at great speed, I do not think that it would be right to underestimate the huge amount of power that this Bill gives the Cabinet Office. There appears to be an atmosphere of consensual camaraderie, which it is pleasant to be involved in—it may be an atmosphere I am less used to—but I emphasise the amount of concern outside this Committee about the implications of this Bill. The people who are concerned are not all hucksters or fraudsters: they are ordinary people who have genuine fears around the possibilities of the absolutely unintended consequences of the Bill if we do not have adequate safeguards. So I am keen on anything that strengthens safeguards.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will consider these amendments seriously. I think that they are very helpful. I am particularly keen, of course, on the idea that liable persons, as they are described, deserve to have somewhere they can go to make an appeal. They deserve to know, as was suggested, that, if they have legitimate concerns, they will be heard. So much of what appears to be in this Bill happens behind the backs of liable persons, which creates an atmosphere of fear, suspicion and nervousness.
I do not think that people are just being paranoid here. Consider—this has been mentioned before and will no doubt come up again—the Horizon scandal. There is nothing more frustrating than feeling as though you have been treated badly somehow but you do not know where to go. You have nowhere to appeal to. It may be that you have a perfectly legitimate explanation for something. What we saw in Horizon was “computer says no”. What we could have here is the Cabinet Office, which has just imposed something on you, not taking any notice if you should go and complain. That is a very important part of this: people deserve to know that their concerns can be heard, and so on.
There is a danger in this discussion sometimes. I fear that, if one raises concerns about this Bill, there will be an inference that one is not taking fraud seriously. That is absolutely not the case. I have constantly made the point, for example, that I worry about the conflation of error and fraud. This does not mean to say, though, that, where there is genuine fraud, we should not want to clamp down on it as hard as we can.
But it is also fair enough that we need to have a system in which there is public confidence. To clamp down on fraudulent activity, we need a watertight, safeguarded Bill that targets fraud and does not pick up any number of non-fraudulent issues, which will undermine public confidence. The intention of these amendments is to help enhance public confidence that there is a mechanism through which an independent body can review a process that could be corrupted inadvertently by a department having the capacity to mark its own homework, and, in that instance, not always see the wood for the trees when people raise concerns.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I, too, have a few comments to make on these amendments. I very much support the intention behind them. I would like to understand a bit more about Clause 34 and how it will operate. Paragraph 219 of the Explanatory Notes says:
“This clause introduces a process for review of deduction orders by an authorised officer of a higher grade than the original decision maker upon application by relevant parties”.
As far as I can see, there is no mention in the legislative text of the authorised officer who conducts the review being of a higher grade. Perhaps I have missed it, and it is somewhere else; if so, I would be grateful to know where. If it is not somewhere else, it may be that the Explanatory Notes made that point on the basis of general principles of administrative law. Either way, it would be useful to know where that comes from.
My second point concerns the grounds for review, which are very narrow. Clause 34(4) says:
“An application for a review under this section may not be made on, or include, any ground relating to the existence or amount of a payable amount (unless the amount is said to be incorrectly stated in the order)”.
The grounds for appeal in the following clause are equally narrow. Is my understanding correct that the reason these grounds are so narrowly drawn is that there has already been a final determination of the payable amount by a court or tribunal—which was the reference to Clause 12 that we were given earlier on? Can the Minister give us some examples of grounds for review, given how narrowly drawn that provision is in Clause 34(4)?
Finally, I note that there is no time limit imposed on the Minister for carrying out the review. The applicant would have to put in an application within 28 days, but they might just sit and wait for the outcome of that review for an indefinite period. Would it not be a good idea to include a clear time limit on the reviewer—ideally the independent reviewer—or the authorised officer for that review to be concluded?
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I will say very briefly that I support the concept, at least, behind these amendments. It cannot be right that the Minister marks his own homework. The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, talked about what it says in the guidance notes. I do not know whether this is the right mechanism but, at the very least, if a review is to be carried out by the department, it must be by somebody who was not at all involved in the original decision and is not answerable to anybody directly involved in the decision-making process. That needs to be set in stone somewhere, not just in guidance notes or whatever that can be changed at a whim by any future Government. This is one of the weaknesses throughout this. We have lots of safeguards, but they are all in codes of conduct, future statutory instruments or whatever; they are not set in stone in the law and therefore are not strong safeguards. That is a general thought.
I have a feeling that I know what the answer will be: if they do not like the outcome of the review, they can go to the First-tier Tribunal. But that is a big leap from going back and saying, “Can we have an independent review?”. A First-tier Tribunal is, effectively, a full legal process. We need something that works and in which people can have confidence at the first level, before needing to take it to the much more legalistic, costly and complicated process of the First-tier Tribunal. I think the Minister will say that that is the answer, but I am not sure that I agree.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
This is a popular set of amendments. I agree entirely that there should be an independent review. That is something that somehow has to be in the Bill. What worries me about the noble Baroness’s amendments is that they talk about an “independent person”. Those are the words in the amendment. An independent person is somewhat different from an independent review. I can see a wonderful job opportunity in having panels of independent persons who could be available to be appointed.
During the debate on this Bill, one has somehow to put flesh on the concept of an independent review, how it is set up and how people can make their complaints. One of the real problems of modern life is that, if you want to make a complaint, you have to be able to do it on a computer and use IT. Is there going to be a process whereby you do this in a letter form in some way or another? These amendments, in seeking to put right the lack of an independent review, latch on too closely to the concept of an independent person, which in my view is completely different.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I have lots of bits of paper, and they are all written in my handwriting, which means that it will be even harder for me to read them—so bear with me.
Amendments 56, 57, 58 and 59 would establish a new body with responsibility to conduct reviews of direct deduction order decisions. Under the current drafting, internal reviews can be requested to challenge, for instance, whether a direct deduction order is the most appropriate form of repayment or whether the deduction amount is fair and affordable. Internal reviews are important, as they provide a straightforward and affordable way for the liable person to present a challenge to direct deduction order decision-making. They are an impartial element of many review processes. Indeed, if we turn to cross-government precedence, we can look at Child Maintenance Service and HMRC deduction orders. Both of these include an internal review stage without necessitating the creation of another new body.
For DDO reviews, the reviewing officer will be a trained authorised officer of a higher grade than the original decision-maker. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, that is in Clause 66(3) of the Bill. They would not have been involved in this case until a review had been requested. They may decide to uphold, vary or revoke the direct deduction order. This decision will be based on an assessment of the material held and any relevant new information provided by the liable person.
To reassure the Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, anticipated, if the liable person disagrees with their decision, there are further appeal rights through the First-tier Tribunal. We specified the First-tier Tribunal for ease of access; no costs are awarded, and there is quick access to justice. We believe that that is a responsible option.
We believe that the amendments are duplicative, as there is already the right to independent review built into the legislation. Also, the proposals outlined in the Bill would not require the extra costs or resources that the application of these amendments would. I highlight Clause 64, which already creates the role of an independent person, who will have the responsibility of reviewing how the PSFA are using the powers and whether this is being done correctly, ensuring another layer of independence and safeguard.
On some of the specific questions, Clause 35 outlines the appeal process. The liable person can make representations before the DDO and then make appeals to vary the terms throughout engagement.
The noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, asked why the liable person cannot challenge the amount owed in the internal review. That was not quite his question, but this is the answer I have. All reviewing appeal options will clearly be signposted to the liable person throughout our interactions with them; the liable person will already have had opportunities to challenge the amount owed, either as a result of fraud, error or the application of a penalty, in the relevant court or tribunal proceedings. We believe that that provides more than ample opportunity to challenge.
While we want to let people present their positions, we also do not want them to be allowed to excessively frustrate the recovery process and cause unwanted delay in the return of vital funds.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Maybe I should just clarify. I am not suggesting that the Cabinet Office is full of malign people out to behave badly, and I was not suggesting that they all need to be punished. I was more suggesting that the reason why it would be useful to have an independent review body was for exactly the reasons that fellow noble Lords have pointed out—that if people wish to challenge decisions that are made, it is very important they feel they can go to a body where they will not necessarily be working directly with the people who made the original decision, as has been described. No one is suggesting that there is an evil, scheming group there.
The comparison with the Horizon scandal that I was trying to make was about the sense of intimidation and fear when someone feels that they have been wrongly treated, then when they appeal or try and go to a body to sort it out and it ends up being the same people who punished them in the first place. Maybe I misspoke before, but it is this that I am concerned about—so I would like this independent review body to exist so that those who are liable have somewhere independent to appeal to, straightforwardly.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, in response to the noble Baroness, I state that there is the First-tier Tribunal opportunity, in terms of there being an independent process to go to. That is why we have put in place the additional safeguards with regard to the independent person who will be appointed to review all cases at their discretion, not at that of the Cabinet Office, as well as HMICFRS—so there is someone who has oversight. That is also why we are making ourselves subject to the IOPC for matters of complaints, as outlined in the Bill.
The noble Baroness raises a very important point about Horizon. I assure noble Lords that the Horizon scandal and how we ensure that it is not repeated has been central to this Government’s thinking on safeguarding. In light of the seriousness of events, the Government wish to proactively ensure the highest levels of oversight in new legislation, and that is why they exist in this Bill.
With regard to one of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on the appointment of the independent person subject to a parliamentary pre-appointment hearing, the Government cannot commit to this at this stage. Cabinet Office guidance states that it should be discussed between the relevant Secretary of State and the chair of the relevant Select Committee. The Government want to make sure that the independent person is demonstrably independent and are exploring all available routes to achieve that. I hope that we will be able to discuss that further in due course, but with these explanations I hope that I have reassured noble Lords and that therefore they will not press their amendments.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I just wanted a bit more clarity in terms of the Child Maintenance Service, which she alluded to. My understanding is that, if there is a problem with cases looked at by the CMS, they go up to a different level to ICE—the independent case examiner—and complaints are reviewed.
I am a little bit confused as to exactly what the Minister’s argument was. Backing up the argument from my noble friend Lady Finn, we are strongly looking for independence in the public sector. I was not quite sure whether the Minister was saying that it was okay because rather like the Child Maintenance Service there is an independence or if it is something else?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I apologise if I was not clear. My point was that internal reviews are already a normal process within government. HMRC, the DWP and the Child Maintenance Service already adopt them.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank noble Lords and thank the Minister for her response. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, may feel that this is consensual camaraderie. However, I can assure her that, while I am very grateful to the Ministers on the Bench opposite for their constructive engagement, I do not think there was very much consensual in what I said in my Second Reading speech on the powers of the Cabinet Office and various other parts of the Bill. I really did emphasise that I was very concerned about junior civil servants being granted sweeping powers, with the reviews and redress being carried out merely by a higher-grade official—the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, made that point—within the same department and not by an external body. The concern has always been that the Cabinet Office is appointed as investigator, juror, judge and debt collector. The individual affected has limited power to challenge the decisions, and then only after the damage has been done. I have been very clear, I hope, on those concerns and will be clear as we carry on going through the Bill.
This debate has laid bare a crucial flaw at the heart of the Bill, one which speaks not just of good process but to the principle of fairness, accountability and trust in government. We cannot expect the public to accept that legitimate and fair review decisions as impactful as a direct deduction order can be undertaken by the same department that made the order the first place. Our amendments in this group offer a simple, reasonable and principled solution that, when a request for a review is made, that review must be carried out by an independent person or body.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in this regard that we refer to an “independent person” but in Amendment 59 we refer to establishing a body to serve as an independent reviewer, so we are probing at the moment on how that might be set up, rather than being specific. The point is the independence of the body or the person. This should not be a colleague or a coworker and not someone in the same chain of command. No system of justice can command public confidence if it allows a single team to be judge and jury in its own cause.
Let us be clear. We are not seeking to tie the Government’s hands or strip departments of their operational roles; we are proposing a balanced and proportionate framework that keeps Ministers accountable to Parliament but ensures that the initial decision is subject to meaningful independent scrutiny. That is a safeguard for the individual and for the integrity of the system itself. This matters because the consequences of these powers will be real—they are sweeping powers, as I have repeatedly said—and immediate for the people affected. If those people are to have any confidence in the fairness of the system, they must know that their right to request a review is not simply a paper exercise. It is not good enough to say that this will be a small team and the risks are manageable. In fact, the small size of the PSFA makes the case for independence even stronger. Close colleagues reviewing each other’s decisions behind closed doors is a recipe not for fairness but for suspicion and mistrust.
Our amendments, particularly Amendment 56, place a simple duty on the Minister to appoint an independent person or body when a review is requested. Amendments 57 and 58 ensure that that person can reach a clear conclusion to uphold, vary or revoke the order and that the applicant is told what the decision is. Amendment 59 provides a model for how such a reviewer might be appointed, with proper parliamentary scrutiny.
If we truly believe in the legitimacy of these powers, we must also believe in the legitimacy of the mechanisms that hold them to account. A fair and independent review process is a necessity. This is not just a procedural issue; it is a test of whether this Government are serious about wielding these powers with proportionality, care and respect for the people over whom they are exercised. The public will not trust a system that allows the Cabinet Office to mark its own homework, and nor should they.
These amendments provide a path forward—a way to deliver a fraud prevention system that is strong but just, decisive but accountable, and both effective and legitimate. I urge the Minister to accept this principle of independence and to adopt these proposals or some version of them as important measures which would improve the system of review that the Government have presented. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw.
(a) the period of 28 days beginning with the day after the day on which the person was notified of the outcome of the review, or(b) such longer period (if any) as the Tribunal considers reasonable in all the circumstances.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment means that the tribunal can extend the time limit for bringing an appeal in relation to a direct deduction order of the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
Elections: Political Party Spending
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rennard
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to regulate spending by political parties on elections further, including by applying a national expenditure limit every year, not just in the year before a general election, or by lowering the national expenditure limit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, robust party spending and reporting rules are already in place. The Government do not have current plans to review the spending limits, but we are committed to maintaining the level playing field and the integrity of elections. In line with our manifesto commitment, our focus is on safeguarding our democracy by strengthening the regulations on political party donations. We plan to set out further details on that in our strategy for elections, which we expect to publish this summer.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, last week Elon Musk claimed that, without his $300 million donation, Trump would have lost the election. Does the Minister accept that democracy in this country should not be for sale and that millions of votes should count for more than millions of pounds? Given their commitment to a level playing field, will the Government act to bring in a cap on the size of donations that can be made to parties? Will they reverse the 80% increase in national spending limits brought in by the previous Conservative Government and opposed by Labour when in opposition? Will they introduce spending limits that apply every year, not just in the year before an election?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, many things are said on social media, including by Elon Musk, and I am aware that he is a prolific user of his own platform. There has been much discussion of his words and their impact; I do not want to dignify them with any further reaction in this Chamber. On the capping of donations, those who participate in electoral campaigns must also follow the donation and spending rules set out in law. It is the responsibility of those receiving political donations to take steps to ensure they are permissible, and we will take any necessary steps to ensure those requirements are tightened and abided by. There is no current priority on capping donations, but we are very keen on strengthening the rules around how donations work.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I welcome both the Minister’s initial Answer and her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. She will be aware that Reform, in announcing its policy on DOGE, said that it would cost the ordinary voter nothing because the expertise would be provided for free. That surely constitutes a donation of some form or another. On Saturday, Aubrey Allegretti reported in the Times that the head of DOGE in Kent had said that they had
“hired up to a dozen people, including forensic accountants”
and data scientists. Does the Minister agree that this either constitutes a donation, which should be looked at by the Electoral Commission, or, more likely, is a cost to the voters of Kent County Council of which they were not aware when they cast their votes only a few weeks ago?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point, and, like many others, I have heard a lot about DOGE in Kent. Local government funding is incredibly complex and, if what I have seen in the press is true, it is very important that anyone looking into this has a very detailed understanding of the subject. We have our own regulatory bodies, including CIPFA, which do great work in that area.
On breaches of donations, the rules are a matter for the Electoral Commission or the police. The Electoral Commission already has the power to investigate and to impose civil penalties where it is satisfied there has been a breach. As part of our commitment to strengthening the rules on donations, which, very importantly, include donations in kind, we are also reviewing whether any changes are required to the role and powers of the regulator to make sure that rules across the political finance framework are effectively enforced.
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
My Lords, what plans does my noble friend the Minister have to tighten the rules on foreign donations to ensure that donations are made only from profits generated in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point, one that we have discussed in the Chamber before. I can assure her that the Government take the threat posed by disinformation and foreign actors interfering in our democratic processes very seriously. It is and always will be an absolute priority to protect the UK against foreign interference. While it is clear that foreign donations to political parties are not permitted, the Government recognise the risk posed by malign actors who seek to interfere with and undermine our democratic processes, which is why we will take all necessary steps to ensure that effective controls are in place to safeguard our democratic processes. As I said before, we plan to provide further details on our election strategy in the summer.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s undertaking to publish a strategy for electoral finance regulation. In so doing, may I encourage her to revisit the report by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, of which my colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsey, was also a member at the time? We worked on the basis of evidence and had cross-party support for the various recommendations we made. Regrettably, the Government of the time decided to accept none of them, so this is an opportunity for the current Government to put right that error.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As the work is being done to consider what needs to be in the electoral strategy, there have been a number of recent reports on elections and how they work. All the work done will be considered as we pull together the election strategy.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, in her answer to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the Michael Brown memorial question, the Minister referred to a strategy document that is being produced before the Summer Recess, but as of yet there has been no engagement with any other political party on this document. The last Conservative Government consulted the parliamentary parties panel, but the Labour Government have yet to do this. Will she commit so to do? I declare my interest as a treasurer of the Conservative Party.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that all political parties must be engaged in any consultation. The idea is to produce a draft strategy based on the reports that have been produced so far and then have an extensive consultation on that. I will reply to the noble Lord in writing if that is different.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I have to take the Question on money flowing into British politics further. In the Russia report, we had some information on Russian money flowing primarily into the Conservative Party and associated organisations. We now have American money from extremely reactionary groups within the United States—not the American state—flowing into a range of third-party campaigns and potentially through unincorporated associations to political parties. What are the Government going to do to monitor that and make it transparent to regulators?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord that this is a very important area. There are strict rules relating to unincorporated associations and the political contributions they make, including transparency requirements when making significant political donations. Currently, donations from unincorporated associations make up some 4.6% of the value of all reported permissible donations, but there is a risk there and it is very important that we take it seriously. As already stated, our department is developing policy proposals to meet manifesto commitments. As part of this, we are exploring recommendations from key stakeholders, including many that were made relating to unincorporated associations.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, during the passage of the National Security Bill, the last Conservative Government gave a commitment to this House to introduce voter information-sharing powers between relevant agencies and with political parties to help identify irregular sources of money. Why have the Labour Government done nothing to deliver on this sensible proposal? Is it not in the Labour Party’s best interests that it is given the heads-up, if it is taking money yet again from Chinese spies?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I do not think it at all helpful, when we are discussing an important issue concerning electoral law, to be throwing around political accusations about where the money has come from, because all parties have evidence of what other parties have done. We have to treat this issue with the seriousness it deserves, and we have to work on what our strategy is. Information-sharing is, of course, a very important part of what we are doing. I can assure the noble Baroness that, when we come to the strategy in the summer, information-sharing will play a key role in that.
United Nations International Day of Peace
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to celebrate the United Nations International Day of Peace on 21 September.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, peace day falls at the start of the UN General Assembly high-level week, the annual gathering of world leaders to discuss matters of peace and security and, this year, to commemorate the UN’s 80th anniversary. Peace is the bedrock of the UN. As always, the United Kingdom will be at UNGA in full force, demonstrating our support for the UN, its charter, and the essential role of the UN in effective multilateralism and the international rules-based system.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, which is much welcome. I thank him for the great energetic and principled service which he has given to this House and to the Government. Looking at the Question, I wonder whether there is a possibility that we might start thinking of shifting the focus marginally away from it simply being about international diplomacy and towards looking for better peace among ourselves, so that we might look for more inner peace, more intergenerational well-being and more community well-being. When we come to celebrate the day, might the Government think about sending a message to our 23,000 schools around the country that they should give some thought to those kinds of principles?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. He is absolutely right. One of the things that I have recently done is meet the new Secretary General of the UNA, who is actively involved in promoting the UN at all levels of community. I spoke about how we could reach out to all civil society groups to recognise the importance of the anniversary and the work of the UN, because it is not fully understood how important its role is, particularly in peacebuilding and peacekeeping. My noble friend is absolutely right. I will speak to my ministerial colleagues to see if we can reach out beyond civil society in recognition of the 80th anniversary and think about the role of schools and so on.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the main reasons that the UN was successful in its early years was its role in intervening on conflict prevention and then peace accords? It is a tragic consequence of the modern age that, when we look around the world today, we see that probably a record number of conflicts are raging, yet we often find that the UN has not been able to play the convening role that it did previously. What assessment has the Minister made of strengthening the role of the UN when it comes to mediation, particularly on the major conflicts we see currently?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I have a tendency to agree with the noble Lord on many occasions, and he is absolutely right. When he was Minister responsible for the UN, he took time to ensure that its peacebuilding efforts were fully recognised. We are absolutely focused on how we can improve support. I have been involved in meetings with Under-Secretary-General Lacroix during UNGA week, talking about how we can support that peacekeeping effort. More importantly, in April, I then met Under-Secretary Guy Ryder and Under-Secretary Nakamitsu to discuss not only how the UN reform programme can work but how it can be focused heavily on that peacebuilding effort. The noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to do more to promote such activity and to engage, but the convening role of the UN is absolutely vital. That is why, although we can feel frustrated with the role of the UN Security Council, it is really important that everyone is around the table.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the best way to mark peace day will be to invest in conflict prevention. It is regrettable that the Government are cutting to almost zero all conflict prevention work, especially—in the light of our issues here at home around migration—as there are an increased number of conflicts around the world that will lead to increased levels of migration. The Government continue to pay the profits of those hosting asylum seekers in the UK and to score out official development assistance. At the conference on 21 September, would it not be better to invest in peacekeeping and conflict prevention and not to allow profiteering as a result of conflict?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Maybe the noble Lord has more information than me, but I reassure him that we are absolutely focused on using all the tools in our toolkit to promote peacebuilding, and that is certainly not limited to ODA. To reassure him, we are using this year’s peacebuilding architecture review to champion the women, peace and security agenda, ensuring that gender inequality and women’s participation is embedded at all levels of the United Nations. We continue to support the UN Peacebuilding Fund and have committed over £175 million since its inception in 2006. We continue to support the UN’s Complex Risk Analytics Fund, with £1.4 million last year and this year, which plays an important role in financing data and analysis to strengthen global risk foresight capabilities. I do not accept what the noble Lord is suggesting. There are more ways that we can focus on peacebuilding, and certainly we will continue to do so.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, has the Minister had a chance to look at the reports I sent him over the weekend from Sudan, where over 100 mass graves were discovered in Khartoum and the surrounding area and where genocide continues in Darfur? Does he agree that there is an absolute link between peace and justice, and that if those who are responsible for atrocities, whether it is in Ukraine, the Middle East or Sudan, are not held to account, inevitably we see these things happen over and over again?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I have to confess that I did not have time over the weekend—sadly, I was not in the country—but I accept what the noble Lord says. It is absolutely vital that accountability is part of the mechanisms that we have to use here. He is right that it is about how we prevent these atrocities, and one sure way of preventing it is to make it clear to people who are thinking about committing such atrocities that they will be held to account. I agree with the noble Lord, but, as he focused on genocide determination, I repeat that our differences over that do not prevent us as a Government taking action to call out and seek to address atrocities, and to work to build resilience in places where there are risks of instability and violence. Sudan is a priority for this Government, as the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made clear. We will certainly pursue whatever we can in holding people to account to prevent such atrocities occurring or to stop those that are going on at the moment.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, it is indeed a sad irony, given the number of appalling conflicts afflicting the world at the moment, that the International Day of Peace has a lot of heavy lifting to do. What assessments have the Government made of the impact of aid reductions on peacebuilding on some of the fragile and conflict-affected states, particularly in the light of this International Day of Peace?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The important thing is not to take our eye off the ball and to focus on how we can achieve peace. A classic example of that is in the eastern DRC, where conflict is raging but we do not see too much attention being placed on it. I have been in constant touch with the President of Angola, who initiated the first ceasefire, and with President Tshisekedi and President Kagame about how they can approach it. We now have the Americans playing a critical role in Doha in bringing the parties together. We are absolutely focused on using all the tools in our toolkit to ensure peace. The most important part of that toolkit is our diplomacy and re-engaging on the international stage, which, sadly, was a little missing for the last 14 years.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, now that India is the fourth or fifth largest economy in the world, does the Minister agree that it is about time that India was a permanent member of the Security Council?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Noble Lords will have heard me stress the importance of Security Council reform. We have been at the forefront of arguing for two permanent seats for Africa on the Security Council, not least because, by 2030, a quarter of the world’s population will be African—that is really important. We have made the case for India—my noble friend is right—and we see Security Council reform as essential. It is always very difficult to focus on reform when people have the ability to stop it, but we are getting closer to the position where the extension of the Security Council is in sight, and we are working on it strongly.
Cluster Munitions Convention: Article 21
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Godson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the risk of legal challenges when relying on the provision in Article 21 of the Cluster Munitions Convention allowing the United Kingdom to fight alongside states that are not party to that Convention.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, since ratifying the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the United Kingdom has regularly co-operated with non-state parties, including in combat. The Cluster Munitions (Prohibitions) Act 2010 sets out a clear UK legal framework for all UK military personnel and nationals engaging in military co-operation and operations with non-state parties to the convention. The Act enshrines the convention’s prohibitions in domestic criminal law, while providing a defence in the context of international military co-operation and operations with non-state parties.
Lord Godson (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response; I just wonder whether, in the light of the rapidly changing international situation and Russian lawfare, it is perhaps a little optimistic. The Government are trusting in the strength of Article 21 in the face of legal challenge. I refer the Minister to the Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School study of 2010, which made it quite clear that Article 21’s interoperability carve-out, which the previous Labour Government obtained, does not in fact exempt signatory states from their Article 1 obligation not to “assist, encourage or induce” the use of cluster munitions. It concludes that the prohibition on assistance must apply at all times. Can the Minister therefore assure this House that the Government are certain that so eminent an interpretation of the convention is incorrect and so does not provide grounds for a subsequent successful legal challenge to our Armed Forces?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The straight answer to the question is yes, I am satisfied. I will give the noble Lord a reason for that, but we should not forget that the CCM remains vital in protecting humanitarian norms. Cluster munitions continue to pose a threat to civilians. In 2024, the Landmine and Cluster Munition Monitor reported that civilians made up 93% of cluster munitions casualties in 2023. I have read the noble Lord’s report. Provisions for military interoperability between members of the CCM and non-members are clearly set out and enshrined in UK law and have functioned effectively since the CMM came into force. Since the convention came into force in 2010, UK Armed Forces have operated effectively, including in combat with all allies regardless of their membership of CCM, in line with the CCM provisions on interoperability under Article 21.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the comprehensive answers that he gave to the noble Lord, Lord Godson. However, there is a much simpler response to this Question, to be found in the 45 words of paragraph 3 of Article 21 of the convention, which states:
“Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 1 of this Convention and in accordance with international law, States Parties”—
which includes the United Kingdom—
“their military personnel or nationals, may engage in military cooperation and operations with States not party to this Convention that might engage in activities prohibited to a State Party”.
Is that not the answer?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, it may be that my noble friend has saved me some time, but I repeat that since the CMM came into operation in 2010, we have done exactly that. We have co-operated with states which are not party to the agreement. My noble friend is right.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, highlights an important point. A number of fellow NATO states have withdrawn from the convention or never joined it in the first place. Russia did not sign up to it initially. There is an obligation under the convention, to which Gordon Brown signed us up, to make representations to non-member states. Have the Government done that formally to some of our closest allies?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Absolutely; we are committed to it. During my time as a Minister, I have seen first-hand the positive impact of the United Kingdom’s involvement in this. I pay tribute to the fantastic work of the Halo Trust. When I was in Angola, I visited areas that were severely contaminated by such weapons, which impacted hugely on the safety of civilians and their ability to re-establish their economy after such a long period of war. To come back to the fundamental point about Article 21, I am not making a judgment. We work with our allies—particularly Ukraine, which is facing Russian aggression. Russia is also bombing civilian cities and attacking civilians and civilian buses. We are committed to defending Ukraine and its right to defend itself. However, we must be clear. The important point about the convention is how it tries to stop this huge impact of remnants of war. There have been 10 years of peace in Angola, yet people are still dying from these munitions.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister regarding the Halo Trust and the very long legacy that exists because of the use of these munitions. The UK was the world leader in demining and in the stabilisation programmes in communities affected by them. Unfortunately, the scale of the ODA cuts is biting very hard, especially on initiatives such as humanitarian mine action and the stabilisation programmes. In the last Question, the Minister suggested that I was incorrect on the reductions. Can he prove his case by saying that these programmes will now be protected?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I did not say the noble Lord was incorrect—I think Hansard would prove that; I said that he may have more information than I have. We are in the middle of a very detailed spending review. While the outlying figures are out, the department has to go through a programme-by-programme process to determine how we meet the commitment of ODA. I did not say that he was misleading. One thing I am determined to do is to ensure that we use all levers available to us. It is not limited to ODA, and it is not limited to our diplomatic efforts and working with allies. We should be more innovative in how we develop and deliver these programmes, including with the private sector.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Government have rightly made it clear that we should be prepared for conflict if necessary. Unfortunately, they, and indeed the previous Government, have gathered a reputation for so-called legal freeloading, in other words, being restrained by an interpretation of international law which has often made it difficult for our troops to perform in the way they would want. Can the Minister assure me that there has been a thorough analysis of our legal obligations in the face of the possibility of war, so that our troops, as well as facing difficulties that they are bound to face, do not find themselves walking into a legal minefield?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Let me be absolutely clear to the noble Lord: ratification of the CCM and subsequent removal of cluster munitions from our inventory does not constrain UK military capability nor prevent interoperability with allies. The UK has successfully developed alternative systems and policies that have allowed for effective operation with our allies since ratification in 2008, including in combat. The strategic defence review was clear that the United Kingdom Armed Forces will be a more lethal, integrated force, equipped and ready for all future challenges.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I should declare an interest, as I was actively involved in the campaign to get these horrible weapons banned. Indeed, I was present in Dublin when word came through that Gordon Brown said that Britain should agree to the ban, which opened the door to other countries following suit. Given we have dealt with Article 21, is not the main onus on us to make sure that other countries do not withdraw from the convention and to use our influence as publicly as possible to urge them not to do so?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is right. As a committed member of the CCM, the United Kingdom continues to promote the norms of the convention and discourage the acquisition and use of cluster munitions by all states, irrespective of their status within the convention. We are absolutely undertaking what my noble friend suggests.
Social Care and Special Education Charities: Employer National Insurance Contributions
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McColl of Dulwich
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of changes to employer National Insurance contributions on charities working in the social care and special education sectors; and what steps they are taking to mitigate that impact.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name in the Order Paper and declare my interest as vice-president of the Shaftesbury Society and my involvement in many other similar charities.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have had to take difficult decisions to repair the public finances and rebuild the public services. Giving careful consideration to and properly assessing the impact of these decisions is a priority. A tax information impact note was published alongside the introduction of the Bill containing the changes to employer national insurance contributions, which sets out the impact of the policy on individuals, businesses and civil society organisations. As I committed to your Lordships’ House during the passage of the Bill, we will continually monitor and assess the impacts and effects of these policies.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
The Government’s national insurance increase to 15%, plus lowering the threshold to £5,000, will cost charities an additional £1.4 billion annually. One in four employers are implementing redundancies as a result. This will drastically cut charitable services, which is akin to kicking in the teeth the most vulnerable in our society. Has any assessment been made of the impact on charities serving vulnerable young and old people?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Of course the Government recognise the important role that charities play in our society as a trusted and independent partner to the public sector in helping deliver vital public services. We also recognise the work done by unpaid careers and welcome this week’s Carers Week as an opportunity to pay tribute to the invaluable work that they do throughout the UK. As I said in my opening Answer, we had to take a number of very difficult but necessary decisions, including on employer national insurance, to fix the public finances and restore economic stability. In doing so, though, we recognised the need to protect the smallest businesses and all charities, which is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that more than half of businesses, including charities, either gain or see no change in the amount that they will pay. As I also said in my Answer, we will continually monitor and assess the impact and effect of those policies.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government have already published several comprehensive spending review announcements over the past week? Does he further accept that social care funding is inextricably linked to the NHS’s recovery? Will he therefore use this opportunity to reassure the House that social care will not be cut in the comprehensive spending review?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness’s first statement of fact; we have already made several spending review announcements. She will know that the Government are making available so far £3.7 billion of additional funding for social care authorities in 2025-26, including an £880 million increase in the social care grant. This is part of an overall increase to local government spending power of 6.8% in cash terms. As for future years, she will have to wait for Wednesday to find out the details of the spending review.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, in addition to their role in providing many social care services, charities perform a very important function in speaking up for patients, users and carers, enabling them to find their voice and claim their rights. Would my noble friend agree that this advocacy function is extremely important and should be supported and encouraged? I draw attention to my registered interests and thank the Minister for his acknowledgement of Carers Week.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her question and I wholeheartedly agree with what she says. Civil society organisations play an absolutely vital role in speaking out and advocating on behalf of their beneficiaries. This role is a fundamental part of a thriving democracy. We have a rich history of charities campaigning for change in this country. Examples span the huge breadth of the voluntary sector, from the NSPCC on child protection to the RSPCA promoting animal welfare, international development charities tackling global poverty and inequality, environmental charities raising awareness of global warming, and many other examples.
Civil society’s campaigning and advocacy roles should of course be recognised and celebrated, which is why the civil society covenant framework, launched in October 2024, aims to establish a renewed partnership between the Government and civil society organisations. It outlines four foundational principles: recognition, partnership, participation and transparency. Following extensive engagement across the sector, we aim to launch the civil society covenant later this year.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, given the worrying data from the National Care Forum that 73% of providers reckon that they will have to refuse new care packages from local authorities or the NHS, and that 22% plan to close their businesses entirely, what consideration are the Government giving to renegotiating completely the national insurance contributions, to ensure that those who provide direct care are not burdened with an expenditure that risks putting up the load and demand on the NHS itself and on local authorities, so that we get circular downward spiralling of excess expenditure?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I do not think I can give a positive answer to the main thrust of the noble Baroness’s question. As she will know, and as I said already, the Government are making available £3.7 billion of additional funding for social care authorities in 2025-26. We will set out future years’ allocations in the spending review on Wednesday. As she knows, the Government will provide support for departments and other public sector employers for the additional employer national insurance costs.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, in Committee on the national insurance Bill we put an amendment down to exempt hospices specifically from national insurance increases. The CEO of Thames Hospice, to which I declare I am a donor, said that, as a result of the proposed changes, more people will die in pain and agony than would otherwise need to be the case. What assessment have the Government made of the cost of these national insurance increases on hospices specifically, and what advice would he give to the chief executive of Thames Hospice?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
As the noble Lord knows, the Government recognise the vital role hospices play in supporting people at the end of their life and their families. The Government are determined to shift more healthcare into the community and ensure that patients and their families receive high-quality, personalised care in the most appropriate setting. Hospices will have a very big role to play in that shift. The Government are supporting the hospice sector with an additional £100 million for adult and children’s hospices, to ensure that they have the best physical environment for care, and £26 million revenue to support children and young people’s hospices.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
The Minister will recall from the amendment I tabled in Committee to what was then the Bill that my twin brother was an early beneficiary of SEND transport. Will the Government monitor the impact of national insurance increases on the effectiveness and continuity of provision in this area and inform the House of such findings in due course?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question. The answer is yes; I think I committed to doing so during the during the legislative process of that Bill. As I said then, the Government do not expect the changes to national insurance to have a significant impact on home-to-school travel for children with SEND. The Government have increased funding for the core schools budget by £2.3 billion, increasing per-pupil funding in real terms in 2025-26, and £1 billion of this funding will go towards supporting the special educational needs and disabilities system. The Chancellor will set out funding for schools as part of the spending review on Wednesday.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the fact is that these increases have devastated the charitable sector. For example, Noah’s Ark Hospice in north London said recently that the rise in national insurance represented
“basically a £100,000 tax on us that we hadn’t budgeted for”.
Yet the need for these services has never been greater, as the Minister has just acknowledged. Will he assure the House that the Government will not increase national insurance contributions again and that his review will look sectorally in detail at the effect on charities, hospices and social care before the next Budget?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
On the first half of the noble Baroness’s question, as she knows, as part of the changes to national insurance, the Government recognised the need to protect the smallest businesses and charities, which is why we more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that more than half of businesses with national insurance liabilities will either gain or see no change this year. The Government provide a great deal of additional support to charities via our tax regime, which is among the most generous anywhere in the world, with tax reliefs for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, partners of big law and accountancy firms derive most of their income from one source but, despite that, they are not deemed to be employed by the firm. Therefore, the firms do not pay employer’s national insurance on the partners’ share of profits. The big four law firms are avoiding about £4 billion a year in employer’s national insurance contributions. Can I urge the Minister to look into this and bring forward reforms, so that we can have lots more revenue for the things that we need?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for his suggestions, which I will always take very seriously.
Pension Fund Clearing Obligation Exemption (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 March and 28 April be approved.
Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 5 June.
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the events that we are seeing in Gaza, and that we have witnessed in recent weeks, are truly harrowing. It is evident that dramatic change is needed from the current situation; the level of suffering ongoing in the region on all sides is intolerable. We are clear that the deaths and casualties near aid distribution centres should never have happened. I note that public threats were issued by Hamas towards any civilians trying to access those aid points. Will the Minister inform the House what discussions have taken place with Israel about those events and the status of any investigations?
I am sure that the whole House is agreed that the Government should do all they can to try to stop and alleviate this humanitarian crisis, which is escalating in the region. Britain must leverage its influence 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. It is only after this work has been done that we can begin to progress towards a better long-term future for the Palestinian and Israeli people.
We must never forget those who remain in Hamas captivity. Some 58 hostages remain in the hands of this murderous terrorist organisation. They have now been in captivity for well over 600 days. We have always been clear that they must be released. We are aware of initiatives put forward by the United States, and that these latest proposals have been rejected by Hamas. So I ask the Minister: what pressure are the Government exerting on Hamas, perhaps working through sympathetic Arab Governments, to get them to reverse their opposition to those plans? What steps do the Government intend to take next to secure the release of the hostages? As I am sure the Minister is well aware, this is the only true way that we will ever resolve this conflict.
Turning to the West Bank, I am aware that the Government recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority. Can the Minister please provide an update on the Authority’s progress on reform and governance since that time? Strengthening credible governance will be essential to long-term peace. We need assurance from the Government that they are confident that these vital steps are being taken. It is, after all, essential, if we are ever to ensure that Hamas does not maintain a grip over the region, that the Palestinian Authority is strengthened and reformed. That is also the only way that we will ever reach a viable two-state solution.
I want to take a moment to speak about last week’s Gaza demonstration outside this House. Of course, I am proud that this is a free country. Everyone is entitled to protest and to make their point. However, there were numerous reports of Peers from all sides of this House being jostled, harassed, videoed and shouted at—including disabled Members of this House. A letter has been sent to the Lord Speaker regarding some of the security failings. That demonstration was attended and supported by about a dozen Labour Members of the other place. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on whether he considers that sort of behaviour to be acceptable.
The gravity of the situation escalating in Gaza means that the Government must leverage all the influence that they have in the region to try to end the suffering that we are seeing. The UK has both the diplomatic tools and the moral responsibility to press for meaningful change. That means doing all it can to ensure that aid reaches those in need, that hostages are returned to their families, and that Hamas is prevented from continuing its campaign of terror. It also means supporting the reform and stabilisation of Palestinian governance as an essential foundation for a viable two-state solution. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to these points in his reply.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we are witnessing both the systematic collective punishment and brutalisation of a civilian population combined with the weaponisation of food and medicine. A Government have made a decision to annex land that is not theirs and to put women and children, whose only sin is seeking aid, in the position of being at risk of literally starving to death. These are war crimes. Civilians are dying daily from gunshot wounds inflicted as they queue for food. Yesterday, the head of Save the Children US said it is reported that children who require surgery are waking up during that surgery because there is insufficient anaesthetic.
In the catalogue of horror in recent days, we know three incontrovertible facts. First, Prime Minister Netanyahu’s approach has not ended Hamas’s continued criminal and terrorist presence. The trauma of hostage families continues and now, for too many, it has turned into despair. Secondly, we see unabated the approach of extremist Ministers to forcibly and illegally occupy new territory. Thirdly, the sincerely meant and genuine concern of Ministers in the UK and elsewhere is having next to no effect in preventing it.
The time for timid behaviour is therefore over. These Benches have consistently called for the Government to take firm action, and they must do so now. We called for the sanctioning of extremist Ministers Ben-Gvir and Smotrich 18 months ago because we knew we needed clear preventative action. Given that the legal text of what we called for is on Ministers’ desks, why are the Government not implementing those sanctions, demonstrating that the UK will no longer tolerate calls for Palestinian dispossession?
We must cease all trade in the areas affected by these because Netanyahu’s Ministers claim that illegal outposts and settlements are Israeli land, which they are not. Why has the UK not expanded action to those Ministers and Members of the Knesset who support a continuation of the blockade of aid and call for annexation? Why has the UK not ceased all arms trading with the Netanyahu Government until they adhere to international humanitarian law?
The Minister in the House of Commons was asked last week our Government’s view of the ICJ advisory opinion on the Netanyahu Government that their
“policies and practices are contrary to the prohibition of forcible transfer of the protected population under … Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention”.
He replied:
“We continue to consider the ICJ’s advisory opinion with the seriousness that it deserves”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/6/25; col. 342.]
I remind the House that the opinion was in July last year. Surely the Government cannot any longer simply consider the opinion but should act on it. When Ministers tell me the Government act on the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the Chagos Islands but not on Gaza, I say to the Government that we must not have double standards.
As I said at the start of these questions to the Minister, we are a witness to history—one where we look with daily horror at the continuing unconscionable cruelty to children. But we are a Parliament, not just a witness. We must now, with urgency and clarity, provide action that is not too late to seek to prevent the annexation of Gaza and the West Bank, with the UK leading others in recognising the state of Palestine, showing beyond doubt the UK’s commitment to Palestinians’ right to self-determination and a two-state solution. With that and the other actions that these Benches have outlined, we might at least try to restore a process that a ceasefire could start and which could then be established and honoured, and there could be some respite for those being so terribly brutalised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions and questions. I say to the noble Lord opposite that the United Kingdom has been a close and long-standing friend of Israel. As the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, Israel suffered a heinous attack on 7 October and the Government have always backed Israel’s right to defend itself. We have condemned Hamas and its abhorrent treatment of the hostages, and we have stood with the families and demanded that their loved ones are released.
However, we also have a duty to condemn Israel’s latest action in Gaza. As the Foreign Secretary has said, the Israeli Government are
“isolating Israel from its friends and partners around the world, undermining the interests of the Israeli people and damaging … the state of Israel”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/5/25; col. 924.]
We have been very clear in condemning the outrageous language in the comments of Ben-Gvir and Smotrich but, as the noble Lord knows, I will not be tempted into foreseeing or predicting future sanctions. We do not do that, and I am not going to do that today.
We have been absolutely clear that we will not speculate, but we have made it clear in our joint statement with France and Canada that if Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions. We have been very strong with our partners in opposing the expansion of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, and we have reaffirmed our calls for the Israeli Government to stop their military operations in Gaza and immediately allow humanitarian aid in. The Foreign Secretary announced sanctions on 20 May to target those supporting violence against Palestinian communities in the West Bank, following extremely concerning surges in this type of violence.
We have announced the formal pause of free trade agreement negotiations with Israel, effective immediately. This is because it is not possible to advance discussions on deepening trading relationships with the Netanyahu Government, who are pursuing policies that are damaging to the UK, the wider region and their own citizens. The Minister for the Middle East also summoned the Israeli ambassador to discuss our severe concerns at the situation. We are clear that if Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions in response.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, also raised the ICJ. We are fully committed to international law and respect the independence of the ICJ. Despite what the noble Lord says, we continue to consider the court’s advisory opinion carefully with the seriousness and rigour it deserves. UK commitment to a two-state solution is, of course, unwavering—and I will come back to that point.
I say to both noble Lords—who I know share my concern—that we are absolutely appalled by repeated reports of mass casualty incidents in which Palestinians have been killed while 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 simply to feed themselves and their families. We have called for an immediate and independent investigation into these events and for the perpetrators to be held to account, including during a meeting of the UN Security Council on 4 June. We do not support any aid mechanism that seeks to deliver political or military objectives or puts vulnerable civilians at risk. We call on Israel to urgently engage with the UN to ensure a return to the delivery of aid in line with humanitarian principles.
Israel’s proposals to deliver aid to Gaza via private companies is dangerous for civilians and aid workers and cannot possibly deliver aid to all who need it. We endorse the plan for the delivery of aid put forward by the UN on 16 May, which is based on humanitarian principles, has built-in mitigations against aid diversion and uses established mechanisms to deliver aid at scale, which is required. Hamas must allow humanitarian assistance to be distributed without interference. I think all noble Lords understand and appreciate the seriousness of the situation. Working with our allies, we are very focused on trying to see what leverage we can bring to ensure that a solution is found as soon as possible.
The noble Lord is absolutely right about the demonstration. We can be proud of our country, which allows the right to association and the freedom to demonstrate. I think that all of us in this House respect opinions that do not necessarily agree with our own, particularly on this subject, but I accept that it is wrong for people to interfere with others who are going about their business. Certainly, I join the noble Lord in condemning such action, which is not acceptable at all.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, the Statement makes reference to the importance of a two-state solution if we are to get security for both Palestinians and Israelis. In the light of that, what action—that means more than condemnation; it really does mean action—are the Government taking, given the decision by the Israeli Government to build 22 new settlements on the West Bank? These settlements are illegal and will make it more and more difficult to have a two-state solution. If the Minister can give the House some hope that we will take action that goes beyond simply condemnation on this matter, I would be grateful.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hear what my noble friend says, but since we came into office this Government have taken action. We stopped the export of arms that could be used in Gaza and we are determined to take further action, particularly with the discussions on the free trade agreement. This is a Government who have taken action, but it is not just about punitive action; it is about working with allies to achieve that goal of a two-state solution. That is why we are very committed to ensuring that the conference co-hosted by France and Saudi Arabia is a success. If we can focus all international allies, including those in the Middle East, on the importance of delivering a two-state solution, this Government will be taking not just punitive action but positive action towards a peaceful solution. I say to the noble Lord opposite that the only real secure future, for both Palestinians and Israel, is a two-state solution where both communities can live in peace.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, if there is to be a recognition of a Palestinian state, will the Minister tell us what its boundaries will be? Will he give an assurance that any recognition would ensure that all parties recognise the right of the Jewish people to have a state?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think the noble Lord knows the answer. For those who have advocated a two-state solution and support parties towards it, obviously a precondition is the security of the State of Israel. We are absolutely committed to that. On the progress towards a two-state solution, we have been working with the Palestinian Authority, which does recognise that, and we have had progress in the past. But we want to ensure that we support those in the Palestinian Authority who can deliver that two-state solution that the noble Lord referred to. So I do not disagree with him; I just think that he implies—and I strongly say—that we see recognition as part of the process towards the establishment of a two-state solution. We do not see it as the end in itself. When the time is right to do that, it will be when we can deliver a more secure basis for that solution.
Lord Walney (CB)
My Lords, the situation in Gaza is horrendous, and any new settlement building is completely wrong. Can I press for a greater understanding of the Government’s position on aid delivery? I follow the logic of what the Minister says—that aid should not be delivered to further any political or military objective—but then what do the Government think of the way that aid has got in until now? When the Minister sees massed Hamas gunmen on top of aid trucks and sees the Hamas operatives threatening death to anyone who takes aid that is not through that route, surely the Government understand that that route is also fundamentally compromised.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The only word my noble friend uses that I disagree with is “fundamentally”. We have been working with all UN agencies and with NGOs to ensure that Hamas does not interfere with distribution. We have made that absolutely clear, and we have strongly condemned such interference. But the simple fact is that we know that the delivery of aid via private companies is dangerous for civilians and for aid workers and cannot possibly deliver aid to all who need it. That is why we continue to press the Government of Israel to permit the full and unhindered resumption of aid flow into Gaza, and that should take place immediately. By far the most effective way to meet the desperate needs of the Gazan people at the speed and scale that is needed is via overland routes, with the UN agencies and NGOs that we have supported delivering that aid.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, for as long as most of us can remember, Ministers such as my noble friend have been talking about the two-state solution as the holy grail that gets us all out of the difficulties. But is it not now time to recognise that the simple truth—which I ask him to confirm—is that the present Government in Israel, and indeed almost any reconfiguration that we could imagine, are implacably opposed in principle to any suggestion of a Palestinian state? Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, helpfully reminded us, there is no boundary that could be seen to provide one at the moment.
We need to try to unlock that hopeless position of the Israelis vetoing any independence whatsoever for the people of the West Bank or east Jerusalem, and take the opportunity of the Saudi Arabian and French initiative to make some movement towards breaking the logjam by saying that, yes, we—the UK Government with allies—will recognise a Palestinian state. Until everyone, including the Israelis, recognise the imperative requirement of that, there will be no peace.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
If only it were a question of the United Kingdom recognising the Palestinian state. Of course, our long-standing position, as my noble friend knows, is that we will do so. We will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process and to the realisation of a Palestinian state. It is one thing to say that we will recognise it, but it is another thing to see a secure situation established whereby the Palestinian people can live securely and in a neighbourly way with the State of Israel, as the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, said. Therefore, we will recognise it when it is conducive to delivering that objective. Everyone in this Chamber has had their hopes raised for peace in the Middle East, certainly since 1948. We absolutely must renew our efforts to deliver that because, with the humanitarian situation, those extremists in the Israeli Government have shown what they can do. The situation in Gaza is evidence of that, and we must not tolerate it.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I listened very carefully to my noble friend Lord Pickles, and I would say that there are plans, and there are people in Israel and in the Palestinian Authority—people in all communities—who want peace and want it now. We all agree on that, as one, irrespective of the need to get aid in. I have said to the Minister before that we should unblock and use the air routes and work with the United States, Egypt and Jordan to get aid delivered. We must work with all sides to ensure that aid gets in.
My question is a specific one. There is a peace plan from a former Prime Minister of Israel, Prime Minister Olmert, and a former Foreign Minister of the Palestinian Authority, Nasser al-Kidwa. It works on the two-state solution, including on the definition of boundaries, but recognises, importantly, that east Jerusalem is a sacred place for the Jewish community, the Muslim community and the Christian community. There are plans and there are people who wish to engage. Can the Minister assure me that he will make sure that His Majesty’s Government engage with all these key parties, because ultimately, peace, as Menachem Begin said, is inevitable?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right about the people of Israel. I am very careful to draw a clear distinction between the people of Israel and the current Government of Israel. It is the current Government of Israel who are pursuing this awful policy in relation to Gaza. The noble Lord is also absolutely right to draw attention to a range of options in terms of the peace discussions. That is why the initiative by France and Saudi Arabia is really important—because it can convene people. We talked in the earlier Question about the convening power of the United Nations, which is vital. I do not think that we can take an exclusive approach to the peace process; it has to be as inclusive as possible, but we are determined to support the reforms within the Palestinian Authority, to strengthen their work and to strengthen their credibility among the Palestinian people.
On the noble Lord’s question about aid, he knows that if we could have airlifts, we would explore every such mechanism to get aid in. But as he repeatedly assured me when I was in opposition and he was the Minister, there is only one real, successful way to get the amount of aid that is needed into Gaza, and that is through the road routes. We are determined to ensure that that is the case.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, we have plenty of time. We will hear from the bishop first and then the Lib Dems.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to His Majesty’s Government for the Statement on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. May I press the Minister on two things? The first is the attack by Israeli forces on the compound of the Anglican al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza, killing five, including three journalists and a father escorting his son to the surgical unit for treatment for prior injuries. This is the latest in a number of attacks by the IDF on church hospitals and churches, in defiance of international law. Will the Minister accept that specific actions are now required, since reasoned pleas have been ignored?
Secondly, in light of what the Minister has said about the UN conference from 17 to 20 June and the conducive time to recognise Palestine, will he confirm that a bold and clear statement will be made at that conference of the Government’s firm intention to recognise the state of Palestine?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I say to the right reverend Prelate that I have been clear about when we will recognise the state of Palestine, and that is when it is most conducive to that two-state solution. We will work with allies to ensure that we can create those conditions. The conference is part of that, but not the sole part. He is absolutely right to condemn the actions in Gaza and the Occupied Territories in terms of the use of violence; I think we can all be very concerned.
It is frustrating if it appears that we are not doing anything. We are absolutely determined to work with our allies so that the Government of Israel fully understand our concerns. Of course, we voted on 4 June in favour of the UN Security Council resolution focused on the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We highlighted that the Israeli Government’s decisions to expand its military operations in Gaza and severely restrict aid are totally unjustifiable, disproportionate and counterproductive. With our allies, we have called for an end to restrictions on aid. We believe that UN and other humanitarian partners must be allowed to operate, and we must be able to get back to a situation where we can get aid to where it is most needed.
On 19 May, we released a joint statement with Canada and France calling for Israel to cease its renewed military offensive and lift restrictions, so we are using what mechanisms we can. We are also using specific actions bilaterally against the Government of Israel. The initial one was the restriction of arms sales; another concerned the trade agreement. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that we work with our allies to make sure that the Government of Israel know our deep concern about this situation.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, what is the Government’s response to reports claiming that thousands of items listed under the category “bombs, grenades, torpedoes, mines, missiles and similar munitions of war” were exported from the UK to Israel, as well as four shipments described under customs codes as “tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles”? They were all reportedly delivered after the Government suspended licences for equipment that could be used offensively in Gaza in September. Will the Government take firm action to ensure that weapons from the UK are not being used to commit war crimes in Gaza and the West Bank and Occupied Territories?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I absolutely reassure the noble Baroness that the UK is not arming Israel’s war in Gaza. We can categorically say we do not export any bombs or ammunition for use in military operations in Gaza. As I have repeatedly said, one of the first acts of this Government was to review and suspend export licences for weapons that could be used by the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza. We have successfully implemented that suspension and continue to refuse all relevant licence applications.
I have also seen the press reports; we do not recognise the suggestion that arms exports from the UK to Israel increased following 7 October 2023, which covers a period under the last Government. The Government took decisive action in initiating a review of international humanitarian law on that day, so I can categorically say that we are not exporting bombs or ammunition for use in military operations.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, every day during prayers in this House, we pledge to put aside personal interests, prejudices and partial affections—that is, so-called friendships. Yet, we look in a benevolent way to the Israeli Government, who are accused of genocide, war crimes and the weaponising of hunger against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Unbelievably, we continue to supply arms and intelligence to Israel. Does the Minister agree that, in the 21st century, it is imperative that we look beyond politics, friendship or economic gain and base our foreign policy on the Christian and Sikh teachings of looking to the wider well-being of all, including Palestinians?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Well, I think I gave in response to an earlier question an absolutely categorical reassurance that we are not arming Israel with bombs and ammunition that could be used in Gaza. We are faced with a situation here. Israel has the right to defend itself. What the Government of Israel do not have the right to do is deny humanitarian aid into Gaza. We have made that position absolutely clear. We are absolutely focused on ensuring that that aid gets in.
As we have debated many times, the real solution will come when we can create a situation of peace. I believe that is what the majority of Israeli citizens want: they want peace, they want to live with their neighbour and they want a secure state. But so do the Palestinians. The two-state solution is something we should be aiming towards. That is the condition for peace: living side by side with neighbours in a peaceful way.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. The humanitarian situation in Gaza is desperate, with many thousands of civilians needing food and medical supplies. Access to aid must be safe and rapidly expanded. I discussed these issues in Israel with opposition leaders the week before last, and they are clear that this war must stop and that the hostages need to come home as a top priority. An election will take place in Israel next year, and every poll since 7 October points to Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition being ejected from office. What steps are this Government taking to strengthen Israelis and Palestinians who are serious about the compromises necessary for progress towards peace and the two-state solution that we all want to see?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Of course, the Government of Israel is a matter for the people of Israel to decide. However, I am confident that the majority of people in Israel want peace and the things that my noble friend mentioned. The most important thing that our Government can do is to work with our allies, particularly in the Middle East, to ensure that the agenda for the conference on the two-state solution is absolutely focused on the means to deliver it, so that we can create the conditions that my noble friend described.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Grey-Thompson
“Mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse(1) The Children Act 2004 is amended as follows.(2) After section 16LB insert—“16LC Reporting of child sexual abuseSubject to the provisions of section 16LD(7), (8), and (10) and section 16LF, providers of any one or more of the activities set out in Schedule 1A, who know of, or have reasonable grounds for suspecting the commission of, sexual abuse of children in their care, must, as soon as is practicable after it comes to their knowledge or attention, report it to—(a) the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO),(b) Local Authority Children’s Services, or(c) such other single point of contact with the local authority as that authority may designate for that purpose. 16LD Process(1) If the report under section 16LC is made orally, the maker of the report must confirm the report in writing no later than seven days thereafter.(2) Section 16LC applies whether or not the activities are defined in any enactment as regulated activities involving children.(3) Section 16LC applies whether a commission of sexual abuse takes place, or is alleged or suspected to have taken place, in the setting of the activity or elsewhere.(4) For the purposes of section 16LC the operators of a setting in which the activity takes place and staff employed at any such setting in a managerial or general welfare role are deemed to stand in a position of trust and are deemed to have direct contact with children in their care whether or not such children are or have been attended by them.(5) For the purposes of section 16LC all other employed or contracted staff or voluntary staff and assistants are deemed to stand in a position of trust only if they have had direct contact with and have attended such children during their time in such a position.(6) For the purposes of section 16LC children are or are deemed to be in the care of the providers of the activities set out in Schedule 1A—(a) in the case of the operators of any setting in which the activity takes place and of staff employed by the operators at any such setting in a managerial or general welfare role, for the period of time during which the operators are bound contractually or otherwise to accommodate or to care for such children, whether such children are resident or in daily attendance wherever the activity is provided, and(b) in the case of all other employed or contracted staff or voluntary staff and assistants, for the period of time only in which they are personally attending such children in the capacity for which they were employed, or their services were contracted for.(7) The Secretary of State may, in exceptional cases, issue a suspension document to rescind or temporarily suspend the duty referred to in section 16LC in the case of any specified child or children if it appears to the Secretary of State that the child’s welfare, safety or protection would be prejudiced or compromised by the fulfilment of the duty.(8) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that the welfare, safety and protection of children is furthered, they may exempt—(a) any specified organisation that works with children generally, and its members, or(b) any specified medical officer,from compliance with the duty referred to in section 16LC provided that no allegation is made against that entity or person.(9) The Secretary of State may make regulations varying or adding to or deleting from the list of activities in Schedule 1A, whether or not such activities are defined in any enactment as regulated activities involving children.(10) A person who makes a report under section 16LC in good faith, or who does any other thing required by sections 16LC to 16LF, may not by so doing be held liable in any civil or criminal or administrative proceeding, and may not be held to have breached any code of professional etiquette or ethics, or to have departed from any acceptable form of professional conduct. (11) Reports under section 16LC and the identities of the persons making them must be received and held by their proper recipients in confidence.16LE Offences(1) Failure to fulfil the duty set out in section 16LC following the procedure described in section 16LD before the expiry of the period of seven days of the matter, allegation or suspicion first coming to the knowledge or attention of the provider or of any person whose services are used by the provider as defined in section 16LD is an offence.(2) A person who causes or threatens to cause any detriment to a mandated person, being a person placed under the duty to report pursuant to section 16LC above, or to another person, either wholly or partly related to the mandated person’s actual or intended provision of a report under section 16LC, is guilty of an offence.(3) Detriment includes any personal, social, economic, professional, or other detriment to the person.(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a level 5 fine on the standard scale.(5) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a level 4 fine on the standard scale.16LF DefencesIt is a defence—(a) for any person to show that the Secretary of State acting pursuant to section 16LD(7) has issued a suspension document;(b) for any person employed by or operating as an organisation that works with children or for any medical officer to show that the Secretary of State has by a suspension document, whether temporarily or permanently, exempted it and its members or any medical officer from compliance with the duty in section 16LC; (c) to show that a report of the commission of the known or suspected child abuse has been made by any other party to the body or person under section 16LC(a) to (c) before or during the seven days referred to in section 16LE(1).16LG DefinitionsIn sections 16LC to 16LF—“children” means persons under the age of 18 years;“operators of a setting” , in the case of schools, sixth form colleges, and colleges of further education in private ownership, includes the proprietors, members of governing bodies, and board members in the case of ownership by a limited liability company;“providers of activities” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006.”(3) After Schedule 1, insert—“Schedule 1AREGULATED AND OTHER ACTIVITIES1 Education including—(a) schools;(b) sixth form colleges;(c) colleges of further education;(d) pupil referral units;(e) residential special schools;(f) hospital education trusts;(g) settings of education other than at schools;(h) private tuition centres. 2 Healthcare including— (a) hospitals;(b) hospices;(c) GP surgeries;(d) walk-in clinics;(e) outpatient clinics.3 Others including—(a) child nurseries and kindergarten provision;(b) childminders and childcare providers registered on the early years register or the compulsory or voluntary part of the childcare register;(c) registered social care providers and managers for children;(d) children’s homes;(e) children’s hospices;(f) youth offender institutions;(g) the Probation Service;(h) private institutions contracted by public bodies to provide services to children;(i) organisations providing activities to children, such as sports clubs, music, dance or drama groups, youth clubs, and Ministry of Defence cadet forces including Sea Cadets, the Volunteer Cadet Corps, the Army Cadet Force, the Air Training Corps and the Combined Cadet Force, Fire Cadets;(j) organisations providing holidays for children or supervising children while on holiday;(k) churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, and other places of worship and religious organisations, and other organisations holding non-religious worldviews;(l) services offered to children by local authorities outwith their statutory duties;(m) services offered to children by the police outwith their statutory duties; (n) transport services including taxis and coaches commissioned by the providers of the regulated activities in this Schedule.””
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 66 is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan.
This is a probing amendment, the core aim of which is to further protect children. In January this year, this House debated my Private Member’s Bill on mandatory reporting of child sex abuse. It ties in very well with Amendment 107B, which is also in this group, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie. We are all very keen, I think, to see the IICSA recommendations implemented in full. I will not prejudge what the Minister will say, but I expect to be told that there is another vehicle for this amendment; none the less, I think this is worthy of debate.
From Rotherham to Rochdale, there have been far too many children who have been abused and too few perpetrators brought to justice. We must continue to learn from our past mistakes. This amendment is a step towards ensuring that positive changes are being made. This amendment seeks to ensure that adults in positions of authority over children in regulated activities would have a legal requirement to report any suspicion of or knowledge of child sexual abuse. Regulated activities include those in education, healthcare, sports and others, which are fully listed in the proposed new schedule. I recognise that this is the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, but I am keen that protection goes much wider than just schools. I am very keen to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, might say on the duty of care.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for tabling it.
I would like to quote from a speech I made on 26 June 2014, soon after the terrible crimes of Jimmy Savile had been analysed in the Lampard report. Our campaign for the mandatory reporting of child abuse went back at least a decade before that, but the Savile case showed clearly what happens when people who know do not tell. I realise, as the noble Baroness does, that the Minister might tell us this is the wrong Bill to explore this issue, but I have always taken every opportunity to raise it, and that is why I am doing so again today.
On that occasion, I said:
“I have always felt that a child is his or her own best protector. We can do what we can to protect a child, but we cannot sit on her shoulder all the time. This is why it is so important that children are taught in every school, through a balanced PSHE course, how to protect their own personal integrity … They also need to be taught what a healthy, non-abusive relationship looks and feels like, and who to turn to in case of fear or of actual abuse”.
I still believe that this is every child’s right. I went on to say:
“We must then minimise the opportunity for perpetrators to reach vulnerable children”,
and to talk about the shortcomings of DBS checks, which
“are not enough, as they only identify those who have offended before, and are no use against first-time offenders or those who are clever enough to avoid detection”.—[Official Report, 26/6/14; cols. 1418-19.]
This is still the case.
In that situation, the knowledge or suspicion of abuse by adults around the child is a vital ingredient of protection. We need to ensure that those who know or suspect what is going on report what they know to an appropriate and responsible person. I mentioned that lawyers who acted for dozens of Jimmy Savile’s victims had told me that the most shocking revelation of all was the number of victims who had reported what had happened at the time to someone in their institution, only to be ignored and their claims covered up. One girl in Stoke Mandeville told a nurse what Jimmy Savile had done, only to be told, “You’re making a mountain, you silly girl. Do you know what he does for our hospital?”—how shocking.
That is why I believed then, and I still believe 11 years later, that we need a clear and comprehensive system for the mandatory reporting of child abuse which would make it an offence—with clear penalties—for those in a position of trust in a regulated activity to fail to report knowledge or reasonable suspicion of abuse. The person making the report need not know for sure that abuse was taking place; that is for the competent authorities to decide after investigation. Reasonable suspicion is all that is needed.
The amendment before us refers to regulated activity as defined in the Children Act 2004 and the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, both of which I well remember—though the definitions would need amending to exclude such confidential helplines as Childline. These measures have been successfully in operation in Australia for years, so I do not believe that it would be a problem here. I am grateful for the advice of Professor Ben Mathews—who also advised IICSA—about the Australian system. The idea that there would be a lot of mendacious reporting did not occur in Australia; in any case, one cannot fail to lift a stone for fear of the slime one might find underneath.
Childline advisers will often encourage children to report the abuse themselves to a trusted adult. In that situation, the child must be able to have confidence that, if they do so, their disclosure will be properly dealt with, and no concern about reputational damage should get in the way of that adult doing the right thing by the child. The only way children can have that confidence is to make failure to report abuse an offence. When a child gets up the courage to confide in a trusted adult about abuse, they do so because they want it to stop. Imagine how that child feels when nothing is done.
The intention of the amendment is not to put people in prison, except in the most egregious cases, but to change the culture. I believe that it would help workers to report abuse if they saw it as a public duty and not as telling tales. There is considerable public support for this. In an independent poll of the public in 2014, 96% of people supported it. I am not sure what the figure would be now, but, in the years since then, given the revelations of mass grooming gangs abusing young girls for years and nobody believing the children, I would think the figure might be even higher now. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is both necessary and important. It is a credit to the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley, who eloquently introduced it, and for years fought for the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse to be firmly placed on the statute book.
Child abuse, whether in the form of physical, emotional or sexual mistreatment, whether through lack of care, or whether leading to injury or harm, is offensive and detestable. I welcome recognition by the movers of this amendment that the amendment should capture the importance of child sexual abuse in schools and sport clubs, as covered in proposed new Schedule 1A.
Within sport, each case of sexual abuse among children is one case too many. In sport, it is compounded because it takes place within a relationship of trust or responsibility; it is an abuse of the power and it is a breach of that trust. The influence that a sports coach or physical education teacher has over children is disproportionately compounded by the physical nature of proximity in sport and the near total control which can be exercised over an ambitious child seeking success in the world of sport. We have seen how prevalent this is in the worlds of gymnastics, football and athletics, to name just three sports which have witnessed the ugliness of child sexual abuse.
Taking each in turn, for decades this was a problem that was festering at the heart of gymnastics. For far too long, some coaches and teachers have been able to act with total impunity, forcing young children to experience extreme training programmes while bullying and humiliating dissenting voices into silence. Some coaches have abused their power and authority to commit terrible crimes against the children they should have been caring for, leaving lives destroyed in their wake. In the wake of the #MeToo movement, numerous prominent gymnasts spoke out about the bullying, discrimination and abuse that they experienced in the sport at schools and in clubs. As a result, the Whyte review was commissioned, and an independent report examined the allegations of mistreatment in the sport of gymnastics. Predatory coaches and teachers were allowed to move from school to school and gym to gym, undetected by a lax system of oversight, and predatory coaches and teachers worked to conceal abuse.
In football, a child abuse scandal involving the abuse of young players at football clubs began in November 2016, and by the end of 2021, 16 men had been charged with historical sexual abuse offences, 15 of whom were tried. One was head of PE at a school in Birmingham, another a secondary school teacher. In athletics, the documentary “Nowhere to Run” in the UK concerned the sexual abuse of athletes by a coach and how the athletes tried to deal with the impact of the abuse.
The current situation in law, as noble Lords in this Committee know, is that while child safeguarding requirements are mandatory for all schools and colleges in the UK, a duty is legally enshrined in the Education Act and various statutory instruments, which are welcomed. However, we need to go further. Those measures did not deter many of the cases that have come to light, and there is no law that compels everyone to report child sexual abuse. Despite the promises for action within the Crime and Policing Bill, there is no criminal sanction for failing to report child sexual abuse under the mandatory reporting plan. We need to go further than a duty to report that “may be referred” to a
“professional regulator (where applicable) or the Disclosure and Barring Service, who will consider their suitability to continue working in regulated activity with children”.
I join the noble Baronesses in their view that there should be professional criminal sanctions for failing to report or covering up child sexual abuse, which they have put in the amendment they have tabled.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has led work on a duty of care and safeguarding; I have been privileged to support on it for over 20 years. We have sought to create a sports ombudsman, or a sports duty of care quality commission, who would also have duties of care within all schools. We have sought to develop an independent benchmark survey to measure duty of care, to monitor whether duty of care policies are working, and to inform future policy and investment decisions, and we have sought to ensure that there is a duty of care guardian—one in every school, I hope—with responsibility for engaging with participants in school sport, as well as with young people across the talent pathways and in community sport.
Today we can go one step further. We can rectify the position of the absence of a well-designed, mandatory reporting law at the heart of the safeguarding shortcomings in institutional settings such as sport and recreation at schools. Let the lessons of the past protect the children of tomorrow, and let those of us who I hope one day will vote for this amendment, if it is not accepted by the Minister today, take the lead for future generations.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, this is an extremely important amendment. I have a slight concern that the Minister in replying may say that the Crime and Policing Bill is the place for such an amendment, but the problem with the proposals in that Bill is that they are based on age, whereas this amendment is much more subtle in responding to the emotional entrapment that goes on in grooming, the activity that goes on in grooming, and the difficulty of sexual abuse being perpetrated at all ages.
There are five areas that I think would have to go along with this—a public health awareness over the dangers of the early stages of emotional entrapment, leading to grooming that leads on to sexual abuse and the pressures that children are under. Therefore, there must be an awareness overall across society that none of this is acceptable, with training and support of all those who have any responsibility for children, and, when there is suspicion, clear pathways to people who can really deal with this sensitively.
One of the situations that comes to mind is the child who goes in to see their GP, perhaps a teenager seeking contraceptive advice. They may actually be in a sexual relationship where they have been coerced, pressured and emotionally groomed, and entrapped with the person who is abusing them, even if that is somebody who is also very young. There may be an imbalance in that relationship, particularly if it is a child who is desperate for love, affection and closeness altogether in their life.
When legislation is introduced, which it must be, it will also need good scientific evaluation—not just a tick-box review but a proper study to see how it is working. I was glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, say that this was a probing amendment, simply because there is a change I would like to see to it. The amendment refers to healthcare, including in GP surgeries, and I would like that to be extended to primary care services, given that a lot of primary care services occur out in the community. District and community nurses are going into people’s homes, which may well be places where they pick up that something is not right, particularly if there is one parent, or sometimes even two, who are ill and need input.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 66 and the proposed introduction of a mandatory reporting requirement for sexual abuse, in accordance not just with the speeches we have heard but with the carefully reasoned recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. In simple terms, failure to report known or reasonably suspected abuse puts the child concerned at future risk, and it can make a person failing to report complicit in what has happened and in what may later happen to the victim of that abuse and, indeed, to others.
Moreover, a failure to report prevents proper and prompt investigation of alleged abuse and can deprive the victim of appropriate treatment and support. A failure to report is a failure to protect. All that is obvious, but it is a complex area. There are only a few cases when it can be truly known that abuse has occurred, because it is largely an unwitnessed crime. Accordingly, under the terms of this amendment, the person expected to report must have reasonable grounds for suspicion. If the child is young, that suspicion could well depend on the adult’s understanding of what the child has said or tried to say, or on an interpretation of the child’s behaviour. That may not be easy, particularly if the person concerned does not know the child well or the structure or dynamics of the child’s family.
These difficulties should not be made worse for victims of child sexual abuse by failures to report and by deflection of evidence of abuse for the sort of reasons and excuses so clearly described by the report of the independent inquiry—in particular, a misguided desire to protect the alleged perpetrators or institutions. In the sort of cases dealt with in the family court, schools can often be the first to realise that there may have been some type of abuse, and some school staff can, understandably, be nervous of the reaction of angry family members if allegations are made. I recall a case in which the teacher admitted not acting when he saw obvious injuries to a child simply because he was reluctant to get involved in making the statements and reports that might be required.
If there is to be a duty in law underpinned by criminal sanctions, as the amendment proposes, it will be particularly important that it is made known to all who will be subject to that duty and that, where possible, they have guidance on how to record and manage disclosure and evidence of possible sexual abuse. It can be crucial to avoid inappropriate and repeated questioning of a child.
Changing the focus slightly, towards cases arising in the family context, I should mention that the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel’s cogent and disturbing report in November 2024, I Wanted Them All to Notice, stated that:
“Over the past 20 years or so, the light on the sexual abuse of children within families has gradually dimmed. We have witnessed a worrying evaporation of the skills and knowledge that professionals (leaders and practitioners) must have to work confidently and sensitively in this complex area of practice. This dilution of focus and expertise may be partly explained by the greater public and professional attention on the sexual abuse of children in institutions, by ‘famous’ people and on the sexual exploitation of children outside their home. This was undoubtedly urgently required, but it may also have drawn our eyes away from the more common experience for children, of sexual abuse in their families”.
It goes on to suggest that the
“moral outrage that can accompany media attention on extra-familial sexual abuse has perhaps distracted attention from the more commonplace nature of familial abuse. In turning our attention away from the latter, we have undermined the confidence and capability of professionals to identify and respond to sexual abuse in families”.
The panel called for a national strategic response. Approval of this amendment would be an important step in that response. There should be a mandatory duty to which all professionals should adhere.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support this amendment and agree with everything that has been said so far, particularly the very important and valuable contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. He, like I, tried many child abuse cases. It is a sad part of the work that family judges do that there are so many sexual abuse cases of children, from babies to the age of 17, and they are all absolutely terrible. It is important to remember that there are two sorts of sexual abuse—that within the family and that without. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, there has been less of a mirror on abuse within families as on strangers abusing children.
It is extraordinary in some ways that we do not already have mandatory reporting, since it is so obvious and so important. There are so many people out there, certainly members of families, who know what is going on but do not know what to do. I am talking about siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, because this is a very serious part. I do not know whether noble Lords realise that the majority of sexual abuse is within the family, although there is far too much by outsiders. If it is within the family, it becomes increasingly important that those around the child, who do know but do not know what to do, are told that they have an obligation to do something effective.
I hope that the Minister recognises that this is long overdue. It must come into this Bill or into the Crime and Policing Bill—preferably both. One group of people who have not so far been referred to are the police. If it is an obvious case of sexual abuse, the local authority employee must go immediately to the police. Let us not forget that any sexual abuse of any child, of any person, is a crime.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, as someone who has been involved with child abuse issues and child protection down the years, I thought it necessary to add my voice to support the amendment. It may be that we want to talk about the vehicle, it may be that we want to talk about the drafting, but it is really important that the House makes absolutely clear that there is agreement on the principle around mandatory reporting, because that has not always been the case, and that is the first massive step to dealing with this issue.
I otherwise wanted to say only how pleased I was to hear the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. In 2012, when I spoke in this Chamber against the watering down of vetting and barring, I was told roundly that we should have an exemption for all sports clubs and societies because they were exemplars. The last 12 years have shown us how wrong that would have been; they have also shown us how important the amendment is.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 107B, which is in my name. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the same legal rights would apply to a child in care as those which apply to children living with their families. In that sense, it is linked to Amendment 69AB, which I shall move later today.
In 2022, the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, henceforth referred to as IICSA, highlighted the fact that the family court can limit parents’ exercise of their parental responsibility, but the court is unable to intervene in the same way with corporate parents. The report recommended a new
“route by which children in care can apply to the family courts for orders to mandate or limit a local authority’s exercise of its parental responsibility”,
which is what this new clause seeks to achieve.
There are many recognisable harms in the children’s care system, some of which have been identified by noble Lords already, among them: children being moved from settled homes; children being sent many miles from their home area; siblings being split up; children forced to move areas ahead of critical GCSE or A-level exams; children desperately unhappy at where they are living but being told there is nowhere else for them to go; and children approaching their 18th birthday woefully unprepared for life ahead of them. As incredible as it sounds, it is still common for children in care to be told that they must register as homeless once they reach their 18th birthday. It is not difficult to understand why that often causes unbearable stress and anxiety, affecting all areas of the child’s life.
The family court is able to intervene in how parents exercise their parental responsibility, yet it has no equivalent power in respect of corporate parents, when looked-after children are the most vulnerable children in our society. As IICSA’s final report explained:
“Courts can make decisions about children who are not in care, but only local authorities can make decisions about children who are in care”.
That is an inconsistency that I believe needs to be confronted and brought to an end.
IICSA considered the role of the independent reviewing officer, the ability of children in care to apply to discharge care orders, bring claims under the Human Rights Act 1998 and to bring judicial reviews, and it found each of these systems of protection to be insufficient. IICSA foresaw children in care having a straightforward legal mechanism on a par with children in the community, whereby the exercise of a local authority’s parental responsibility could be put under the spotlight and subject to restriction and instruction where necessary.
This new clause would implement IICSA’s recommendation 6 by giving children who are the subject of a care order the legal means of challenging their corporate parent’s actions and, perhaps equally importantly, inactions. When a child in care is suffering, or at risk of suffering, significant harm, this new clause would enable the family court to make an order to prohibit the local authority from taking action that could be harmful to that child. The family court would also have the power to make an order to require the local authority to take particular action
“to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare”.
On 16 January in another place, the Home Secretary made a clear statement that the Government would set out a plan for implementing all 20 of IICSA’s final recommendations. Their Tackling Child Sexual Abuse: Progress Update issued in April very helpfully set out how children in care’s access to independent advocacy services will be strengthened through the publication of revised national standards and statutory guidance.
However, this is a long way from implementing IICSA recommendation 6, the purpose of which is to give children in care a new legal mechanism to challenge the actions and inactions of their corporate parent when these are causing or are likely to cause the child significant harm. Such a measure will go hand in hand with effective independent advocacy services, because it is likely to be independent advocates who assist children in care in accessing this new legal safeguard.
We all know that IICSA was a seven-year public inquiry that heard devastating evidence of the ways a whole host of institutions consistently failed vulnerable children. Its recommendations must be taken seriously and, as I said, the Government are on record as being committed to implementing all its 20 recommendations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, my noble friend may well suggest that the Crime and Policing Bill is a more appropriate vehicle for this amendment. If so, why does it not appear in that Bill? I believe it is a very important step. I hope my noble friend will be a bit more positive than that and be able to offer a commitment that she will return on Report with a government amendment to make children in care legally the equal of children in the community.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I will very briefly illustrate the importance of Amendment 66 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. As I was making a speech in Hull in 2017, when Hull was the City of Culture, a woman came in and, when she saw me, she almost fainted. She buckled. I thought, “That’s very strange”. Anyway, I finished my speech and after everybody had asked for a selfie and an autograph, the woman came towards me and said, “Floella, I’m sorry I reacted that way, but when I was eight, I was fostered. My foster parents had two sons, and every day they used to come home and sexually abuse me. The only thing that got me through it, Floella, was seeing your smiling face. I so wanted to scream out and tell you, but I knew someone out there loved me. I’m now a 48 year-old woman, and every time I go through a dark period in my life, I think of you and so wish I could have told you back then”. That is why it is important that children should know that there is somebody they can speak to about the kinds of abuse that 48 year-old woman is now reliving, because, as I always say, childhood lasts a lifetime.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 69A in this group. It speaks for itself. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 66, having spoken on the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill. I also gave evidence to the independent inquiry. If I remember correctly, I believe that the Government’s position at that time was that this recommendation from IICSA was under consideration, so I am grateful to see that it is being taken forward, as well as the recommendation for a child protection agency, which is the subject matter of a later amendment.
I wish to make two brief points. First, it is important to remember, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, that disciplinary processes already exist in some settings, such as large institutions, but many of the organisations outlined in proposed new Schedule 1A are probably more appropriately called out-of-school settings, which are often not even incorporated charities. Even if they are a charity, the only obligations and duties are those of the trustees and they can be stand-alone charities that are not part of any wider network. It is important to put this mandatory reporting obligation on those involved in an increasing number of charities, which do excellent work but sometimes stand in a very vulnerable governance situation.
My second point, which is connected to that, is that there have been previous discussions in your Lordships’ House, I think with the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, on a suggestion that has been floated over the years of some kind of confessional exemption in the context of religious institutions. I think the days when we could nail down which religious institutions those are—maybe some synagogues, a few nonconformist churches and the Catholic Church—are long gone. I hope we can hit this on the head: how can we have any confessional-type exemption if we have such a wide variety of institutions nowadays?
Increasingly within the Christian community, although the Catholic Church is seeing a resurgence, young people are going to independent churches that may not be a member of any network. I do not see how practically that can work nowadays. I would hate for any confusion around that to halt an important amendment that is way overdue.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, when I was a vicar in Tulse Hill in the early 1980s, five young women came to see me. Four had been abused by their fathers. The youngest was eight at the time it happened. Working with them, listening to them, finding help that would restore who they truly were was a very long journey, but I am glad to say that all of them have now taken on professions that I did not think were possible. One of them has had the courage to report her father, who is now doing a quite a long sentence. I come originally from Uganda. I never imagined that a father could abuse an eight year-old girl. I just thought in terms of culture that that was just outrageous, but I listened, and we had to find a way of helping them.
Most abuse of young children happens in the home by family or friends. We need to work hard to make the message quite clear. I am reminded of those wonderful words by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard; noble Lords have heard him speak about the Soham murders. He did an inquiry into the Soham murders. One of his wonderful phrases in that report, which has sustained me in my work dealing with people who have been abused, was that we will never succeed in preventing child sexual abuse, but we can make it very difficult for abusers to do it.
For me, mandatory reporting is an important reality. When I appeared before IICSA, I was asked a question, and I said mandatory reporting must happen, because the only way that we are going to make it difficult for those who want to carry out their heinous crimes is if they know that it will not remain hidden. As most of it is in the home—at least in my experience—we have got to find a message that can remind a perpetrator of that, even though they may be behind closed doors in an apparently loving home where people’s lives have been blighted. I support Amendment 66. I hope the Minister will say something that can capture the imagination of this nation. We must not look at just the big organisations, but at what happens in the home.
Lord Storey (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for putting this amendment down. We can talk in parliamentary language, but it is when we hear the example that my noble friend Lady Benjamin told us about that we know the appalling effects that child abuse has on children and young people. They often carry that for the rest of their lives, and they carry it in silence. Somebody said, and I think it is absolutely right, that this is about changing the culture, where the responsibility is not to sort of pretend “I’m title-tattling” or “I’m not sure” or “It’s a friend of mine” or “I shouldn’t say this”; if you suspect that child abuse is happening, you have to do something about it.
Recently, we have heard about all the problems that the Church of England has faced, and we have heard various clergy say, “Well, I didn’t think it was that important”, or “I did do so and so”. If we had had this in law, those prominent clergy would have had a responsibility in law to speak out and those abuses over many decades of young people, not at school but in various holiday camps, I understand, would not have taken place.
We think that, by ticking the box on CRB checks, or now on the data-barring service, it is all sorted in schools. It is not. When we come to the schools part of the Bill and look at unregistered schools—particularly, I have to say, religious unregistered schools—it is worth noting that examples have come to light of children who have been abused in unregistered settings. Again, people will say, “I don’t think this has really happened; I’d better not blow the whistle on this”, but it is the case, and various Members of this House know that.
This is a very important amendment. I do not care which Bill it comes in, but we need to make sure that it passes into law.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Walmsley, made a predictably powerful case for the mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse and highlighted its terrible scale, impact and extent. I do not disagree with them when they say that the system is currently failing the victims. My noble friend Lord Moynihan also gave very powerful examples from the world of sport.
In my experience, this is one of the most difficult areas in which both to legislate and to implement legislation effectively. We know from a range of terrible cases, including, of course, the rape gang scandals of recent years, that even when a disclosure is made—whether by a child or when a professional makes the disclosure directly to the police or local authority—it is not always listened to. We also know from international research that mandatory reporting has led to enormous increases in recorded incidents. That may be an important contributor to the culture change that, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly identified, is so badly needed; but there is still, of course, an enormous gap between recorded incidents and the prosecution of the offenders concerned.
I have a couple of concerns about the amendment. One is volunteers, who play an important role, and the amendment perhaps affecting their willingness to take on voluntary and unpaid activity. Perhaps most importantly, we should think through the issues where there are suspicions rather than disclosures. As we have heard, the majority of child sexual abuse happens within families. We need to think through how suspicion is handled in practice, and the implications of children being taken into care while allegations are made against a parent or step-parent, or a sibling or step-sibling. I am not saying that, where abuse has happened, that is not important to do, but we need—and the Government need—to think through very carefully the implications and the disruption and fracturing of important relationships in children’s lives.
I note that, through the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government plan to introduce mandatory reporting where there is a disclosure or where abuse has been observed. I have some sympathy with that as a starting point, but I hope very much that we can keep a lens on this terrible issue. My noble friend Lord Moynihan says that he has been working on this issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for over 20 years. I have the greatest respect for their tenacity and patience on such a difficult subject.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments has enabled us to hear a consensus in this House about the enormously difficult, tragic and appalling instances of child sexual abuse over the years, and that it is no longer good enough for us not to take important action to protect children in the most appalling circumstances. That is why this Government are committed to protecting children from harm, including from the horrors of sexual abuse, trafficking and exploitation. Measures included in the Bill and the significant programme of reforms already under way will help to protect children at risk of abuse and stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks in services.
I shall speak to the detail of the amendments. As we have heard, Amendment 66, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, seeks to insert into the Children Act 2004 a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse. I wholly understand why noble Lords have taken the opportunity today to raise this issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, we should take every opportunity to raise it and to emphasise the determination of this House and indeed this Government to take action. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, alongside the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, about the specific issues relating to sport. We have also heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Bichard, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about their experience and the pressure they have rightly put on the Government to make progress.
Noble Lords knew that part of my response would be that the Government are already taking forward a new mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse for individuals in England undertaking regulated activity with children, as well as, crucially, a new criminal offence of obstructing an individual from making a report under that duty. This duty is included in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently in the other place.
That is the most appropriate route to debate the detail of a mandatory reporting duty, but I have no doubt that colleagues in the other place—and those of my noble friends who will be responsible for taking that Bill through this House—will have listened carefully to the specific points and challenges raised by noble Lords during the course of the debate on this group, and on Amendment 66 in particular. I will draw this debate to their attention because, while we might disagree over the details, we can agree that any new duty must ensure that the words of children who are seeking help are heard and apply the strongest possible measures to anyone who seeks to cover up abuse of this kind.
I will respond to a couple of points on the mandatory duty. On criminal sanctions, there may well be differences, partly because of the sensitive and careful balance here, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, identified. The Government have not attached criminal sanctions in the Crime and Policing Bill to a failure to report. However, there will be criminal sanctions for anyone who obstructs an individual from making a report under that duty. This is because millions of people in England take part in regulated activity with children and young people. Many of them will be teachers, nurses, social workers and other qualified professionals, but a significant proportion will be volunteers giving up their time to support, for example, their child’s sports team.
Those volunteers are the lifeblood of many opportunities on offer to our young people. They should comply with the duty, but we do not think it would be proportionate to create a criminal sanction for failure to comply with it. That could create a chilling effect where people are reluctant to volunteer or even enter the professions, because they fear being criminalised for making a mistake. I know that this is a delicate and difficult area and I am sure that it will be subject to further debate when the Crime and Policing Bill comes to this House.
The purpose of mandatory reporting has to be to improve the protection of children. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, emphasised, the aim is to create a culture of support, knowledge and openness when dealing with child sexual abuse. In working through the details of how this mandatory duty works, we must be careful that we do not do the opposite to that. Mandatory reporting will create a culture of openness and honesty, empower professionals and volunteers to take prompt, decisive action to report sexual abuse and demonstrate to children and young people that, if they come forward, they will be heard.
Amendment 69A was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Given the amount of work we have to get through on the Bill, I thank him for his brief but effective introduction to his amendments. I recognise the importance of safeguarding children from the risk posed by parents who have been convicted of serious offences, including those involving domestic abuse, child abuse and child sexual abuse. Ensuring their safety and well-being must remain at the heart of our family justice system. This amendment seeks to allow the High Court to curtail or remove parental contact where a parent has been convicted of domestic abuse, child abuse or child sexual abuse. It would also require the High Court to publish annual statistics on how many times they have removed or curtailed rights to parental contact.
However, we do not believe that new legislative provision is required, because existing legislation already serves to protect children from the harms associated with abusive parents. This is undoubtedly an issue where the courts should consider enormously carefully the potential damage that could happen to a child through contact with people in the sorts of circumstances that this amendment references. Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 already states that the child’s welfare must be the court’s “paramount consideration” when making a decision relating to a child’s upbringing. That section already includes a list of factors, known as the “welfare checklist”, which the court must take into account when deciding whether to make a child arrangements order for a child to spend time with or otherwise have contact with a person. This already includes considering the likely effect of any change of circumstances on the child and any harm that the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering. It follows that, when determining whether parental contact with a child is appropriate, legislation already gives the court the powers set out in the first subsection of this amendment. The court must already consider any potential risk or harm to the child, and this of course includes the very serious risks associated with domestic abuse, child abuse and sexual abuse.
The noble Lord’s amendment would also require the High Court to publish data on the number of times parental contact is curtailed or removed. Although I understand the call for accountability, it would not in fact be possible for the Ministry of Justice to collate this information without consulting each individual judgment. Of course, many of these judgments will be made in the family court, and therefore it would be very difficult to go through each individual judgment in order to collate the information that the amendment asks for. This is not to undermine the significance of the point being made by the amendment, but I hope that the noble Lord will see that there is already, within the law and in fact within the practice of the courts, the ability to ensure that this protection is available for children.
Amendment 107B was tabled by my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie. It seeks to enable courts to prohibit or enforce specific local authority action where children in local authority care are experiencing or at risk of significant harm. I wholly share my noble friend’s objective here; we recognise the necessity for children and young people to be protected from harm, to have their voices heard and to challenge aspects of their care, especially when they have concerns about their safety. But of course, if a child is at risk of harm, they need swift and responsive action from the professionals around them, not a court process to navigate. The system of children’s social care is purposefully designed to protect and safeguard children, and there are numerous existing mechanisms through which any concerns can be escalated.
That does not mean that there is no room for improvement here, as I will outline. But, for example, there are many professionals who surround children in care, each with a specific duty to promote the child’s best interests. They include social workers, independent reviewing officers and advocates. In children’s homes, they are required to report serious incidents and abuse allegations to Ofsted, which will investigate and, where necessary, has powers to take appropriate action. There are also legal routes to challenge local authority actions where there are serious concerns about misconduct. We are, of course, aware of cases in which children have been harmed while in care, which is completely unacceptable. We know that strong, trusted relationships surrounding the child are key to keeping children safe, which is why we are already taking further action, as I say.
First, we are improving advocacy for children in care by publishing new national standards and statutory guidance for advocacy later this year. Secondly, we are introducing new post-qualifying standards for social workers that clearly set out the need to be agile and timely in adapting plans and intervening to keep children safe. We are creating a new local authority designated officer—LADO—handbook to improve consistency and information sharing across local authority boundaries. We are improving qualifications, standards and access to training for staff in children’s homes to ensure that children are receiving the high quality of care they need. We are in dialogue with the sector, including children and young people, to consider how effectively professionals around the child work seamlessly together.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the points that she has made. She referenced the update that came out in April, but that does not go far enough to meet recommendation 6 of IICSA, which talks about access to courts. It seems to me that there is an inconsistency between that and what the Home Secretary said in January about implementing all 20 recommendations, if the update is—if I understand my noble friend correctly—as far as the Government are prepared to go in this aspect of it at this stage.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
In relation to recommendation 6, in very big consultation with the sector, the objective of the Government is to deliver on the intention of the recommendation while recognising—this is something that professionals have also raised—that, for the reasons I have outlined, a new legal route here not only is not necessary but would risk making children’s ability to have their voice heard and for the professionals around them to support them less likely to happen. It is the Government’s view that this is a more effective way of delivering the intentions behind recommendation 6.
Between existing safeguarding mechanisms and planned improvements, this Government set a clear expectation that children are safe, their voices are heard and professionals work together to take immediate action in response to issues or concerns. I thank noble Lords for the range of issues that have been raised on this group of amendments. I hope that I have been able to provide some assurances and that noble Lords will feel content not to press their amendments.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response—it was perhaps not unexpected. I also thank all those who spoke in this debate. I am really pleased that there is consensus on mandatory reporting, but perhaps the wording requires a little more work. I understand why His Majesty’s Government think that another vehicle might be more appropriate—perhaps this is a useful rehearsal for that future debate. I do not think what the Government are currently proposing goes far enough, but the Minister is absolutely right that we need to use every opportunity we can to discuss the protection of children.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for the decades of work that she has done in this area. She has had a couple of attempts at a Private Member’s Bill and I am following her footsteps.
The noble Baroness raised the absolutely abhorrent case of Jimmy Savile, who was given complete, unfettered access to vulnerable people based on the fundraising that he did. As a child, I spent lots of time at Stoke Mandeville and at other sports events in places where he turned up. I remember one event when I was probably about 12 years old. He arrived to a great fanfare and lots of people said, “Jimmy’s here, Jimmy’s here; you have to go and see him”. I was not particularly keen to do that. There was one adult who said to me, very quietly, “No, you don’t need to go”. I asked why—“Everyone is saying we have to go and see Jimmy”—and she said, “No, no; you can just stay here. You don’t need to go”. I did not think anything of it or tell anyone. I was chatting with my friends, and I thought she probably thought that chatting with my friends was more important than going to see him.
That was one adult who had a suspicion and was uncomfortable about behaviour, but there was nothing I could raise and nobody I could complain to. I was just told, “You don’t need to go near him”. It reminds me of how easy it is for adults in positions of power or trust to groom and to coax and to then lead to abuse, and how adults have an amazing position, where they can get into really uncomfortable situations. But adults also have incredibly positive relationships with children. I note the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and recognise her extensive work in volunteering. I do not want this amendment in any way to stop people volunteering or to make them feel that they are not able to or that there is undue pressure on them, but I wonder whether there is a form of words, or whether the right training and regulations could be put around it, that would enable people to feel more comfort. Again, a lot of youth organisations and other organisations have very positive relationships with young people.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. We have worked together for a long time on duty of care. I have to say that the idea for an ombudsman that was in my 2017 government report on duty of care was actually borrowed from him and the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, from the early 1990s. I think we both agree that sport, at its best, is absolutely amazing. It can give people a very positive life. I have benefited hugely from my time in sport, but whether it is teachers or coaches, those who want to access children live on their reputation. I have heard a number of times, “But they are a good coach”, or, “They are good at their job”, and they are able to slip through the net.
I also pay tribute to the survivors of football abuse, who I have met several times over the years. A number of them came into Parliament about 18 months ago to talk about their experience and how it was just ignored by so many people around them because there was no legislation in place. Again, they fell victim to, “But they are a good coach”. Abusers were able to tie into these young boys’ dreams of wanting to play professional football. That leads me to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and my noble friend Lady Finlay: we have to be better at defining what a healthy relationship is, and educate children at an appropriate age about that. In a sporting context, there is far more that we can do on the athlete pathway and as people graduate through to performance levels. My noble friends Lord Meston and Lord Bichard and my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss have extensive experience of these issues, very sadly, and we should listen to them.
Like my noble friend Lord Bichard, I argued against the watering down of DBS checks, because it would allow those who want access to children to be able to get it too easily. I am reassured by some of the statements made about sharing information between LADOs, but I do not think they go far enough.
I would support the amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Watson of Invergowrie, if they brought them back at another time. The IICSA report took seven years. I believe strongly that all its recommendations need to be implemented. It is not just about the intention of the recommendations; they should be implemented in full. With that in mind, I recognise that I probably need to do some more work on drafting and have further discussions on this amendment. At this time, I beg leave to withdraw.
“Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment(1) The Children Act 2004 is amended as follows.(2) In section 58 (reasonable punishment: England), omit subsections (1) to (4).(3) After section 58, insert—“58A Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment(1) The common law defence of reasonable punishment is abolished in relation to corporal punishment of a child taking place in England.(2) Corporal punishment of a child taking place in England cannot be justified in any civil or criminal proceedings on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.(3) Corporal punishment of a child taking place in England cannot be justified in any civil or criminal proceedings on the ground that it constituted acceptable conduct for the purposes of any other rule of the common law.(4) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) “corporal punishment” means any battery carried out as a punishment. (5) The Secretary of State may make regulations for transitory, transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of this section. (6) The power to make regulations under subsection (5) is exercisable by statutory instrument.(7) This section comes into force six months after the day on which the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2025 comes into force.58B Promotion of public awareness and reporting(1) The Secretary of State must take steps before the coming into force of section 58A to promote public awareness of the changes to the law to be made by that section.(2) The Secretary of State must, five years after its commencement, prepare a report on the effect of the changes to the law made by section 58A.(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after preparing a report under this section—(a) lay the report before Parliament, and(b) publish the report.(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations for transitory, transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of this section.(5) The power to make regulations under subsection (4) is exercisable by statutory instrument.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would abolish the common law defence of reasonable punishment in relation to corporal (physical) punishment of a child taking place in England, amend certain provisions of the Children Act 2004 relating to corporal punishment of children and place a duty on the Secretary of State to report this change.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the long title of this Bill starts by stating that it is to:
“Make provision about the safeguarding and welfare of children”.
The Bill’s focus on well-being will be undermined if we allow intergenerational cycles of violence towards children to remain perpetuated. Amendment 67, along with the consequential Amendment 505, seeks to closes a loophole in the safeguarding provision for children; a loophole that was closed in Scotland in 2019 and in Wales in 2020 but not yet in England and in Northern Ireland.
Children need the same protection from assault as adults, yet lack protection because the law’s amendment 20 years ago left a loophole. When children are hit, the assaulting adult can claim that it is “reasonable chastisement”. There is no legal definition of what is reasonable; it depends on the circumstance. The line between lawful punishment and unlawful abuse is open to interpretation.
Paediatrician Professor Andrew Rowland, child protection officer at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, pointed out that he is
“regularly faced with difficult situations where it is alleged that physical punishment has been used against a child”.
Last year’s practice review in Worcestershire into nine year-old Alfie’s death flagged up the difficulty in distinguishing
“between what is lawful and proportionate and what is harmful and abusive”.
The preceding year, Norfolk’s review into the death of child AK concluded that the current law is confusing.
These risks are reiterated in safeguarding practice reviews, particularly as bruises are more difficult to see in skin of colour or when the child is extensively covered by clothing. The 2018 report from AFRUCA on safeguarding children in black and ethnic communities in London and Manchester found that complexity and ambiguity in England leaves many families unclear on the law, particularly those who have recently arrived in the UK.
The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK has signed up, commits states to protect children from all forms of physical violence, including corporal punishment within the family. The UN committee has explicitly stated that physical punishment is a violation of a child’s right to protection and should be banned. Around the world, 68 countries have now prohibited physical punishment and have shown a drastic reduction in the number of children being subject to severe corporal punishment.
There is clear evidence that physical punishment has no positive outcomes for children, as reported in the Lancet in 2021. The review of 69 studies found that physical punishment consistently predicts increases in child behaviour problems and mental health issues and in escalating physical abuse over time, increasing the need for child protection for more severe violence. The behaviour of control by hitting becomes externalised, with ever-worsening behaviour. These associations between physical punishment and detrimental outcomes are robust across child and parent characteristics: the more that children are hit, the worse the child behaviour over time.
Hitting children hurts on the outside and on the inside; it damages emotional development. Eight in 10 child runaways cite family violence as a cause. As one child said, “I was sick of my dad and his girlfriend hitting me”. Last year’s report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health shows that those who experience physical assaults in the name of punishment are two and a half times more likely to experience mental health problems and twice as likely to go on to experience significant injury and damage through more serious forms of physical abuse. Children subject to being hit in the name of discipline are more likely to bully others and to repeat the cycle of violence over and over again once they become adults.
The Children’s Commissioner for Wales, alongside the other three children’s commissioners, supports extending equal protection for all children in the UK. This amendment does not seek to prosecute parents. In Wales and Scotland, there has been no evidence of a significant increase in prosecutions following this change. It is about behaviour and culture change. If I hit a noble Lord, they would rightly accuse me of assault. However, England allows adults to hit a child, who will be much smaller than them, with a much more vulnerable body and emotional make-up. It is a way to vent their anger when they—the adult— cannot cope.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 173 in my name, and I thank my noble friend Lady Walmsley for adding her name to it. I am extremely supportive of Amendments 67 and 505, which were very powerfully introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.
My amendment seeks to require the Government to prepare and publish a national neglect strategy to galvanise a sustained focus on neglect. For far too long, neglect has been absent from or underplayed in our conversations about supporting children and families. The role it can play is critical in reducing the number of children in care, which will be central to many of our discussions on this part of the Bill. The scale of neglect is significant and its impact on children far-reaching. Neglect is the most common form of maltreatment reported as the initial category of abuse on child protection plans. It was also the main reason for adults reaching out last year to the NSPCC helpline; indeed, new research from the NSPCC underlining this point will be published this week.
Neglect has some of the most profound negative and long-term effects on a child’s behaviour, educational achievement, emotional well-being and physical development. It impacts every area of a child’s life. Unaddressed, it prevents children developing their full potential and puts them at serious risk of harm. That it is the very antithesis of well-being, which is what Part 1 of the Bill is all about. However, unlike other forms of maltreatment, there is no national strategy for neglect, and existing practice guidance rarely refers to neglect-specific approaches and models. The NSPCC has reported that professionals have concerns about the lack of a national focus on neglect and how this has left many children without the right support at a time when family pressures are at an all-time high.
Requiring the Government to prepare and publish a national neglect strategy, as my amendment would, would make sure that we provide greater protections and support for children and families, better understand and address common drivers of neglect, such as poverty and insecure housing, standardise the use of evidence-based neglect tools to identify and respond to neglect and improve information sharing across agencies. Taken together, that package could be very powerful.
While neglect is prevalent in child referrals and assessments, a lack of action being taken to address it has become the norm. Indeed, so commonplace is neglect that it can be easy for professionals to either stop noticing it or become desensitised to its potential severity. Neglect is a complex harm, and it requires a great deal of professional skill to understand and assess its impact. I know that many professionals feel they are simply underprepared and underresourced to do so, and there are limited specialised professionals or interventions for them to draw on.
Indeed, research last year found that 83% of professionals in healthcare, the police, children’s social care and education believed that there was not enough service available to provide support for children experiencing neglect. Equipping professionals to identify concerns about neglect early, enabling parents to reach out for support in a non-stigmatising way and ensuring there are available sources to respond effectively to neglect are all vital to reducing the devastating impact it can have on children and—this is absolutely critical—to reducing the number of children going into care, which is currently at an all-time high.
With neglect being such a prominent category of abuse and often the earliest sign of mistreatment, surely it should, and indeed must, form the cornerstone of early intervention, which I think we all agree is so important. If we are serious about supporting families and helping children as early as possible, as I know we are, preventing and tackling neglect must become a central plank of our policy response. The need for a national neglect strategy needs to be given very careful consideration. I hope it is possible to do so during the passage of the Bill and I very much look to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to add my name to Amendment 67, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.
For me, this is very much a question of children’s rights. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child makes it clear that children must be free from violence and that Governments must do all they can to protect them from violence, using all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures. This amendment would ensure that the whole of the UK, not just Scotland and Wales, complies with the UN convention. Moreover, if we are taking children’s well-being seriously, we cannot continue to allow them to be subjected to physical assault. They are the only group, as the noble Baroness said, who are not legally protected from it.
Ministers say they are open-minded but want to see the review of evidence from Wales and from a range of voices. But, as already noted, we have ample evidence, from numerous countries, both of the negative impact of physical punishment on children’s well-being and the positive impact of its prohibition in terms of it having the desired effect of reducing the use of physical punishment. If she has not seen it, I would refer my noble friend the Minister to a recent article in Children and Youth Services Review which brings together much of that evidence.
As has already been noted, the evidence is sufficient for all the Children’s Commissioners, including from Wales, to be calling for reform. Indeed, they call the current law “outdated and morally repugnant” and reject the argument that it would lead to the criminalisation of parents. Polling shows consistent support among the general public for reform and new polling shows a majority of safeguarding professionals in support of change. Over half of social workers and teachers said the current law makes their work of safeguarding children more difficult.
I fear that the “waiting for Wales” argument is becoming a legislative form of “Waiting for Godot”. How long will we have to wait for another Bill that would provide such a perfect opportunity for reform? The Children’s Commissioners and a range of health and social care organisations are calling for urgent action now. Surely, we should be listening to them and stop prevaricating.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I rise to oppose this amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and its consequent Amendment 505. I believe it is an egregious interference in family life by the state and an intrusion. It is an attack on family rights and it will encourage a childish disrespect for authority. It is disproportionate and heavy-handed and it risks criminalising good and caring parents, as well as overloading children’s services departments.
The law as it stands is sensible. It outlaws violence, abuse and unreasonable chastisement. Crown Prosecution Service guidelines are clear that, if the actions of a parent cause anything that is more than transient or trifling, it is unlawful. This has been the law since 2004, when Parliament narrowed the scope of the reasonable-chastisement defence. The reasonable-chastisement defence simply permits parents to use very mild physical discipline, like a tap on the hand or a smack on the bottom, without being charged with assault. By definition, the defence allows only reasonable behaviour. Therefore, if the defence is removed, it is only reasonable behaviour that will become unlawful.
“Reasonable chastisement” is common and harmless. The Welsh Government admitted in 2021 that there was
“no definitive evidence that reasonable physical punishment causes negative outcomes for children”.
Research recycled by activist academics campaigning for a ban fails to distinguish between reasonable chastisement and beatings. The recent press statement calling for a ban by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which appears to have become an annual event, included the claim that
“now is the time for this Victorian-era punishment to go”.
This kind of highly loaded language must bring into question whether the college was engaging in scientific debate or merely exaggerated polemic. Victorian-era punishment conjures up images of beatings that were outlawed long ago. Either the college is uninformed about the law or it is deliberately exaggerating.
Those who defend loving parents who use mild physical punishment within the context of a warm, nurturing relationship are opposed to child cruelty. The reasonable-chastisement defence will never prevent a court bringing in a conviction in a case of abuse. There is not a single reported case where this has occurred. As stated, the legal defence cannot be used where a parent causes anything that is more than transient and trifling. An example of the law in action took place in Torbay in 2018, where a stepdad was successfully prosecuted for smacking his four year-old daughter too hard. He had left a handprint on her bottom and the judge ruled, quite rightly, that he had acted unlawfully.
A core objective of the Bill is to address the concern that children at risk of abuse are falling through the cracks of our safeguarding system. However, a smacking ban would exacerbate this wrong by increasing the likelihood that genuinely at-risk children are overlooked. It would be a tragedy if major cases of abuse were missed because vital staff members were needlessly occupied with innocent parents. Those in genuine need will suffer while resources are wasted on cases where there are no real problems. Social workers will be even busier than they are already and, as a result, some vulnerable children will not get the help they obviously need.
Everyone wants the state to intervene to protect children who are in danger of abuse, but, if that is to be done effectively, the limited resources available need to be focused on identifying and helping those at risk, not investigating innocent, loving parents because the law of assault has become politicised by activists who do not agree with reasonable chastisement.
Making trivial smacks a criminal offence will cause misery for parents and children. Parents will be required to be treated as suspected child abusers by police and social services when they know they do not deserve to be treated in that way. We do not help victims of real abuse by creating injustice in families where there is no abuse. Some children will be removed from their parents; some will have to give evidence in court against their mother or father. This entirely unnecessary and unjust process would be devastating for the child and their parents, and it runs counter to the Bill’s stated aim to keep children and families together wherever it is safe to do so, as set out by the Minister at Second Reading.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am very sorry to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. I believe he totally misunderstands the point of the amendment so ably introduced by my noble friend Lady Finlay. He used “smacking” quite a lot. I will never use that word myself, because it trivialises what we mean. We are talking about a hit—about a physical assault on a child. The reasonable chastisement defence is only ever likely to be used in a court of law, and it has been.
As I think we know, the rationale is that every battery of a child starts with a hit, but not every hit of a child leads to battery. One recent case illustrates the point. On the first day of the trial of the killers of Sara Sharif in 2024, the prosecutor, Bill Emlyn Jones, told jurors that Urfan Sharif called British police, having fled to Pakistan after Sara’s death. He said:
“He used what you may think is an odd expression. He said: ‘I legally punished her and she died’”.
I wonder where he got that phrase. I can tell your Lordships: it appears in Section 58 of the Children Act 2004, and for the last 20 years, I and others have tried to delete it. The presence of those words in the law sends a message that it can be lawful to beat a little child.
Back in 2002, the Adoption and Children Act acknowledged the damage done to children from witnessing violence in the home. So long as the reasonable chastisement defence remains, babies and children who witness violence still have greater legal protection than those who are directly assaulted.
Emlyn Jones said that Urfan Sharif also told the police:
“I beat her up. It wasn’t my intention to kill her, but I beat her up too much”.
An intention to kill is not necessary. An intention to cause serious harm is sufficient for a murder conviction if death ensues. The prosecutor said that a note in Urfan Sharif’s handwriting was found next to his daughter’s body, which read:
“I swear to God that my intention was not to kill her. But I lost it”.
Sara had more than 70 injuries to her ribs, shoulders, fingers, spine and brain, and a burn from a domestic iron to her buttock. She had numerous bruises, scald marks from hot water, restraint injuries, and human bite marks. These injuries did not occur on one occasion when her father “lost it”.
This sort of case is not new. When Maria Colwell died in January 1973, she had black eyes, fractured ribs and brain damage. This was inflicted by her mother and stepfather, William Kepple. Kepple was convicted of Maria’s murder in April 1973, but the charge was later reduced to manslaughter. Officials repeated the mantra: “It must never happen again”. But it has, and it does.
Victoria Climbié, who died on 25 February 2000, was rushed to hospital suffering from hypothermia, weighing just three stone and ten pounds and suffering 128 injuries.
In arguably one of the most notorious child deaths, Peter Connelly, known in the media as baby P, died in London on 3 August 2007, aged just 17 months, after suffering more than 50 injuries. He had been seen 60 times by healthcare professionals and social workers.
On 3 March 2012, four year-old Daniel Pełka died after being severely battered by his mother and her partner. Daniel had suffered 22 injuries, including 10 to his head.
Arthur Labinjo-Hughes was murdered after months of abuse in 2020. Arthur, aged six, was tortured to death by his father, Thomas Hughes, and stepmother. After months of horrific abuse, he was starved and poisoned with large quantities of salt. When he died, his skeletal body was covered with 130 bruises and he suffered 93 different areas of injury.
On 22 September 2020, Savannah Brockhill caused baby Star Hobson catastrophic injuries after inflicting months of brutal abuse alongside her mother. Medics said that her injuries were usually seen only in car crash victims. Boris Johnson vowed that action would be taken to stop such shocking and heartbreaking tragedies in future, but it has not been taken. Many other fatal cases have hit the headlines, and there have been hundreds of beaten children who did not die but were marked for life by their experience. Briefings we have received from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health have made it clear that hitting children is not harmless; it is harmful.
Yes, there were serious shortcomings in the actions or inactions of various public services in the cases I have just outlined, but the social workers and police did not kill these children; their parents and carers did. They did it because they thought they could get away with it. Every terrible beating started with a single hit, a single physical assault: the sort of thing that recently lost an MP his seat and his liberty.
The reason why these children died was that they did not have the voice or ability to stop it and they were not sufficiently protected by the law. If the early stages of any one of these cases had been perpetrated on an adult, the attacker would have been imprisoned long before the pattern of assault became fatal. The fact is that children do not have equal protection against assault under the law, because of the excuse expressed in the chilling words “reasonable punishment”. These assaults are not reasonable by any measure, and they are not punishment either.
No child was ever naughty enough to deserve such abuse. It is not punishment; it is an expression of the anger, hatred and frustration of the perpetrator, leading to actions that should be classed as criminal, without mitigation. These children are calling from the grave to make them so. Let us do it at last by carrying this amendment.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 67 and 505 in the name of my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to which I have added my name and to which she spoke so eloquently. I am afraid that I am unable to comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough, because my cerebral cortex received so many messages of complaint that it shut down quite early on.
I have lived on this planet for 60 years, I have been a parent for 20 years, a cricket coach for 15 years, a teacher for 10 years and a kinship carer for over a year, and I have never hit, slapped or smacked anybody, except one unfortunate time in a tour game against Tredegar Ironsides, and the opposition scrum-half started it.
As has been mentioned, this is the children’s well-being Bill, but it is quietly going on its way without mentioning a fundamental problem of well-being: legalised violence against children. That is what we are talking about. Not a quick clip around the ear, not a short, sharp shock that teaches them right or wrong. Not something that was done to us and we are no worse for it. No, we are grooming our children to believe that violence is acceptable by the powerful against the weak for their own good. That is not an acceptable message.
I believe that the results from Wales and Scotland are showing no major increase, if any, in prosecutions. I suspect that, for most people, it will not be a surprise that hitting a child is a bad idea, so a change in the law would remove the defence only for those who really aim to harm children. The rule of thumb is an urban myth. It has never been acceptable to hit women. Why do we still allow violence against children?
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I am disappointed to be speaking again. The first time was 21 years ago. This time, I speak in support of Amendment 67, again in support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Walmsley, now joined by my noble friend Lady Lister and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. As such telling arguments have just been made, I will simply emphasise again that, since 2004, when I first spoke, very many more countries have come to the conclusion that children are of equal worth to adults—a view, it seems, not shared by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Peterborough. It is even clearer that the legacy of physical punishment of children is more violence in society and worse mental health. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, there is no definition of “reasonable punishment”. Surely it is time to agree that physical punishment is the reverse of reasonable and get it out of our common understanding of discipline.
Baroness Longfield (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment and thank noble Lords for putting it forward. This is not a new debate: I called for this change in law many years ago, including when I was Children’s Commissioner for England. I have not changed my view. As we have heard, Sweden outlawed smacking in 1979, and I can remember when the last Labour Government faced the same calls those 20 years ago. We did, of course, banish corporal punishment in schools a long time ago. The moves in Scotland, in Wales and in Ireland over very recent years have all been about closing the loophole, because they all recognise that the defence of reasonable chastisement is outdated and wrong. I believe it is time for England to follow suit: making sure that children have equal protection from adults.
I think that we have moved on considerably in this country over recent years on the issue and that views have changed. It is no longer a particularly contentious issue, I do not think. Most parents no longer believe that hitting children is the right way to improve behaviour or to discipline children: it is much better to support and help parents to support their children with positive behaviour. We should not see this as either a complex or controversial issue or debate. It is not the nanny state or the Government interfering in how parents discipline their children. This amendment makes a sensible and long-overdue change that does no more than provide children with the same right as adults not to be the victims of assault.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 173 and the passionate speech on child neglect by my noble friend Lady Tyler. Neglect can affect a child right through into adulthood, and we need to address this by giving support to the protection of our children. I also support Amendment 67 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who spoke so powerfully, and in the name of other noble Lords. In doing so, I declare my interest as vice-president of Barnardo’s.
As we have heard, Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, together with over 20 other organisations, including UNICEF, have called for a complete ban on smacking. Almost 70 countries have banned smacking, leaving no ambiguity in the law: it is never okay to “reasonably punish” a child. It is time to join those countries and end physical punishment against children.
There is no evidence that smacking is effective or that it prevents bad behaviour or that it teaches positive behaviour. It can lead to mental health issues in later life and develop a pattern of behaviour of a child learning to use violence to solve problems, to get what they want or even to become a bully.
Smacking can damage parent-child relationships and lead to resentment and fear rather than respect. I have spoken to so many adults who tell me how much they hate their father because of the physical violence that they suffered as a child. It is not only fathers whom they hate but mothers who have inflicted violence on their children.
It is much better to talk a problem through with a child, reason with a child through role play and set good behavioural examples. The earlier that this starts, the better it is in the long term for a happy childhood experience. I wholeheartedly support this amendment.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments ably introduced by my noble friend Lady Finlay.
They make laws slightly differently in Germany. When a law is made relating to something that affects children, for example, they sometimes insert something in their constitution. I note that in 2000, when the parental right to spank was rescinded in Germany, a new phrase was introduced into the German constitution:
“Children have a right to an upbringing free of violence. Corporal punishment, emotional harm and other humiliating measures are not permissible”.
That has happened, and similar steps have been taken in 75 countries to date where smacking is not permitted. Many of those countries are in Europe. Almost the whole of Europe forbids smacking. We stand out as an exception in the map of Europe where it is illustrated. Just as Germany, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark are not worse places as a result of the banning of smacking, the same will be the situation in the whole of the United Kingdom when England follows Wales, Scotland and, hopefully, Northern Ireland.
Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 is predicated by opposition to smacking, not by encouragement of smacking. As has already been said, it was banned in schools but has been allowed to continue in certain very restricted circumstances in homes. As early as 2007, the Crown Prosecution Service issued a report in which it was opposed to banning smacking altogether but observed that the defence was being used in inappropriate situations and in the wrong kinds of cases. There is absolutely no evidence that the banning of smacking would have any dramatic effect on parents who, like the parents in the countries that I have named, have simply been told, “You can’t smack your children anymore”. I believe that people are ready for that in this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in an extremely powerful speech, gave several examples of cases in which the terrible violence that eventually was used against children probably started with the first smack. It is quite wrong that we should allow that sort of situation to develop.
I listened with great care—my synapses were operating in overdrive—while the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, was speaking. However, he is now a bit historical in this argument. I treat his points with respect, of course, but I prefer those that have been made by other noble Lords in this House. Between the noble Lord and the Royal College of Paediatrics, I prefer the royal college.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the case for Amendment 67 and the associated Amendment 505 has very powerfully been made. I add a couple of additional points that might perhaps inform the House and be useful. I note that more than 30 MPs in the other place supported a similar amendment and that there it was driven by the honourable Labour Member for Lowestoft and my honourable friend the Member for North Herefordshire. It is not that we are suddenly bringing this up in your Lordships’ House—there is strong support in the other place as well for government action here.
I moved an amendment along similar lines to end the defence of reasonable chastisement during the Domestic Abuse Bill. I was quite new to your Lordships’ House and learned along the way that many people had been working on this for decades longer than I had been. I heard from the then Conservative Government, “Oh, it’s not the time now; we’ve got to see what happens in Scotland and Wales”. I would very much like to think that we are not going to hear the same thing this evening, although I am not terribly optimistic.
Like others, I listened very closely to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I say a couple of things in direct response to the noble Lord. He cited Professor Larzelere, who would best be described as a “controversial” academic. I point noble Lords to an article responding to some of the work of Professor Larzelere in the journal Marriage & Family Review in 2017, “Researchers Deserve a Better Critique” by George W. Holden et al. The authors say that Professor Larzelere had profoundly misunderstood the description of positive parenting and was very misinformed about the whole academic field.
You could feel a visible sense of shock around the House when the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, suggested that smacking was harmless. That is a disturbing label to put when we know from the Royal College of Paediatrics that children who have experienced physical punishment are 2.6 times more likely to experience mental health issues. We know what a mental health crisis we have in our society. They are up to twice as likely to experience further forms of abuse, sometimes leading to the cases that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, presented to us so powerfully. The college makes a really important point that children who have experienced physical assault are more likely to believe that violence is accepted and encouraged in society. We want to protect the vulnerable children, but we are also addressing the question of what sort of society we are.
We have had a number of international comparisons, but I believe that Thailand is the most recent state to have banned physical abuse of children. I happen to know quite a bit about Thailand. I was technically a Thai civil servant in the 1990s when I was there as an Australian volunteer abroad. I follow Thai politics quite closely and know quite a lot about Thai society. This is a big step for Thailand to take. Thailand has had a great deal of political difficulties in recent years but has regarded protecting its children as so important that it has ensured that there is legal protection. It is interesting when you look at the government announcements around this that this is a need to support parents as well as to ensure the protection of children.
I have one final point to make and a question for the Minister. The NGO Article 39 sets out the historic background for the reasonable chastisement offence, which arises from a criminal case in 1860, R v Hopley, about a head teacher found guilty of the manslaughter of a 13 year-old child with learning difficulties. The head teacher had beaten the child with a stick for more than two hours. Looking at the judge’s words on which this whole “reasonable chastisement” is based, the judge said that a parent or schoolmaster
“may for the purpose of correcting what is evil in the child inflict moderate and reasonable corporal punishment”.
That is the origin of what has got us to where we are today and what we are trying to change with this amendment. It is a reflection of how out of date the current legal situation is.
Finally, my question to the Minister arises from the Article 39 briefing. We have all focused on parents, but the briefing says that the defence
“has also not been removed from part-time educational settings (including those operated by religious organisations), children’s health settings or supported accommodation for looked after children aged 16 and 17”.
Can the Minister—either now or I will understand if she wishes to write to me—set out whether that briefing is indeed correct and there is still that allowance of violence against children in other settings as well?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I rise slightly nervously to respond to this debate, which follows and covers a number of very important and thorny issues. But one of the reasons I am anxious—I double-checked, hence my looking at my telephone— is I felt that, at points, the Committee was talking about slightly different things.
I accept absolutely the very valid point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that in every terrible serious case review of child death at the hands of their parents the issue has started with a single hit, but she would also accept that, thank goodness, those are very much the exception rather than the rule, and that the overwhelming majority of parents who may or may not smack or use physical discipline towards their child do not end up anywhere near those kinds of tragedies.
The reason I pulled out my phone was just to check that I had understood correctly. The reasonable chastisement defence applies only in cases of common assault and battery since the Review of Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 and the implementation of that review in October 2007. With the leave of the Committee, I will read a couple of sentences from the advice produced by the department in October 2007:
“Therefore any injury sustained by a child which is serious enough to warrant a charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm cannot be considered to be as the result of reasonable punishment. Section 58 and the amended Charging Standard mean that for any injury to a child caused by a parent or person acting in loco parentis which amounts to more than a temporary reddening of the skin, and where the injury is more that transient and trifling, the defence of reasonable punishment is not available”.
So, I am sorry for whatever having to listen to my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough has done to the brain of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, but I think my noble friend made a very fair point. Noble Lords and parents around the country may or may not agree, but this advice is absolutely clear that where chastisement amounts to more than a temporary reddening of the skin, or where the injury is more than transient or trifling, the defence is not available. It is fair to ask—and it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who I know has thought about this long and hard—that we understand what difference this is going to make to the kinds of cases that have been cited in the Committee this afternoon.
My other concern is about non-physical chastisement. I spent the first six years of my time in your Lordships’ House never mentioning domestic abuse, and I do not think I have stopped talking about it since we started the Bill. We know that in many abusive relationships—and this applies to children as well as adults—you do not need to use physical violence; coercion and fear and control are incredibly harmful. Figures were cited about the harm of physical violence, and I do not question those for a second, but I wonder where the law then goes. If we were to adopt the noble Baroness’s amendment, which obviously has significant support in both Houses, where do we then go in dealing with what, I would argue, is perhaps much more toxic and damaging for a child’s mental health and their physical health, given what we know about the links between the two in terms of emotional abuse and psychological harm to children? I look forward to noble Lords’ comments on that.
We also need to address—as ever, I am surrounded by people who know much more about this than I do—the reality that, if a parent is accused of smacking, hitting or slapping a child, not the kind of severe physical violence that was cited but the violence that would fit under the defence of reasonable chastisement, they may enter a slow, stressful and ultimately quite harmful criminal justice process, during which time they may be prevented from having contact with their child and that child might be removed into care. We need to balance the impact of the kind of chastisement as set out in Section 58 with the kind of harm that that process would bring to children. In no way do I endorse violence—
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will excuse me for picking up one point that she has just made. The law, as it stands, is extremely confusing and unhelpful to parents. For example, she talked about reddening of the skin. I do not know about the noble Baroness, but if I was going to hit a child, I would not know what level of pressure was going to raise a red mark on that child’s skin and which would not. How can a parent possibly know? So, the law is confusing and unhelpful. It is certainly discriminatory; as has been mentioned, you cannot as easily tell when a bruise is arising on a skin of colour as on a paler skin. Those are just a couple of examples where the law is confusing and it needs clarifying.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not sure that I entirely agree with the noble Baroness on the spirit of the law. It talks about “trifling”—where the chastisement is of a trivial nature—and, while different parents might interpret that in a different way, the kinds of abuse that were cited in the debate that we have just listened to were not trifling; there was no question that they were trifling.
I will turn now to Amendment 173 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, which seeks to introduce a national strategy to address neglect of children. As we heard the noble Baroness explain—from her own professional experience, she brings great expertise on this matter—neglect is too common a feature in too many children’s lives. I commend her for bringing this to the attention of the Committee, and I would support her assertion that many practitioners lack confidence in how to respond to neglect. The approach set out in the amendment is practical in terms of sharing best practice and supporting both professionals and parents to understand and address neglect. My question to the noble Baroness, and potentially to the Minister, is whether it is wise to try to separate neglect from abuse, since we know that in most cases they will coexist, and therefore I imagine one would want practitioners to go in with their eyes open to both.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are putting children at the heart of everything we do. This is evident in the far-reaching child protection and safeguarding measures in the Bill.
The amendments in this group were tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Tyler. They relate to the defence of reasonable punishment and what the Government are doing about neglect.
I will speak first to Amendments 67 and 505, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on removing the defence of reasonable punishment in legislation, which has been the basis of most of the contributions in this group. Let me be completely clear: the Government do not condone violence or abuse of children, and there are laws in place to protect children from this. Violence against children is not only unacceptable but illegal. The Crown Prosecution Service guidance referenced during the course of this debate is very clear that only the mildest form of physical punishment can be used to justify discipline. Child protection agencies and the police treat allegations of abuse very seriously; they will investigate and take appropriate action, including prosecution, where there is evidence of an offence having been committed. Local authorities, police and healthcare professionals have a clear duty to act immediately to protect children if they are concerned that a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, identified terrible cases that we must all take note of. Much of Part 1 of the Bill aims to address precisely these types of cases. But it is important to emphasise that cases where children have been abused or murdered by their parents—children, in fact, who experienced abuse far short of the terrible cases she identified—even in cases where their parents claimed to have been legally disciplining them, would not be covered by the reasonable punishment defence. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong. I am not convinced that it really was simply a reasonable punishment that led to the terrible outcomes in those cases; I think it was something far more profound, dangerous and worthy of attention—in fact, attention would be legally required.
We have heard that other countries have made these changes. We are looking closely at changes in Scotland and Wales and continue to build our evidence base, but we do not want to take this important decision yet. Wales will publish its report at the end of the year, looking at the impact that the change in legislation has had.
It is important that, in making any decisions, we consider all voices, including those of the child, trusted stakeholders and those who might be disproportionately affected by removing the defence. I certainly accept some of the examples used by noble Lords about the support that there is for removing this defence. I do not think it is quite as straightforward and completely categorically clear as some noble Lords have suggested.
Most parents want what is best for their children and they should be supported. It is right that we protect all children who are at risk of harm, but it is also right that we do not intervene in family life when children are safe, loved and well supported. This is why I agree with noble Lords who identified the need to find more positive ways to parent. I do not think that most parents who resorted at some point or another to a smack feel that that is the most positive way they could parent their children.
That is why we are rolling out national reforms to multi-agency family help and child protection—backed, as we have said previously, by over £500 million of funding—and, importantly, providing parenting support in 75 local authorities through family hubs. Parenting is difficult. Any of us who has done it understands the challenges of choosing the right ways to promote the positive development of our children. The recent publication of our practice guide for parenting services for parents of zero to 10 year-olds is a positive way to help parents identify how to do that very difficult job most effectively.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
I warmly welcome the Minister’s remarks, because at the heart of this debate there seems to be a mischaracterisation and misunderstanding of Section 58 of the Children Act 2004 and a conflation of mild admonition with assault by beating, which obviously should be subject to the full force of the law. For the avoidance of doubt, and just to sum up, would she agree with the words of her colleague the Minister of State, Catherine McKinnell:
“As the law stands, quite frankly, any suggestion that reasonable punishment could be used as a defence to serious harm to a child, or indeed death, as has been asserted, is completely wrong and frankly absurd”?—[Official Report, Commons, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee, 6/2/25; col. 464.]
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I hope I did make that clear earlier, but I am very happy to reiterate. It would be wholly wrong. It would not be in line with the law for the types of cases that we have heard about in this debate to be subject to the defence of reasonable punishment. The Crown Prosecution Service has been clear, as professionals are clear, that that would get nowhere near to this defence. I know that noble Lords will be disappointed, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, with the response of the Government, but I think it is a reasonable recognition of the very strong action taken when children are subject to violence and the need to learn from those who have recently changed the law. That is a sensible and appropriate way to go forward in this case.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to all those who have who have spoken in support of this amendment. I am slightly disappointed that it leapt straight into the court end of things. I did not recognise being categorised, as was said, as an activist parent. I am not an activist parent, and those who have spoken are not activist parents.
One of the problems—and that is why I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett, Lady Whitaker and Lady Benjamin, who have been with me on this journey for such a long time—is that violence and assault against children happens insidiously. Children learn that this is the way to get control over other people, and it escalates. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, parents lose it. When they have lost it, it is often associated with alcohol, drugs or other stresses in the home. They do not deliberately set out to beat up the child; it just escalates, and it becomes more and more common.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for pointing out the change in the constitution in Germany towards children and to the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for his extensive experience with children. I think his experience may mirror mine. When I was doing paediatrics and admitting children, I was told, “Oh no, I just smacked them and they fell over”. When we investigated further, we found multiple fractures: old fractures, new fractures, all kinds of injuries that nobody had noticed before because they thought this had just been a gentle smack. I have yet to find a family who declare that they are wilfully not a loving family, but loads of families declare they are loving families and they clearly are not, and they have many problems.
The emphasis on positive parenting is certainly a theme from this Government. It has been a theme from the Government in Wales. It is terribly important. The last thing that I will say is that I have seen this at first hand with one family where the father certainly smacked his children remarkably often—and when he had had a drink, it was even more often. When he was told by the others in the family, “You can’t do that any more, you’ve got to stop”, his behaviour changed. Interestingly, the children’s behaviour improved dramatically. They went from being quite disturbed and disruptive to being quite well behaved, because of the positive parenting that went with being told why what they were doing was not good rather than just receiving a clout. That is what we are trying to do. The defence is used at the end of the road. For somebody seeing a child who is told “Oh, that was just reasonable punishment”, it is very difficult to unscramble it in the school or the GP surgery as you cannot do a bone scan. You have to take things at face value.
I shall just comment on the issue of skin colour. You do not see bruises nearly as easily in highly pigmented skin. That is just a fact. I advise noble Lords to look at a textbook of dermatology. All these things were written based on white skin, and they have finally woken up to the fact that in pigmented skin all kinds of things look different, and that includes injury and so-called “superficial injury”. So to say that you must not leave a mark does not hold water in a country where we have people from all over and a wonderful richness there.
So for the moment, I will withdraw the amendment, but I am very tempted to come back to it later, because I am not convinced by what I have heard today from the Government, and I feel much more convinced by my home country of Wales and my other home country of Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Duty on local authorities to provide family support services for children and familiesAfter section 19 of the Children Act 1989, insert—“19A Duty on local authorities to provide family support services for children and families(1) A local authority has a duty to provide, so far as is reasonably practical, family support services to all children and parents residing in their area. (2) Family support services provided by a local authority must—(a) be provided within the authority area,(b) seek to improve the health and educational outcomes of children in the relevant area, and(c) seek to reduce the number of children in their area who suffer ill treatment or neglect.(3) In this section, “family support services” refer to services which provide children and parents with—(a) advice, guidance or counselling,(b) social, cultural or recreational activities, or(c) accommodation while receiving services provided under subsections (3)(a) and (b).(4) In fulfilling its duty under subsection (1), a local authority must have regard to—(a) the availability of and demand for family support services in its area,(b) the availability of and demand for family support services in its area which are capable of meeting different needs, and(c) the location of family support services and the equality of access across the authority area.(5) A local authority must publish information about family support services—(a) on the authority’s website, and(b) in all public libraries in the local authority area.(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision relating to the provision of family support services by local authorities.(7) In this section—“children and parents” means—(a) a child under the age of 18;(b) a young person aged 18-25 who has a diagnosis of special educational needs;(c) the parents of a child or young person;(d) a person who has parental responsibility for a child or young person; or(e) a person who is pregnant.“local authority” means—(a) a county council in England;(b) a district council in England;(c) a London borough council;(d) the Common Council of the City of London (in their capacity as a local authority);(e) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;(f) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;””Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would introduce a requirement on local authorities to provide family support services for all children and parents in their area.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 68 and to speak to Amendment 171 in my name and to Amendment 169, to which I have attached my name. In the interests of time, I am going to constrain myself to those three amendments.
Amendment 68 introduces a new clause to require local authorities to provide family support services for all children and parents in their area. This very much follows on from what the Minister was saying on the previous group about the desire to provide support for parents. Unfortunately, that is not what has largely been happening. We have seen a massive increase in spending on crisis intervention services in the past decade. It is up 67%, and £4 in every £5 spent is going into late intervention. At the same time, the number of children in residential care has increased by 79%. Spending overall went up in that decade by 61%, but there was a 46% decline in early intervention services. That is what this amendment seeks to address.
We know that investment in early interventions will reduce the demand for high-cost, later interventions. More families can stay together in healthy ways, in stable and loving homes where children can grow up peacefully, and fewer young children will experience neglect, abuse and harm. This amendment is again, I am pleased to say, following the work of my honourable friend the Member for North Herefordshire. She and others made the case in the other place.
What I think lots of people are saying about this Bill, with lots of amendments, lots of attempts, is that there is a huge amount in it to deal with improving care for children who need to live with a foster family or in a residential home, and of course that is terribly important. But, to improve significantly the conditions of children in this country, we need to start far earlier, and that is what is lacking in this Bill. I am not particularly attached to the detailed drafting here, but certainly I would like to see some movement from the Government and the intention to make sure that the Bill covers earlier intervention.
Of course, the governing party has a proud record in this area with the Sure Start centres that were first established in 1997, and more than 3,500 of those children’s centres were developed. It has been crucial that they have supported families in a welcoming, non-stigmatising way. You do not have to be a problem or have a problem to visit; it is just something that is there to support you. The reality is, and I should perhaps declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, that at this moment we know how incredibly cash strapped local authorities are, and these services are too often seen as a “nice to have” or even a “we desperately want to keep it, but we just cannot find the money” service, and so they have disappeared.
I stress that this clause introduces a requirement for local authorities to provide sufficient family support services. I acknowledge that the only way that local authorities would be able to do this is if there was support funding from the centre. If we take, for example, the Welcome to Parenthood programme run by the children’s charity Barnardo’s, it is calculated that the benefits return £2.44 for every £1 spent. We could be saving significant amounts of money here.
I move now to Amendment 171, also in my name, which, again, was originally tabled by my honourable friend in the other place. This is to ensure that every school has a bereavement policy. I declare a personal interest here, as I was 23 years old when I was in a car crash in which my mother was killed. I was not a child, but I was a young adult and I know how utterly wrenching and destroying that experience was. Also, at university, I was in a small group of about 20 students, one of whom was killed in a car crash. I know what a shock it was to that group of students.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, any parent will tell you that raising children is a difficult job. It is important that all families have access to the support they need to help parents be the best they can. That is why early intervention matters; yet, too often, family support services, such as family hubs or centres, are the first things to be closed when funding is tight.
Recent analysis by Pro Bono Economics, on behalf of Barnardo’s and other leading children’s charities, shows that spending on Sure Start centres has been reduced by £1.4 billion since 2010, resulting in the closure of over 1,000 centres. This is why I support Amendment 68, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to which I have added my name. It would place a duty on local authorities to provide sufficient family support services, including family hubs, for all children and families. This has been recommended by Barnardo’s and Action for Children, but these charities believe that such a change in the law must be backed by sufficient funding. Otherwise, we will be letting down a whole generation of children and their families, and any hope for their well-being.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 68, 68A, 68B, 169 and 171 in this group. I added my name to Amendment 68 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because it has been my long-standing position that every community in this country needs preventive family support for social flourishing, in the same way that they need GP surgeries and schools.
When the welfare state was founded in the late 1940s, there was a recognition that health and education would not be able to defeat disadvantage without it. Some 80% of children’s educational attainment is determined by pupil-level factors such as family and community, and only 20% by school-level factors. Health-wise, in 2015, Citizens Advice published a report called A Very General Practice, which found that 92% of GPs said that patients raised personal—often family relationship—problems during consultations. This was the top non-health issue they dealt with, and only 31% of GPs felt able to advise at all adequately in this area.
In 1949, one of the architects of the welfare state, Michael Young, called for child welfare centres to fulfil Beveridge’s principle of the preservation of parental responsibility and deal with the emotional cost to children of high post-war levels of family breakdown. These costs persist today. Compared to those who do not experience family breakdown, children who do are at least twice as likely to be homeless as adults, to be in trouble with the police or spend time in prison, and to underachieve at school.
Young’s child welfare centres began to emerge as family centres in the 1980s. These helped parents of all-aged children, mainly in disadvantaged areas, to prevent the need for social services, or they worked collaboratively with those services. Many were run by voluntary organisations such as National Children’s Home, now Action for Children, and many had significant involvement from local authority social services departments.
Promising beginnings led to the requirement in the Children Act 1989 that local authorities should provide family centres. These would have been a base for local authorities to work from in delivering family support. Buildings on their own are not enough but, even in this digital age, there needs to be a focal point in a community where people can find out about the full range of services and support available.
Family centres paved the way for the national programme of Sure Start and children’s centres, which began in the late 1990s and focused on the pre-school years. Although children’s centres were immensely helpful to many parents at this life stage, the cut-off at the age of five became increasingly contested, with a greater emphasis on early intervention throughout childhood. Finally, in 2020, family hubs became official government policy. After 70 years, the family support infrastructure envisaged by Michael Young as being so important for families of children of all ages seems to be emerging. I declare here my interest as a guarantor of FHN Holding, the not-for-profit owner of the Family Hubs Network Ltd.
I have given this potted history to show that good and well-reasoned intentions several decades ago have been frequently revisited but family support still seems to be on a precarious footing, as we have basically heard already. We await the granularity of the spending review later this week. Moreover, a proper family support system in a local authority is so much bigger than the family hub and the network of buildings, people and services around it. The hub has to sit in a bigger web of relational practice that guides how all support for families, including children’s social care, is run.
The Government have made promising progress in implementing the independent review of children’s social care, with the Families First Partnership programme of preventive family support. The programme aims to transform the whole system of help and protection for families so that the right help is there for every family when needed, and it has a strong emphasis on early intervention to prevent crisis. The Families First (FFP) Partnership Programme Guide gives family hubs a good profile as a place where universal services and community-based early help are delivered, and where emerging problems can be identified at an early stage. My aim in supporting the amendment is to get more information from the Government about how they will ensure a rebalancing away from crisis spending towards early intervention across the age range nought to 19, and nought to 25 for those with special needs, and how they will ensure that prevention becomes embedded, cannot be unravelled and is further developed.
I turn to Amendments 68A and 68B in my name. In the Family Hubs Network’s work with local authorities, we talk to many people who are locally leading the family hubs and Start for Life programme who say they have been somewhat held up by having to implement Start for Life instead of being able to press on with integrating services across the age ranges nought to 19 and nought to 25, as I have said. One council said the family hub part of the programme gets overlooked as the focus has been on Start for Life and on delivering its tight specifications. Some told us that prior to this programme they were doing well on the early years as a legacy of their children’s centres, many of which are still running, albeit that Start for Life funding has enabled them to strengthen this further.
Due to how the funding is structured, some LAs have been in danger of only really shoring up provision in the early years. For family hubs, the greater goal is the provision of family support from pregnancy to 18, 19 or 25 if SEND—as I have said—or care leavers. Boosting family support beyond the early years, vital though these are, must be a key goal, delivered through a range of settings and organisations, the public sector and VCS, with some private sector too, and personal professionals backed by well-trained volunteers.
Amendments 68A and 68B would mean that local authorities with a proven track record were granted more flexibility in how they used central government funding to deliver in their family hubs. Implemented well, family hubs involve a transformation in family support through system change, yet the requirements of the current programme do not adequately prompt local authorities receiving funding to implement system change. They put the focus on funding a minimum offer rather than on a system changed to embed new ways of working using an integrated approach. Collocating services, while beneficial, is not the same as system integration. Without system change, what happens when the funding stops? Mainstreaming any of the funded programmes requires system change.
Another key aspect of family hubs is using funding more effectively, particularly by combining funding pots. Westminster City Council, a pioneer of the first family hubs prior to central government funding, was able to deploy troubled families programme money to develop family hubs because it had earned autonomy from the tight strictures of that programme’s payment-by-results model. If the Government extend funding for family support to the rest of the country beyond the 75 in the family hubs and Start for Life programme, which I very much hope they will, good learning from the original programme suggests that an earned-autonomy approach would greatly help facilitate the desired transformation.
I also support Amendments 169 and 171, already mentioned, as post-removal support for parents to prevent future removals and bereavement support services for children need to be key elements of family support, but they are either vanishingly rare, hard to find or both.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 167 in my name is very much about early intervention, which has been a key theme of this group. I support Amendment 68 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
I also want to say how important Amendment 169 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and others is. I remember, in a previous life when I was chair of Cafcass, visiting various Pause projects. I was so impressed with the work they were doing and how it was preventing young mothers who had already had one or more children taken away from them and put in care from repeating that. I remember hearing the story of a mother whose eight children had all been taken into care. It was only when they were part of a Pause project that this terrible cycle stopped repeating itself. I am enormously supportive of that amendment.
My amendment is fairly important, if not as exciting as some of the others, because it would basically require local authorities to report annually on early intervention services for children and families in their area and report back to the Secretary of State. Frankly, we have already heard the context. We know that early intervention services are crucial for the healthy development of babies, children and young people, in particular giving them and their families access to the help they need before problems escalate and families reach crisis point.
We have heard the figures, so I am not going to repeat them. Local authorities have faced severe financial challenges. They have not been able to deliver nearly as many of those early intervention services as I am sure they would like, because their money has, frankly, been taken up with crisis and child protection services that they are under a statutory duty to provide.
We have heard about what has happened over the last decade and the reducing numbers of children’s centres, family hubs, family support services, youth services et cetera, so I am not going to repeat that, but I will just say that I felt the impact of this was starkly and clearly set out in Josh MacAlister’s independent review of children’s social care back in 2022. That review made such a powerful case for a stronger focus on early intervention and on giving families the help they need before problems get out of hand. I was lucky enough to hear Josh MacAlister talk about his review last week, in the context of additional help for children in care and care leavers. Who knows? We may even hear something—I live in hope—about additional money for early intervention in the spending review. Let us wait and see.
Both the economic case and the moral case for investment in early intervention are incredibly clear, so I am not going to set them out again. From all the discussions that I have been part of in this Chamber over the years on children’s social care, I know that ensuring that children and young people get the right support at the right time is widely supported across the political divide—I do not think it is a contentious issue politically—so I really hope we hear some welcome news in the spending review.
The nub of my amendment is that I contend that too little is known about the services currently available in the field of early intervention. The amendment is really designed to promote data collection on these services to create greater awareness of what is available. It would help the Secretary of State to respond to the needs of local authorities, ensuring that sufficient services were being provided across England, as well as better information on the numbers of families who were accessing them and demographic information about the children receiving support. It would measure how effectively the services were working. Put simply, to understand how we can better support children and target funding to help the most vulnerable, we need to know more about what the current picture really looks like. My amendment would simply be a first step in helping us to ensure that children and young people did not fall through the cracks of ineffective service provision and that they got the right support at the right time.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful for the Bill as an opportunity to address a number of what we call adverse childhood experiences. I suspect that, given the lateness of the hour, we are not going to reach some of my amendments on care leavers that are scheduled for later. This group, particularly Amendment 171, deals with children who have experienced bereavement. Not much has been said about that in this short debate, so I will say a few words.
I was in that position. My dad died when I was 14, leaving me, my younger brother and my mum. It made my mum the only wage earner in the house at the same time as she was coping with her huge grief at losing her husband at the age of 43. She had two children—boys of 14 and 11, who are not the easiest to cope with. I still do not quite know how we coped. I think I coped by burying it for the next 10 years; my little brother coped by having stomach pains for the next few years. It damaged his education. I sometimes wonder whether having to go through that at that early age led to me feeling that I had a calling to be a pastor; I may have had a silver lining. But there were no bereavement services to turn to and there was nothing to support me.
As the eldest son of the family, I felt I was trying to hold the family together when everybody else was falling apart. I would have so appreciated there being somewhere I could have turned to; some signposting to where I could have looked for something outside the family—for people who were not grieving as I, my mum, my brother, my father’s parents and others were all grieving: somewhere I could have turned to get some support. If the Bill and Amendment 171 can, in a small way, help us create better bereavement services for children so that those who are in the position I was in all those years ago are not left with nowhere to turn, that would be a great thing for us to do.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 172. I do so in preference to Amendment 169, although I see that both are directed to the same wretched problem of successive removals of children and babies from mothers. Quite simply, much more needs to be done to support parents, particularly mothers, after a child has been removed into care, to reduce the risk of a further child being removed from the same mother.
The sad statistics have already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, but the fact is that at least one in four women who has already had a child removed will return to court. Too often they have reacted to the removal of their child with an ill-considered or unconsidered decision to have another baby, with all too often the same consequences. These are truly wretched cases for the courts to deal with, particularly if it is impossible for the court to find any real improvement since the previous removal, and particularly if the mother has become mistrustful and finds it difficult to seek and accept help.
As things stand, once the previous proceedings finish, the mother may receive no further attention or support from the local authority until the next pregnancy is made known, by which time it may be too late. The evidence collated and presented by the Nuffield Family Justice Observatory on the frequency and impact of recurrent care proceedings and removals is compelling, if depressing. The Nuffield Observatory points out that services are available in some areas but describes them as “few in number” and “mostly small in scale”. The work done by the specialist charity Pause—already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—shows that, with the right work and support, the cycle of recurrent removals can be broken.
The human cost of successive removals, in terms of misery and grief, is all too obvious. The financial cost to local authorities of successive care proceedings leading to fostering and adoption is enormous and, I would suggest, avoidable. When Sir James Munby was president of the Family Division, he encouraged judges to persuade local authorities in their area to adopt the work done by Pause. Many of us tried to do so, but it was not easy, because local authorities were nervous of the cost, thinking only in terms of the current year’s expenditure rather than the potential budgetary benefits in years to come. Accordingly, post-removal support remains unavailable in more than half of local authority areas. That is why primary legislation is needed.
I note that previous attempts in November 2016, similarly presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, were not accepted for reasons that were, I have to say, frankly inadequate. I hope that this Government will do better and accept Amendment 172.
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I will make a brief intervention in and around Amendments 68 and 167, which are both about early intervention. I know that situations are often different in Northern Ireland, where the local health trusts look after young people and young people’s services, whereas in England it is the local authorities. However, the principle of the issues is the same, and dealing with the young people and early intervention is hugely important. My issue is that it should not be just about early intervention; it should be an ongoing process.
The one aspect that is not looked at in the Bill—I wonder whether it could be included at some stage—is around the rights of parents. I have worked with looked-after children for many years and am an adoptive parent. Really significant issues with young people can sometimes manifest into wider family difficulties, particularly when a young person is a refuser. Maybe they refuse to take on counselling or refuse to go to school. Then, because that child or young person will not attend either counselling or school, the pressure of maybe facing a court hearing or legal proceedings returns to the parents. Quite often there is then huge pressure on the family, because the law is on the side of taking the family and the parents to court; that is not often a good prospect for family proceedings and family support.
All I am trying to say in this brief moment—I know there are other amendments on the same issue coming up at a much later stage that I will also hopefully speak to—is that, while early intervention is very important, there needs to be ongoing intervention as well.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I very much support not only early intervention but intervention at various levels when the family absolutely needs it. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, there is a financial advantage to local authorities—not, of course, short term, but long term, because the more a local authority intervenes in a troubled family, the less the chance, with any luck, that the children will go into care.
As has already been said, when one child has gone into care, it is particularly important to make sure that the next child—there nearly always is a next child—will not also have to go into care. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has said, it is a very sad situation for judges when you really cannot help the mother and her second, third or fourth child—sometimes more—because she has never had any help each time she has lost a child. So there is a genuine financial advantage to stopping children going into care, which is obviously far more expensive in the long term.
I will add a short word following on from the sad story of the right reverend Prelate. My son, aged 50, died of cancer, five years ago, with teenage children. Their mother, my daughter-in-law, was brilliant, but the children’s loss of their father at early teenage was absolutely devastating. I am glad to say that they have succeeded extremely well and have coped, but it is a moment when I have no doubt at all that my daughter-in-law—she lives in Los Angeles, so the wider family were unable to help—would have gained enormously, as indeed would the children, if there had been somebody there in a similar situation in this country. This bereavement amendment is particularly important.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 172, to which I added my name. My noble friend Lord Meston and my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss have said it far better than I possibly could. I know the amazing work of Pause and I commend its work to the Committee. I have full faith that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will say anything that is missing.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 169 and 172 in my name and to comment on the other amendments in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Farmer for their support on Amendment 169, and the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Meston, for their support on Amendment 172. As has been noted, they seek to do similar things.
Amendment 169 is a narrower version, focusing on support for mothers who have had a baby removed into care at birth. Like the noble Lord, Lord Meston, I prefer Amendment 172, which is broader and would create an obligation for local authorities to offer an evidence-based programme, such as the Pause programme, to mothers who have had a child removed from their care and who, as we have heard, very often immediately get pregnant again. From a human point of view, one can absolutely understand why, after all the attention that they may have received from children’s services prior to the child being removed and then the deafening silence that surrounds them once the child is gone. Very often, that void is filled by another pregnancy. I prefer Amendment 172 because it is a real issue and is broader, but the evidence for Amendment 169 is crystal clear. Almost half of newborns subject to care proceedings are born to mothers who had previously had a child—an older sibling to the newborn—removed through those proceedings. The near inevitability of that seems very powerful.
I am not sure whether it is on my register of interest, but I did a period of volunteering for Pause before I joined your Lordships’ House, so I have seen the quality of its work first hand. Since 2013, over 2,000 women have completed the Pause programme who, prior to working with Pause, collectively had had more than 6,200 children removed from their care—that is just over three children per woman. This is not a competition for how many children a woman has had removed, but Pause was founded by a social worker, Sophie Humphreys, and a district judge, Nick Crichton, after they worked together on a case where a 14th child was removed from the same woman. It is grounded very much in the experience of women.
I suggest to the Minister that this amendment is similar in spirit to Clause 1, which puts family group decision-making processes on a statutory footing, in the sense that some local authorities offer these programmes and some do not. The delivery is inconsistent and patchy and, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, the funding for it is not always available. Also in the spirit of the Bill, which seeks to support those in the care system, we know that 40% of women who have taken part in the Pause programmes were themselves in care.
The Minister will know that the DfE’s own evaluation of this work saw significantly improved outcomes for mothers, reduced rates of infant care entry and very significant savings to children’s social care, with the department’s evaluation suggesting that every £1 spent on the Pause programme resulted in a saving to children’s social care of £4.50 over four years and £7.61—that seems remarkably accurate—over 18 years. I am not sure whether that is the net present value of £7.61, but anyway—that is a 7:1 return. From the point of view of the mother and the children, and from the financial perspective, these amendments deserve the Minister’s serious attention.
More broadly, this group has been focused on the important subject of support for families, both at a relatively early stage and at crisis points, such as when a child is removed into care. The purpose behind Amendment 68, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and my noble friend Lord Farmer, is to ensure that there is universal provision of family support services. There is no question that such services are valued by the families who use them and can make a great difference to the lives of children and to their parents. We support the spirit of the amendment, which keeps universal services separate from those that are voluntary but targeted to more vulnerable families, as the noble Baroness knows from our earlier debates on Clause 3.
Amendments 68A and 68B seek to introduce the concept of earned autonomy for family support services, which is again something that we are very sympathetic to. I have the greatest respect for my noble friend Lord Farmer for his extensive work in this area, particularly in relation to family hubs. I look forward to hearing what the Minister might say about the expansion of family hubs, which the Government have described as
“a non-stigmatising gateway to targeted whole-family support”.
In normal-speak, I think that is a good thing.
Amendment 167, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, would require local authorities to report annually on early intervention services for children and families in their area. As the noble Baroness acknowledged, local authorities have annual reporting requirements, including in relation to their multi-agency safeguarding work. As I understand it, this amendment would make that more explicit in relation to early help. I just wondered whether this would not naturally fit as an update to the Working Together to Safeguard Children statutory guidance, as opposed to being in the Bill.
It is hard to argue with the spirit of Amendment 171, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I was sad to hear of her loss and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I am sure that, across the Committee, we are very grateful to those charities that offer great support to children, and their families, who have been bereaved. When I was in the department, I remember meeting the team at the Ruth Strauss Foundation—indeed, I went on to recommend it to extended family members, who benefited from its support. In some cases, when perhaps a parent has cancer, the death can be anticipated and support can happen pre bereavement as well as post bereavement, if the family wishes, but in other cases, such as cases of domestic homicide, the child in effect loses both parents—one parent has been killed and the other parent is in prison. Effective support in all these cases is to be encouraged. If accepted, this amendment would make the task of finding the right support so much easier for bereaved or soon-to-be-bereaved children.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for highlighting in this debate very important issues aimed at ensuring that children and families can get the support that they need at the right time. That is an enormously important theme of the Government’s reforms to children’s social care. In doing that, we are already taking forward recommendations from the independent review of children’s social care, mentioned by several people today, particularly the aim to rebalance the children’s social care system towards earlier intervention and supporting more children to stay safely with their families.
I shall speak first to Amendment 68, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, which raises the important issue of family support services. I appreciate the noble Lords’ intention with this amendment and confirm that the Government are already investing in the provision of family support nationally. I also accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that there is a need to ensure that there is that investment. The noble Baroness outlined the fall in investment since 2010; for example, in the Sure Start programme. It took me back to one of the very last interventions that I made in the other place before I came starkly up against the electorate in 2010. I expressed concern that a different Government might not continue to support the development of family support services and Sure Start in a way in which that Government had. There was heckling and jeering, as tends to be more the case at the other end of the building than here, but I am afraid that what we saw in the intervening years was a reduction in support for precisely the sort of services that noble Lords today are, quite rightly, pushing the Government to ensure that we both develop and fund. That is why, as we have frequently referenced—I do so again—that this Government have provided over £500 million to local authorities to roll out the national Families First Partnership programme, which aims to prioritise earlier intervention and ensure that families can access the right support sooner.
To turn to some of the more detailed points, I note the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, regarding earned autonomy status for local authorities to not follow prescriptive criteria in determining the services to be delivered. This is a challenge: how do we enable local authorities to have the autonomy to build and link the services in a way that makes sense to them in their circumstances, while also ensuring that additional investment placed into preventive services is spent on that? I have considerable sympathy for the idea that there needs to be that flexibility. That is why the Government are not mandating the delivery of specific family support services by any local authorities through the programme. They all have flexibility to respond to need in their areas, taking account of available resources, and they are supported in thinking about what might be appropriate and what would work best by reference, for example, to the programme guide that the Government have issued and the work of foundations that are developing information about what is most effective and working well. It is of course important, as I say, that we are clear that the additional money allocated for this work is spent on it. Grant funding is therefore ring-fenced to ensure that it is spent on a range of preventive services. Within that ring-fence, there should be—and there is—flexibility for local authorities to think about the nature and combination of the services that they are providing.
Before I move on, I want to respond to the point that the noble Lord made not only about flexibility, as we have talked about, but about combining funding pots. It is an important point. While local authorities funded through the family hubs and Start for Life programme have the flexibility, as I have said, to tailor services to meet programme expectations and address local needs, combining funding is also an important bit of that flexibility. Many local authorities are combining funding with other funding sources to enhance support for families. It is important that they are enabled to do that, notwithstanding the accountability point that I have made.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I would be grateful if the Minister would agree to go back and talk to her ministerial colleagues about this again. She is absolutely right that some of the effective targeted help and Section 17 types of help that she was talking about, set out in the Families First pathfinders, can be useful to some families, but these cases where a woman has already had multiple removals do not typically fit into that bracket; they go straight to care proceedings. The case load, if I remember rightly, is that each full-time Pause practitioner works with three women, so it is super-intensive and I think is complementary to this. I would just be grateful if she did not close the door on that as an option, particularly as I know that her noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, previously put this down as an amendment—I feel strengthened in that knowledge.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have been persuaded in the course of this debate about the significance of this issue. I had some experience in previous work that I did in children’s social care about this, so I will certainly undertake to go back and talk to my colleagues about some more specificity around the particular requirements in these cases. Perhaps I can return to the noble Baroness with a bit more detail about that.
Amendment 171 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, seeks to establish a duty on local authorities to improve access to bereavement support services for children. Like others, I recognise and respect the noble Baroness for talking about her own experience of bereavement, as we also heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, identifying the enormous pressure that falls on families and particularly other children at the point at which they are bereaved. It is for this reason that the Government continue to consider how to improve access to existing bereavement support. There is a cross-government bereavement group, chaired by the Department of Health and Social Care and attended by officials from the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office, continuing to look at how we can improve access to support.
Following discussion by this group of opportunities to improve signposting of support—and as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said, I would have appreciated being signposted to some support outside the family—we have recently added links to bereavement support specifically for children and young people on GOV.UK. Schools increasingly talk to their pupils about mental health and where to access further support, both as part of the curriculum and through their wider pastoral duties. The relationships and sex education statutory guidance specifies that teachers should be aware of common adverse childhood experiences, including bereavement. I hope that, bringing those things together, we are enabling an improvement in the support that we provide for children who have suffered bereavement. I hope that this, along with the continued investment in services for children and family support, reassures noble Lords that we are taking action on that.
In all these areas, I hope that I have provided, after a useful and important debate, some reassurance about the acceptance by the Government of all the issues identified during the course of the debate, but also about the action that the Government are taking to commit to and invest in improving outcomes for children and their families through effective support services. I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press these amendments, but I will certainly come back on the specific points and reflect on the case made in what I think has been a very important and helpful group of amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response to this group of amendments and everyone who contributed to what I think has been a very rich debate marked by a—I was going to say remarkable, but I think I am going to say astonishing—degree of consensus from all corners of the Committee. I am afraid I do not have time to run through all the contributions. I will just very briefly thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for sharing their personal experiences.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
“Parent-equivalent care by local authoritiesIn section 22 of the Children Act 1989 (general duty of local authority in relation to children looked after by them), after subsection (3)(a) insert—“(aa) to provide care as would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them; and””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that the nature and level of parental care expected for children within their own families also applies to corporate parents and to the children’s care system. It replaces amendment 146A.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I always think there is something rather sad about an amendment that sits on its own and forms a group of its own. It looks almost afraid to speak its name. However, I prefer to think of group 4 today as being small but perfectly formed, and I will speak to Amendment 69AB on that basis. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the same kind of parental care expected within families applies to corporate parents and the children’s care system. In that sense, it has echoes of Amendment 107B, which I spoke to earlier.
Section 31 of the Children Act 1989 provides that a court may make a care order in respect of a child only if it is satisfied that the child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm and this is attributable to the care received by the child not being what would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them. There are all sorts of issues, and we have heard many of them this afternoon and evening, about the failures of birth parents. None the less, this amendment would equalise the position of looked-after children and children who live with their parents with no social care involvement. Corporate parents would be required to provide the kind of care which it would be reasonable to expect a parent within the community to give to their child. Surely it is reasonable to expect that the state’s care of children should be at least to the level expected of parents. It should certainly drop no lower.
Under the Children Act 1989, a local authority must safeguard and promote the welfare of every child in its care—that is, those who are the subject of an interim care order or a care order—and every child for whom it provides accommodation for a period of more than 24 hours. Amendment 69AB would add the requirement that the local authority—as the child's corporate parent—must provide care that it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to their child. This would strengthen and give legal clarity as to the primary duty of local authorities in their vital and privileged role of corporate parent: to safeguard and promote each child's welfare and to provide care that would be reasonably expected from a parent.
Statutory guidance issued in 2018 for local authorities on implementing the corporate parenting principles in Section 1 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 says:
“A strong corporate parenting ethos means that everyone from the Chief Executive down to front line staff, as well as elected council members, are concerned about those children and care leavers as if they were their own. This is evidenced by an embedded culture where council officers … do all that is reasonably possible to ensure the council is the best ‘parent’ it can be to the child or young person”.
It was the late and much missed Frank Dobson, in his role as Secretary of State for Health, who first articulated the legal and moral responsibility of being a corporate parent. In a letter sent to every local authority councillor in September 1998, he said:
“For children who are looked after, your council has a legal and moral duty to try to provide the kind of loyal support that any good parents would give to their children”.
That applies no less today than it did all those years ago.
Despite many important amendments made to the Children Act 1989 over the years, aimed at improving the wellbeing and future life opportunities of looked after children and care leavers, it may surprise noble Lords that there is still no clear, unambiguous requirement that looked-after children receive the same level of care from their corporate parents as would be deemed acceptable for them had they remained with their birth parents. The High Court in March 2022, in a judicial review brought by the children's rights charity Article 39, found there is no provision in the Children Act 1989 which requires
“care to be provided in situ or as part of a placement”.
A child can be the subject of care proceedings through the family court until the age of 17 where they have suffered, or are at risk of suffering, significant harm and this is deemed attributable to their parents’ care not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them. Yet once they are removed from their parents and become looked after, there is no express duty on their new corporate parent to provide care within their new placement, which is their new home. How can that situation be defended? I do not believe that it can. It is the equivalent of a local authority saying, “Don’t do as I do; do as I say”, and it must not be allowed to continue. Were that to happen, it would help to transform the children’s care system.
If my noble friend cannot give me a positive answer today, I ask that she consider what I have said and perhaps come forward on Report with a proposal. I believe this is a lacuna, which this Bill has the opportunity to fill. I beg to move.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I speak to oppose Amendment 69AB, well-intentioned though it clearly is. I have several levels of concerns about the imposition of yet another duty. I believe that the expectations for looked-after children are generally well understood—whether they are actually carried out in practice is another matter. This particular amendment has some obvious holes. For example, there are kinds of intimacy in normal, healthy parent-child relationships that absolutely would not be appropriate between local authority staff and children.
More generally, there has been a proliferation of duties in legislation in recent years. For example, I became chair of Ofqual 14 years ago. After a particular duty was raised in my first board meeting, I asked my legal director for a session to talk me through all the duties that applied. To my astonishment, I discovered that we already had 28 duties, with a handful more in the pipeline; I am sure it is a lot more since then.
This imposition of duties as the go-to solution has several problems. First, it creates problems of overload. Normal human beings simply cannot hold so many different duties in their thinking simultaneously. Secondly, they get imposed in isolation. They are usually added without reference to previous duties, with which they often overlap but sometimes push in different directions. How do you reconcile them? They can lead to skimping. If duties that have been imposed need resource but are not funded, you can end up with everything being done less well—not only the thing that the duty is aimed at but all the other functions—which reduces the quality at the receiving end. It takes away the ability of public services to prioritise intelligently. It can divert resource away from the main purpose that the duty is intended to protect and towards the kinds of activities that demonstrate compliance with the activity.
Finally, if there is a surplus of duties and an impossibility of giving full effect to them all, a sort of cynicism builds up that can corrupt an organisation’s culture. When everybody knows that they are really only paying lip service to an enormous list, people stop believing in the ability of the organisation to fulfil its real purposes.
Tempting as it is to think that another duty is the great solution that will protect children from all the awful harms that have been talked about today—they are a great salve to all our consciences—we need to resist and make sure that we get to the essence of the things that will do the most to help children.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, again reminded the Committee that vulnerable children in the care of a local authority do not always receive the care that they deserve. We should never lose sight that that should be our goal. My noble friend Lady Spielman put it very well in her remarks and I will pick up on what she said. Local authorities understand their duties in this area. The noble Lord himself cited some of the legislation and guidance on the spirit of their responsibilities. The question, as ever, is around implementation, and I share my noble friend’s concerns about adding yet another duty to local authorities.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the single amendment in this group, Amendment 69AB, in the name of my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie. I reflect the concern that has been expressed about the care and support that some of the most vulnerable children receive. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, acknowledged that too many children have been let down over the years, and I believe that this Bill is a real opportunity to set things on a more constructive path.
I recognise that the amendment has been tabled to add a legislative requirement to ensure that the nature and level of parental care that families strive to provide for their own children is provided by local authorities for looked-after children. A local authority is a corporate parent in two senses: first, it has corporate parenting duties; and, secondly, it stands in the parents’ shoes, having parental responsibility for the children in its care.
As I said, I wholeheartedly agree with the amendment’s goal, and we want to ensure that our looked-after children received the highest possible quality support. However, existing legislative and regulatory frameworks mean that local authorities should already care for looked-after children as good parents would. Sections 22 and 22A of the Children Act 1989 already set out the duties owed by a local authority to any child who is looked after by it. These include duties to provide accommodation for the child, to safeguard and promote their welfare, to promote their educational achievement and to help them access a range of services. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, is giving me a look, but I did check that that is indeed the case.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend. Her last point—about the proposal in my amendment having little to no effect—carries considerable weight coming from someone with her considerable experience as the leader of one of England’s largest city councils; something which she did with some distinction, to put it at its lightest. Her words carry weight. She also talked about—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman—the addition of further duties. The question is whether those duties are appropriate and whether they fill any void that experience shows must be filled.
You can talk in generalities, but there are a number of occasions that have been referred to earlier today about local authorities. I do not doubt for one moment that any local authority sets out to do anything other than its best. But there are situations, such as those I mentioned in the debate on my earlier amendment, where local authorities move children out of their area, separate them from siblings, and, on certain occasions, move them just before they are due to sit GCSEs or A-levels, which can have such disruptive effects, and put them into foster care or adoptive care and then do not provide the resources for that care to be properly effective. There are ways in which councils can say, “We’re doing our best”, but, in actual fact, that might not be enough.
I am slightly troubled by the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, that “We’re just adding extra details and duties on to local authorities”. I know she has had experience at Ofqual and Ofsted, but that sounded more like a comment coming from the business part of her career, because it sounded a bit like corporate jargon—not to add on extra duties for the sake of it. The question is, are those duties looking to prevent what can sometimes go wrong in the council’s care of children? I would argue that they can, otherwise, there would not be the sorts of stories that we get all too regularly about local authorities or those funded by local authorities putting vulnerable children in some pretty dire situations.
While I bow to the experience of those who have spoken in the debate, there are issues here that need to be looked at further. In introducing this, I asked: why should it be that a local authority can take a child away from their birth parents, become their corporate parents and yet then not have the same responsibilities for them? That just does not seem right.
I thank those who contributed to the debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Effingham
“(iii) kinship families.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure the needs and experiences of all members of kinship families are considered and those family members are able to access the support they need, so children can thrive in safe, loving homes within their family network.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 69B in my name and in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, as well as the other amendments in this group. Amendment 69B seeks to ensure that children in kinship care and their carers can be referred to as a “kinship family”. Using the term “kinship families” would allow for the correct dignity, respect and acknowledgement that they are indeed a family unit. Currently, the use of “kinship carers” and “children in kinship care” does not fully recognise that they are a family unit. This amendment seeks to ensure that the whole family is able to access the necessary support, as set out by the local authority.
Amendment 71 seeks to ensure that, when a local authority updates its kinship care offer, it proactively consults kinship families. These kinship families play an integral role in understanding the effectiveness of the local offer, as they are the ones in situ who are receiving the support and as such, their opinion and understanding of such delivery is essential to enhance the overall service as and when required.
This amendment would also require the offer to be reviewed annually rather than from time to time. We believe that such a vague timescale opens up the possibility for local authorities, which are dealing with a multitude of tasks at any one time, to allow, through no direct fault of their own, such a review to remain unaddressed for a material amount of time without the subject matter being considered, which would negatively affect the kinship families in that local area.
To be clear, and as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in the previous group, local authorities are always trying to do their best—that is not in doubt. But this amendment cements best practice to ensure that the kinship care offering can be continually improved in line with feedback.
As drafted, the Bill does not make reference to any details surrounding how a local authority must review and update its kinship care local offer, so this amendment provides further detail about how and when such a review must be conducted.
Amendment 70, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seeks to include legal support and family decision-making on the list of services a local authority can provide to support the local kinship families. This amendment seems entirely sensible as there may well be situations in which kinship families need these services. When family group decision-making processes are taking place, it is right that the kinship care family should be aware.
Amendment 72, also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, seeks to require local authorities to publish the comments they receive and how they have addressed these comments. It is similar to my Amendment 71 as it recognises the importance of understanding how local families interact with the care offer and their opinions on its effectiveness, which should be a good thing.
Amendment 103, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seeks to extend the pupil premium to children in a kinship care arrangement. While we understand that kinship placements are an essential part of the social care system, a decision such as this would potentially involve a significant commitment from the Treasury, and as such would require a full financial impact assessment before further decisions could be made.
Amendments 104 and 146 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, seek to extend the rights of kinship carers so that they receive an allowance and are able to take leave in a similar way to other employees. It is certainly important that the attractiveness and prospect of becoming a kinship carer is not reduced because of financial difficulty, and it is vitally important to recognise the importance of kinship carers and ensure that the system works in practice. We would urge His Majesty’s Government to consider ways to reduce barriers to entry for kinship carers so that the number of children in children’s homes can be reduced. I beg to move.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 72 in my name and remind the House that I am a kinship carer of twin 13 year-olds. I also thank Kinship for its help in this.
The Bill recognises the vital role that kinship carers play and strengthens welcome reforms which improve support for kinship carers. However, some of the Government’s stated policy objectives associated with the Bill’s provisions are unlikely to be realised without additional reform and the Bill ultimately falls short of delivering the vital education on the mental health support that children in kinship care urgently need.
Making the kinship local offer a legal requirement through new legislation is welcome. In Kinship’s 2024 annual survey, a third of kinship carers rated the information provided about kinship care by their local authorities “very poor”, and only 7% of kinship carers said in 2023 that they had seen their local authority’s existing family and friends care policy—something local authorities have been required to deliver since 2011.
A new legal duty and more comprehensive guidance around the content and delivery of this information should help kinship carers to better understand and access available support. However, as outlined by Kinship’s associate director of policy and public affairs when providing oral evidence to the Education Committee last month, the local offer’s impact will be to magnify the lack of support available to kinship families, particularly those with informal arrangements or where a legal order was made in private proceedings.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I rise in support particularly of Amendments 69B and 71. From my experience—and it is an experience that some others in this Chamber would have—kinship care arrangements are often needed as the result of an emergency situation. It is often sad, leaving the young person involved feeling particularly vulnerable. The fact that the proposed kinship carer or carers already have a relationship with that person for whom the kinship care is being considered could help them at a time when they need it, not least because the carer might be experiencing and sharing exactly the same situation. However, it should be noted that, due to the nature of kinship care, it is unlikely that the proposed kinship carer would have been seeking to take on the role. Therefore, there would not be the same lead-in time that you might have to prepare them as you would with a foster carer.
Dependent on the circumstances, there is also the potential for conflict with an original parent as well as an impact on the wider family of the kinship carer. This situation means that appropriate support might be required at speed for the proposed kinship carer and their wider family for the benefit of the young person. That support probably would not be the same as for fostering arrangements, due to the uniqueness of the situation, and that makes these amendments important.
On Amendments 104 and 146, I am sure that your Lordships will not be surprised to hear what I am about to say. It is worth noting that kinship allowance and kinship leave, while they make sense, would be an additional cost to the local authority. As my noble friend said earlier, there would need to be consideration by the Government as to how they might be funded, but I support the amendments.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendments 69B, 70, 71 and 72 in this group. It is terrific that kinship care will be defined in legislation for the first time. It is a significant step, and one that we should admit is long overdue. I could never understand why kinship care was always so overlooked when it is very often the best solution to a child’s care. When I say, “best solution”, I mean that very much in the sense of the interests of the child, for one other thing that is overlooked—and underestimated—is the huge sacrifice that family members and friends make when they take on such a responsibility. While many do so willingly, the system does not exactly make it easy for them. That is why Amendment 69B, in the names of my noble friends Lord Effingham and Lady Stedman-Scott, is a sensible one in that it acknowledges the role of the whole family. I also hope that the Government will consider Amendment 70 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton.
Another significant step in this Bill is the duty for local authorities to publish a kinship local offer. However, there is an error of omission in that there is no reference anywhere to the different forms of kinship care. We know that different frameworks have different levels of financial, health and therapeutic support, depending on whether you are kinship fostering or have taken on responsibility via a special guardianship order, and whether the child you are taking on has or has not been in care previously. The only problem is that, very often, the potential kinship carers—for the reasons explained by my noble friend—do not have a clue about any of this. Why would they?
I will give some examples of what this means in practice, and this is courtesy of the very good charity, Kinship. Fiona’s grandson was taken into foster care at birth, and she was told that, unless she applied for a special guardianship order to look after him, he would stay in the care system. She said she felt pressured and pushed into this, because she did not have a clue what her options were. As she says, “I took social services at their word that this was the best for me and my grandson”. That was six years ago, and she was then 59 years old. She had to give up a well-paid career, and now survives on benefits and relies on food banks, eating only child-sized meals herself to get by. She has also struggled to get her grandson the assessments and support he needs, which would have been much easier had she been a foster carer.
Similarly, Sue, a former social worker, now 60, took care of her three granddaughters and one grandson. She was told by the local authority that she had to sort out all the court work and pay for all the solicitors’ fees to arrange the care of the children and get a special guardianship order. She and her husband were on benefits, but as guardians, they were means-tested and they received £17 per week per child. Sue, now a widow, had to complain to her local councillor, the Children’s Commissioner and the ombudsman before receiving an uplift.
Finally, Rebekah, 63, is raising her two grandchildren on benefits after the death of their mother, but what she did not realise was that she would not get any support from the local authority because the children had not been in care. She is now struggling and in debt. As she says, “Fortunately I’m resilient and resourceful, but it’s been a huge challenge. We’ve been flying by the seat of our pants, with no support or guidance or anything”.
The upcoming pilot on a financial allowance will, I hope, address some of these inequities, but it seems essential that potential carers are given explicit information on any legal support available. I think we can all see from the examples given that it would have probably helped the three women I have just mentioned.
I really hope that the Government will consider Amendment 70, which is a small change but could have a big impact. Can the Minister give us any further details on the pilot, which is an incredibly good thing but obviously comes too late for this Bill?
I hope the Government will also consider Amendment 72 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, which also covers the issue raised in Amendment 71 from my noble friend Lord Effingham. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has said, it would simply put the kinship care offer on a par with other offers, such as for SEN and disability. I am interested in the requirement in both amendments to guarantee the involvement of children and carers in the development of kinship care offers.
Working with the Grenfell community, the victims of child sexual abuse and infected blood over the years, it has become clear that local and national government is just not always very good at meaningful engagement. I once asked a civil servant what engagement they had had with regard to a specific policy, and I was explicitly told that there had purposely been no direct communication because it was incredibly important to keep a distance between those developing the policy and those who would be affected by it.
Things have improved since then but probably not as much as they should have done, and so I genuinely believe that embedding engagement into legislation, where appropriate, is the only way that we will drive the necessary culture change. We should not forget that a really important benefit of that engagement is that it builds empathy into the system. Too often, empathy is an afterthought—such as when certain television dramas might evoke a public outcry—when really it should be there as a given.
So, while explicitly involving children and families in the development of kinship care offers may seem a small matter, I really do believe it would have a far-reaching effect in helping to make the state work better for the people who need it.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 69B to 72, and I declare my interests as a governor of Coram and as a trustee of the Foundling Museum, both of which organisations do a huge amount of work with children involved in these amendments.
We do not realise how lucky we are with kinship care. The figures speak for themselves. When you compare the fact that we have 153,000 children being kept in kinship care with the numbers officially in the care system, which is approaching dangerously near 100,000, and the relatively small number of children who are fortunate enough to be adopted, we are incredibly lucky to have kinship care.
A lot of the history of kinship care as it has evolved and grown has been really about taking it for granted and assuming that is what families or extended families do—and, to a large extent, being inordinately grateful that they are there to take these children on and feeling that one probably needs to devote slightly less time and attention to helping those kinship carers do the best they possibly can by comparison with, let us say, children who are conventionally going through the care system. That is clearly a major imbalance.
A particular sentence jumped out at me from the briefing that the organisation Kinship provided in preparation for this stage:
“Given the long and troubling history of poor compliance with kinship statutory guidance, it is imperative that government does not simply take the approach that these matters can be attended to in guidance alone”—
tempting as that is.
With 153,000 currently in kinship care, we have in theory an enormous amount of data to identify where it is being done well and where it is being done less well. So I did a bit of interrogation of the artificial intelligence tool that we are provided with here, courtesy of Microsoft, and an example that jumps out several times when I interrogated it, as a local authority or city council that has best practice in this area, is the city of Portsmouth. I have no idea whether people knew that, or to what extent the department or the Bill team have looked in detail at what it is that Portsmouth is doing that is clearly shooting the lights out compared with a lot of other cities or local authorities. But it is possible to identify what is being done well now, to learn from that and to try to see the best way to put that either into legislation or into guidance so that we are not effectively reinventing the wheel. This is happening at such a large scale that there must be incredibly rich qualitative and quantitative data that we can learn from. I just hope that during the course of the Bill we can drill down, look at that in more detail, try to identify some of those elements of best practice and perhaps bring that back to the discussion on Report.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will start using the mantra of the Minister: on a number of occasions she has said that it is about getting children and families the right support. I very much agree with that.
I will start by talking generally about the care system. I met a young man whose name is Tristan, and when he was a child he was put into care. When I was chatting to him I was genuinely shocked when he told me he had been in nine different care settings throughout the country. Imagine this child going from one care setting to another. I do not know the reasons why, but that happened. He was lucky enough to end the care placements by being fostered by parents in Liverpool, who eventually adopted him as their son. That was the happy outcome after all the trauma that went on before. He is now at Liverpool John Moores University, studying law.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I lend my support to these amendments, particularly Amendments 103, 104 and 146 in the name of my noble friend Lord Storey. As we have heard, it has been a very interesting group about the role that kinship care is playing. Okay, the number is somewhere between 100,000 and 142,000 or 153,000: it is an awful lot of children who, because they are in kinship care, are not going into the care system, with all the costs that we know that can bring with it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, said in her very interesting and insightful contribution, kinship carers are often doing this at great sacrifice to themselves. Very often—most times—they are doing it out of love, but they are stepping up at a time of crisis to provide that love and care to children who would otherwise be in the care system.
I just want to underline the point that the period when the child moves in can be incredibly difficult and require a lot of support. Often the kinship carer, who would not have planned to have taken on parental responsibilities for one or more children, would have to spend time attending meetings with children’s services, be involved in court proceedings, maybe find a nursery, make arrangements with the children’s school, the GP or whatever. The list just goes on. They are all things that tend to need to be done during the day, during working hours, and they all take time and money, which is why I feel that a kinship care allowance and extending the pupil premium is so important and, most particularly, an entitlement for an individual to be absent from work on care leave at the moment when those arrangements are being set up is critical.
When I was looking at the very helpful briefing that I have been sent, I was reminded that a right to paid employment leave for kinship carers was recommended by the cross-party Parliamentary Taskforce on Kinship Care, the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care, which we have heard about this afternoon, and indeed by the House of Lords Select Committee doing post-legislative scrutiny on the Children and Families Act, which I actually chaired. I remember that we came forward with that recommendation, and I think it is incredibly important that we take this opportunity to do something about it.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I start by saying how touched I am, and I really want to welcome the comments that have been made about kinship care in the Chamber this evening. It is such an important area, and I think we all have to put our hand on our heart and say that it is a set of relationships that has not been given its due recognition. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, talked about areas of good practice. I think we could all add areas where we know that places are getting it right. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sanderson and Lady O’Neill, talked about the general background and trying to imagine the situation when you know that a family member is getting into difficulties. As they quite rightly say, this becomes a moment of crisis when the risk to the children we are talking about is at its absolute highest.
The recognition of the importance of focusing on the outcomes for children and young people is to be welcomed and needs to be at the forefront of everything that we do. From a local authority perspective, we know that too many children are going into care. As we have heard tonight, this can have a detrimental effect on their prospects and outcomes over a long period. It also has an enormous impact on the budgets of councils, in particular where money could be invested into setting up more support networks in this area.
We are talking about supporting children to stay within their family and friend network, where that is safe and right for them. This is a priority for this Government. There is a general recognition that the support that kinship families have received to date has not been sufficient. We are working hard to address this. It is quite extraordinary that, until now, there has been no legal definition of kinship care. Changing that is something that we can all come together to welcome. As we have heard, access to information for the families involved can be a postcode lottery. Clause 5 is a significant step towards ensuring greater parity in information on the support that is available to kinship carers by requiring local authorities to publish a kinship offer.
Amendment 69B, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, seeks to ensure that information on support for kinship families, and not just children and carers, is included in the duty to publish a kinship local offer. I reassure the noble Earl that there is mention in the Bill of a review. New Section 22H(7), to be inserted by Clause 5, states that local authorities “must review” and keep up to date their kinship information. We agree that a whole-family approach is absolutely vital, but amending Clause 5 as proposed is not necessary. The list of information about services that can be included in a kinship local offer under Clause 5 is non-exhaustive. This has been done for a reason, and it already includes services relating to relationships which will assist kinship families more broadly.
The kinship care statutory guidance states that local authorities should empower families by prioritising family-led solutions, working collaboratively with family networks to support parents or carers to make and sustain positive changes, leading, we hope, to de-escalation of need or no further involvement with statutory services. Local authorities should engage with family networks, from early help and at every point through the children’s social care system, as set out in Working Together to Safeguard Children 2023.
There are other policies dedicated to families in need of support, which we have heard about already this evening, such as the family help programme, which aims to improve children’s outcomes and respond to needs and the circumstances of the family as early as possible to enable children to thrive and families to remain together. With a stress on family help, multi-agency child protection family group decision-making reforms are being rolled out across England through the Families First Partnership programme, with over £500 million of direct funding for preventive support for children and families.
Amendment 70, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is on the categories of information listed under Clause 5. We agree that it is important that a kinship local offer should encompass information about the full range of support that is available in the local area. However, amending Clause 5 as proposed is not necessary, for the reasons that I have outlined. Clause 1 already sets out that family group decision-making will be offered, so to add it here would be unnecessary. As I have mentioned before, the listed categories of information about services for the kinship local offer are non-exhaustive and broad, meaning that local authorities can respond to their local strengths and local circumstances, and bring in services available in their area.
The kinship care statutory guidance sets out the expectation that a kinship local offer should set out the legal support that may be available to kinship carers and potential kinship carers, including the eligibility and extent of that support. This involves local relationships—the power of place—and health providers working with local authorities, bringing together all the possible solutions to a particular situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has suggested, practical emotional support is absolutely key. We know that there is more work to be done. We need to look at the areas that are doing it well, learn from their experience, and make sure that it is taken up and expanded in every local authority area around the country.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
I welcome an awful lot of what the Minister said and what His Majesty’s Government are trying to do. My heart sank slightly when I heard the piece about relying on statutory guidance, which was obviously written for her beforehand. I have worked very closely on a variety of Bills over the past four or five years with the Children’s Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. If the Minister were to sit down with each or all of them and ask them about the experience they had of overreliance on statutory guidance, she would get some very mixed messages.
Statutory guidance is effective only if the degree to which it is complied with is monitored; it is of no use whatever if the organisations that are meant to carry it out know that nobody is looking over their shoulder or calling them to book if they do not comply. This again comes back to the variation in practice across the country. So I ask the Minister, her colleagues and the department to talk to some of those commissioners, to understand the historical and the live experience they have in dealing with some of the statutory guidance we have put into some of the legislation that has come through the House in the past three or four years, to see how effective it is and what we can learn from it.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his contribution and reassure him that I was not just reading out a script. I have put a lot of thought into this. I have been in the place of delivering on this agenda, so I do have the experience.
We have to be careful that we are not too prescriptive at every level, because that can absolutely confound and take up more resource. But I do acknowledge that statutory guidance has to be adhered to, monitored and dealt with with the same seriousness across the piece and, where it has not been adhered to, it has to be called out. The most important thing that all of us can do is make sure that there is an awareness of the rights and responsibilities of the different organisations involved and that they live up to them and, as we have said all the way through, put the needs of some of the most vulnerable children in our communities at the heart of everything we do.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who made valuable contributions to this group. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, talked about improving the visibility of kinship care, and he is absolutely right. My noble friend Lady Sanderson talked about acknowledging the role of the whole family in terms of kinship families and gave us three live, worked examples of why this group is so important. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, reminded your Lordships’ Committee that there are 153,000 children in kinship care and that we are so lucky to have kinship carers—which I believe all noble Lords would agree with and which emphasises again why this group is critical. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to kinship carers as a priceless asset and he is entirely correct. I believe several of these issues merit further discussion on Report, but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Baroness Barran
“Removal of unregistered status for approved kinship carersNotwithstanding the provisions of the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 (S.I. 2010/959) and the Children Act 1989, no placement of a child with a kinship carer that is approved by the Director of Children’s Services, shall be considered an unregistered placement.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow local authorities to place a child with a kinship carer without needing to meet the fostering placement standards, where it is judged by the local authority to be in the best interests of the child, as a registered placement, including for the purposes of Ofsted inspection.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 73, 74, 75, 76 and 76A in my name, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, for adding his name to these amendments. I apologise to those waiting for the regret Motion, but my speaking notes are quite lengthy on this group, because it is quite complicated and important. These amendments all seek to update the approach to the approval of kinship carers, which currently broadly mirrors that for stranger foster carers—I apologise if that is the wrong term. These amendments have been prompted by conversations I have had with leaders in local authorities and the family justice system. I put on record my thanks to the charity Kinship for its advice and explanation of the current position of kinship carers.
My amendments aim to recognise that placing a child with someone other than their birth parents requires balancing a number of risks and safeguards. Kinship carers have the obvious strength of a long-standing, usually lifelong, relationship with a child in the way that a stranger foster carer, however compassionate, does not. However, they may not meet the full standards required by a foster panel in order to be formally approved as the permanent home for a child.
Currently, there is no ability to balance these considerations. In a world where the Government understandably want to see an increase in the use of kinship care, including through family group conferencing, this could be unhelpful at best and potentially damaging for the child at worst.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I support the amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend, which, as she set out, aim to simplify the process for approving kinship carers, balancing the importance of robust safeguards with greater flexibility and discretion within the process to speed it up in the best interests of the child.
As we heard in the previous group, kindship carers are an essential part of our care system, and their benefits are well known. Research indicates that, on average, children in kinship care achieve higher GCSE scores compared with those in non-kin foster care, and significantly higher than all looked-after children or children in need. Children in kinship care also experience better mental health and overall well-being compared with those in other out-of-home care settings, with the familial environment contributing to these positive outcomes. In addition, children in kinship care are more likely to remain in the same area and school, maintaining continuity in their social and educational environments, and are more likely to experience better long-term outcomes, including reduced involvement with the criminal justice system and improved employment prospects.
However, as my noble friend set out in her opening remarks, under the current system, many of those wanting to provide this form of care face significant hurdles because the assessment frameworks for kinship carers are modelled largely on foster care standards and can include checks and interviews that can feel invasive or inappropriate in the context of family caregiving.
While, of course, there needs to be a careful balance and assessment made between the benefits of placing a vulnerable child with kinship carers, with whom—as we have heard—they will already have had a long-standing relationship, and a clear-headed evaluation of any potential risks and safeguarding issues, the current approval process can be unduly slow, causing delays in placing children with family during critical early moments. As we have heard, this means children may be placed informally for long periods with no proper support while assessments drag on, creating significant delays and exclusions. Some of the criteria around housing and income in particular can lead to the exclusion of willing, loving relatives being able to provide care for vulnerable young people within their kinship group.
With the inclusion of the new kinship offer in the Bill, it is clear that the Government recognise the value of kinship carers and are looking to provide greater support and continuity of support to them. I hope the Minister will carefully consider my noble friend’s amendments, which, taken together, offer a thoughtful, balanced reappraisal of the current process and, I believe, would enhance the impact of the measures already contained in the Bill.
Amendment 76, which would require the Secretary of State to carry out a full review assessing the effectiveness of the current pathways for approval within 12 months of Royal Assent, would also provide the Government with the opportunity to look at the practical impacts of these amendments, so that they can be changed or built on, depending on the effects they have had.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendments 73, 74, 75, 76 and 76A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to which I have added my name. I am in that dangerous position where I am between your Lordships and supper, so I am going to keep it very short, given that I spoke at length about kinship care in the last group. These are extraordinarily sensible amendments that would speed things up and make it easier for kinship carers to be kinship carers. I heartily approve.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak incredibly briefly to the amendments in this group. Obviously, we need protections in place, but I think that across the Chamber we are all agreed that we want to make kinship care a viable option for as many people as possible. These amendments help to do just that by removing some of the hurdles and hoops, and I am very much in support of them.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I do not want to join the competition for brevity, but I will do my best. There is now consensus that preference should, if possible, be given to the placement of children with relatives or those who have some pre-existing connection with the child and are able to offer commitment to care. Kinship carers, like foster carers, are a precious resource, and therefore I support these amendments.
However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, we should not lose sight of the fact that the Law Commission has recently undertaken a review of the law concerning kinship care, with a view to improving its efficiency and simplicity. That has become necessary because of the great range and variety of situations in which kinship care can arise and might be required—from the temporary and informal arrangement to the longer-term or permanent that can involve foster care, special guardianship or other forms of order.
It has been suggested by some that, rather than have a scattered legislative and regulatory regime, kinship care should now have a separate and distinct regime. That is something that may emerge from the Law Commission. That is not to say that improvements cannot be made to the present piecemeal structures, and that is why I support these amendments. They will make procedures easier for kinship carers or potential kinship carers, without inappropriately cutting corners.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, I will be even briefer, because much of what I intended to say has already been said. Obviously, I deal with this pretty much on a daily basis, back at the base in Bexley. As explained earlier, kinship care tends to have to be done much more quickly than a foster care placement. A foster care placement can go through a due process that will take much longer and will be very thorough, but kinship care tends to have to be much quicker.
There are things that you might need to look at for a kinship care placement that you would not for foster care. Obviously, the kinship carer is seeking to look after a child they know. They are not looking to foster any child, which would mean that they would have to have a wide range of experience and therefore, no doubt, training to go with it. They may already be in a home that they will take the child or children into, so the accommodation might not meet the needs that a foster care panel might want it to. They may have a job, as has been said, and that will need to be worked around. They will not necessarily have made arrangements to take on a child, especially if it is a grandparent at an older age. All these things need to be considered.
Frankly, kinship care and fostering arrangements are very different, which is why I support these amendments. This really needs to be looked at in a different way. I promised brevity, so I will now sit down.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate noble Lords’ concerns about ensuring that children grow up in safe, stable and loving homes within their family network. I reaffirm that the Government are firmly committed to enabling children to remain safely with their family whenever it is in their best interest, and, alongside that, to removing unnecessary barriers that may prevent this from happening. I recognise the assessment of the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, of the contribution of kinship carers, which adds to our debates earlier in Committee.
I turn to amendments relating to the removal of unregistered status and requirements under fostering regulations for kinship carers: Amendments 73, 75 and 76A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. We agree with the noble Baroness that we must tackle the barriers that currently make it harder for people to become kinship carers. We fully appreciate that that process of becoming a formal kinship carer can feel intrusive or burdensome at times, and we recognise that there is room for improvement in how these assessments are carried out. It is vital that they are conducted in a way that is supportive, respectful and sensitive to the unique circumstances of kinship families. At the same time, these assessments play a crucial role in ensuring that children are placed in safe, stable and nurturing environments. They also help local authorities identify the right support for carers so that they are not left to manage alone. Getting this balance right is essential.
Whenever a child can no longer live safely at home with their parents or anyone else with parental responsibility, the local authority has an obligation to complete a robust safeguarding assessment. The approach to doing this is set out in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 and the Fostering Services (England) Regulations 2011. Removing these assessments, as suggested by Amendments 73 and 75, risks undermining the assurance of the safety and well-being of children moving into kinship care arrangements.
However—to address some of the concerns that have been raised—the kinship care statutory guidance makes it clear that fostering panels should not make negative recommendations solely based on prospective kinship foster carers not meeting the fostering national minimum standards during the assessment. If the placement aligns with the child’s best interests, the prospective kinship foster carer should still be considered for approval to foster the child and then supported by the fostering service to attain the standards. Statutory guidance recognises that the assessment of kinship foster carers may differ from that of mainstream foster carers. Local authorities are permitted to adopt a tailored approach in presenting assessment reports for kinship carers, taking into account the unique dynamics of family relationships, safeguarding considerations, accommodation suitability and any relevant criminal history. Additionally, fostering panels reviewing kinship care applications are expected to include members with specific expertise in kinship care to ensure informed decision-making.
Regarding Amendment 76A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, specifically, the requirement for temporary kinship foster carers to be fully assessed as a foster carer is not a barrier but an important safeguard. It ensures that the placement is not only safe in the short term but sustainable and well supported in the long term. Under Regulation 24 of the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010, local authorities may grant temporary approval for a connected person to care for a looked-after child for up to 16 weeks, where it is necessary to place the child urgently and the carer has not yet been fully assessed. This provision allows for flexibility in emergencies, but it is time-limited by law to protect the child’s welfare.
Temporary approvals are intended to facilitate urgent placements but must be followed by a full assessment to ensure that the child’s needs are met and the carer is properly supported. This includes a thorough evaluation of the carer’s capacity to meet the child’s needs in the long term; ensuring that the carer receives the same entitlements as mainstream foster carers, including financial support, training and an allocated social worker; and establishing a clear and stable care plan for meeting the future needs of the child. Removing this requirement unnecessarily increases the chances of a breakdown in the kinship placement. This is because it removes important safeguard checks for children placed with a kinship foster carer and removes an opportunity for the services to build a clear understanding of the kinship foster carer’s strengths for tailoring the right support—resources that are vital to enable carers to provide safe and effective care.
It is important to recognise that kinship foster care is not the only route to kinship care. Many children are successfully supported through other legal arrangements, such as special guardianship orders or child arrangements orders, which can offer greater stability and permanence outside the care system. These routes can be less stigmatising and more empowering for families, and we are committed to ensuring that all kinship carers, regardless of legal status, receive the support that they need.
On this basis, and reflecting on the comments that have been made, I kindly ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate. I must say that I was a bit more optimistic about the noble Baroness’s response because none of these amendments would cost the Government any money. They simply seek to improve the system that, as we have heard from practitioners and others—including my noble friend Lady O’Neill, who deals with this on a daily basis—is not working as well as it could. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, rightly raised in his remarks the position of the Law Commission review. There is no reason that one could not sunset these clauses if, in however many years’ time, the Law Commission comes forward with a more coherent plan.
Forgive me if I missed it, but I was not sure that I heard responses to my Amendments 74 and 76. Maybe the noble Baroness and I can both look at Hansard and double-check.
On Amendments 73, 75 and 76A, the noble Baroness said that these need to feel like supportive assessments for foster carers. The point really is about finding the balance between the familiarity and security of someone you have known all your life versus any shortcomings that they might have personally, where they live, or any of the points I raised earlier.
In reality, we know that directors of children’s services are having to make choices today to leave children with a kinship carer where they judge that the fostering panel would not exercise the discretion that the noble Baroness outlined, thereby putting themselves in a pretty impossible position vis-à-vis Ofsted. No director of children’s services wants to be in that position.
In relation to Amendment 75, we need to take great care over approval, but the point of Amendment 75 is that the family group decision-making process has already agreed that the kinship family or the member of the child’s extended family is suitable to care for them. The question is why we have to do that twice.
I will go away and reread what the noble Baroness said about temporary placements—I think that that may have been more reassuring. I did not pick up, and forgive me if I missed them, her remarks on the other two amendments, particularly Amendment 74, but we can follow that up separately.
The only other thing I would challenge, with respect—I know that the noble Baroness has enormous experience from her previous roles—is that I do not think one can describe either a child arrangements order or a special guardianship order as more secure and more stable, certainly in relation to parental responsibility. They are not as secure or stable as other alternatives.
We all want the same thing. I thought that these amendments were a simple, constructive way of taking steps forward on some of the things that have been flagged as the most problematic from the point of view of practitioners and leaders. I hope that the noble Baroness will go away and reflect on that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Official Controls (Plant Health) and Phytosanitary Conditions (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Frost
That this House regrets that the Official Controls (Plant Health) and Phytosanitary Conditions (Amendment) Regulations 2025, laid before the House on 8 January (SI 2025/13), provide for further constitutional separation between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the regret Motion standing in my name tonight is on a very technical piece of legislation, but one that raises huge matters of principle for this country. That is why I thought it right to ensure, however belatedly, that the issues are debated and are not lost from public or parliamentary view. In speaking tonight, I want to do three things. The first is to set out my concerns about this specific legislation. The second is to set it in the context of the wider Windsor Framework arrangements. Finally, I want to speculate and to ask the Minister a few questions about the implications for the Windsor Framework of the SPS agreement reached, at least in principle, with the EU on 19 May.
First of all, in brief, the legislation updates in various ways the controls that apply to the import of plants into Great Britain to protect against certain high-risk plant pests. I will not go into the detail. I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for highlighting it as legislation of interest; the committee did so on the back of a memorandum from the honourable Member Jim Allister in the Commons and a response from Defra. Mr Allister’s memorandum, the concerns of which I entirely share, and the Defra response, which seems to largely miss the point, together set out the core problem.
These regulations, as I say, provide for new controls on the import of plants from other countries, including the EU, which for these purposes includes Northern Ireland. In other words, Northern Ireland is in a separate SPS zone from Great Britain. The implications of this are significant. The legislation says that there is a new list of pests from which HMG want to protect Great Britain. Yet, Northern Ireland is part of the UK as well. Why do the Government not wish to protect Northern Ireland, too? The answer, of course, is that they cannot do so; they must, in fact, rely on the EU’s own biosecurity controls, which are the only controls in force in Northern Ireland. The British Government have no legislative or legal control over biosecurity in Northern Ireland.
In any world, biosecurity is an essential state function of any country, for it must be performed by the state. Article 1(2) of the Northern Ireland protocol says that it
“respects the essential State functions”.
In this case, however, that state function is outsourced to another state. Many might argue that itself is not compatible with the operating of the protocol. The Government attempt to deal with this problem by arguing that the EU’s controls are just as good as ours and therefore we have no reason to be concerned by the situation. Indeed, when we were last debating this, on 29 January, the Minister said:
“I want to stress that the EU takes its biosecurity responsibilities for something like foot and mouth extremely seriously”.—[Official Report, 29/1/25; col. 360.]
She was effectively admitting then that those responsibilities are not ours but the EU’s.
I do not know whether it is true or not that the EU takes its responsibilities seriously. In one sense, it does not matter; there is nothing we can do about it. We can try to persuade the EU through the joint committee process to put similar rules in place in Northern Ireland, if it has not done so in the whole of the European Union, but it is only persuasion; we have no power and we are supplicants to the EU in this and many other areas. In short, we can legislate for GB but not for Northern Ireland. That remains the situation, and it is a very unhappy one.
This brings me to the second area I want to discuss, which is the broader picture into which this legislation fits. Tonight’s SI is a specific case of the general problem, which is the Windsor Framework. Under this arrangement—which, regrettably, the previous Government agreed to—a process is under way which is contributing to the separation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is what is happening, and that is at the root of the political problem.
To look back a little, the Windsor Framework ultimately stems from the 2017 joint report between this country and the European Union, and the commitment that was made in that report to align Northern Ireland with the EU single market and customs in default of any other solution. Once that commitment had been made, it then became inevitable that the EU would never try to find any other solution. That is why the original Northern Ireland protocol had to be agreed in 2019, effectively under duress, as the only way of delivering the referendum result, once the option of leaving the EU without a deal had been closed off by Members of this Parliament.
Two directions of travel were then possible. The first was that the protocol arrangements would be seen to be difficult to work in practice, would come under pressure, would not last and the protocol itself would end up being removed or overridden. The Johnson Government, both when I was responsible for this issue and under my successors, sought to achieve this, first by negotiation and then by the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. As we know, that Bill fell and with it fell any effort—for the time being anyway—to deal with the legal situation created by the protocol.
The other possible direction of travel was the one that has been taken since that point, whereby British Governments have reconciled themselves to the protocol arrangements and actively supported them. That is what the Windsor Framework represents. The British Government are now actively committed to defending these arrangements—a situation in which another entity decrees what must happen in part of our own country.
Not only is that intolerable in itself on that basis; it has two consequences. First, this new reality, in which our Government actively support these arrangements, leads to a different future because other actors start adjusting to it. For example, on trade, between 2020 and 2023 the value of goods purchased by Northern Ireland from Ireland went up twice as fast as the value of goods purchased by Northern Ireland from Great Britain. There is persistent evidence that companies in Great Britain are less inclined to supply Northern Ireland because of the complexity of the rules. The Northern Irish companies are finding suppliers in Ireland instead, and therefore trade diversion is taking place. I note that trade diversion is an explicitly specified reason in the protocol for the use of the safeguards in Article 16.
The second consequence is that it leads to a situation that is well known but needs to be dwelt on: British Governments are inhibited from legislating differently from the EU in areas covered by the Windsor Framework for fear of opening further the gap between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is plenty of evidence that this is happening. It was part of the reason why the previous Government were so reluctant to remove, fully and completely, retained EU law from the statute book and it was part of the inspiration behind the product regulation Bill, currently going through the Commons, which will allow Ministers to align us further with the EU by legislative fiat.
This is the heart of the political and legal problem, and all attempts to mitigate it—including, I am sure, in the important work of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and his review of the protocol—will come up against this central fact: the willing agreement of the Windsor Framework was a serious mistake. I am afraid that it has caused profound damage to our national interests and will continue to do so.
I know that some noble Lords with an interest in Northern Ireland—and others with a broader interest in Northern Ireland politics—regard this view as intolerably simplistic. They say that the only way to make things work in Northern Ireland is to live with complexity, to accept ambiguity and to be resolute for equivocation. They say that the only way to keep viable the political arrangements created by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is to pretend to believe they can do two things at the same time: be simultaneously a route to Irish unity for some and a guarantee of Britishness for others under unionism. Maybe you can do that in words, but you cannot do it in real life. Every political, economic and legal development affecting Northern Ireland tilts the balance one way or the other between—to use the jargon—east-west and north-south. But I am afraid that nothing has tilted it more than our acceptance, in the Windsor Framework, of the fact that laws in Northern Ireland are not made by people in Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the UK.
I feel that, in the long run, these arrangements will have to go. One day, a different route will have to be taken and something like the proposed mutual enforcement arrangements will have to be put in place. The Windsor Framework will have to be ditched, and UK laws will have to apply in Northern Ireland as they do anywhere else. I do not think that the current arrangements can stand.
I turn to the third area I want to discuss. I have previously made points like the ones I have just made, as have many others. But since I last made them, one important new element has been added to the situation: the 19 May reset deal and the proposed SPS agreement between us and the EU. I will speculate a little about what this might be and what implications it might have for the legislation we are discussing tonight and other such legislation in the same series. I ask the Minister to respond to some questions.
It is said in the communiqué that the putative agreement
“would result in the vast majority of movements of animals, animal products, plants, and plant products between Great Britain and the European Union being undertaken without the certificates or controls that are currently required by the rules … These same benefits would be extended to the movements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, through the interplay of the Windsor Framework and the SPS Agreement, so long as the SPS Agreement is fully implemented”.
It goes on to be quite clear about the legal basis for this dynamic alignment: that the UK must accept EU legislation in the SPS area without any formal say in the matter. In other words, the arrangements that are so unacceptable democratically and legally in Northern Ireland are to be extended to the rest of the United Kingdom as well. That is a huge price to pay in national sovereignty and control.
The phraseology of the declaration is important. What the UK has to do is clear; what the effect will be is less so. The Government have at times given the impression that there will be unfettered agri-food trade once the agreement is in place, but that is not what the words say. Agri-food is not all food: it does not include certain processed animal or plant products and many drinks—for example, Scotch, our biggest food and drink export. The Windsor Framework’s arrangements themselves cover more than just SPS movements.
I ask a few questions to conclude my remarks. First, the reset text says that “the vast majority” of movements of SPS goods will be covered by the agreement. Can the Minister say which goods are not covered and will therefore be covered by the existing Windsor Framework arrangements?
Secondly, for goods that are covered by the new arrangements, will the other non-SPS aspects of the Windsor Framework process remain in place for movements from GB to Northern Ireland? Specifically, can the Minister confirm, either now or later in writing, that the customs arrangements required under the Windsor Framework will remain in place, as surely they must unless we are joining some sort of customs arrangement as well. SPS movements will remain secondary customs movements as now, and therefore even when this new arrangement is in place for SPS goods, there will still remain a process and customs barrier between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Finally, can she confirm—to help us understand the difference between now and the future—whether the specific piece of legislation we are discussing tonight would be needed in future when the SPS agreement is in place? If not, is that because in future the biosecurity not just of Northern Ireland but of the whole of this country will be protected under EU legislation rather than our own?
I conclude that the Windsor Framework is leading this Government and this country into deeper, more dangerous waters with every day that passes. It must one day be removed, and one day I hope it will be. I beg to move.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I will address principally the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, used in the third part of his speech—the ones that relate more generally to the SPS agreement that on 19 May our Government and the European Union agreed to negotiate.
When I listened to the noble Lord introducing his regret Motion, I hardly noticed any recognition of the fact that we would not be discussing this tonight were it not for his dereliction as a negotiator, when the negotiations were being carried out, to find any protection for the extremely valuable agri-food exports that we make to the other countries of Europe. Nothing was done about that when he was a Minister in the Johnson Government, and no attempt was made to negotiate provisions in the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU aimed at protecting those valuable exports and the people who produce them.
It seems to me that he was also, apparently, unaware of the fact that the SPS agreement, if negotiated successfully—which the Government agreed to attempt to do on 19 May, as did the European Union—would have many additional aspects that could be of great value. Those, of course, are the ones that relate to Northern Ireland, because it is rather clear that if there were an SPS agreement, quite a lot of the problems that have arisen in the operation of the Windsor Framework and the arrangements for trade between Northern Ireland, the rest of the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe would simply fall away. They would not be necessary. That in itself is surely a major prize to reach for.
Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on praying against this. It is really good to see someone from the Conservative Party actually praying against these regulations. In his wide-ranging contribution, he highlighted some of the real issues that we should be discussing. Perhaps it might be helpful if sometimes we were not discussing these issues so late at night. I also congratulate him on his patience, because I think he prayed against this some months ago and, of course, the regulations are already in place.
These regulations are hugely controversial because they undermine the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, giving effect to the division of the UK into two parts. Although it is correct that, for epidemiological purposes, Northern Ireland has been treated on the same basis as the rest of the island of Ireland since before the imposition of the Irish Sea border, the idea that this somehow neutralises the problem associated with the border and these regulations is just unsustainable. There is all the difference in the world between the effects of being treated as part of the same epidemiological unit as the rest of the island of Ireland, while remaining within the international SPS borders of the United Kingdom, and being treated as part of the same epidemiologist unit as the rest of the island of Ireland, while being moved from within the international SPS borders of the UK into the international SPS borders of the EU.
What makes these regulations really toxic to me and to others is the fact that they have been given effect through the SPS border enforcement framework provided by the Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations 2024. As such, not only do they divide the UK by means of an international SPS border but they do so on the basis of a justification that their enforcement mechanism sweeps away, pulling the rug from beneath the feet of the entire Irish Sea border project.
The Government’s justification for moving both the customs and the international SPS border from the international border was that the only way we could have such a border was as a hard border and they did not want a hard border on the international border and therefore agreed to the movement of the border to the Irish Sea.
However, the enforcement mechanism for the regulations before us today demonstrates that the border can be enforced without SPS infrastructure on the border, so the Government’s justification for moving the border disappears, making the constitutional ramifications of the regulations before us today very toxic and controversial.
When I raised this problem on 29 January in the debate on the Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations that provide the framework for the enforcement of the regulations before us today, the Minister stated:
“I was also asked why SPS checks and controls take place away from the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. This was obviously part of the Windsor Framework and was approved at the time by Parliament. We cannot unpick that through this SI, but, again, these things can be looked at by the work that the noble Lord will be carrying out if the committee is interested in doing so”.—[Official Report, 29/1/25; col. 359.]
But that is incorrect.
Although the movement of the SPS border from the international border to the Irish Sea was obviously part of the Windsor Framework, the removal of the central justification for moving the border, by means of the way in which the regulations before us today will be enforced, was not in the protocol, nor in the amendments that resulted in it being renamed the Windsor Framework. That is the whole point.
It is with the demonstration that the border can be enforced through an SPS infrastructure away from the border, through the enforcement regime for the regulations before us today, which has become apparent only this year, that the whole justification for moving the border has been removed.
On 4 March, the honourable Member for North Antrim raised the very same point in another place. Interestingly, on that occasion the Secretary of State said:
“The answer is this: as a sovereign country, it falls to us to decide how we check goods that arrive in our territory … It is for sovereign countries to determine what checks they apply. The same truth applies to the European Union; it has a single market”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/25; cols. 253-54.]
What the Secretary of State was saying simply has the effect of saying that the problem highlighted is indeed a reality, but seeks to validate this on the basis that the way the border works is the decision of the UK Government for goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB and of the EU Government for goods moving from GB to NI. As such, it simply acknowledges the current situation but does not engage with the problem that it presents.
The point is that doing this completely removes the justification always given for taking the extraordinary step of agreeing to move the customs and SPS border from the international border to the Irish Sea, namely that this was the only way to avoid having a hard border, when our Irish Sea border arrangements demonstrate that this is not true. So I ask the noble Baroness again: who is right, she or the Secretary of State in the other place?
This is a huge issue, because of the costs associated with moving the SPS border away from the international border, even, as we know, as that border serves as the border for tax and excise purposes, for purposes of currency, for many other legal purposes and indeed more recently for immigration purposes, because the Republic now carries out immigration checks along the border. So it constitutes the most extraordinary reversal of democracy.
We are aware of countries that are not democratic and we want them to become fully democratic. But what has happened in Northern Ireland, by contrast, because of the needless movement of the customs and SPS border, is really extraordinary. We have seen the disenfranchisement of 1.9 million people in 300 areas of law—not just bits of law but areas. This makes the Government’s position completely unsustainable. They cannot say, as the Secretary of State said, that it is fine to agree to move the border when the operation of the Irish Sea border, GB to NI, demonstrates that the only justification for doing so does not exist.
In truth, no self-respecting country should agree to any arrangement that involves the disfranchisement of all its citizens in 300 areas of law, for any reason. However, to do so in a context where one’s own arrangements demonstrate that this is completely unnecessary suggests that the United Kingdom has become the first country in the world that is prepared to prioritise acquiescing to the requests of other countries that its own arrangements demonstrate are needless when the price is trading the citizenship of its own people.
I have to say that the Secretary of State himself bears a unique responsibility, because he brought before Parliament what became the Benn Act, the effect of which was to greatly weaken the negotiating position of the then Government. Had he not tied their hands, it is highly unlikely that we would have ended up with the protocol, because there is no doubt that the European Union would have feared the implications of a no-deal Brexit and might not have been quite so unreasonable.
Nevertheless, as the noble Lord Frost said, many of us thought at the time when all of this went through that it would only be temporary. I am very sad that the incoming Government have not seized on the opportunity with this so-called reset to actually try to get the European Union to see sense. The Secretary of State’s intervention ensured that there had to be a deal, without the risk of no deal, and the price of that, which he and others certainly wanted, was that the people of Northern Ireland have become a commodity, traded to give the people of Great Britain the assurance of the trade and co-operation agreement.
The regulation before us today puts in focus once again the abandonment of 1.9 million people of the United Kingdom. I am not going to go over it again, but last time I read out the letter from young people from Northern Ireland who talked about the Government lecturing young people about the importance of active citizenship, only to argue that they did not actually have active citizenship in that part of the United Kingdom. I would also say that they are very grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, has now agreed to meet them, and they are looking forward to that.
All of what is being said now and will be said by others has huge implications for the review by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, which is required by paragraph 7 of the unilateral declaration of 2019 to consider both the operation of the Windsor Framework and the implications of moving away from it, which is possible only if we all consider the alternatives to the current arrangement. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, must consider the alternatives in detail, including, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, mutual enforcement, which was originally what the EU favoured back in 2019, but things have moved on since then.
We have had to come to terms with the very destructive impact of the operation of the Windsor Framework on democracy, trade and the diversion of trade—why has Article 16 not been invoked?—the effect of those wishing to buy goods from GB businesses and, most importantly, driving a wedge between one part of our country and another. As the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, this cannot continue. It cannot be sustainable. Mutual enforcement can be a solution to address the UK/Republic of Ireland land border challenge. While it may have been passed over in 2019 because some people felt that it was not the solution, now that we have seen what was the solution, mutual enforcement most certainly represents the best available option in 2025, and discussing these kinds of regulations and the effect on people in Northern Ireland really should make noble Lords sit up and think that something has to change.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey. I agree with virtually every word that she has said. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Frost, on bringing this regret Motion before your Lordships’ House this evening. It is extremely important, as I have said on numerous occasions during these types of debates. I welcome that, while it is not a great turnout, it is a much better turnout than we normally have for these statutory instrument debates. We are privileged to have so many people taking an interest. We guarantee that there will be such opportunities in the future, as we examine European legislation.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Frost on bringing this regret Motion against these regulations. It is extraordinary that this House is only now considering them months after they came into effect, but that makes it all the more important that we consider their implications, both in practice and in principle.
I want first to respond to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. He wants an SPS agreement. I have good news for him: we have an SPS agreement. It is called the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. It follows on from an agreement that I helped negotiate—the Uruguay round—which created the WTO, which then led to this. It says that SPS measures
“shall not be applied in a manner which would constitute a disguised restriction on international trade”.
In particular:
“Members shall accept the sanitary or phytosanitary measures of other Members”,
of the WTO,
“as equivalent, even if these measures differ from their own”.
Our measures, of course, are very largely identical. None the less, they have not been accepted by the EU because the EU likes to use phytosanitary measures—in direct conflict with the agreement it has signed—as a protectionist measure to impose what one EU negotiator referred to me as their desire to be a regulatory hegemon. “We are a regulatory hegemon”, he said, “and we intend to remain so in our area”. They try to impose it on Switzerland and they would like to impose it on us.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is a fanatical enthusiast for international law and hates any breach of it, except when the EU is in breach, as it is on multiple occasions on this very issue of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, and has been found to be so by the WTO. I am sure he will welcome the fact that we have this agreement and will do his best to persuade the EU to live up to the agreement it has already entered into, rather than request we make further concessions for it to agree to something it has already agreed to.
I do not fully understand the Government’s position on these specific measures. I look to the Minister to illuminate them and explain them to me; I may well have not understood them. They seem to relate to two bugs or diseases. The first is Heterobasidion irregulare; I am sure noble Lords are thoroughly familiar with it. The impact of the controls will be that:
“Host material imported into Great Britain from EU Member States, other than any EU Member State where Heterobasidion irregulare is known not to occur … will need to be free from this pest and compliant with the additional import requirements. This pest will also be subject to increased awareness raising, surveillance and action on detection within Great Britain to protect biosecurity”.
Is Ireland free from this bug? If it is, why do we need any checks?
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, to some extent, as previous speakers have said of this set of regulations, it is almost preposterous that we are debating it several months after its implementation. But I would have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that there is nothing as permanent as the temporary; he will, sadly, be familiar with that phrase.
On the idea of protecting our plant life and so on, there will not be a word of discontent around the Chamber about our trying to do that; it is common sense. However, we are dealing here not simply with the regulations that are in front of us; we are dealing with the circumstances in which they have been brought forward. Other speakers have drawn attention to this.
Going back to the beginning, after the decision to leave the European Union, my party was uncomfortable with that at that time, simply because we could see that this sort of thing was going to happen. We triggered Article 50 far too soon. We had not negotiated and worked out among ourselves what we were going to do, and that showed up very quickly in the negotiating process. We accepted the fundamental top three things that the EU had agreed before we even sat down at the table. The first was leaving citizenship out of it, on which I think there would be no argument. We agreed on payment, so we decided to buy a house before we knew what it was going to cost, and we then agreed to take the Irish question out of the trade set-up and put it into a political context. That had to be done before we even got started. So, to some extent, you were fighting a losing battle from that point onwards. If anybody was to renegotiate the situation today, I do not think they would even contemplate such a proposal.
I also suspect that we are also in a totally different context from when the noble Lord, Lord Frost, put in his bid for this Motion. He referred to 19 May and the reset. However, this is a skeletal set of agreements. There is no substance or detail in any of those agreements with the EU, and anybody who knows anything about the European Union knows that it is good at the small print. So we may have these high-level ideas of reset, but the minutiae is where the European Union is at its best and we are at our worst.
I have argued for some time—I hope the Minister will look at this, and I think I have said it in other debates—that, given that the review of the trade and co-operation agreement is due next year, the United Kingdom should be working today to work out what proposals we want to put to the European Union in those negotiations. It is perfectly obvious that the European Union will want to compress that renegotiation to the minimum and the reset will play into that, but it is an opportunity. It is written into the agreement that its operation will be reviewed in 2026. We should be preparing a position now and not end up crashing in at the last minute with a few things jotted on a piece of paper. We need to know what it is that we want.
Fundamentally, the problem of us in Northern Ireland being half in the European Union and half out of it is insoluble. Even if you have all the fundamental technical solutions—there are many now that are applicable and could work, as has been referred to—if we are in one trading bloc and the European Union is in another, that is a politically insoluble position to be in, because we are under a totally different regime, subject to different laws with no impact on or say in what the laws should be.
I have to say that things are changing. All of a sudden, people in Great Britain are saying, “How awful is this? People are going to be making our laws and we’ve no say over them”. Well, I have to say, “Folks, wakey wakey”. We have had to live with this for some years. Now it appears that, in part, people in Great Britain are going to be in the same boat. Looked at that way, “dynamic alignment” is a significant term. We have had expressions of what that actually means. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that, if people are uncomfortable, since many Benches have by and large been empty when we have been discussing these issues, they may not be quite so empty in a year’s time when some people have to take a dose of their own medicine.
Personally, I believe that we as a nation could have avoided a lot of this. I think we negotiated and handled things badly after the people took a decision, and we are living with the consequences of that. Thereafter we have been mitigating, trying to ease the pressure and trying to make things easier for traders and businesses to operate. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred to, not one scintilla of the Windsor Framework has been changed.
I want to ask the Minister about a particular issue that has not really got above the parapet yet: the new European Union customs processes. The European Union is undertaking a massive review. Like the Americans, it has had a situation where the movement of goods of small monetary value does not require any paperwork. I think there was a limit of about €125, and in the United States context it was about $850. That is coming to an end. Every single thing, irrespective of its value, will have to have a number and will be under the new regulations that will come in in the European Union in the next few years. That will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom in significant measure, but I have not seen or heard any comment in Parliament about it. Is the Minister aware of that? Do she and her colleagues have anything to say about it and what the implications would be for the movement of products of a very low value?
Of course, that will hit the very small businesses. It will make life more difficult for individuals who may be bringing things in online, or in whatever mechanism that is used. As the Minister knows, we have a parcel issue. We are in the process of spending £200 million on border inspection posts. People are saying, “The new reset means we don’t need them”, but that is not the case. We will continue to need them, and the European Union is insisting that we have them.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this up. I am sure he will be able to remind me of the clause in the Northern Ireland protocol—to which the EU signed up—that says the EU will use its best endeavours to ensure that there is no need for checks and border posts at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland. Now it is insisting that they exist, rather than trying to find ways of doing without them.
Lord Empey (UUP)
I suspect that the answer will be, “We need them there just in case there’s an outbreak of disease and we have to inspect animals and get back to crawling under tractors to see if there is any Scottish soil underneath”, and so on. There will be an answer. As the noble Lord is aware, there is always an answer.
Can the Minister tell us what the implications of the new customs rules that are coming down the track—which our committee is aware of and looking at—will be for the situations we are facing tonight? I think they mean that intrusive interference will be coming down to a very low level—to the level of an individual. Maybe Members do not realise that the Select Committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, referred—and of which he and I are members—is the only committee in this Parliament that is looking at EU regulations and laws that apply to Northern Ireland. Nobody else is looking at them. There is nothing down at the other end. I think that is an outrage; the House of Commons should be looking at these things. Ours is the only committee in Parliament that is looking at these matters; maybe that says a lot about what people’s priorities are.
I ask the Minister to refer to the customs issue, because I think that is going to come very much to the fore. Can she also tell us what preparations are being made for the 2026 renegotiation of the trade and co-operation agreement? Are the Government preparing and working with other interested parties to decide the best way forward and to see whether, while we cannot solve these problems in their entirety—and certainly not constitutionally—we can perhaps mitigate them further to at least alleviate some of the obstacles that are in the way of business?
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, it is with considerable regret that I rise to oppose the regret Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, because I respect enormously the work that the noble Lord did on this question when he was in government. I wish to stress in particular tonight that the introduction of unilateral grace periods was the beginning of the fight-back against the authoritarian implications of the 2017 EU-UK agreement. That was of considerable importance and helped to give us space for further developments—developments with which, I understand from listening to him, he is now radically dissatisfied. I am not satisfied; I am rather less dissatisfied.
It is crucial to understand that the 2017 EU-UK agreement is the core of the ideas that are then to be found in the protocol—that is absolutely clear. It is important to understand also that that agreement involved a flouting of key elements in the Good Friday agreement. Strand 3 of the Good Friday agreement insists that there be harmonious mutually beneficial relationships between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Nobody could see how those mutually beneficial relationships could remain in the full implementation of the 2017 EU-UK agreement. One of the key themes of that agreement is that the British Government were compelled to commit themselves to supporting an island economy.
Look at the Good Friday agreement and the frame- work document that precedes it: it is explicitly about co-operation between two economies on the island of Ireland. To the surprise of many economists who believed that there should be more of an island economy in the early years of the 20th century, suddenly there was a thing called the island economy. By the way, in certain respects there is: in electricity, the dairy industry and so on. But there is not, overall, an island economy—there is absolutely no question about that—and the two economies on the island of Ireland remain a profound reality.
Funnily enough, in recent weeks, as a result of Donald Trump’s probings—is that the right word?—of the Irish economy, the indignant insistence all over the Irish press and media that there are two economies on the island of Ireland has become explosive. But the island economy, and the British Government’s commitment to support it, was one of the great problems in the 2017 agreement and the protocols—both the May and the Johnson versions. It is based on a very unrealistic assessment of the realities of the island economy. In the Gallimard edition of Michel Barnier’s memoir, around pages 137 to 140, there is a discussion of Ireland that is largely mythical. None the less, these mythical concepts became the heart of policy and, more importantly, a British Government were compelled to support that.
If the Windsor Framework has been treated very dustily tonight, there is one thing it does: it calls a stop to that. It says no, and the European Union agrees. It is absolutely explicit. The island economy driver of policy for the British Government and the dynamic alignment that people have talked about are dispelled by the Windsor Framework. That is one of the achievements of the Windsor Framework and why it played a role in the return of Stormont.
This was followed by the Safeguarding the Union document, the importance of which was to demonstrate, on the subject of the Irish Sea border, that, for large parts of the history of the union—for many decades—there has been an Irish Sea border of one sort or another. It is absolutely explicit—it reproduces the documents. You cannot say that the Irish Sea border as such is corrosive of the union; the union somehow survives. The phenomenon known as the Irish Sea border is in a different form today, but what is not in doubt is that it is not corrosive of the union as such. That, again, is one of the important things about the Safeguarding the Union document.
The other important thing is that it lays out the first declaration of something that is now commonplace in debate in this House: the necessary role of the Northern Ireland defence industries in the protection of the United Kingdom. It makes this absolutely clear, and it is the first signal of something that this Government have taken up very strongly. One of the reasons why I mention this is: where is the dynamic alignment with the Irish Republic, when we are emphasising above all the importance of the defence industries of Northern Ireland in the defence of the United Kingdom? It is important to remember these realities.
As I listened, I pictured the frustrations of life with the Windsor Framework. There are many such frustrations. The new SPS agreement may help, and I hope it does. One thing is clear, and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, made the point: one can no longer say in Northern Ireland that we alone are rule takers from the EU. The whole of the rest of the United Kingdom will now be rule takers from the whole of the EU in a different sense. The reason why it is fundamentally democratic is that this Parliament has a right to make these decisions.
Traditional unionism always accepted that. In the 1930s, when traditional unionism disliked the 1938 agreement, it still said, “Nothing to do with Stormont’s decisions. It is up to this Parliament to make these decisions, even if we are uneasy and dislike the various provisions of a particular trade agreement”. That is what traditional unionism stands for: the idea that this Parliament has a right to make these decisions. They are often very difficult and, it so happens, often very unsatisfactory in Northern Ireland.
There are difficulties. The University of Ulster economist Dr Esmond Birnie has been quite right to insist—other speakers have mentioned it tonight—about the fall-off in trade from Great Britain into Northern Ireland, particularly smaller concerns. The paperwork has put off smaller concerns exporting from the rest of the United Kingdom into Northern Ireland. There is absolutely no question that this is a problem, but there is also no doubt, for example, that many Northern Ireland businesses enjoy dual access and enjoy the access to the Irish Republic. There is no doubt that the Ulster Farmers’ Union seems increasingly relaxed, especially in the context of possible new SPS arrangements, about the Windsor Framework.
So, while it is perfectly correct that there are many unsatisfactory aspects of the current reality—Dr Esmond Birnie in particular has drawn careful and precise attention to this, and I hope the Government will pay attention to the various scholarly papers that he has produced—and while there is no doubt that these possibilities exist, there are also areas of success. The services industry in Northern Ireland is doing far better than anybody expected at this point. It is protected in the Windsor Framework quite explicitly and is doing far better than anybody—certainly myself—expected at this particular point in history.
Finally, I will say something on the point of phytosanitary arrangements. Back in the days of the BSE crisis, Dr Ian Paisley, leader of the DUP, went into No. 10 and said to Tony Blair, “I need to tell you that my farmers are British but my cattle are Irish”, because he wanted to make special arrangements. BSE was not so marked a feature in Northern Ireland as it was in the rest of the United Kingdom and, basically, he wanted a privileged relationship for Northern Irish farmers—“My farmers are British, but my cattle are Irish; respect that they currently do not have the same levels of BSE as they have in Derbyshire”. The logic behind this legislation is, “My gardeners are British but my plants are Irish”. It is hard to dispute or argue with it.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, talked about those who suggest that you have to live with ambiguity and compromise in Northern Ireland. He expressed doubt and said that some of these compromises had been very unsatisfactory in the past 25 years. I am absolutely certain that there is no way that Northern Ireland can survive as part of the United Kingdom without compromise of the sort that has been made. He mentioned, for example, the logic of the Good Friday agreement. I am also clear in my mind that the union is never going to be available on exclusively unionist terms. That does not mean that the union is not available—the union has, at this point, a strong future ahead of it—but it is not going to be available on exclusively unionist terms. This is the point that we all have to accept.
There is irreducibly an element here. I have criticised the Irish negotiators of that agreement in 2017; they overplayed their hand, and the best Irish officials, in my view, now accept that. It left a lot of problems that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, had to struggle with, and in the first instance dealt with successfully. It left lots of problems, but the truth of the matter is that there are these two identities and Northern Ireland does face both ways. This cannot be avoided in the settlement, which must involve, at some level, a compromise. The protocol was definitely unfair to the mainstream unionist community, but the idea that we can just drop the Windsor Framework now—which, as I pointed out, has significant elements that work well for the unionist community—is not realistic.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, speaking at this stage in the debate can be difficult, because much of what I was going to say has already been said, and perhaps said even more eloquently than I can say it. Just on the last point that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, made about Northern Ireland pointing both ways, we were of a clear understanding that the Belfast agreement actually articulated that.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
Does the noble Lord also accept that, as well as those capital costs, which are very significant, we have to add the £450 million-odd going into the Trader Support Service, the Movement Assistance Scheme and other schemes, adding up to hundreds of millions of pounds being thrown down the drain at a time when we are told that there is no money available for public services?
Lord Morrow (DUP)
I thank my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, who is forensic on this issue. He has again pointed out that the figure I have mentioned is but a fraction, and I thank him for making that point.
In the second instance, as the Explanatory Memorandum makes plain, if the UK Government judge that Heterobasidion irregulare, known to cause annosus root and butt rot, poses a non-acceptable risk to GB, would that not also pose an unacceptable risk to the rest of the United Kingdom? Similarly, if the United Kingdom Government have judged that specific import requirements must be imposed in relation to—this has been referred to—Popillia japonica, which is simply a Japanese beetle, because it is spreading in Europe, and that therefore it warrants additional measures to prevent its entry into GB, does the spread in the rest of Europe not similarly constitute a threat to the biosecurity of Northern Ireland? If the Minister’s answer is to be the same as her answer to us of 29 January on the related biosecurity foot and mouth question, I say respectfully that that will not do.
The levels of protection that the UK Government insisted on for GB—and rightly so—could not have been more different from those that the EU provided for Northern Ireland. The UK has abdicated its biosecurity responsibilities in relation to Northern Ireland, as the noble Baroness said. In this context, the claim by the Minister in the other place that Northern Ireland farms are just as important looks quite limp, downright pathetic and absurd.
The Minister responded, saying,
“he rightly laid out the situation that Northern Ireland is in as being part of the EU regulations and the fact there is a surveillance zone in Germany. I want to stress that the EU takes its biosecurity responsibilities for something like foot and mouth extremely seriously. There had not been a foot and mouth outbreak in Germany since 1988, so this is very significant for them”.—[Official Report, 29/1/25; cols. 359-60.]
That may not be as reassuring as some would perhaps want it to be, because we have heard this evening a charge of a dereliction of duty. Would there be any remote possibility that Europe could show a dereliction of duty at times too, or have we just to utterly trust it? Quite frankly, I am one who would not be prepared to utterly trust it. It is not enough to say that in Northern Ireland biosecurity standards are now determined by a different country from the rest of us, whose Government you do not elect and cannot change, but not to worry as they are very good in their duties. That is not acceptable any more.
The answer also fails the Windsor Framework because it demonstrates how its operation is now failing in its own terms. Article 1 of the Windsor Framework is designated as having very specific function by means of its heading, “Objectives”. I will not go into those because my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, has already articulated that very well. If the Government are to fully and faithfully implement the Windsor Framework, the task of ensuring that its operation is faithful to those objectives is plainly of the utmost importance.
Furthermore, the objectives include a requirement that the Windsor Framework respects the territorial integrity and essential state functions of the United Kingdom. The regulations before us today do neither; they divide the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland into two, with an international SPS border, disrespecting the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom of GB and Northern Ireland. They testify to the fact that an essential state security function has been passed from the UK to the European Union, in whose legislature, Executive and judiciary the UK is not represented.
In her response to the debate, I very much hope that the Minister will not suggest that a veterinary agreement with the EU is the answer, for I must tell the House emphatically that it is not. If the Government negotiate an SPS agreement with the EU that will not remove the Irish Sea border or restore the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom, because the United Kingdom will still be divided into two by an international customs border and subject to EU law in all manner of areas—law that we do not make and cannot change—that is just not acceptable. We will still be subject to the EU customs code, which deems that Great Britain is a foreign country in relation to Northern Ireland.
In this, it is my purpose not to offer a counsel of despair—far from it. The truth is that the way the Government are managing the movement of non-qualifying Northern Ireland goods from Northern Ireland to GB, in respect of these and the other SPS regulations, through the Official Controls (Amendment) Regulations and without SPS checks on the border, already provides the answer of how to manage the SPS checks on the international border. However, things can be made even more robust by adopting mutual enforcement, which has already been mentioned by a number of speakers this evening. That has been developed within the EU Commission by Sir Jonathan Faull, together with the academics Professor Joseph Weiler and Professor Daniel Sarmiento, and it provides a means of protecting the integrity of both the United Kingdom internal market for goods and the EU internal market for goods without a hard border across the island of Ireland. I pose the question: what is so desperately wrong with that, when, in fact, it does not hurt either territory? There has to be some other reason that the Government must tell us.
If the current delivery mechanism of the Windsor Framework was exchanged for SPS checks away from the border, as is already the case on west-east movements together with mutual enforcement, the objectives of the Windsor Framework, as set out in Article 1, would be clearly met. Not only would the territorial integrity and the essential state functions of the United Kingdom be respected but the other components of the objectives of the Windsor Framework, as set out in Article 1, could then be fulfilled: namely, protecting the Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions. While I will not digress on that point, the reasons that the current Windsor Framework, far from protecting the Good Friday agreement in all its parts, constitutes the greatest existential threat to the 1998 agreement were eloquently set out recently in an important article in one of our local papers.
There are some strong advocates in this House for the Belfast agreement, and I fail to understand why they are silent on this matter, because it is not being protected. I appreciate that, in 2019, the EU decided that it preferred the Irish Sea border to mutual enforcement, but now we are in a situation where it is clear, in 2025—in part courtesy of the regulations before us today—that the changes necessitated by the Windsor Framework are causing it to contradict, violate and undermine its own objectives as set out by Article 1. The issue must be revisited as a matter of urgency.
In conclusion, I hope that the regulations before us today can rapidly be withdrawn and replaced by regulations that are not implicated in the division of the United Kingdom into two and in the ceding of essential state functions to an entity of which we are not a part. I stress, lest the Minister might be tempted to point this out, that Northern Ireland has been part of the same epidemiological unit since long before the introduction of the Irish Sea border. This point is well understood and is not relevant, because it was never objected to. What is objected to is Northern Ireland being divided from the rest of the United Kingdom by a customs border and an international SPS measure which necessitates Northern Ireland being disenfranchised in hundreds of areas of law.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I respectfully remind the House it is a firm convention that the House normally rises around 10 pm on Mondays to Wednesdays unless there has been some other agreement—which there has not been tonight. We have had a very good and forensic debate and we are 90 minutes in, so I suggest that we should move on to Front-Bench contributions. If there are going to be any more Back-Bench contributions, I really must insist that, unlike the last couple, they are very brief in their content.
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)
My Lords, from that point of view, I had not originally intended to speak, but I suspect I may be the last Back-Bench contributor. In the true spirit of equality, it may be useful if I can make a few comments in relation to that. I am sure that the Front Benchers do not really object to being detained too much by what I think is a matter of crucial constitutional significance.
As I said, I had not originally intended to speak in this debate, not least because I agree with the vast bulk of what has been said and contributed to this debate, but I want to touch on just three points that came up during the debate. First, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Frost, is correct that, while this is a highly technical issue, it is one that speaks to much greater constitutional significance. As has been mentioned, this is symptomatic of a wider problem, and that has been the overall approach that has been taken over the last number of years. There have been a number of failures: a failure of planning, negotiation, detail and implementation. Nationally, we need to learn those lessons, particularly for the future.
Secondly, while it will come as no great surprise that I and my unionist colleagues on this Bench, from at least two parties, are not the greatest fans of the Northern Ireland protocol or the Windsor Framework, what is particularly concerning about this regulation is that it is actually worse than the protocol and the framework. As has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and others, at the very least in Article 1, which is supposed to protect security and indeed national security on biosecurity, we are left with a situation where we have what I call “protocol plus”: we have a situation in which the requirements of the Government have been gold-plated. The supposed safeguards have been largely disregarded. If anything, what is in the protocol would provide greater protection than what is there today.
Thirdly and finally, as a number of speakers—relatively critically from noble Lord, Lord Frost, probably more benignly from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—have indicated, we can only really look at this debate in the context of the reset arrangements. There have been many promises made about that reset. Those of us in Northern Ireland will take a slight level of scepticism towards that. It is not what is promised that is important; it is what is delivered. It is not what is said; it is what is done.
To be fair to the Government, in terms of what they have promised, they have not suggested that the reset particularly solves some of the fundamental issues that are still there. We are still going to be left now. I await the Minister’s response in relation to this: that there will still be customs arrangements between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Secondly, it is clear that it will not deal with the democratic deficit of the 300 areas of law. Thirdly, whatever arrangements are there in SPS, as I think was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, in one of his opening questions, it seems very apparent that that will not cover those goods outside of SPS on that basis.
In conclusion, let us for a moment take a much more rose-tinted approach to this and borrow from some of the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that this will be greatly easing and improving the situation. If that is the case, it is because it would treat the United Kingdom, albeit in a situation in which it is largely subservient to dynamic alignment with the EU, as being one unit on that basis. That seems to be the direction of travel of the skeletal agreement that has been produced in respect of SPS.
If that is the case, and if that is something that is going to lead to a much more halcyon future for the country as a whole, I have to say that this regulation before us takes us in a diametrically opposed position, because it very explicitly brings about a situation that, from a biosecurity point of view, creates fortress Great Britain at the expense of dividing us off entirely from Northern Ireland. So I say in conclusion that, if you are a true believer in and advocate for the reset arrangements, actually you would find yourself in agreement with the regret Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Frost. I do not want to detain the House any longer and I look forward to the response of the Front Benches.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we support these regulations as a sensible step to protect our biosecurity and reduce costly and deeply damaging barriers to trade, but we see this as just one stage of a much bigger journey. As my noble friend Lady Suttie has said in previous debates of this nature, these regulations are a stopgap. The real prize is a full sanitary and phytosanitary SPS veterinary agreement with the EU—something both sides committed to at last month’s summit. That would mean that one day our aim would be to do away with most border checks on plant and animal products altogether.
Indeed, we welcome the Government’s recent decision to delay new checks on medium-risk fruit and vegetables, an approach that a lot of industry rightly calls common sense. The extension until January 2027 gives businesses some breathing space, but everyone knows this is temporary and that the Government expect that a new SPS agreement will make these stopgap measures unnecessary.
The May summit made clear the aim: a common sanitary and phytosanitary area with no time limit. That would mean most goods, plants, animals and their products could move between Great Britain and the EU without the current certificates and controls. It would cut costs, ease pressure on food prices and end routine border checks. The benefits would also extend to Northern Ireland, thanks to the Windsor Framework. There is sometimes a myth that such an agreement would make Britain a rule taker. In reality, if we want to export, we always have to meet our trading partners’ standards. This deal would mean genuinely unfettered access to the EU market and therefore far less trade friction—friction that has been so damaging, for example, to our farmers in recent years.
Farming groups such as the NFU and the Country Land and Business Association have raised concerns about the role of European courts and the need for flexibility, especially around issues such as precision breeding and pesticides. The proposed agreement suggests dynamic alignment with the EU rules, but also promises a say for the UK and an independent arbitration panel. I am looking forward to a few more answers on this and the need to be sure that any dispute process is genuinely fair and respects our own parliamentary procedures.
This agreement could bring real benefits: lower prices, less red tape and more secure food supply. But I echo some of the requests in previous debates with questions to the Minister, especially from these Benches, about a clear timetable for finalising the implementation of the SPS agreement. So far, our understanding is that no date has been set. We would also like to know whether there is any risk to animal health or biosecurity while we wait for the new agreement to come. Ongoing surveillance in that period is obviously vital, but we do feel that reassurance is needed.
On another point, the Explanatory Memorandum mentions debt recovery and collection costs for unpaid fees. Can the Minister tell us the total cost of unpaid fees, the average fee charged, and whether non-payment is a widespread issue? If she is unable to answer that this evening, perhaps she could undertake to write; we would be very grateful. Finally, can the Minister confirm that there are robust checks to prevent goods deliberately avoiding control posts, now and in the future?
With regard to the Motion to Regret, I note at paragraph 17 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 15th report the submission from Jim Allister MP and the Defra response with reference to the use in the four nations of the UK plant health provisional common framework and that, for example, measures against Popillia japonica are already in place in Northern Ireland, and the rest of Great Britain has been catching up. I therefore have been a little confused by some of the contributions I have heard this evening.
Given the benefits so ably described by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and the very detailed and useful explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Bew, we will not be supporting the regret Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Frost. We want to see these regulations and the wider agreement deliver what matters to people: less bureaucracy, lower costs and a stronger partnership with our closest trading neighbours, and we would prefer that sooner rather than later. That is what is best for our businesses, our farmers and ultimately our consumers.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and my noble friend Lord Frost for bringing it to the Chamber.
At face value, this instrument appears to be a routine update, technical in nature and laudable in intent. It introduces new and stricter import controls on certain plant pests, including Heterobasidion irregulare and Popillia japonica, which are already spreading rapidly in parts of Europe. These steps are necessary. We have seen all too often the devastating consequences of failing to act quickly and unilaterally if necessary, whether to Phytophthora ramorum, which devastates our larches and causes sudden oak death, ash dieback, or threats to our commercial crops from the great spruce bark beetle and the eight-toothed European spruce bark beetle—for some reason, neither of those seem to have Latin names. I refer the House to my register of interests as a forest owner and a planter of new forests.
While these regulations seek to bolster biosecurity across Great Britain, they do not extend those same protections to Northern Ireland, and that is a shame. I know that the concerns of my noble friend are sincerely held and reflect the views of a great number of those in Northern Ireland in particular. As my noble friend Lord Caine has said on previous occasions, it is important that His Majesty’s Government and Opposition continue to listen to those concerns and seek to address them.
We are told that biosecurity is an essential state function. It is and it must be. But under the terms of the Windsor Framework, that essential function has been compromised. Biosecurity measures which apply robustly to England, Scotland and Wales are not being applied to Northern Ireland in the same way. In effect, plant health in Northern Ireland is now subject to the policy choices of the EU and not, as it should be, to the collective will of this sovereign Parliament. However, the Windsor Framework was the best deal available to us while in government, and we continue to support it, while urging this Government to try to improve on it. For that reason, we do not support my noble friend Lord Frost’s regret Motion.
My noble friend Lord Frost and others have already mentioned the new sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU, which is designed to ease trade by removing checks on food. To add to the many questions posed to the Minister, could she reassure us that this will not provide an easier entry for plant diseases and a repeat of the imported pests that I mentioned earlier as happened while we were in the EU? What checks will remain in place to protect our natural environment?
The EU deal appears to have betrayed our fishers in return for reduced checks. The farmed salmon industry seems to be the only fish and seafood group to have spoken in support of this deal. The damaging effects of this industry on the environment have been debated at length in this House during Committee and Report of the now Crown Estate Act. The farmed salmon industry is distinct from the UK fishing industry, which has greeted the deal with deep disappointment.
In answer to my Oral Question two months ago, the Minister gave encouraging answers, which I will briefly quote:
“after the end of the fisheries adjustment period set out in the trade and co-operation agreement, European Union access to UK waters, and vice versa, become a matter for annual renegotiation, as is typical between coastal states … as a Government, we will always push for the best opportunities for our fishers and the fishery industry”.—[Official Report, 31/3/25; col. 8.]
The end of the trade and co-operation agreement in June 2026 represented the opportunity to increase the size of our fishing effort by 60%, with full zonal attachment in our exclusive economic zone—a huge economic opportunity for deprived coastal communities. The deal was a betrayal of those communities and those who live and work in the fishing industry. We are now committed to a 12-year extension of the very disappointing status quo. Was this phytosanitary deal really worth that betrayal? The benefits of trade accrue to both sides of that trade, so why should any price be paid, let alone such a high price?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Frost, for introducing this Motion and noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today with such passion and energy. I have, as ever, listened very carefully to all the concerns that have been raised, but I want to draw the attention of noble Lords back to the very positive impact that this legislation has.
Protecting our biosecurity is of paramount importance to address the climate and biodiversity crisis. This instrument introduces and amends protective measures against high-risk plant pests in Great Britain, as identified by our risk and horizon scanning process. As a result, this instrument protects biosecurity and supports trade in the UK. As part of these technical changes, this instrument recategorises certain plants and plant products, again following the completion of the risk assessments, as committed to under the Border Target Operating Model. This is part of an ongoing technical review of plant products subject to plant health import requirements and maintains the GB plant health regime as risk-based and proportionate. This instrument also amends certain official control measures to exclude large plants, plant products and other objects from the requirement for unloading in an area with a roof. This provision enables the implementation of appropriate biosecurity standards in those cases.
I emphasise that this instrument does not separate Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom or treat Northern Ireland as a third country. Indeed, several of the measures in the instrument actually ensure that Great Britain is applying measures already in place in Northern Ireland. I am sure that noble Lords will not be surprised when I remind the House that the island of Ireland has been treated as a single epidemiological unit for decades. Under this regime, Northern Ireland implements official controls and additional protections in response to pest risks to maintain its biosecurity as part of the island of Ireland.
This instrument also upholds the Government’s policy of unfettered market access in relation to qualifying Northern Ireland goods. Indeed, the Windsor Framework underscores Northern Ireland’s place in the UK. The UK Government want to see the Windsor Framework’s benefits realised for the benefits of businesses and people in Northern Ireland, and right across the UK, in a manner that meets our international obligations, so I am pleased to state that the devolved Governments gave their consent for these regulations to extend across Great Britain. The UK Government and all devolved Governments will continue to work closely together on plant health issues via the UK plant health provisional common framework.
Noble Lords may be interested to note that I had a meeting only this morning with representatives from all devolved Governments—with Ministers—to discuss the BTOM in the context of the SPS agreement. I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Frost, in support of his Motion, and to other contributors in today’s debate, and have been struck by our shared commitment to protect UK biosecurity.
I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, and the noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Hannay of Chiswick, for supporting the SI this evening. In respect of the late hour, I will address the noble Lord’s points that relate directly to the legislation which is in front of this evening. I will go through Hansard and any questions that I have not answered I will answer in writing— for example, on the fees, for which I do not have the details with me.
The noble Lord, Lord Frost, asked why the SI applied only to GB. As I said, the island of Ireland has been treated as a single epidemiological unit for decades. The important thing that these regulations are doing is amending the GB-specific phytosanitary legislation to ensure that the biosecurity risks posed to the United Kingdom are addressed. These are already covered in Northern Ireland. We will continue to work closely with Northern Ireland on plant health issues. Northern Ireland will continue to play a full and comprehensive role in technical and policy decisions via the UK plant health provision or common framework.
The noble Lord, Lord Morrow, referred to the Explanatory Memorandum and third countries. To reassure him, this SI applies phytosanitary controls to European Union and rest of the world goods when entering Great Britain. That is the third country mentioned in the EM. A number of noble Lords mentioned the SPS agreement, asking what was in it and what checks would remain. The agreement will cover SPS standards and controls and wider agri-food rules related to food labelling, organics, key marketing standards and compositional standards, as well as pesticides. This is regarding checks, specifically. This will further bring down costs for UK businesses by removing the majority of regulatory trade barriers to agri-food trade, hopefully helping with the trade drop that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, referenced earlier.
We want to get the best deal for British businesses and British people. There is a very limited scope of application to the agreement. We are making commitments to regulate consistently only where that commitment removes a barrier to trade. The EU cannot unilaterally dictate the regulations which the UK must implement. The UK will have to agree and then implement any new rules. It is not like when we were a member state and EU law could flow into the UK even if we had voted against it. We are not returning to those arrangements. This is about regulating in the same way in some limited areas where the UK will also have a role in shaping the relevant laws as they are designed. Again, with regard to the SBS agreement, I have been asked for some specifics, but, because detailed negotiations are ongoing, I cannot provide that information at the moment. But it will come to the House in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, asked why the SPS border has to be in the Irish Sea. The Windsor Framework recognises Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances and therefore prevents the hard border on the island of Ireland. There is a need to maintain the biosecurity of the island of Ireland. Some pests that could pose a risk to Northern Ireland, such as protected zone pests, are present in Great Britain. Therefore, it is appropriate to have procedures in place to ensure compliance with the applicable requirements.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
To be honest, I am not going to take any interventions; it has gone 11 pm.
On plant health threats, the UK Plant Health Service, as I mentioned earlier, has Defra, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, the Northern Ireland Executive, DAERA and the Forestry Commission as part of it. So it is properly considered and looked at. The noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Roborough, talked about the removal of border checks putting biosecurity at risk, looking in particular at the rising pest risk in the EU. The agreement will explicitly allow for the UK to take action to protect biosecurity. This will mean that the UK has access to EU databases and other systems to help us do this. This is a big benefit. The common understanding is that the UK should be able to take targeted action to protect its biosecurity in public health, in the same way as member states can in the EU.
The noble Lord, Lord Dodds, mentioned FMD protection for Northern Ireland. As he said, Northern Ireland is protected under the biosecurity regime of the EU. Northern Ireland implements official controls and additional protections in response to risk, such as measures related to pest-free areas, traceability and additional notification requirements for the highest- risk goods in order to maintain the island of Ireland’s biosecurity.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, asked about Popillia japonica. The noble Baroness rightly said that the reason these pests are mentioned in this SI is that the new requirements are already in place in Northern Ireland, so this is bringing the rest of GB into alignment with Northern Ireland; that is what the SI does.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have said I am not taking any interventions.
Lord Lilley (Con)
The Minister has not replied to a single point I made. If the bug does not exist in Ireland, why are we inspecting goods coming from Ireland?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
There are plenty of bugs that do not exist in our other countries and are far away that still have the propensity to come here or could possibly arrive here. Therefore, we need to be absolutely vigilant regarding any new potential pests and diseases. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about the devastating consequences if we do not do that, so we absolutely need to be doing this.
I just have a couple of points and then I am going to wind up, because it is getting late. I will go to Hansard and write on any outstanding points. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, mentioned the trade and co-operation agreement and that its review is due next year. I will take that back to the department and speak about the noble Lord’s concerns on this, because he made a very sensible and relevant point. I completely agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Bew, regarding compromise. It is an extremely important point to make and, if we are to move forward, compromise is going to be critical.
In conclusion, I emphasise that this instrument is a routine update that ensures that risk-based and proportionate biosecurity controls are in operation in Great Britain. Northern Ireland continues to be able to respond to pest risks specifically for Northern Ireland where needed, and will continue to play a full and comprehensive role in technical and policy decisions affecting the UK as a whole.
I remind noble Lords that I meet regularly with DAERA and the Northern Ireland Ministers and their team. Also, I understand that we have a regular meeting of our Northern Ireland Peers this Wednesday, so I am sure that we can pick up many of these issues and continue further at that meeting.
Finally, it is very late. It has gone 11 pm, so I thank all the staff who have stayed and supported us in the House at this late hour.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister, the Front-Benchers, noble Lords who stayed late and, indeed, the staff who have kept the Chamber running this evening. This has been an important debate and I will not prolong the discussion.
I have some sympathy with the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Lilley that not all the detailed questions were answered—perhaps understandably— in the round-up. I hope the Minister will look through Hansard and, in particular, at the three specific questions I asked, in addition to others.
I thank all those Members of your Lordships’ House who expressed support for the points I made this evening. I even thank the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, although I suspect his frustration at Brexit might have led him not to pay full attention to everything I said. Indeed, I think we even agreed on one point, which is that an SPS agreement will not cover every barrier that currently exists on SPS.
In winding up, I will react in particular to the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Bew, made. He is absolutely reasonable in saying that one could have different degrees of dissatisfaction with the Windsor Framework arrangements while still thinking that any solution might be imperfect. That is true, and we do have different if often very strong degrees of dissatisfaction.
My concern would be whether it is a stable ending point, not merely an unsatisfactory one. We have heard, and the concerns expressed show, that it probably is not stable. The reality is that having part of your country governed by another entity is not stable. In the end, there are only two stable points: one is to extend the anomaly to the rest of the country—that seems to be the approach that the Government plan to take in the reset—and the other is to remove the anomaly where it exists, which is in Northern Ireland. I hope that is the direction that will be taken.
The issues have been fully aired tonight, if not exactly resolved, and I will not seek to divide the House. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.