Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
The Secretary of State is in Singapore celebrating 60 years of diplomacy between our countries and drumming up investment, so I am afraid you have the deputies today, Mr Speaker.
Access to high-speed internet is essential and we are determined to take everyone with us into the digital age. I am glad that 98% of people now have access to superfast speeds and 88% have gigabit. Our latest type C contract with Openreach is adding connections every single day.
Josh Babarinde
Project Gigabit’s stated aim is to ensure that no one is left behind, but that is not true for the residents of Mulberry Close on my home estate in Eastbourne, who have not been connected to full fibre despite bearing the brunt of invasive works on their doorstep. Will the Minister meet me, residents of Mulberry Close and local internet providers to ensure that those residents are connected and not left behind?
Chris Bryant
Funnily enough, the statistics in the hon. Member’s constituency are better than the national average—just very slightly, by a smidgen—but I am very happy to meet him. More importantly, he could come into the Department and meet Building Digital UK so that we can explain exactly what needs to happen in his constituency to secure the aims that he is seeking.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on children’s online safety, my hon. Friend will know that keeping children safe online is a priority for this Government. We are focused on implementing the Online Safety Act 2023 so that children can benefit from its wide reach and protection. The children’s code that is coming in next month will see a step change in the experience of children online in the UK. While we do not pretend that that is job done, and we are working at pace to develop a further online safety package, children will no longer be able to access pornography or other unsuitable content, including content that encourages or promotes self-harm, eating disorders or suicide.
Gregor Poynton
The National Crime Agency and other law enforcement agencies have highlighted the growing prevalence of AI-generated child sexual abuse material as one of the biggest threats to public safety. It is a growing threat to us online. That is why I was astonished last week to see the Tories and Reform vote against the Crime and Policing Bill, which contains world-leading measures to tackle this horrific crime. Does the Minister agree that it is frankly disgusting to see the Tories and Reform using this issue for party politics?
Feryal Clark
I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend on that. Child sexual exploitation and abuse is one of the most horrendous harms, and the Government are committed to ensuring that UK law keeps pace with criminal use of technologies including AI. As he says, we have introduced a world-leading offence in the Crime and Policing Bill to criminalise AI models that have been optimised to create child sexual abuse material. This new offence builds on the protections in the Online Safety Act, and I am very clear that nothing is off the table when it comes to keeping our children safe.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
As the Minister says, the Online Safety Act has passed into law and is being implemented, but parents in my Gosport constituency are still desperately worried about the scale of the inappropriate content that very young children can stumble across in the online world. Can she reassure us? When will they begin to practically see the changes that the Online Safety Act promised, and when will the big online providers really start having to do what they say they are doing to keep our children safe online?
Feryal Clark
I absolutely agree that some children are still stumbling upon material and content that they should not be. When the Online Safety Act is fully enacted in July, we will see a step change in what children can see online. Ofcom will monitor this and ensure that where such material is continuing, we take action.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) on her well- deserved honour in the King’s birthday honours? I hope the whole House will agree that it is a fitting and well-deserved honour for her expertise and service to the House.
Protecting children online should be a top priority for every Government, and that is why the Conservatives passed the Online Safety Act to give this Government all the sweeping powers they need to act, but when the Minister was asked in Parliament why implementation under Labour was so slow, she said that implementation must be
“as proofed against judicial review as possible.”—[Official Report, 26 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 405WH.]
Why is she more concerned about protecting herself and the Government than about protecting children?
Feryal Clark
It was the hon. Gentleman’s party that dragged its feet in bringing forward the legislation and that watered it down. We are busy trying to implement the Act as it was set out in the guidance. While the Act is not perfect, we will see a huge step change. Where there are issues and gaps, we are not afraid to act.
Alan Mak
It was my party that passed the Online Safety Act; it is the Minister’s party that is failing our children. Ian Russell, who set up the Molly Rose Foundation following the tragic death of his daughter, says that Britain is now “going backwards” when it comes to protecting our children online. The Government are being timid when they should be bold. Their priorities are wrong, and legal caution is trumping children’s safety. Why is the Minister still defending this Government’s track record of total failure?
Feryal Clark
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question. The implementation is happening as set out and against the timeframe that was set out. As I said, we are not only busy implementing the Act, but looking at all the gaps that exist in it because Ministers in his Government watered down the Bill as it went through the House. We will review those gaps in the legislation and come forward with extra measures where they are needed.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
Rural mobile coverage just is not good enough, which is why we have committed all the money needed to complete the shared rural network, with new masts coming online every month. I can also announce that Ofcom’s new coverage checker will come online tomorrow, and I urge every single Member to check their constituency then.
Caroline Voaden
I thank the Minister for his answer. I was going to say that having looked at the villages in my constituency on the mobile map, which was supposed to be updated this month, it is not up to date; it is good to hear that it will be. Many of my constituents have to rely on the 3G network, which is being shut off. We may be years away from getting high-speed broadband across the South Hams, so having access to a reliable 4G network is crucial. Can the Minister tell me exactly how he is working with mobile phone providers to ensure that everyone has access to mobile voice and data coverage?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The new checker comes online tomorrow—I know that many hon. Members will have looked at the checker in the past and thought, “That simply doesn’t bear any relationship to my lived experience.” From tomorrow, it will. The new checker is much better; Members will be able to see different numbers for all the mobile operators, which I think will encourage the operators to put up more masts and improve their coverage.
I know that the hon. Lady has talked about the village of Staverton in her constituency, which has a population of 717 people—the Sea Trout, I think, is the pub. It even has a telephone booth in it, although I am not sure whether it is still working. I have this horrible fear: I do not want to leave the hon. Lady, like Blondie, hanging on the telephone.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
In my constituency—one of the most rural parts of the UK—whole areas are without mobile phone coverage. People are forced to cope with unreliable phone lines and, most worryingly, are sometimes unable to call 999. Can the Minister assure me that after the withdrawal of the public switched telephone network, no one will be left without access to a phone simply because there is no mobile signal once their landline is switched off?
Chris Bryant
I have been very keen to ensure that the withdrawal of the PSTN—which is being done because it is necessary, as the copper system is not working any more and is more fallible—does not leave anybody unable to contact 999 or get the services that they need. I am very happy to arrange for my hon. Friend a meeting with BDUK to go through precisely how we can ensure that we have proper investment in every constituency in the land so that people have the mobile signal they need to live in the modern era.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
My Department is working closely with the Department for Education and Skills England to ensure that the education system is ready for the opportunities and the challenges that AI poses. We are assessing the AI skills gap and mapping pathways to address it. My officials have been working closely with the DFE on the education content store, for example, which is a pilot project that seeks to help developers to make better AI tools for teachers by providing a store of reliable and relevant UK data. Last week, the DFE produced guidance to support schools with the safe and effective use of AI in education.
Bradley Thomas
Will the Minister outline what steps are being taken to reduce academic dishonesty and plagiarism in schools resulting from the use of artificial intelligence tools?
Feryal Clark
AI has demonstrated that it can help the education workforce by reducing some of the administrative burdens and the hard work that teaching staff and school leaders face in their day-to-day role. On the hon. Gentleman’s question, evidence is still emerging on the benefits and risks of pupils and students using generative AI. We will continue to work with the education sector on use cases to develop our understanding of how to use AI safely and effectively. As I have said, the Department has issued guidance to teachers on how to identify and best use AI in schools.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
AI is already prevalent in the workplace and in the education system, and we need to equip the next generation to be able to use AI tools productively and securely while also delivering on their unique potential as human beings. How is the Minister working with the Department for Education to ensure that the AI tools that are used in our education system support this kind of learning? Specifically, what advice has she given to the Department with regard to the procurement of edtech tools, which are widely available? Some are free and some need to be paid for, so how are schools to decide which to use?
Feryal Clark
As I have said, I work very closely with my counterparts in the Department for Education. Earlier this year, we launched safe standards for the sector and provided guidance on how to safely develop AI tools for education. The DFE has also provided guidance to schools on how to safely use AI in schools. That work is ongoing. As I have said, we are working both with the sector and with educators to make sure that we get this right.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
As soon as we have legislative proposals on AI, we will introduce them to the House and let the right hon. Member know in the usual way.
Sir John Whittingdale
Is the Minister aware of the concerns about the proposed creative content exchange, which appeared without consultation in the creative industries sector plan? Will he confirm that any AI legislation will not seek to impose a statutory licensing model, but will instead facilitate a market-led, dynamic licensing model based on robust copyright law and enforceable through meaningful transparency?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Member has become terribly Eeyore-ish of late—he has been eating too many thistles, I think. The truth of the matter is that this is a really good idea. It is only at an embryonic stage. It was consulted on in the creative industries taskforce, which is led by Baroness Shriti Vadera and Sir Peter Bazalgette. Of course we will consult with everybody else in the sector about how we can make this work, but it could be an answer to ensuring more licensing of creative content by AI companies and, importantly, remuneration for the creative industries.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
First, I echo the congratulatory comments about the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah)—they are absolutely deserved.
Donald Trump’s proposals to ban US states from regulating AI for 10 years have been condemned by Microsoft’s chief scientist, showing that we cannot trust the US to provide safe and sensible AI regulation. Does the Minister agree that now is the time for the UK to lead on AI safety, and will he join me and the head of Google DeepMind in calling for an AI safety agency modelled on the International Atomic Energy Agency and headquartered here in the UK?
Chris Bryant
Both the Under-Secretary of State and I have been remiss in not congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) on her damehood. As you know, Mr Speaker, all knights love to see a dame enter the Chamber. The Under-Secretary of State and I work closely on AI and copyright, and on making sure that we have the AI safety and security that we need. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson makes a fair point and it is one of the things that we are considering at the moment.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
The Chancellor has announced that the Government’s research and development spending plans go through to 2029-30 and that our R&D budget is rising from £13.9 billion in 2025-26 to £15.2 billion in 2029-30—a real-terms increase—and will total £58.5 billion over the spending review period. I am sure that that will benefit my hon. Friend’s York constituency.
Rachael Maskell
York and North Yorkshire is a national leader in the bioeconomy. BioYorkshire will create 4,000 jobs, as well as start-ups and spin-outs. It requires £67 million to build its facilities over the next decade, but it will return £215 million back into the economy. When will the science plan recognise the economic and scientific impact of the research base? Can we have a meeting to talk about the brilliant BioYorkshire project?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right that it is a brilliant project, and it is precisely the kind of thing the UK excels at: we manage to get the private sector working with Government and local government to deliver not only jobs but real innovation. As the Secretary of State is not here today, I am sure I can offer my hon. Friend the opportunity of a meeting with him.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Over the past 10 years, many tech start-ups have left the UK and gone to silicon valley, which costs the UK a huge amount in jobs and tax revenue. What are the Government doing to ensure that start-ups currently at seed stage stay in the UK and grow here, so that we avoid the UK becoming an intellectual property farm for other countries to harvest?
Chris Bryant
One really important part of the industrial strategy we published on Monday and the sector plans within it is that we identified a problem many people in the UK face, which is that they have a really good idea but cannot take it to market because they do not have access to finance, in particular to capital, unless they are in London—and sometimes unless they are a man. We want to change all that, which is why we have said categorically that we are giving the British Business Bank much more significant power to be able to invest in these sectors. That will mean we are a powerhouse in precisely the way the hon. Member wants.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
From the development of vaccines to the discovery of the structure of DNA, British medical innovation has played a fundamental role in changing the lives of people globally and extending the UK’s global influence. Our industrial strategy and forthcoming life sciences sector plan will put the UK at the very centre of global efforts.
Emily Darlington
As the Minister will know, Gavi and the Global Fund not only provide a global vaccine programmes and programmes on saving lives from malaria and HIV, but provide us with biosecurity and jobs in the UK, not least over 500 research and development jobs and funding for the institute of tropical medicine. What assessment has he made of whether the UK is to reduce our efforts in that regard?
Chris Bryant
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance is absolutely essential, not only for other countries in the world, where we have managed to save many lives by introducing vaccines, but for UK innovation. We are fully committed to Gavi. We will be producing our life sciences sector plan soon, and we want to celebrate the sector, which represents 6,800 business and £100 billion of turnover every year.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Minister will be aware that the life and health sciences launchpad in Northern Ireland has so far funded 32 business-led projects. That is good news, but 23 of the projects are in the Greater Belfast area. Will the Minister join me and others in our efforts to ensure that there is greater knowledge about the launchpad across the whole of Northern Ireland so that we can all benefit from this very worthwhile project?
Chris Bryant
Yes, indeed. When I was talking about the creative industries sector plan as part of the industrial strategy last week, exactly the same point was made. Belfast is obviously a great centre for innovation and the creative industries, but we need to make sure that the sector extends across the whole of Northern Ireland. It is a point that has been extremely well made.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
The digital inclusion action plan is one of things I am proudest of. Only this morning I launched the “IT reuse for good” charter. One thing that is really problematic for many families who do not have access to the internet is that they simply do not have a device. I urge every Member of the House to get every business they know to sign up to the “IT reuse for good” charter so that we can get devices to the people who really need them.
Mr Alaba
Digital inclusion and exclusion vary widely between individuals, households and even communities. Often it is those in low-income, rural and coastal communities who are left behind. What steps are being taken to ensure that Labour’s action plan reaches all communities and equips everyone with the tools they need?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend makes a strong point: we need digital inclusion for every community. If we are going to have a digital Government, we need to have a digital nation, and we cannot have some people excluded from that future. That is why we have announced £6 million in this financial year for the innovation fund, and I hope that local authorities will come forward with innovative ideas on how we can break down the barriers to digital inclusion.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
The Department is determined to make the UK the best place in the world for science and technology. Last week, the spending review committed £86 billion to research and development, enabling every aspect of our tech economy to start firing on all cylinders. Building on that, we published the digital and technology sector plan as part of our modern industrial strategy on Monday, backing our innovators in fields like quantum, life sciences and engineering biology with over £1 billion.
Patrick Hurley
Across the northern part of my constituency, from Marshside over to Hesketh Bank—
Mr Speaker
Order. Members are not meant to walk in front of the Member who is speaking; it is discourteous. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) deliberately looked and carried on.
Patrick Hurley
The mobile phone signal is uniformly terrible across the northern part of my constituency, meaning that my constituents are missing out on opportunities. Will the Minister work more closely with industry to identify and deal with those rural mobile blackspots to further the Government’s growth mission?
Chris Bryant
I know that that is an issue in my hon. Friend’s constituency because he has tabled at least 10 questions to me on the subject over the last week, all of which we have answered in time. I am keen to ensure that we as MPs persuade the mobile companies to invest more in getting better mobile coverage across the country, both in rural areas and in urban ones.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
Why are the Government ignoring the advice of the AI opportunities action plan to encourage the start-up and scaling of tech businesses in the UK and instead favouring market-dominant corporations from abroad over our own domestic businesses when awarding Government contracts?
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark)
The Government remain committed to ending the use of all animals, including dogs, in scientific procedures, replacing them with modern, human-relevant technologies. Our long-term goal, as set out in our 2024 manifesto commitment, is to phase out animal testing entirely. As my hon. Friend said, we will publish a detailed road map this year alongside convening roundtables with researchers, industry and animal welfare organisations to ensure that we achieve that and hit the target.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Chris Bryant
We are completely and utterly not complacent, and we are determined to ensure that creators are remunerated for their work. We would never surrender other people’s labour to a third party. I know that the hon. Member used to be the editor of Cruise International, and I very much hope that as a former journalist she will help us develop policies that can answer the question she asked.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Chris Bryant
One of the issues that is undoubtedly at the heart of AI and copyright is how we ensure that the policy we advocate in the UK works with other countries’ around the world. I assure my hon. Friend that we are working closely with our European allies to ensure we do precisely that.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Chris Bryant
I am afraid the shadow Chancellor came in during the question. I have known him for a very long time, and I would not cheer him quite so enthusiastically myself—[Interruption.] As charming a man as he is, it meant that I did not hear the question asked by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), so I am happy to write to her afterwards to confirm.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Stratford and Bow is a thriving hub of innovation, which is why the Prime Minister chose it for the launch of the AI opportunities action plan earlier this year. One brilliant example is Healthtech-1. Once a kitchen table start-up of doctors and tech experts, it now automates admin for 22% of GP practices, and its new patient registration system has saved the NHS a staggering 183 years of time. What are the Government doing to support home-grown innovation like that to scale up its work?
Feryal Clark
My hon. Friend’s constituency is indeed a hotbed of innovation. She will be delighted to know that Healthtech-1 has benefited from a range of Government support to date, including a recent Innovate UK grant.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister (Angela Rayner)
I have been asked to reply as my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister is attending the NATO summit in The Hague. At this time of international volatility, we are working with our allies to de-escalate tensions in the middle east and ensure that the conflict does not further intensify. Our aim continues to be preventing Iran from securing nuclear weapons and urging the Iranians to return to negotiations.
The situation in Gaza remains of the gravest concern. Seeing the return of more hostages’ bodies, including that of Shay Levinson, an Israeli with British family, is heartbreaking. The remaining hostages must be released, while aid must be delivered at greater speed and volume.
This week is Armed Forces Week. Our commitment to the armed forces is unwavering. The strategic defence review outlines how we will give our armed forces better pay, better housing and better kit. I pay tribute to their commitment, bravery and selflessness.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mike Tapp
The Conservatives gave up on law and order. They betrayed our country and let criminals run riot. Now, they desperately post wannabe superhero videos, shamelessly pointing at the problems they created. Last week, they had the chance to put it right, and what did they do? They voted against tough action on knife crime, on antisocial behaviour and on violence against women and girls. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that they should hang their heads in shame for failing to protect our streets?
Mr Speaker
Order. This is about Government responsibilities, not the Opposition. I call Sir Mel Stride.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a pleasure to stand opposite the right hon. Lady. Despite what many may think, we have a great deal in common, not least that we both viscerally disagree with the Chancellor’s tax policies. It is also great to see the right hon. Lady standing in temporarily for the Prime Minister for the second week running—although I know that many sitting behind her wish that this was a permanent arrangement. Indeed, we will find many of their names among the 122 who have signed up to oppose the Government’s welfare Bill. They say that the Bill is dangerously rushed and ill-thought-through. Will the right hon. Lady explain why she thinks that she is right and 122 of her colleagues are wrong?
The Deputy Prime Minister
First, it is nice to face the latest wannabe at the Dispatch Box. I will tell the right hon. Member why we are pressing ahead with our reforms: it is because we are investing a billion pounds in tailored employment support, in a “right to try” in order to help more people back into work, and in ending reassessments for the most severely disabled who will never be able to work. We will not walk away or stand by and abandon millions of people trapped in the failing system, left behind by him and his colleagues.
Sir Mel Stride
The right hon. Lady completely sidestepped my question. She cannot even defend her own Government’s policy. Can she at least assure the House that the vote on Tuesday will actually go ahead?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman listened to what I said, because he was reading off his script—I do not need a script—but I can tell him that we will go ahead on Tuesday.
Sir Mel Stride
There you have it: there will be a vote in this House on Tuesday on the welfare Bill, although many on the Back Benches could be forgiven for thinking that they have heard this before with the winter fuel payment, where they were marched up the hill, and we all know where that story ended. On the Conservative side of the House, we are absolutely clear that we will help the right hon. Lady get their Bill through if the Government can commit to actually reducing the welfare bill and getting people off benefits and into work. Can she make that commitment right now—yes or no?
The Deputy Prime Minister
If ever we needed a reminder of the Conservatives having no shame, it is their demands for this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman demands a programme to help people into work—exactly what this Bill does—after he left one in eight young people out of the economy. He demands no new taxes—from the party that raised taxes to record levels. He demands welfare savings—from the man who was in charge as the welfare bill absolutely ballooned. They say cut the welfare bill; they failed. They say put people in work; they failed. They say no tax increases; they failed.
Sir Mel Stride
I am afraid that the right hon. Lady has clearly not read her own legislation. The Bill will see the number of people on welfare rising for every single year going forward. There is no commitment from her to cut the number of people on welfare. Even if the Government manage to deliver these reforms, almost every respected economist now says that tax rises are all but inevitable in the autumn. But after the Budget, the Chancellor said,
“I’m not coming back with…more taxes.”
British businesses have been hit again and again by Labour’s economic mismanagement. They are desperate for certainty. Can the right hon. Lady give them that certainty now and repeat to the House the Chancellor’s promise not to raise taxes at the Budget?
The Deputy Prime Minister
This is a bit rich—unbelievable. With inflation above 11% and the biggest tax rises, I will take no lectures from the Conservative party. On this issue in particular, they cannot make up their minds. First, they said our reforms were taking too long, then they said they were rushed, then their Front Bench said our measures were too tough, and now they say they need to be tougher. No plan, no idea—I wonder why their party was left in such a mess.
Sir Mel Stride
The whole House will have heard that the right hon. Lady did not repeat the Chancellor’s promise not to raise taxes. Britain’s businesses have today been put on notice: tax rises are coming. Specifically, in the right hon. Lady’s own area, despite Labour’s promises to freeze council tax, the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the spending review will mean the biggest council tax increases in a generation—a £7 billion tax rise. Yet the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have repeatedly claimed that the Government will not raise taxes on working people. Why does the right hon. Lady think that council tax is not paid by working people?
The Deputy Prime Minister
Again, the Conservatives have an absolute nerve when council tax rose ever single year under their Government. In fact, I had to turn down the Tories on the Local Government Association who wanted me to take away the precept to ensure that they could raise taxes above the 5%. We have kept it there while delivering money for local government, while they had austerity, put taxes up and ruined the British economy.
Sir Mel Stride
When you cut out the blather, is not the reality that this Labour Government have condemned us to higher taxes, more debt, fewer jobs and more pain for businesses up and down our country? Borrowing, unemployment and inflation are up, yet the right hon. Lady tells us that the Government’s plan is working. It is not just me who is not convinced; the Members behind her are not convinced either. Nor are the public. In fact, I am not even sure whether the right hon. Lady herself is convinced. Is she not just a little embarrassed to defend policies that she does not even agree with?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am embarrassed every week that an Opposition Member comes here who does not apologise for the mess they left this country in. One party crashed the economy and left families to pay the price. We are putting working people first. I am proud that we have got a huge boost to the minimum wage, the biggest uplift in affordable housing in a generation and that we have expanded free school meals to half a million children. The Tories’ choice: billions of pounds in unfunded tax cuts for the very wealthy—we know where that gets us. It is the same old Tory failed approach. They have not listened, and they have not learnt a thing.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I will do. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important issue to my attention. I can only imagine the disruption and challenges facing the school community. One of the shameful legacies of the Conservative party was leaving schools across our country literally crumbling. We are fixing that with £20 billion of investment in the school rebuilding programme over the next decade to rebuild more than 750 schools. I know that the Minister for Early Education will be happy to meet him.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I associate myself and my party with the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister in calling for de-escalation in the middle east, the release of hostages and urgent aid to get into Gaza.
We Liberal Democrats oppose the Government’s cut to personal independence payments and carer’s allowance. With a growing rebellion on the Government Benches, the Government may be forced to push these cuts through with the support of the official Opposition. The Deputy Prime Minister knows that some of those affected are still waiting for justice after the carer’s allowance scandal saw thousands of innocent carers hounded for repayments. Can the Deputy Prime Minister give a cast-iron guarantee that if these cuts are pursued, at the very least, not a single person will lose a penny until the carer’s allowance scandal review has been completed and the recommendations have been implemented?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for her opening comments. She knows that we have already taken steps on the carer’s allowance, and those steps will continue. As she also knows, the welfare system is failing people. Labour is the party of work, but we are also the party of fairness. That is why our Bill will deliver the largest, permanent, real-terms increase to basic out-of-work support since the 1980s, invest in tailored employment support so people can try work safely, and ensure that those who can never work are properly supported.
Daisy Cooper
It is disappointing that the Deputy Prime Minister could not give that cast-iron guarantee, but if the Government pursue the Bill next week, we will pursue this matter on behalf of carers.
Given the reports that the Government are giving a green light to President Trump’s demands for a state visit to be brought forward to September, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the UK should urgently convene talks with the White House in advance of the visit in order to leverage it to secure US guarantees for Ukraine, including the use of frozen Russian assets, and to secure a joint UK-US message to Putin that together our two countries will not let him win his illegal war?
The Deputy Prime Minister
The UK Government are always in discussions, negotiations and talks with our US counterparts. We are really pleased that the US President is coming for a second state visit, and we will continue to welcome in that vein and continue to have those discussions.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right, and as neighbouring MPs we know the impact that temporary accommodation and children being homeless has on their life chances. She is absolutely right to raise the issue, and to highlight the excellent work of Dr Laura Neilson, who is supporting us to develop a cross-Government homelessness strategy. All children should have a safe and secure home. That is why I am so proud that we have confirmed the biggest boost to social and affordable housing investment in a generation. We are getting on with the job, after the mess that the Conservatives left behind.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
My colleagues and I identify with the comments around de-escalation in the middle east.
I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister will condemn recent disorder on the streets of Northern Ireland, as the Prime Minister and my colleagues have done. Does she accept that the Windsor framework, although sold to this House as a trade issue, is fundamentally impacting the ability of this sovereign Parliament to legislate on a UK-wide basis on matters of immigration? Will she commit to ensuring that the Government continue to challenge robustly the expansionism that is currently before the courts? If not, will she legislate to ensure that we as a country can control our own borders?
The Deputy Prime Minister
First, I do condemn the violence on the streets. Provisions in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement referred to in article 2 of the Windsor framework sought to address the long-standing and specific issues relating to Northern Ireland’s past. I hope the right hon. Gentleman is assured that we are appealing on a number of the laws relating to article 2 in the courts, including the Supreme Court. I hope he will also be assured by the reality that the Government have consistently applied and enforced immigration law on a UK-wide basis. The Government will take all necessary steps to defend that position, just as we will remain committed to protecting rights across the whole UK, as it should be Parliament that makes rules on immigration.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I commend my hon. Friend for her campaigning work on this issue. I have met some of those affected and know their strength of feeling; I have heard their deeply personal testimony of their experiences. Especially during Armed Forces Week, I pay tribute to all nuclear veterans and their enduring contribution to our nation’s security. We are looking into unresolved questions regarding medical records as a matter of priority.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Part of our reforms are to ensure that those who can never work are properly supported and not put through endless assessment, and I thank the hon. Member for raising this case. We are committed to renewing the nation’s contract with those who have served, and a range of support is in place for veterans, including dedicated medical and physical healthcare pathways in the NHS, employment, and housing. The new support system, VALOUR, backed by £50 million of funding, will provide a network of support centres to connect veterans with local and national services.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that the Conservatives left a trail of devastation across education and youth services. [Interruption.] Given half the chance, judging by their moans, they would do it all over again. We are making different choices—working with young people to draw up a landmark new national youth strategy, investing £145 million this year to provide stability to the youth sector, rolling out youth future hubs to expand access opportunities and reduce crime, and extending access to mental health support to nearly 1 million more children this year.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Deputy Prime Minister
First of all, I will out one of my kids in the Gallery, because he has just completed his studies on early years, so hopefully that will add a little help. We inherited a depleted early years sector, but we are determined to make sure that all children have the best possible start in life. That is why we are delivering the largest ever uplift to the early years pupil premium, boosting family hubs and Start for Life, funded by £126 million this year, and investing £370 million to create tens of thousands of places in new and expanded school-based nurseries.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am glad that I am not the only one who has a young person destined for the future in the Gallery today. My hon. Friend has been a huge champion for Milton Keynes, and he is right. After the Tory decline, it is time to turn the page. We have already created 384,000 jobs since the election, and our industrial strategy will create opportunities across the country and invest in jobs and industries of the future, including in Milton Keynes, where East West Rail will help to build 100,000 new homes and put £6.7 million a year in the local economy.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Again, I know the strength of feeling. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent Ronald and all the service personnel who participated in the British nuclear testing programme. I am sure that the Minister for Veterans would be happy to meet him and the veterans to discuss this issue.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Under the old guard of the Conservatives, families had to earn less than £7,400, often in low-paid and insecure work, to qualify for free school meals. Under this Labour Government, thousands more children in Wolverhampton North East and 500,000 more across the country will benefit from free school meals. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline how Labour’s plans will put more money in parents’ pockets?
The Deputy Prime Minister
We are determined to tackle child poverty, which rose catastrophically under the last Government. That is why we are expanding access to free school meals to more than half a million children, which will lift 100,000 of the poorest children out of poverty and put £500 back into parents’ pockets. This is on top of 750 free breakfast clubs, worth £450 a year to parents, and a historic uplift in the national minimum wage, worth up to £2,500 to the lowest-paid workers.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Maybe the hon. Gentleman wants a go next week, because it has been quite a carousel. The Leader of the Opposition said that she was going to get better week on week—she already has in the last two weeks by not turning up. I am just wondering when she is going to give the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), a go.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I am proud and honoured to say that I have served this country as a reservist Parachute Regiment soldier. That is why I would like to take this opportunity to thank all our service members and their families during Armed Forces Week. This Labour Government have announced the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. Will the Deputy Prime Minister set out how the Government will rebuild Britain and secure our defence for the future?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his service. He is absolutely right—our armed forces represent the very best of Britain, and put their lives on the line for us every day. It is our responsibility to support those who defend us, so we are delivering the biggest sustained boost to defence spending since the end of the cold war. The strategic defence review sets out our vision for defence, driving jobs and prosperity and renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve to secure Britain into the future.
Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do miss our exchanges. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has been wearing his factor 50—he knows how it can get for us gingers in the hot weather. He also knows that local authorities have planning powers to limit the proliferation of small houses being turned into houses in multiple occupation. His Government left a housing crisis, and I am getting on with fixing that through the 1.5 million homes that we are going to deliver.
Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)
Just this week, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) put a singular burning injustice first: the plight of overseas billionaires who pay too much tax. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with the hon. Member’s priority, or does she agree with me that Reform UK doing sweetheart deals with the super-rich is a betrayal of British working people?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I was asked about the hon. Member for Clacton’s mathematics the other week, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right—the mask has slipped again this week. The hon. Member for Clacton demands billions more in unfunded tax cuts for the very richest while he marches through the Lobby in the House of Commons to vote against sick pay for the lowest earners. We know what would pay for Reform’s tax breaks for overseas billionaires; it would be tax hikes on working people and patients being charged to seeing their doctor. Labour will not let that happen.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
The Deputy Prime Minister
I am really sorry to hear about Axel and the other cases that the hon. Member mentioned. Those with special educational needs deserve proper support and should not be left at home. We are determined to fix the SEND system and support children before issues escalate to this type of crisis point. We are investing £3.4 billion this year to deploy specialist teams across early years and primary school settings, helping to identify and respond to speech and language needs, particularly for children with SEND. We will set out our full plans on the reform of SEND this autumn, including support for the early years.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
Growth needs to be delivered and felt in all parts of the country, and the infrastructure strategy, changes to the Green Book and the £1.8 billion secured for the north-east are a clear demonstration of our commitment to that. In my area, Moor Farm roundabout is blocking growth and causing misery for people locally. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that improving infrastructure in the north, like at Moor Farm, will show how we are investing in all parts of the country?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The previous Government did not have a plan for areas like the north-east. I know she has been a champion for the Moor Farm roundabout. This Government are changing the situation by investing £15.6 billion in local transport projects across the country, opening up access to jobs and improving living standards, including in the north-east.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Well, what the Conservatives were told at the general election was, “We don’t want you.” [Interruption.] All right, I meant “them”: the hon. Gentleman’s Government. He might have slipped through! The one thing that I will say is that the hon. Member has said about his own Government, “There’s a lot of things we should have done that we didn’t do.” To be honest, I could not agree more—and we are getting on and doing it.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
In Armed Forces Week, will the Deputy Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to my former colleagues at RAF Brize Norton? I know she will share my horror that some on the Opposition Benches responded to the appalling attack on that base not by recognising the consequences of 14 years of Conservative under-investment in our defence, but by personally smearing one of our brave members of the Royal Air Force. Does she agree with me and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) that this Labour Government will always support our armed forces, and that those shameful comments by the deputy leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), bring disgrace upon him and his party?
The Deputy Prime Minister
My hon. and gallant Friend speaks with great authenticity and authority on this matter. The attack on RAF Brize Norton was disgraceful, but what was even more disgraceful was Reform blaming the commanding officer—an accomplished woman who has served her country—rather than the criminals who were responsible. That is not leadership, but we should not expect anything better from the party of the Putin apologists.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Deputy Prime Minister
We are fixing the foundations of local government after the 14 years of austerity that were inflicted on local government, with the aiding and abetting of the hon. Lady’s party. We have put record funding into local government, with multi-year settlements: we are helping local government, where the last Government ruined it.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
Digital black spots—areas without good mobile broadband connectivity—are holding communities back. In Middleton, an area that my right hon. Friend knows well as a fellow Greater Manchester MP, many local businesses and people remain cut off from the economic growth of the wider city region due to the lack of a mobile signal. How can we ensure that this Government’s mission to capitalise on the promise of technology is felt in all parts of the country, including Middleton?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I have experienced digital black spots as well, so I understand my hon. Friend’s frustration. The industrial strategy was launched this week, and there were some great ideas to make sure that we get superfast broadband everywhere and we can all use our phones—to make sure we can get connected, whereas the last Government left us disconnected.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The Deputy Prime Minister
Israel’s recent action is appalling and counterproductive, and we strongly oppose the expansion of military operations, settler violence and the blocking of humanitarian aid. We have suspended free trade agreement talks and sanctioned extremists supporting settler expansion in the west bank. It is a long-standing principle that genocide is determined by competent international courts and not by Governments, and we do not sell arms directly to the Israel Defence Forces when that might breach international humanitarian law.
Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department’s plan to procure nuclear-certified F-35A aircraft.
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
The UK will purchase 12 new F-35A fighter jets and join NATO’s dual capable aircraft nuclear mission in a major boost for national security. The Prime Minister has announced at the NATO summit that the UK intends to buy at least a dozen of the dual capable aircraft, which can carry both nuclear and conventional weapons. The Secretary-General of NATO, Mark Rutte, said this morning:
“The UK has declared its nuclear deterrent to NATO for many decades, and I strongly welcome today’s announcement that the UK will now also join NATO’s nuclear mission and procure the F-35A.”
The decision will support 20,000 jobs in the United Kingdom, with 15% of the global supply chain for the jets based in Britain, supporting highly skilled jobs and opportunities for working people and delivering a defence dividend across the country. The announcement responds to two recommendations in the strategic defence review: recommendation 30, that the UK commence discussions
“on the potential benefits and feasibility of enhanced UK participation in NATO’s nuclear mission”,
and recommendation 46, on the mix of F-35B and F-35A.
The purchase represents the biggest strengthening of the UK’s nuclear posture in a generation, and reintroduces a nuclear role for the Royal Air Force for the first time since the UK retired its sovereign air-launched nuclear weapons following the end of the cold war. The UK’s commitment to NATO is unquestionable, as is the alliance’s contribution to keeping the UK safe and secure, but we must all step up to protect the Euro-Atlantic area for generations to come.
James Cartlidge
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. You will recall that the Government’s plan, announced today, to procure nuclear-certified F-35As was previously covered in The Sunday Times the day before the SDR was published. You therefore granted an urgent question that day on this very subject, but we received no meaningful answers at all. I hope the Minister can be more forthcoming today.
On 25 May, I wrote in the Express that our nuclear forces needed to be “even more resilient”, including in respect of the continuous at-sea deterrent, but also,
“potentially, by diversifying our methods for delivering nuclear strike.”
That is because we have to recognise the threat posed by Russia in particular, and its ability to operate nuclear weapons at tactical and theatre levels. To deter effectively, we must be able to do the same.
In principle, then, I welcome the announcement, but I have the following questions. What is the anticipated in-service date for the 12 F-35As? Will they already be nuclear certified, or will that occur after delivery? We note that the 12 F-35As will be ordered instead of 12 F-35Bs, but will the Government still order the remaining F-35Bs as planned? How will the F-35As be air-to-air refuelled, given that the current RAF refuelling capability is probe and drogue? On operational sovereignty, we are fully committed to our strong military partnership with the United States, but given that the announcement is about diversity of delivery, has the Department given any thought to additional tactical options for which we have greater industrial input, such as Storm Shadow and Typhoon?
Ironically, it was Lord Robertson, as Defence Secretary in 1998, who removed our last air-launched nuclear capabilities. It is noteworthy that, as one of the authors of the SDR, he said to the Select Committee recently that the authors were
“not terribly enthusiastic about it.”
That is before we get to the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary voted against the renewal of Trident. On this side of the House, we wholeheartedly back our nuclear deterrent. Does this situation not show why we need a robust plan to get to 3% on defence in this Parliament, rather than Labour’s smoke-and-mirrors and lack of a fully funded plan to properly increase defence spending in this Parliament?
Maria Eagle
On the in-service date, as the Secretary of State said this morning, we are hopeful that the aircraft will start delivering before the end of the decade. On the tranche being ordered that will now include 12 F-35As, yes, we will still be ordering the remaining F-35Bs, so there will be 15 extra F-35Bs in the next tranche. On refuelling, this is a NATO mission, and NATO will of course be able to do the air-to-air refuelling. It is quite normal for different allies to contribute their different capabilities, whether nuclear capable or conventional, to NATO’s nuclear mission.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I welcome the announcement and, on behalf of the Defence Committee, I welcome the additional detail that has been added to the SDR. It is imperative that we recognise and close some of the gaps in our national defence, including the size and shape of our combat air force, and this announcement does part of that. But 14 years of under-investment mean that some of the choices about basing and complementary capabilities will bring some challenges; will the Minister provide additional detail on how some of them may be addressed?
Maria Eagle
I am pleased that my hon. Friend is supportive of the announcement. As the House is aware, this Government have increased our defence spending by more than at any time since the end of the cold war. The increase is fully funded, unlike some of the fantasy plans of the previous Government.
Maria Eagle
We have shown how we will increase spending to 2.6% of GDP by 2027. That is fully funded, and we have made clear how we will get to 3% in the next Parliament, as conditions allow. The announcement was made today at NATO of a 5% target; all allies will focus on providing that funding in due course. Over the next 10 years, NATO will check every year, as it always does, whether its requirements are being met, and we fully expect to be able to meet them.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is clear that we have entered a new and uncertain era. Putin’s imperialism represents a once-in-a-generation threat to our security. We must maintain the effectiveness of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent to stop Putin or anyone else launching a nuclear attack. It remains the ultimate guarantor of Britain’s security.
We support more investment in our defence capability, but we need more detail on the proposed use cases for the F-35As, and on their relation to our existing strong deterrent through Trident. We also need a clear explanation of why the Government have chosen this priority over others. There are still huge gaps in the armed forces, including as a result of 10,000 troops being cut by the Conservatives, and those gaps need filling if we are to show Putin that we are serious. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will move further, faster, in rebuilding the strength and size of the other essential guarantor of UK security and deterrence—the British Army?
Maria Eagle
I am glad that the hon. Lady supports these measures. As I have already made clear, this decision is not at the expense of buying more F-35Bs, which we will do. The extent to which we fully implement the strategic defence review, and the order in which we implement its recommendations, will be decided through our investment plan, which is being worked on now and will be fully published and available in due course. There is no doubt that, as she says, the threats we face are increasing. We need to make sure that we are capable of deterring those threats, with our allies in NATO, and this decision will assist us in that. By joining the NATO nuclear mission, we will be able to play our part. As we said in the SDR, our policy is “NATO first”, and our commitment to NATO is unshakeable.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
I commend the Government on the prompt procurement of the F-35A fixed-wing, which is of huge strategic importance, but this is already creating great uncertainty in Lancashire—in Chorley, Mr Speaker, and in my constituency of South Ribble—where the workforce of the Typhoon Eurofighter live. Can the Minister please assure me that the Government will still be constant in looking to procure the Typhoon aircraft for the RAF? Also, with our NATO partners all increasing their defence spending, is there not a huge opportunity to urge them to procure the Typhoon Eurofighter as well?
Maria Eagle
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. What we are talking about does not of course preclude any support for the Typhoon. We are very committed to our Typhoons, and we are committed to upgrading them, as per our existing plans. We are engaged in many efforts to export, and one would hope that some of them will come off at some point in the not-too-distant future.
We are very keen on making sure that the skills and abilities of the workforce at Warton are fully used. We of course have the future combat air system and the global combat air programme, which will use those skills in the longer term. Many people working for BAE Systems—not at Warton, but at Samlesbury—make parts for the F-35, and I think they will be pleased to hear the announcement today.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I join Conservative Front Benchers in welcoming the answer to the urgent question, although maybe it should have been a statement. May I ask about autonomy and national sovereignty over the weapons system that will be deployed from this aircraft? There is considerable press reporting that it will be dual key, meaning that the Brits cannot use it without American say-so. Is that true? If so, why has the Ministry of Defence elected to take that option, rather than having full national sovereignty?
Maria Eagle
We have a fully sovereign national nuclear capability—a continuous at-sea deterrent—that is dedicated totally to NATO and to protecting the European homeland. The current decision is about joining the NATO nuclear mission. Any deployment under that mission requires the agreement of the NATO nuclear planning group of 31 allies, who act as a senior body on nuclear matters in the alliance. Under that governance arrangement, the UK will always retain the right to decide whether or not to participate.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
May I say how much I welcome this announcement, and the extra capability that it will bring? Will the Minister outline how this decision will support jobs across the UK, particularly for those in my constituency of North East Derbyshire who work in defence?
Maria Eagle
The procurement of the F-35As and the next tranche of F-35Bs will support 20,000 jobs across the UK, with over 100 UK-based suppliers contributing to the F-35 programme. That demonstrates yet again that defence can be an engine for growth, because these are good jobs across all parts of the nations and regions of the UK, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I fully welcome the announcement, and I thank the Minister for making the statement. In an age of uncertainty about the reliability of our US ally, it seems an odd choice to be leaning into them, in the sense that we will be dropping dual-key, US-made munitions from these planes. It makes more sense if this is a stepping stone to a fully sovereign UK capability, but that would raise questions about the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Will the Minister comment on whether this is a stepping stone to a fully sovereign UK capability?
Maria Eagle
It is not such a step. We are joining the NATO nuclear mission. We have just published a strategic defence review that sets out that our defence posture is “NATO first”. We are trying to support our allies in NATO in deterring any threat that might come from possible adversaries; that is what this is about. It is not a stepping stone to anything else.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I also welcome this announcement of increased capability—the F-35As that will be brought to the defence of this country. This announcement, which is in line with the strategic defence review, shows that this country is once again serious about defence. What response have we had from our NATO allies to our joining NATO’s nuclear mission?
Maria Eagle
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support. We have had strong support from our allies in NATO. In my reply to the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), I read out the response of the Secretary-General, who was full of praise.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister is well aware of my interest in the F-35 programme. Lockheed Martin manufactures around 150 jets a year, and there are nearly 600 on order by everyone from Switzerland to Singapore. On top of that, there are 1,200 still to be delivered to the US air force, so whereabouts are we in the queue? She mentioned that we would expect the first deliveries before the end of decade, but are we cutting to the front of the line? Given that the orders from some allies are not due to be fulfilled until 2032, will delivery of all 12 planes be completed within a decade? On refuelling, will she clarify that we have no sovereign air-to-air refuelling capability outside of a NATO mission?
Maria Eagle
I know that the hon. Gentleman has a very close interest in these matters because I have to answer all his parliamentary questions, and I welcome that interest. As the Secretary of State said this morning, we hope that we can start receiving delivery of these planes before the end of the decade. The hon. Gentleman is right that any manufacturing capability has queues, but orders are subject to contractual discussions and arrangements can be made, so that is what we are aiming for. Obviously, we will keep the House informed of how we get on.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I welcome the news that our deterrence capability will be enhanced and made more flexible as we take another step on the escalatory ladder. We are talking about a US aircraft with substantial UK industrial participation, a US weapon, US-UK decision making and a NATO mission. Does the Minister agree that this is a powerful statement about the strength of the special relationship between the US and the UK, and the strength of the NATO alliance?
Maria Eagle
I agree very much with both points. The decision indicates the strength of our alliance with the US, as well as the growing strength of NATO.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I do not understand industrially or militarily why the F-35 is the default choice. If the F-35 can be delivered only by the end of the decade, why is Tempest, which is more than capable of being delivered by the mid-2030s, not being considered? That is if we agree with the decision to be part of the nuclear sharing enterprise, and I do not agree with that, because no other nuclear-armed state takes part in nuclear sharing, no other P5 member delivers any other nation’s nuclear deterrent, and no nuclear power in the world delivers anyone else’s nuclear weapons.
Maria Eagle
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. We are committed to buying 138 F-35s in the next tranche of F-35s. We have substituted 12 F-35As for what would have been 12 F-35Bs, so there is that change to the mix, as recommended in the strategic defence review. One of the recommendations was that we should consider the mix, and we have considered it. Another was that we should rejoin the NATO nuclear mission; we have considered that and consulted, and we are acting. We have already implemented two of the major recommendations of the SDR. Given the welcome that the SDR had from Members around the House, we should all be glad to see the implementation of those recommendations.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for the welcome announcement of the F-35A programme, which comes at a time when this Government are increasing defence spending at a rate not seen since the cold war. BAE Systems, in my constituency, is one of the companies leading on the programme to support avionics for our forces, and there is an outstanding invitation for the Minister to visit the company. Will she confirm that this announcement will mean a significant increase in jobs and opportunities, including apprenticeships for local people, young people, and constituents across my area and the country?
Maria Eagle
Yes. I have been reminded of my promise to visit; that is on the list, and the visit will move closer to the top of the list after today. I agree with my hon. Friend. If we are to deter potential aggressors and adversaries, it is key that we implement the findings of the SDR and increase our capability, and that is what we are doing.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I encourage the Government not to be at all bashful about the fact that the decision on whether one of these weapons will be used—heaven forbid—will be an American one? There is a long tradition of American nuclear weapons being based in NATO countries, not least the Cruise and Pershing missiles of the 1980s, which helped to end the cold war. Will the Minister confirm that not only does this fill a gap in our deterrence spectrum, but it reasserts the commitment of the United States to the defence of the other NATO countries?
Maria Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman is correct that the decision does all those things, and he has made a very good point.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I welcome the acquisition of the F-35As, not least for the impact it will have on industry and jobs in my constituency. In answer to the question about refuelling, the Minister described very well how this new capability meshes with existing NATO capability. Will she say a little more about how this capability supports the defence of not only the UK, but our NATO allies?
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is correct. In addition to the industrial benefits that we ought to glean from increasing the F-35 order, it is absolutely right that it strengthens NATO. That is what the strategic defence review said that we should focus on, and NATO first is what we are doing. Rejoining the NATO nuclear mission is a striking commitment. We accepted the recommendation to make that commitment and we are now implementing it.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I also welcome this announcement, but can we talk about money? We already know that 20% of our defence budget is spent on the nuclear deterrent. It is disproportionately expensive. If we are now extending the nuclear capability with these airdrop weapons, what impact will that have on the budget for the rest of our conventional armed forces?
Maria Eagle
I welcome the hon. Lady’s support. The F-35As are actually cheaper than the F-35Bs, so replacing 12 F-35B orders with 12 F-35A orders is a cheaper option and she does not have to be too concerned about the direct impact of the decision on budgets. The total cost of the next procurement tranche, including the 12 F-35A models, will be an estimated £3.2 billion, but these are plans that were there and that we are now funding.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the Rugby No. 1 branch of the Royal British Legion, who I believe are in Tesco this week for a service, and the Hillmorton branch of the RBL, who will be holding a ceremony on Armed Forces Day? I was pleased to see that this commitment will support 20,000 jobs across the UK in the years to come, with over 100 UK-based suppliers contributing to the F-35 programme. Does she agree that this demonstrates that our national security and economic security go hand in hand, and that this Government will deliver that?
Maria Eagle
I commend my hon. Friend’s Royal British Legion branches who are getting on with what many of us are doing in Armed Forces Week, which is attending events that show our appreciation for our armed forces in every part of the UK. He is correct to say that, in addition to deterring our enemy and supporting NATO and our allies more strongly, there is growth potential and economic benefit from the spending that we put into our armed forces and our capabilities.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The proposed NATO 5% target will be split into two categories: a new, broader set of defence-related items at up to 1.5% of GDP, alongside a commitment to spend at least 3.5% of GDP on traditional defence. Will the Minister confirm the UK Government’s commitment to article 2 of the NATO treaty on the development of peaceful and friendly international relations? Will she also confirm that funding for UN peacekeeping missions qualifies as defence spending to NATO and that this budget will not lose out on the increase in the MOD budget?
Maria Eagle
I would argue that defence spending is there to create peace, not to fight wars. It is cheaper to deter wars than it is to end up fighting them, so I would argue that our commitment to 2.6%, as it will be by 2027, to 3% in the next Parliament and then on to the 5% target—including the 1.5% broader definition—by 2035 shows a very strong commitment across NATO to do just that. Let’s deter these wars.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s response to the urgent question. The purchase of 12 new F-35A aircraft will increase our nuclear capabilities and shows that our commitment to NATO is unshakeable. As the chair of the Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire all-party parliamentary group, I am always on the lookout for opportunities for growth in my region. Given that this announcement supports 20,000 jobs and places 15% of the global supply chain in the UK, will the Minister say how that will benefit my region and how she will ensure that all the investment, jobs and growth opportunities will be spread to each part of the UK?
Maria Eagle
I cannot say precisely whether any of the 100 companies that are UK-based suppliers on this programme are in my hon. Friend’s constituency or his region—I will have to go away and look it up—but I do know that these procurements spread prosperity around all regions and nations of the UK. That is one great thing about the defence industry: it provides jobs and growth across the UK.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
I welcome the Minister for Defence Procurement’s announcement. This is welcome news for our country. Given that in-service dates for key pieces of military equipment are often later than predicted, has she given any thought to training our pilots in advance of delivery, either on a simulator or by embedding them into a unit that operates these planes around the world, so that we are ready to hit the ground running as soon as they are delivered?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is correct. Anything that can bring in-service dates forward slightly by planning and training in advance is something that we will be in favour of trying to do. These days it is much more the case that such arrangements are thought of at the same time as the procurement, so I am certain that we will be on to the point that he makes.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Following on from the previous question, I have to declare that I have flown an F-35—[Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] It was a simulator. Dramatic pause there. There are companies in Edinburgh that are involved in the supply chain and I was keen to see what they were constructing.
I welcome the Minister’s leadership on this. It is a fantastic sign that we are absolutely committed to NATO, and it is also a fantastic advertisement for our young people who are looking for a great career. They need look no further than the RAF. Much of the discussion has focused on the nuclear capabilities of this aircraft, but can she confirm that it could have a much wider role and be put to much greater use?
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is correct. This is a dual-capability aircraft, which will not only be used to fly NATO nuclear missions but be available to do training and all the other things that our fantastic pilots in the RAF do.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I feel like a lone voice, but in an increasingly unstable world I personally find it quite harrowing that the British Air Force might be flying planes that can drop nuclear bombs and where that might lead. Can the Minister tell us whether, under this agreement, tactical nuclear weapons will be stored on UK soil; and if so, what safety and security measures the Government will be undertaking for their storage?
Maria Eagle
I am not sure I quite understood that question, Mr Speaker. What I can say, though, is that we do not normally confirm or deny where nuclear weapons might be stored. It is not something that we have ever done. I think that is what the hon. Member was asking, but I am not absolutely sure. I would be happy to speak to her afterwards if I have got that question wrong.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Have any alternative platforms been considered for the potential delivery of a tactical nuclear weapon? In particular, have the Government looked at the Astute class attack submarine as an alternative or additional platform, or at its successor, the SSN-AUKUS?
Maria Eagle
We are not seeking to widen our range of nuclear capability. We are joining the NATO nuclear mission and contributing to that. As I said earlier, this is not some kind of stepping stone to acquiring tactical nuclear weapons. Our nuclear deterrent is our submarine-operated continuous at-sea deterrent—CASD—and that is how it will continue.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The prospect of UK fighter jets carrying Donald Trump’s nuclear bombs cannot be anybody’s vision of security. This decision flies in the face of our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. It ties us further into a US military that cannot even keep its own classified intelligence secure. It ties us further to a Trump Administration who are the very definition of a loose cannon. Given the inescapable truth that nuclear weapons make the world more dangerous, and that normalising tactical weapons is incredibly reckless, how can the Minister possibly justify this decision?
Maria Eagle
First, what I have announced today is compliant with the non-proliferation treaty—
Maria Eagle
It is compliant with the non-proliferation treaty. The NATO nuclear mission has as a governance the NATO nuclear planning group of 31 allies—everybody gets a say—so it is not a question of it being Donald Trump or any other US President’s nuclear bomb. This is a NATO mission to defend Europe and to do what NATO was set up to do: deter another war.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
On 6 January, I raised with the Minister in this Chamber the fact that refurbishing Typhoons will not touch the sides of maintaining the 6,000-strong workforce at Warton, in my constituency, and that relying on export orders that have not been secured will not keep the workforce in work for now, before the GCAP comes online. When I asked the Minister whether she would give a delayed Christmas present of an order for 25 Typhoons, she replied:
“It might not be a Christmas present—I do not know when his birthday is—but a present some time later.”—[Official Report, 6 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 586.]
We were awaiting an order of Typhoons for the Warton site in the strategic defence review, but it turned out to contain an empty box instead of a present. If the Minister was not simply buying time and giving false hope to the workforce then, when will we see the order of 25 Typhoon jets for the RAF?
Maria Eagle
I do not think the previous Government were committed to buying Typhoons, so I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should be so outraged by the fact that after less than a year, we have not yet ordered any more Typhoons. We are committed to the Typhoon fleet that we have. The buying of any more will have to be considered in the investment plan that is being worked on now. Other European nations are buying some Typhoons, so there is some work there, although I know they are not assembled at Warton if other nations buy them. We also have export orders that we are trying to pursue. Although I cannot advance what I said to the hon. Gentleman previously, it is something that I am very conscious of, and we will continue to see what can be done about the future of our Typhoon fleet. We are committed to the fleet that we have and to the upgrades that we need.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
In response to an earlier question, I was pleased to hear the Minister commit to seeking to compress the timetable between delivery and the in-service date. I believe I heard the Minister say that the delivery date was the back end of the 2020s. Can she confirm the anticipated in-service date?
Maria Eagle
I cannot confirm the anticipated in-service date beyond saying that we are hopeful that we will get the aircraft as soon as possible and that we will be able to use them as soon as possible thereafter, subject to all the usual requirements to get something in service. That is as good as I can do for the hon. Gentleman today, I am afraid.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The Minister just confirmed that the UK adheres to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That treaty requires the declared nuclear-armed states not to allow proliferation and to take steps towards nuclear disarmament. What the Minister has announced today is an increase in nuclear capability, with the construction of new nuclear warheads that can obviously be used anywhere in the world by airdropping them. Can she explain how it is possible to say that this announcement is in compliance with the NPT when it is so obviously and clearly the very opposite of that?
Maria Eagle
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong, I am afraid. It is in compliance with the non-proliferation treaty. The NATO nuclear mission would carry US nuclear weapons, which are already subject to the non-proliferation treaty. What we are announcing today is the buying of aircraft that are capable of assisting with that mission, not the purchasing of new nuclear weapons. I hope that is clear for the right hon. Gentleman.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Clearly, the aim is to enhance what NATO has as a defensive structure, so will the Minister confirm that this is not a substitute for any of our other NATO allies withdrawing aircraft from service, and that we are adding to the potential cover against threat in case we are attacked?
Maria Eagle
We are adding some of our capability to the NATO nuclear mission by purchasing these weapons, which has been welcomed by our allies and by the NATO Secretary-General as improving the position for the NATO nuclear mission.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the Minister for her statement. Following the announcement of the purchase of these 12 F-35As, I have read concerns expressed by defence analysts this morning over the size of this fleet and whether it truly represents either a capable offensive launch or, indeed, a capable deterrent. In earlier statements, I think the Minister has said both that these F-35s are part of the current F-35 purchase envelope and, potentially, that these F-35s are in addition to those currently on order. I would be grateful for clarification on that point. Finally, could the Minister offer any reflection on the effect that this purchase will have on our commitment to GCAP?
Maria Eagle
For clarity, I did not say that this order was in addition to our already committed tranche of F-35s. I said that we were substituting what would have been 12 F-35Bs with 12 F-35As, so it is not in addition. We already have 39, and we have already purchased 48, not all of which have been delivered. This is a tranche of the next 27, 12 of which will be F-35As and 15 of which will be F-35Bs. It is part of acquiring the next tranche of F-35s that Governments of all stripes have been committed to over the time that the F-35 has been in production.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I am sure the Minister recognises that in addition to this plan to diversify the deterrent launch method, the UK must ensure that our strategic CASD enterprise has an effective and productive industrial base, delivering faster maintenance times. Can she therefore confirm whether these aircraft will be budgeted from the ringfenced Defence Nuclear Enterprise budget?
Maria Eagle
The ringfenced Defence Nuclear Enterprise budget is not for purchasing aircraft; it is for dealing with our submarines. It is a fair question—I hope that that is a clear answer.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers, which have been positive and strong—it is just what this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland needs today. I welcome the news that these jets are to be procured. Having watched the Red Arrows’ intricate manoeuvres in Newtownards on Armed Forces Day last Saturday, I know that our skilled pilots are world class, and they deserve the tools to do their vital job. I recently read that the Royal Navy has regularly failed to meet recruitment targets since 2011. What can the Minister do to get boots on planes, on boats and on land by enhancing recruitment, particularly in our Royal Navy, at this very important time?
Maria Eagle
Part of our commitment to defence reform is to try to improve our procurement and acquisition to ensure that we meet our contract aspirations more quickly and to give us more control of the budget and more direct lines of accountability so that it will be clearer, if things are going wrong, that there should be intervention. The defence reform agenda that the Department is undertaking should improve our acquisition and procurement arrangements.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the rare opportunity against the run of play to follow my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) from Strangford. Mark Rutte, the NATO Secretary-General, has recently congratulated President Trump on his “decisive action in Iran”, which he says “makes us all safer”. Will the Minister take the opportunity to do what no one in government has so far done and congratulate the Americans on taking out the Iranian nuclear programme? If not, will she explain why we are out of step not only with the Americans, but also now with NATO?
Maria Eagle
I think it has been fairly clear from proceedings in the House that the Government have said that we agree that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, but that, in this instance, we are very keen that diplomacy is the way forward.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
In Armed Forces Week, I want to thank our brave servicemen and women who do so much to keep us safe. I welcome the Minister’s response to this urgent question tabled by His Majesty’s Opposition, but can she give us a cast-iron reassurance that our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent will be supported and maintained by His Majesty’s Government, and that they will not contemplate any reduction in the submarine fleet from four to three submarines, which was alarmingly floated by the third party not so long ago?
Maria Eagle
I and the Government have been very clear about our commitment to the continuous at-sea deterrent and to procuring the new Dreadnought boats and the new warhead, so I can give the hon. Member an absolute assurance on that.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
The UK has 225 warheads and a number of nuclear-capable submarines that are in a position to fire at any adversary at short notice. We are now investing in aircraft that can deploy nuclear weapons. Given that we are a signatory to the non-proliferation treaty, will that not be seen as an aggravating feature by nations that are also subscribed to it?
Maria Eagle
No, our continuous at-sea deterrent has been the policy of both governing parties for many years and that has not changed. The announcement today is about our joining the NATO nuclear mission, which carries US weapons that are already accounted for under the non-proliferation treaty. This is not about increasing the number of nuclear weapons that we hold, so it is not, therefore, a breach of the non-proliferation treaty.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
As a member of the RAF contingent of the armed forces parliamentary scheme under Wing Commander Basco Smith, may I take this opportunity to say that the application window is open for next season? If any Member has not applied to it, they should consider doing so. Recently, we visited Marham, the current home of the F-35s. Can the Minister update us on what steps have been taken to remove the risk of attack on centralised basing, and to continue to invest in alternative dispersal bases for our aircraft? While these additional frames are welcome, will the Minister confirm that they are being matched by concurrent investment in the training of pilots and additional crews in the advanced skillsets that will be required for these operations?
Maria Eagle
The hon. Gentleman is correct that one cannot just buy aircraft and not train the relevant people—whether they be pilots, engineers or ground crew—to deal with the necessity of looking after them and operating them. On the matter of security, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces made a statement the day before yesterday about the review that is being conducted into the security of our bases, and I hope that that will be reported in due course.
Points of Order
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Monday, the High Court ordered a £60,000 cap on contribution to the Government’s legal fees by campaigners seeking justice for the change in the pension age—the so-called WASPI women. This is a major breakthrough for that campaign, which has had support from across the House, including from the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), who is in his place, the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and many others. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that the ombudsman highlighted maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions, and no Government of any party have stepped up to the mark, including this one. Have you had any notice, Mr Speaker, that the Government will make a statement to the House to see whether an appropriate offer can be made to these women to end this injustice?
Mr Speaker
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I have had no notice that the Government will come to the House to make a statement. What I can say is that he has certainly put his points on the record, and I know that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what he had to say.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may remember that on 23 April, I asked a question in Prime Minister’s questions about blood donations and how people were being turned away because of low haemoglobin levels.
The week before, I had put down some parliamentary questions about diversity and blood donation deferrals. When I got the responses back, I found that up to 70% of black donors were being turned away because of low haemoglobin levels. I had wanted to raise this matter with the Minister directly in a meeting two weeks earlier. This meeting was attended by leaders from the NHS Blood and Transplant service. A few days later, they pulled the answers to the questions that I had presented to them.
NHS Blood and Transplant’s own website states that it can meet the Ro blood type only 50% of the time, which means that black blood donations are extremely important. Since 12 May—for six or seven weeks—I have been trying to get answers to my questions, which I had been told were incorrect. I have been writing to Ministers and to NHS Blood and Transplant. The best that NHSBT could do today was to send me a letter to say that it was sorry, and that it would give a response to me next week. That is outrageous. NHSBT was talking about quality of data, but if any agency should look at its quality of data—given the important service that it provides—it should be NHSBT.
I have a number of other questions as well, but NHSBT needs to understand how much everybody is doing. A few weeks ago, it was National Blood Donor Week and people across the country donated so much that the website crashed. [Interruption.] People are doing their bit, but the same cannot be said of NHSBT.
Mr Speaker
One of us will have to give way, and it will not be me.
First, let me reassure the hon. Lady that I am very, very concerned about questions not being answered in a reasonable timeframe. I think that is totally unacceptable. It is also totally unacceptable to give the wrong answers and for the Department not to take such questions seriously. I take them very seriously. I know that the hon. Lady would not bring this as a point of order if she did not have real concerns. I know that her concerns are genuine, which is something that I am very concerned about. I know that she will keep in touch with me.
I say to the hon. Lady that, after everything she has said, she should consider putting in for an Adjournment debate where this matter could be discussed more widely. I think that that would be a good way to deal with it. I am sure that the Table Office can help the hon. Lady. If answers are not forthcoming, I ask her to please come back to me, perhaps with another point of order, but I must impress on her that she should consider an Adjournment debate, because I genuinely believe that this matter needs to be aired.
I recognise that many Members, from all parts of the House, are struggling to get questions answered and to receive letters. That is not acceptable. I say to those in Government Departments that they must get on with the job that they are there to do. This is all about looking after the Back Benchers of this House.
Bills Presented
Armed Forces (Deployment Outside the UK) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Calum Miller presented a Bill to require parliamentary approval for the deployment of UK armed forces outside the UK; to provide for exemptions from that requirement in cases of emergency or in respect of compliance with treaty obligations; to make provision for retrospective parliamentary approval in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday on 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 276).
Festivals Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Max Wilkinson presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to enter into negotiations with the European Union for the purpose of agreeing a visa waiver for UK artists and musicians performing at festivals in EU member states; to make provision to facilitate the movement of artists and musicians, and of their equipment, between the EU and the UK to perform at festivals; to require the Secretary of State to publish a Festivals Strategy; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 277).
Criminal Cases Review (Public Petition)
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the general public to petition the Criminal Cases Review Commission to review sentences that the petitioners believe to be either too harsh or too lenient; to make provision about the review of such sentences; to make provision about the referral of such cases to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court; and for connected purposes.
Before looking at the provisions, I ask you, Mr Speaker, to join me in a journey of the imagination to a distant, respected democracy, where there is an elected leader, an independent judiciary that is respected and a respected legal system, and where, historically, there has been confidence among the people of this democracy in that judicial and legal system. Then imagine that a bad event occurs, and the elected leader of that distant democracy effectively instructs the judiciary to impose the harshest possible sentences on potential transgressors.
Imagine a scenario where someone in a fit of anger puts out a bad, offensive and inappropriate tweet for a few hours, then calms down, apologises and withdraws it, but because of that tweet is then charged and sentenced in a very serious way—potentially receiving a sentence of some 31 months, which might be significantly longer than the sentence given to a shoplifter, robber, mugger or drug dealer and the like. For people to have confidence in a legal system, sentences must be comparative.
Imagine that while in prison that individual is the recipient of violent maltreatment, including being manhandled to the ground and handcuffed to the point of having significant bruises five days later. Imagine that they are then being dragged up not one, not two but three flights of stairs to the naughty girls wing, when they had been a model prisoner and had been promised to be taken to the good girls wing. Mr Speaker, you may think that that must be happening in some distant democracy and cannot be valid here, but it is with regret that I must bring you back to the reality: that scenario has occurred in the United Kingdom in the last few months.
That is why I am bringing this criminal cases review Bill to the House under the ten-minute rule Bill process. It is known outside this House as Lucy’s Bill. Confidence in our judicial system and the sentences that are handed out is vital. I believe that the public want to trust our system, but justice works when it is natural, fair and decent and when the public believe that sentences are appropriate. If we lose that, potentially we lose everything.
We are all human, and even noble, experienced and wise judges can get things wrong, and there is a system of appeal. But the provisions of the Bill are so important because maybe the public would have ever more confidence in a vibrant democracy and our justice system if there were some kind of treble check, with safeguards over sentences, but without being able to impinge on the original judgment following a case. Let us say that 500 members of the public sign a petition to ask the Criminal Cases Review Commission to reconsider a sentence, and the commission, within eight weeks, felt that the sentence was too lenient or too harsh, it could then be referred to an appropriate court.
That would give people extra trust and confidence in the fairness of our system and the comparative appropriateness of sentences. I believe that people would then feel that this is a democracy and a justice system that works for all, with the appropriate safeguards. It is for that reason that I bring the Bill to the House. I believe that it is worthy of further debate and consideration.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Richard Tice, Nigel Farage, Lee Anderson, Sarah Pochin and James McMurdock present the Bill.
Richard Tice accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 275).
Criminal Justice
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Justice Committee to open the debate.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this important debate on the spending of the Ministry of Justice on criminal justice.
An effective criminal justice system is vital to the proper functioning of a democratic society. An ineffective criminal justice system presents grave risks for both social and economic stability. We are at a pivotal moment for the health of our criminal justice system, with prisons operating at close to full capacity, coupled with a backlog in the Crown courts of over 74,000 cases. Investment and reform are required.
The Ministry of Justice suffered some of the most severe budget cuts of any Department during the years of Tory austerity. In 2023-24, its resource expenditure level was 11% less in real terms than it had been in 2010-11. I therefore welcome the Labour Government’s investment in the criminal justice system, announced through the main estimates and the spending review. The main estimates confirmed that the MOJ’s day-to-day spending is set to increase by £793 million or 6.5%, which includes further investment in the Prison and Probation Service and the Courts and Tribunals Service. The MOJ’s investment capital spending is also set to increase by £351 million or over 20%, largely driven by investment in creating new prison places and major projects to maintain court capacity and invest in digital systems and security measures.
The spending review also announced £7 billion to be allocated between 2024-25 and 2029-30 to support the delivery of 14,000 urgently needed new prison places by 2031, and an increase of up to £700 million a year for the Probation Service by 2028-29 compared with 2025-26. This is especially important given the recommendations made by David Gauke’s independent sentencing review, which I will come to in a moment. The spending review also announced up to £450 million a year of additional investment for the courts system by 2028-29, aimed at increasing Crown court sitting days and implementing the forthcoming recommendations from Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of the criminal courts, which is set to deliver its first report next month.
Combining the estimates and the spending review presents a largely positive picture for investment in the MOJ. The estimate for resource expenditure in 2025-26 is 14% more than the spending plans for 2024-25. This increase may help to offset some of the underfunding that the Department was subject to in the 2010s. The estimate for capital expenditure in 2025-26 is 32% more than the plans for the year 2024-25. This will be a record high level of capital expenditure for the MOJ over the course of a financial year. It remains to be seen whether the funding will be enough to address the challenges that the criminal justice system faces.
In the interests of time, I will focus on three key areas: prisons and probation, the courts and legal aid. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service is the largest body within the MOJ in terms of expenditure. It makes up 47% of the MOJ’s day-to-day spending budget and in the 2025-26 main estimate will make up 82% of its planned capital spending. The prison population has more than doubled over the last 30 years and stands at around 88,000. It continues to grow year on year and is at a record high. If things continue as they are, the prison population will be at 93,500 by September 2026 and over 100,000 by September 2028, and there will not be sufficient places.
The MOJ cites the following reasons for the increase: an increase in police charging activity and flow into the courts; an increase in people on remand, who now make up an astonishing 20% of the prison population; and changes in sentencing policy, which keeps the more serious offenders in prison for much longer.
I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s commitment to build 14,000 prison places by 2031, and I hope that will ensure that emergency measures such as SDS40, which last year saw prisoners released automatically having served 40% of their sentences, do not have to be used again. In the context of the prison capacity crisis, the Government commissioned a sentencing review, which reported last month, by David Gauke, who gave evidence to the Committee last week. Many of the review’s recommendations have been accepted in principle by the Government. They include a recommendation for a new model of sentencing called the “earned progression model”, which could see some prisoners serving fixed-term sentences released after a third of their sentence, dependent on their behaviour. That recommendation and others in the review are aimed at making greater use of non-custodial sentences and therefore attempting to reduce the prison population. I look forward to seeing the detail of how those recommendations will be implemented in the forthcoming sentencing Bill.
Non-custodial sentences will place an additional burden on the already struggling Probation Service, to which I will turn. But, before I do that, could I issue a cautionary note? Even if David Gauke’s recommendations are wholly successful, prisons will still be full, and that has unintended consequences. It means, for example, that prisoners have to be slotted into places where those become available, and rehabilitation is more difficult. As Sky News reported recently, some prisoners are put into lower category prisons—category C and D prisons—years before they should be with regard to their sentence planning, and the prisoner escort service, which is already in a pretty parlous state, often brings prisoners late to court because it is not available at local prisons. Therefore, anything that can be done for effective community punishment and rehabilitation is clearly good.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
With 80% of offenders being reoffenders, does that not show that our current system is really broken and that we need a different approach? Does my hon. Friend agree that we have an opportunity with the sentencing review to keep our communities safer by properly addressing reoffending?
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend, who is knowledgeable on these issues, is absolutely right. We are relying on the implementation of the Gauke review’s recommendations to do two things: to ensure there is capacity in the prisons for the growing number of people being sentenced in our courts; and, in the longer term, to reduce prisoner numbers through effective rehabilitation. That can take place in prisons—not in overcrowded prisons on the whole —but it can take place more effectively in the community by way of getting people back into normal daily life, which prison certainly is not.
In that vein, let me turn to the Probation Service, which will receive an additional £700 million a year to support the reforms in the sentencing review. That is a substantial increase in funding, which is intended to enable probation to supervise more people in the community and expand electronic tagging.
The Probation Service currently manages 240,000 individuals on court order or licence. Worryingly, in last year’s annual report, HM inspectorate of probation labelled 10 local probation services as “requires improvement” and 14 as “inadequate”. It identified staffing challenges, unmanageable workloads, deficits in casework and insufficient management of risk, public protection and safeguarding. However, it also found outstanding statutory victim work, commitment and vision from staff and some good partnership working. The Committee has seen that itself on its visit to probation services.
I will however raise my concern about the ability of Serco, the current electronic tagging provider, to deal with the dramatic increase in demand on its services that will inevitably result from the sentencing Bill. The Committee has been in frequent correspondence with the Prisons Minister to raise our concerns regarding Serco’s poor performance, which has also been highlighted by Channel 4 and its “Dispatches” programme.
The Committee has identified several issues with management of the tagging contract, including substantial delays to the fitting of tags, even to serious offenders. We were shocked to learn that financial penalties have been levied on Serco every month since it took on the service in May 2024. It is unclear how Serco will be able to deal with increased demand given its unacceptable performance in managing the electronic tagging service at its current level.
I turn briefly to conditions in the prison estate. In 2023, HM chief inspector of prisons Charlie Taylor said that one in 10 prisons should be closed down. He stated that about 14 Victorian jails were so poorly designed, overcrowded and ill-equipped that they could not provide proper accommodation for prisoners. Last year, 63% of prisoners reported overcrowding. That is often with two or more prisoners in a cell that was designed for one person, with no private toilet facilities.
Drugs are an increasing problem in prisons. The Committee has covered that extensively in its “Tackling drugs in prisons” inquiry, which is due to report shortly. Between April 2023 and April 2024, almost 50,000 adults aged 18 and over were in alcohol and drug treatment in prisons and secure settings, which was a 7% rise compared with the previous year. In the 12 months to December 2024, there were 10,600 assaults on prison staff—violence is also on the increase in prison, which is partly a result of the unpredictable environment created by the abundance of drugs available—which is equivalent to 122 assaults per 1,000 prisoners, an increase of 13% from the previous year and the highest number of assaults on prison staff recorded in one year. The use of force by prison officers and rates of self-harm among prisoners have also been increasing in recent years. Self-harm was 10% higher in 2024 than in 2023.
Overcrowding, increased drug use, violence and self-harm contribute towards a distressing environment in prisons such that the vital function of prisons to rehabilitate offenders can be almost impossible in some institutions. We are undertaking a major inquiry into rehabilitation and resettlement, which I hope will shed more light on these troubling pictures.
Beyond all that, we have the continuing scandal of IPP prisoners—those imprisoned for public protection. I recommend to the Minister the proposals published this week by the Howard League on a new approach to IPP prisoners, which would serve to reduce the numbers continuing in custody substantially.
Let me turn to His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, which is the second-largest body in the MOJ. In the Government’s main estimate for 2025-26, spending on HMCTS accounted for 21% of planned resource spending and 12% of capital spending. The current backlog of outstanding cases in the Crown court stands at about 4,000. That is a result of a number of factors, one of which is the shortage of criminal lawyers, driven by low legal aid pay rates and poor working conditions. The backlog in the courts is detrimental to the lives of thousands of people. Victims, witnesses and defendants alike are forced to wait in limbo for justice.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about court backlogs. Another factor is having the appropriate magistrates, legal advisers and so on to hear these cases. The Magistrates’ Association has raised concerns that the spending review allocation is insufficient to tackle that. Does he share those concerns?
Andy Slaughter
I do share those concerns. I want to take only a few more minutes with my speech, so I do not have time to go into what is happening in the magistrates courts as well—that is a debate for another day—but the shortage of magistrates, the shortage of legal clerks and low pay rates across HMCTS are clearly some of the factors that prevent us from getting to grips with the backlog, even though I have no doubt the Government wish to do that.
I welcome the Lord Chancellor’s allocation of 110,000 sitting days in the Crown court for 2025-26: the highest sitting-day allocation made since HMCTS was created and the biggest financial settlement ever made for the Crown court. I hope that that is enough to bring about some reduction in the backlog. However, I note that the allocation is below the 113,000 days that the Lady Chief Justice told the Committee the Crown court could sit for in the last financial year, and there have been similar increases in sitting days for other courts, including the magistrates court, which will sit for up to 114,000 days a year.
The Government have acknowledged that the allocation of days is not enough on its own to severely reduce the backlog in the Crown courts and that more radical reform is required. I therefore welcome Sir Brian Leveson’s independent review of criminal courts, which will propose options for both short and long-term reforms aimed at ensuring cases are dealt with proportionately in the light of current pressures on the Crown court and explore how the courts could operate as efficiently as possible. I look forward to the first report of the review, which is due to be published next month.
I will briefly touch on the role of the Legal Aid Agency. In terms of expenditure, the LAA is the third largest body within MOJ. Its day-to-day budget was around £0.9 billion, which comprised 8% of the MOJ’s total resource budget. Between 2009-10 and 2023-24, resource expenditure on legal aid decreased by 2% in cash terms and by 31% in real terms. I was surprised to see that the spending review did not include a specific funding allocation for the Legal Aid Agency; the only reference to it was in the context of potential efficiency savings that the MOJ will make in the review period.
Concerns have been raised about the sustainability of the criminal legal aid sector, given the number of legal aid firms and of solicitors and barristers practising in this area. In March 2025, the Law Society said that the number of criminal duty solicitors had fallen by 26% since 2017 and that that may, in future,
“leave many individuals unable to access their right to a solicitor and free advice.”
Even though I welcome the MOJ’s announcements in December 2024 of an additional £92 million per year for criminal aid solicitors, and I look forward to seeing the results of its consultation on that, it may well not be enough. Indeed, the 15% uplift in criminal barristers’ fees as a consequence of the Bellamy review took so long to come in and was so far overtaken by other increases in cost that that again needs to be looked at in the near future if we are to sustain the criminal Bar.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the lack of legal aid solicitors and barristers will only compound the problems of the court backlog? That is because cases will either have to be adjourned as a consequence of lack of legal counsel or they will take longer when defendants appear without legal counsel because those defendants will need more time and support from the court and other court services. Is my hon. Friend concerned about that?
Andy Slaughter
That is already happening. Non-availability of counsel, whether Crime Prosecution Service or defence counsel, is already one of the main reasons for ineffective trials. I therefore hope we will hear something about that and the Government’s plans to alleviate it when the Minister responds.
I briefly mention the cyber-attack that the Legal Aid Agency was subject to in April. The attack revealed serious concerns about the robustness of Government-managed digital services and the protection of sensitive data, and holds risks for the day-to-day operation of the justice system. We need the further statement that the Courts Minister promised on the steps being taken to recover that position—not today, perhaps, but soon—and the Committee will conduct its own inquiry into access to justice, beginning with a call to evidence this summer.
I reemphasise the importance of the role the criminal justice system plays in the proper functioning of our society. Out of sight should not be out of mind, in that respect. I appreciate the steps that this Government are taking and the struggle and the tasks that they have going forward. However, there is so much to do that we need to get on with it in a speedy fashion.
Finally, let me thank all those who work in the criminal justice system: those who risk their lives and their safety as frontline prison officers and probation officers, and those who keep the system running—judges, barristers and court staff. Across the piece, we see people going above and beyond because of the situation in which the system has been left. I am sure this is one point that will unite both sides of the House: we all appreciate the work that goes on every day to keep people safe and to ensure that justice is done.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Chancellor substantially increased the budget of the Ministry of Justice in the spending review from £11.9 billion in 2023-24 to £15.6 billion in 2028-29. We are told that that is a real-terms increase of 3.1% over five years. It is our duty in this place not just to applaud ever larger sums of money being spent, but to scrutinise whether that money is spent well and to ensure it represents good value for money for the taxpayer. There is no question but that the criminal justice system is under strain. I trust the Lord Chancellor will do her best to ensure that she uses the money wisely to fix the various problems the Chairman of the Select Committee has described.
One of the biggest problems facing the criminal justice system is the Crown court backlog. As of the end of 2024, almost 75,000 cases were awaiting trial. That is an increase on the figure when the Lord Chancellor took office and it is projected to rise further. Justice delayed is justice denied. Witnesses’ memories fade and victims feel that they have been forgotten. I appreciate that much of that rise was caused by the pandemic, and we are still dealing with the fallout, but the Lord Chancellor must do more to reduce that backlog.
Although there is more money for the courts as part of the spending review, we need to ensure it is effectively deployed. The Government say it is a priority, yet we still have empty courtrooms. When the Lady Chief Justice came to Parliament last November, she offered 6,500 additional sitting days. Will the Minister explain why the Lord Chancellor did not accept every single one of the extra days offered? The Lord Chancellor must use the additional money she has been given to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of both the Crown and magistrates courts, and to reduce the backlogs.
The justice system also faces a lack of prison spaces. The Gauke review, commissioned by the Lord Chancellor, has effectively recommended the ending of short prison sentences in favour of community sentences. About half of admissions to prison are for sentences of less than 12 months. The Howard League says that about 30,000 people a year are sentenced to six months or less. Setting aside for one moment whether that is the right policy, which I doubt, if it is implemented by the Government it will require a very large increase in the number of probation officers.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
My hon. Friend talks about probation and prison places. Does he share my concern that it is all very well for the Government to announce £7 billion to deliver prison places by 2031, which is six years away, while 16,000 prisoners are walking the streets because they were released earlier by this Government? What will happen in the next six years? Will more prisoners be released early while we wait for those prison places?
Sir Ashley Fox
The danger is that the public lose confidence in the criminal justice system if prisoners are released so early. As I mentioned, there is already a shortfall of nearly 2,000 probation officers. In fact, there are now 200 fewer probation officers than when Labour took office. If the Government intend to go ahead with this plan, we need to know how they plan to recruit the additional probation officers that they will need. What is their plan? If they go ahead with abolishing short sentences, those community sentences will have to be seen by the public to be really tough and worthwhile if the criminal justice system is to retain confidence. I fear that the Government do not have a plan for that. Although we see more money allocated in the budget for prison and probation services, we do not get any detail about what that means for the recruitment of those extra probation officers. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that point.
I also ask the Government to look at other methods of alleviating the strain on prison places that do not involve additional expenditure—for example, deporting foreign national offenders. There are currently 11,000 foreign offenders in our prisons, but our record on deporting them remains poor. Only 3,500 were deported last year, and too many are still able to avoid deportation by using the European convention on human rights. This needs to change. The Government have said that they will review the right to family life being used in appeals in serious cases related to asylum seekers who have been convicted of sexual offences. I welcome that, but we need to go much further. We should deport all foreign national offenders at the end of their sentences and disapply the Human Rights Act.
The obvious way to ensure that we have enough prison spaces in the longer term is to build more prisons. During the general election campaign, Labour promised to build 20,000 additional places, but in the year since the Government took office, little progress has been made, and it was recently revealed that they have actually cut hundreds of millions of pounds from the capital budget to cover the cost of pay increases for staff and the imposition of the Chancellor’s jobs tax.
It is always tempting to welcome an increase to a Department’s budget, but we need to ensure that the spending is matched by proper accountability and planning. We cannot afford for this new funding to be simply absorbed by justice bureaucracy. Will the Minister explain how much of the extra money that his Department has been allocated will go in additional national insurance charges, wage rises and inflation? It is simply not credible to make countless promises in opposition or on the campaign trail, only to quietly shelve them when in office. The Opposition will hold the Government to account for the commitments they have given.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I thank my good friend, the Chair of the Justice Committee, for his excellent speech and for securing this debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in it and I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for miscarriages of justice. I welcome the estimate and the commitment in the spending review, but I want to focus my remarks on an area of grave concern: Ministry of Justice spending on criminal justice—and, more specifically, the adequate prevention and correction of miscarriages of justice.
What is the value of justice if innocent people are still being convicted, imprisoned and left to rot in our criminal justice system? The sad truth is that for all the billions we debate today, the Ministry is failing in one of its most fundamental duties: ensuring that innocent people are protected from wrongful conviction and supported when the system fails them. Miscarriages of justice are not theoretical; they are real and ongoing, and they destroy lives.
Andrew Malkinson was wrongfully imprisoned for 17 years for a crime he did not commit. He was exonerated last year, but only after a tortuous journey through a system that was more interested in protecting itself than uncovering the truth. Peter Sullivan, wrongfully convicted of murder, spent 38 years in prison before being exonerated only last month. He is a victim of the longest miscarriage of justice involving a living prisoner in British legal history. These cases expose deep systemic flaws and happened in plain sight, but across the country individuals are experiencing criminalisation and injustice without proper recourse. Their names do not always make the headlines, but their stories are no less important. Miscarriages of justice are not rare accidents; sadly, they are now an inevitable consequence of a failing system stripped of its checks and balances.
At the heart of that system is the Criminal Cases Review Commission—a body that was designed to be the safety net, to identify where the system had gone wrong and to help innocent people find justice. Yet the CCRC is in crisis. In May, the Justice Committee published a damning indictment of its leadership and performance. It stated that the CCRC had shown
“a remarkable inability to learn from its own mistakes”
and that it had “deteriorated significantly” in its ability to fulfil its vital function. The Committee concluded that “root and branch reform” is required, and it is found in the clearest possible terms that it was untenable for the current chief executive Karen Kneller to remain in post. That is not political rhetoric; it is a cross-party Committee of this House carrying out its scrutiny function and reaching deeply troubling conclusions.
The CCRC’s failures come at a terrible cost, not only to those wrongfully convicted but to public confidence in the rule of law. Every year that it fails to identify miscarriages, innocent people remain behind bars, their lives on hold or, worse, permanently destroyed. But I also want to acknowledge a step in the right direction. I welcome the appointment of Dame Vera Baird KC as the interim chair of the CCRC. Dame Vera has a long and respected record of championing justice and accountability. I hope her leadership marks a turning point, and I look forward to seeing real progress, not just in leadership, but in culture, performance and independence. For that to happen, the Government must take these responsibilities seriously. Reform cannot come on the cheap. The CCRC must be properly resourced and empowered to do the job it was created to do, because until we properly fund our safeguard, miscarriages of justice will continue, the human cost will remain unbearable and the financial cost unsustainable.
I also want to touch on two areas critical to justice: legal aid and forensic sciences. Since 2010, funding has been slashed by hundreds of millions of pounds, and access to justice and representation is now a postcode lottery. We are seeing the collapse of criminal defence provision across England and Wales. There are now entire areas with no local legal aid solicitors, which disproportionately affects those from marginalised groups—those most vulnerable to miscarriages of justice.
Forensic science, which was once the gold standard, has been fragmented and degraded. A three-year inquiry into forensics set up by the APPG for miscarriages of justice recently concluded that the sector is in a “graveyard spiral”, leading to poor police investigations, increasing numbers of unsolved crimes and more wrongful convictions. Evidence shows that our system continues to fail to ensure not only the prevention of miscarriages of justice, but their speedy identification and resolution when they do occur. We support calls for a full national audit of forensic provision to access the urgent support needed to prevent further decline and to protect future investigations and trials from preventable failure.
Let me turn to prisons and the chronic underfunding that is failing staff and those in custody. At the justice unions parliamentary group yesterday, I heard at first hand about the crisis in prison education. According to Ofsted, 82% of prisons and young offender institutions are rated “inadequate” or “requires improvement” for education, skills and work provision. Prison educators are paid less than their counterparts in the wider further education sector. The Education Committee warned in 2022 that poor pay, unsafe working environments and a lack of respect have driven a recruitment and retention crisis. That is unacceptable. Education is one of the most powerful tools for rehabilitation, yet we are underfunding and undervaluing the very people delivering it.
The same is true of prison maintenance. Privatisation has been a costly failure. Basic repairs remain undone, squalor is widespread and the maintenance backlog is estimated to cost nearly £2 billion. I support the POA’s “Bring it Back” campaign for insourcing prison maintenance. The promised biggest wave of insourcing in a generation must start here. In our crumbling prisons, where contracts have failed, conditions are decaying and dangerous for both staff and prisoners. I also support the POA’s campaign on retirement age. Asking officers to work until they are 68 in such a high-stress, high-risk environment is simply unsustainable. Sixty-eight is simply too late.
We are debating how to spend £18 billion in the Ministry of Justice, but money alone is not the issue; it is about priorities. If the very foundations of justice are crumbling, every other investment is undermined. The criminal justice system continues to fail innocent people. Chronic underfunding has rendered safeguards weak and ineffective. Leadership has been absent where it was most needed, and time and again the system refuses to admit it when it gets things wrong.
Miscarriages of justice are not tragic accidents. They are the inevitable consequence of a system that is under-resourced, poorly led and structurally resistant to scrutiny. Every wrongful conviction is not just a personal tragedy, but a betrayal of our legal system and the values it claims to uphold. Justice denied to one is justice denied to all.
Let us invest not just in buildings, but in truth; not just in processes, but in people. Above all, let us put real justice—not convenience or cost-cutting—at the heart of everything the Ministry of Justice does.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
I rise to speak as the Member of Parliament for Colchester and as a member of the Justice Committee. I also declare an interest as the recently elected chair of the all-party group on penal affairs.
The estimate for the Ministry of Justice proposes a 6.5% increase in day-to-day spending and a 20.8% increase in capital investment. Those are welcome figures. They are necessary because this Government inherited from the previous Government a crisis across the criminal justice system: in our courts, our prisons and our probation services.
Let us begin with our courts. As my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee outlined, the Crown Court backlog stands at more than 74,000 cases—double the number in 2019. Victims are waiting years for justice. The increase in sitting days and the investment in digital infrastructure are a necessary first step. As a member of the Select Committee, I have visited our courts where dedicated public servants are working hard, despite the challenges, to deliver justice for victims. We need bold reform, and I look forward to the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson’s review later this year. We all hope that they will indeed be bold. The justice system too often appears to be stuck in a bygone age.
In our prisons, we all see the failures of the last Government laid bare: failure to plan for the long term in prison places, failure to rehabilitate prisoners, and failure to prevent reoffending. The prison population now exceeds 87,000, with projections of more than 100,000 prisoners by 2028. Overcrowding is rife, with 24% of prisoners held in crowded conditions. The maintenance backlog has ballooned to £1.8 billion. There cannot be effective rehabilitation in a prison system that is so overcrowded.
Time and again, the Select Committee has heard about poor contract management, and a failure around transparency and value for money across a range of contracts, from education to maintenance to drug and alcohol services. I hope that the Procurement Act 2023 will tighten up those essential processes. The Act has to be fit for purpose. If procurement is not fit for purpose, prisons will not be fit for purpose.
The Government’s 10-year prison capacity strategy promises 14,000 new places, compared with just 500 under the last Government over those 14 wasted years. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) said, we cannot just build our way out of this crisis. We need a smarter approach to sentencing and rehabilitation. I welcome the Justice Secretary’s commitment to the earned progression model and the expansion of community-based alternatives. Earned progression must be matched with access to decent prison programmes, health, education, wellbeing and so on, so that progression is indeed earned and helps offenders to turn their life around, thereby protecting the public and victims from harm.
Those reforms must be matched by investment in probation. The Probation Service is under severe strain, with many local services rated as inadequate and staff turnover still too high. The £700 million earmarked for probation reform is a start, but we must ensure that it delivers real, measurable improvements in reoffending rates.
Expenditure on legal aid is down 31% in real terms since 2010. That hollows out access to justice. The recent commitments to increasing funding for solicitors and youth court work are welcome, but I echo Labour colleagues’ comments that we need to go further on legal aid where possible. A justice system that works only for those who can afford it is no justice system at all.
The estimate reflects a Government who recognise the scale of the challenge. The Secretary of State and her ministerial team have worked hard to deliver the increase in funding. The last Government lost control of the courts, prisons and probation. These measures will go some way towards putting that right so that we can all have faith in our justice system again.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
I, too, am a member of the Justice Committee. I am also a former prosecutor who worked in the criminal justice system.
Today is an opportunity not only to examine the Ministry of Justice’s estimates for the coming year, but to assess whether our criminal justice system is being resourced to meet the scale of the challenges it faces and to make our communities safer. I want to talk about the sentencing review and its impact on resourcing, especially for the Probation Service.
We inherited a system that was on the brink of collapse. The 2024 report on prison population growth revealed that England and Wales had the highest per capita prison population in western Europe. Our Government had to respond to that crisis immediately on entering into office. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary’s temporary early release scheme was a difficult but necessary decision to protect the justice system from breaking altogether, and to ensure that dangerous offenders were not turned away from the courts due to lack of space.
Joe Robertson
The hon. Member referred to the early release scheme as temporary. Is she 100% confident that it is a temporary scheme, and that the Government will not release more prisoners over the next few years?
Linsey Farnsworth
We inherited a particularly drastic situation, which will not be turned around overnight. The Minister will speak on behalf of the Government, but I expect the Government to make these difficult decisions until we are in a better position. That may have to be reviewed in due course. I do not speak for the Government, but I trust them to ensure that the public are safe and that there are places available, by whatever means, so that dangerous criminals can be put in jail.
We must move beyond crisis management. This mission-driven Labour Government are investing to deliver 14,000 new prison places by 2031. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) was right to point out that that contrasts starkly with the 500 prison places that the previous Government created in 14 years. However, it is clear that the solution to overcrowding cannot simply be to build more prisons, but instead lies in breaking the cycle of reoffending.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
As a member of the Select Committee, you will want to be accurate in what you say about prison places—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Dr Mullan, there is no “you” in the Chamber; you are talking through the Chair.
Linsey Farnsworth
I recognise that prison places were created, but we are talking in net terms, and net, there were 500 extra places. [Interruption.] We are certainly not happy with only 500 places, net, over 14 years. That is why this Government are taking action to increase prison places in real terms.
We must sort out the cycle of reoffending, which places a massive strain on the system. Almost 60% of those receiving a prison sentence of 12 months or less reoffended within a year, and in those instances, focusing on what happens after a crime has been committed is the best way to prevent future offending. We do not need a justice system that is bigger; we need one that is fairer and more effective. Our ambition and reforms to make our streets safer cannot be achieved by enforcement alone. They must be backed by proper sustained funding, particularly to support the Probation Service, which is at the heart of a functioning and fair justice system.
That takes me back to a project in Nottingham that I was proud to be involved with in the early 2000s. It was the community justice initiative under the last Labour Government’s “respect” agenda—yes, I am that old, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. For the record, I did not comment on the lady’s age.
Linsey Farnsworth
Indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for the fact that you did not; I am very conscious of my age myself. The community justice initiative brought the community into the justice process. It allowed community impact statements to be made for certain offences, such as antisocial behaviour, and took a holistic approach to sentencing. It aimed to tackle drivers of offending, including drug misuse, unemployment, and poor education. Although the initiative worked, it was unfortunately short-lived because it lacked the resources and funding that would have made it sustainable in the longer term.
Just like the community justice initiative, the reforms set out in the first year of this Government offer enormous promise. I do not have a crystal ball and do not claim to see into the future, but as we look ahead to the Ministry of Justice’s prescribed spending for the following year, it seems that, as ever, two possible scenarios are before us. In the first we learn from the past; in the second, we repeat its mistakes. Let me be clear: we cannot allow history to repeat itself, and we must not allow ourselves to return to crisis point because we are unable to resource initiatives that will help us to reform the justice system.
As a prosecutor, I saw the same individuals pass through the courts again and again. I saw how the cycle of reoffending devastated lives, clogged up courts, and cost the taxpayer millions. I therefore wholeheartedly welcome the shift from short prison sentences, which are proven to do little to reduce reoffending, towards community sentences, which get to the root of the offending behaviour. I am pleased that we have a research-based sentencing review, through which we can work to reduce the problem and tackle the causes of crime, but that work must be financed in a sustained manner if it is to succeed.
The Probation Service is at a crossroads, and its future will be decided by the adequacy of resourcing, staffing, and funding. The Government have promised that it will receive an increase by 2028-29 of up to £700 million to support the reforms set out in the independent sentencing review, and the Minister responsible for prisons, parole and probation has set a target to recruit 1,300 probation staff in the next year. The Ministry of Justice’s budget for 2025-26 shows other welcome increases, including nearly £800 million more for day-to-day spending, £523 million of which is allocated to prisons and probation, and a huge 32% increase in capital expenditure.
The justice system has suffered from years of underfunding and under-resourcing, which has resulted in overcrowding and overburdening. Justice reform is about protecting communities, supporting victims, and giving offenders the opportunity to transform their life and reintegrate into society. If we are to avoid a return to the crisis we inherited, the Probation Service must receive the resources that it desperately needs.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
We who knock on doors week in, week out, know all too well the trend that has grown in recent years; every display of incompetence, every proof of national decline, and every sign of political self-interest from the Conservatives has damaged—indeed, hollowed out—public trust in the ability of our democracy to get things done. The public have had their fill, and in few other policy areas, and with no other political party, have they seen such incompetence, such decline, and such self-interest as with the criminal justice system and the Conservatives. It was the Conservatives who melted our criminal justice system, and the Conservatives who lost control of the security of our communities. It was the Conservatives who clung to hopeless policies. Indeed, it is not an exaggeration to say that in crashing the criminal justice system, the Conservatives did more harm to our country’s faith in democracy, and the ability of the state to get things done, than we can ever know or quantify.
I do not exaggerate that, because when I knock on doors I hear that when people ring the police, they cannot get them to attend. When they submit crime reports, they do not hear back, and they feel that there is an absence of visible policing on their streets. That is the inheritance that the Conservatives gave the Labour Government. There is a hopelessness in our politics, and we need to reckon with that reality. Our courts are clogged, victims are waiting years for justice, police officers are stretched to the limit, legal aid is hollowed out, and communities feel unsafe and unheard. Shoplifting, antisocial behaviour, and the illegal use of e-scooters and e-bikes are examples that people in our communities raise of local decline, and they say that there are too few police to respond to those issues. This is not just a matter of law and order; it is a matter of fairness, decency and safety.
This Labour Government have a challenge: to put right a criminal justice system that was fundamentally broken—[Interruption.] When I see that Opposition Members are here in such few numbers, and are laughing at what I say, it is really disheartening.
Dr Mullan
I gently point out that the hon. Gentleman might consider the ratio of Labour Members to Conservative Members, and look at how many people are on the Conservative Benches and on the Labour Benches. We can be pretty proud of our showing, compared to that of Government Members.
Tom Hayes
That is so wide of the mark. It is unsurprising that the Conservatives are floundering in polls and so unwelcome in our communities. We can and must regain public trust in our criminal justice system, and in the ability of our democracy to do things. We want a criminal justice system that works for everyone and protects the public, that respects victims, and that rehabilitates offenders where that is possible, and where that is not possible, locks people up for the appropriate amount of time. We want a system that protects the Probation Service and our prison officers, and ensures that we are truly able to be a secure country again.
I welcome the announcement that our Labour Government will provide 13,000 more police officers, with 40 going to my area. I welcome the fact that we are tackling court backlogs by creating more sitting days; those who work in the court system across Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole have privately told me that they welcome that. We must champion victims’ rights. Having run a domestic abuse service for five years before my election, that particularly matters to me, and I know that many colleagues across the House care passionately about tackling domestic violence, as well as rebuilding our youth services. Having run a mental health and domestic abuse service, I know the importance of the third sector. I plead with the Minister to ensure that the third sector has a role in our thinking about how we can rehabilitate those who can be rehabilitated.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that important point. Will he join me in acknowledging the excellent work of organisations such as Futures Unlocked in Rugby? I recently met John Powell, its operations manager, as well as its trustees and volunteers. Those small charities do so much work to help ex-prisoners transition to life outside prison. I was hugely impressed. They often do work that the Probation Service cannot do, despite its best efforts, after 14 years of underfunding under the previous Government.
Tom Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for that really important point. I welcome the work of the charity and the charities in his area, as I welcome the work of charities in all our areas. He puts his finger on the issue.
Charities are able to do things that the Probation Service is not. They can create trust in people and refer that trust on to statutory services. They can provide bespoke support that treats individuals as human beings seeking education and skills training, employment support, mental health and addiction support, housing assistance and peer support—in some cases the most powerful support. In providing that bespoke support, charities can help not just to reduce offending rates and rehabilitate and get people into work, but to bring down crime rates and the cost to the public purse of our criminal justice system.
I will say one point on that issue: we need to recognise the link between poverty, exclusion and offending rates. I want to be very clear that that is not to say people who grow up in disadvantage ought to commit crime, but we need to recognise what the evidence shows. There is a correlation and a causation, and as a Government we therefore need to tackle the root causes of poverty and exclusion. In so doing, we can tackle the reasons why people may offend.
I thank the Minister for what he is about to say, which I am sure will be excellent, and I thank hon. Members for their contributions. If our democracy feels fragile, it is because of the record of the last Government in this area. If our democracy is to recover, it will be because of the prompt and proportionate action that I believe this Government will take, building on the action that they have taken to truly address the challenges we face. The British people know what they want—they tell us often enough. It is our job to listen and provide the competence, progress and better outcomes that they are crying out for.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), working with the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), for making the pitch to the Backbench Business Committee to secure this debate. I join him in thanking the incredible staff who work across our criminal justice system. If I may, I will add that charities such as the incredible abandofbrothers in Eastbourne work with young ex-offenders across my hometown to tackle crime.
As has been documented in this Chamber today, the last Government left our criminal justice system in a state. Our prisons were left in crisis and overcrowded, with increases in violence and self-harm incidents at their highest since records began. Our probation services were left high and dry, with an electronic tagging contract that left offenders with violent convictions unmonitored for far too long. Our courts were left dealing with staggeringly high backlogs, with tens of thousands of open cases and victims waiting months and even years for justice. As has been mentioned by hon. Members, reoffending is through the roof, with 80% of people in our prisons being reoffenders. That is a symbol of more crime, more victims and more misery and harm. That carries an enormous price tag, with reoffending costing society more than £18 billion a year.
The consequences of that dire set of circumstances have been plain for us all to see; I saw them myself when I worked in this space before being elected to this House. I spent my career supporting young ex-offenders out of crime and out of gangs in the east end—very far from Eastbourne in many different ways. I remember working with a particular young person. I said to him ahead of his first day of work with us to come in wearing some smart trousers, and he did not know what I meant. He said, “Josh, do you mean court trousers?” What a sad state of affairs it is when a young person in our country has grown up more accustomed to the criminal justice system than to our education system. I am afraid that is a legacy of the last Government.
I remember working with another young person who went into a young offenders’ institution that was notorious for its issues with violence. He was working with us as a phone repair technician before he went in. He came back when he came out of that institution, except he came missing a finger as a result of some of the things going on in that place. Again, some of our institutions are out of control.
As a victim, I have experienced what it is like to wait for years to have a case heard through an adversarial criminal justice system that seeks to beat down victims, as opposed to supporting them to rise up. That needs to change. Giving credit where it is due, I welcome the investment that this Government are making in our criminal justice systems through the spending review, but that investment is not a silver bullet, and it might not go far enough to right the wrongs of the past: it must be accompanied by reform.
There is no mention in the spending review specifically of investing in our crumbling courts, which cause so much inefficiency and cost our system, victims and justice. As the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) mentioned earlier in the debate, the Magistrates’ Association has been particularly concerned about the lack of mention of funding for legal advisers in magistrates courts. The lack thereof is resulting in one in 10 sittings being cancelled.
While investment in creating new prison places has been announced, the spending review features no reference to extra funding for women’s centres—an alternative to custody—despite David Gauke recommending that in his independent review and charities such as Working Chance telling us that women’s centres are often at least 10 times more effective at reducing reoffending and are more cost-effective than the prison system. Although we welcome the £700 million committed to the Probation Service, it is critical, as per the demands of Women’s Aid, that some of that cash goes towards mandatory training for probation officers as far as recognising domestic abuse and protecting survivors of domestic abuse is concerned.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
On that point, we are clear that the money that goes into the probation system may not be enough to deal with the scale of the added pressures on the probation system. I think the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), talked about contract management. The example of Serco is a really good one; there will be so much more reliance on electronic tagging. Will the money actually allow that to happen?
Josh Babarinde
I agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes. This is about much more than just the spend: it is about the efficiency of the spend. Taxpayers deserve far better than what they are getting at the moment from the Serco contract, under which, as I said earlier, many offenders are being left without the proper, robust monitoring that victims, survivors and our communities need and deserve.
Let me come on to reoffending. The Gauke review offered many recommendations to unlock supply in our prisons, but it was fairly light on what can be done to stem the demand going into our prisons. Preventing crime and reoffending was the Cinderella of his review. It may be out of scope in some respects, but it is critical that our criminal justice system is reformed in a holistic way. That is the true means of being able to make our criminal justice system more efficient.
When it comes to victims and survivors, commitments around reversing the damaging impact of the national insurance increases for employers were missing from the spending review. Victims’ charities have written to me to say that the increase in those taxes, as well as cuts to police and crime commissioner core budgets, are tantamount to a 7% real-terms cut in their budgets. This means that victims’ services—services not dissimilar from the independent sexual violence adviser services that I once accessed at SurvivorsUK—will be compromised. I urge the Government to look again at this issue.
The status quo of more reoffending at an exponentially high cost to the taxpayer is both immoral and unsustainable. While this investment will go some way towards reducing backlogs, increasing prison capacity and improving our probation services, vital challenges are still unmet. As I have said just this week—in fact, it may have been yesterday—directly to the Minister, Liberal Democrats stand ready to work constructively with the Government. We will scrutinise their measures, but also give credit where it is due in order to help achieve more justice for victims, survivors, and our communities.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition to this estimates day debate on Ministry of Justice expenditure as it relates to criminal justice. I thank the Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for securing and opening the debate. We are in Armed Forces Week, and those of us who have been involved in the criminal justice system in various guises over the years know that in our prison service, around a quarter of prison officers have an armed forces background. In that sector alone, we see the ongoing contribution that people from the armed forces community make to our public services in different ways. It is a pleasure to be able to pay tribute to them on the record today.
Criminal justice is, of course, a very important topic for discussion. Our courts, prisons and probation services are the bedrock of our criminal justice system. This Government have been in charge of these key areas of public expenditure and activity for almost a year now, and we have heard from Members about the challenges that those who are in contact with the criminal justice system continue to face. We all know that, almost from day one, this Government have lurched from crisis to crisis, and sadly the Ministry of Justice has not been spared. As we consider the estimates for expenditure and the Government’s linked plans to overcome challenges in the criminal justice system, we can only have a meaningful debate if we consider the journey we have been on to reach this point.
I will begin by responding to the points that have been raised about the inheritance that this Government had. Their inheritance can only be fairly considered in the light of what we inherited, what we delivered despite the challenges, and what challenges remain. Labour Members talk about challenging inheritances in the criminal justice system, but what did we face upon arriving in office? We have heard a lot in recent months about Labour being forced into early release schemes for prisoners as a sign of the pressures on the system, but what exactly was happening with early release at the end of Labour’s last period in government? Under the last Labour Government, an astonishing 80,000 prisoners were released early—a huge number—with those releases stopping just before the election for purely political reasons. We were left to pick up the pieces across the prison estate that we inherited. During our 14 years in office, we released just 6% of that figure. If the number of prisoners that Labour Members say they have been forced to release since they came into office is a barometer of failure, what exactly do they make of releasing 80,000 prisoners early after more than a decade in charge?
Perhaps Labour had a good excuse for releasing that many prisoners early—maybe it happened because Labour had been spending its time in office rightly toughening up sentencing for the worst offenders. I am afraid not. In fact, in what I consider to be an enormous historical mistake—the consequences of which we are still battling today when it comes to delivering proper punishment through the justice system—Labour introduced automatic halfway release for essentially all offenders when it was last in government. Those offenders were not included in the figure of 80,000 released early under the emergency schemes I have spoken about. Essentially, all offenders were released early, yet Labour still managed to have a sustained crisis in prison capacity, so I do not take any lectures from Labour Members about the history of the Labour party and the criminal justice sector.
Under the previous Conservative Government, we worked to restore public confidence that serious offenders would face the punishment that their crimes deserved, and worked hard to ensure that—unlike when Labour was in government—we did not have to release 80,000 prisoners early through emergency release schemes. We brought in serious reforms. We reduced automatic release from halfway through a sentence to two thirds of a sentence for the most serious offenders, which was a huge step forward in introducing a greater degree of proper punishment into the criminal justice system. Building on that, we introduced whole-life tariffs for the premeditated murder of children. We increased maximum sentences for the worst child abusers through Tony’s law; for killers of emergency service workers through Harper’s law; and for those who kill through driving in memory of victims such as Violet-Grace. I am proud of all those reforms, and make no apologies for them.
Such measures do create challenges for prison capacity, but as I will go on to explain, those changes were necessary. More than any other factor, it was covid that created the challenges we now face. Of course, we had to tackle the enormous challenges presented by covid, which have left a long legacy in the criminal justice arena. We prioritised the right to jury trials in a way that the rest of the world struggled to; we had one of the shortest suspensions of sittings of trials, and did what we could to support the continuation of jury trials. We increased sitting days, allowing the courts to sit at maximum capacity for three years in a row; we invested £220 million in essential modernisation work for courts up to 2025; and we extended the use of 20 Nightingale courtrooms in 2024-25. That kept our justice system moving, despite what Labour now claims.
Undoubtedly, the backlog still presents challenges, but again, I am happy to compare records. Labour MPs are now deeply concerned about the backlog, but how concerned about Crown court backlogs were Labour MPs when they were last in government? I can tell Members that pre-pandemic backlogs in the Crown court reached higher levels during Labour’s time in office than they did under us. The increase in the remand population of approximately 7,000 above the historical average, which is directly linked to covid, is a major factor in the prison capacity challenges we now face.
What has Labour done to make a decisive difference since coming into office? Did the Government rush to maximise sitting days to get the backlog down? No, they did not—they have repeatedly dragged their feet. For almost six months, they did not take the Lady Chief Justice up on her offer of further sitting days, and even now, there are more days available to the Government that they have not funded. With each month that has passed, that has meant more lost court days, more people waiting and more pressure on the system than if they had just increased sitting days from the outset. What has been their biggest celebration when it comes to prison building? It is the opening of a new prison, HMP Millsike, which was planned, paid for and largely built under the previous Conservative Government.
Despite what Labour says, we created 13,000 prison places during our time in office, including in two new prisons, HMP Five Wells and HMP Fosse Way. I am not aware that any of Labour’s projected plans for prison places use net figures, which Labour Members want to use when looking at our record. The Government have announced plans for 14,000 prison places by 2031, supported by £7 billion, but 6,500 of those places were already in the pipeline, having been announced by the previous Conservative Government. Four of their new prisons were already planned or under construction, so this announcement is less a bold new strategy than it is a tired re-announcement. Even more concerning is the funding gap. The Government have allocated £7 billion, but the National Audit Office reports that the Ministry of Justice and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service expect the cost of expansion to be closer to £10 billion. That is a £3 billion shortfall, placing a serious question mark over how the promised places will be delivered.
How are the Government building on their legacy of releasing over 16,000 prisoners early just in their first six months, which is 11,000 more than planned? In the name of what they call sustainability, they are embedding even greater levels of early release into the system, unpicking the positive steps we took in government to turn around Labour’s legacy of weaker punishment. The Government are doing this on the back of a sentencing review carried out by David Gauke, based on the premise that increasing prison populations were unsustainable. I am clear that that review was an insult to the views of victims and their families—many have told me so directly—and it is unfortunate that so many Members speak positively about it. Imagine launching what you describe as a “landmark review of sentencing”, and then giving almost no consideration in the pages of that report to what victims and their families actually want from sentencing.
Worse, instead of a serious attempt to engage with what victims and their families might want, Mr Gauke chose to deploy the all-too-common patronising talking points of those who want us to believe that victims and their families simply do not understand sentencing, and that if they did, they would undoubtedly feel much better about it all. This might be of particular interest to the Chair of the current Select Committee, because Mr Gauke, in particular, cherry-picked quotes from our excellent report from a previous Session on public understanding and expectations of sentencing. As the hon. Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick might remember, that report very much engaged with what the public wanted and how to determine that more effectively. It takes a particular type of intellectual approach to go through a report full of rich detail and just pick out what suits you, hoping no one will notice. Well, I noticed, as did representatives of victims and their families such as Justice for Victims.
That half-baked exercise in considering sentencing has now served as the launch point for the Government’s sentencing policy. If halfway release was not an appalling enough legacy from the last time Labour was in government, the Government are reducing release to a third of the sentence for most offenders, and turning our two-thirds release for the worst offenders back into halfway release. Let us be clear: prisoners will now be rewarded for doing what should be expected of them. Obeying prison rules and engaging in education or working are the basic behaviours of any law-abiding citizen. They should not qualify offenders for early release, and they certainly should not allow them to serve as little as one third of their sentence. That is not justice.
Labour’s model rewards serious offenders, does little to protect the public, and is a dereliction of duty. All the while, our Crown court backlogs have increased by more than 10% and stand in excess of 70,000 cases. Our remand population sits at more than 17,000 people. Wherever we look, problems that Labour promised to fix in opposition are just getting worse. How does the Lord Chancellor now plan to tackle this challenge? The £450 million committed to the courts in the spending review is a perhaps useful, if not fully adequate, indication, but how will the money be spent? Unfortunately, that is where the Government fall short.
The Government have no substantial ideas of their own, with 14 years apparently not long enough for them to think of their own innovations. While we await the findings of yet another independent review that they hope will solve all their issues, they have announced that custodial sentences of under 12 months will all but vanish, replaced by community sentences. The consequences are staggering. Up to 43,000 offenders, including burglars, shoplifters and knife carriers, will avoid jail altogether. I have met local businesses at their wits’ end. They tell me about the rise in shoplifting, staff who are afraid and customers who no longer feel safe. Removing custodial sentences for repeat offenders does not send a message of reform; it sends a message of impunity.
Labour has chosen the easy way out. It is tackling the prison population not with long-term reform or capacity investment, but by quietly reducing sentences and downplaying criminal behaviour. It is short-term thinking that puts public safety at risk. In fact, just last week it was reported that the Government declined to move forward with building a new prison block. They say they are doing everything possible to avoid releasing prisoners early, but how does that square with that decision?
We might think that the Government would grab opportunities that cost nothing, but we have seen them stand in the way of reforms we put forward as amendments to the Victims and Courts Bill this week. Labour did not support making sure victims are awarded compensation equivalent to their losses, or allowing victims the freedom to speak their minds in victim personal statements. Labour did not support increasing the time available to collect courts fines, or giving victims and families a better chance to appeal unduly lenient sentences. All their lofty spending plans will be of little use if this Government’s ongoing mismanagement of the economy leaves us with even less money to spend on the Ministry of Justice.
Across nearly every single major economic metric, Labour has made things worse. Unemployment is up, inflation is up and all the projections of economic growth it inherited from us have been downgraded. Is it any wonder why? The Office for Budget Responsibility is clear about the damaging impact of the Government’s jobs tax, and businesses can see what is on the horizon with the Employment Rights Bill. The costs of borrowing are soaring. The MOJ’s expenditure pales in comparison to what we will be paying on interest in ballooning debt over the course of this Parliament.
I will finish with three short questions. First, given the funding allocated to probation and the increasing reliance on it and given that, as the Justice Committee member, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) highlighted, the number of probation officers has gone down since Labour came into power, how do the Government plan to ensure that money is delivering effective services? Secondly, how do they plan to close the £3 billion gap in the prisons budget? Thirdly, given that so much of their own thinking is relying on it, when will Brian Leveson’s report be published? The British people deserve a justice system they can trust—one that protects victims, punishes offenders and keeps our communities safe. This Government’s approach fails on every single count.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
I start by thanking the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick (Andy Slaughter), for his opening remarks and for securing this important debate, and I thank everybody else who has contributed so thoughtfully. I echo his words in paying tribute to everybody who works in the criminal justice system. They do an amazing job to maintain public protection, which is so important. I support the words of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), in highlighting the role that people who have formerly been in the armed forces play in our criminal justice system. There is much for us to agree on.
One of the things we know is that Labour has always been tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. I will give three facts to evidence that. In 13 years of Labour Government, we added 27,830 prison places. In 14 years of Conservative Government, they added 500 net prison places. So far under this Government, we have already added some 2,500 prison places. The figures speak for themselves.
We want a criminal justice system that works for everyone. That is what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) said, and I think everyone in the House would agree. Last summer, our prisons were operating at over 99% capacity. Just days after taking office, we had no choice but to take emergency measures to avoid running out of space altogether. Had we not acted, the result would have been catastrophic. Our courts would have ground to a halt and the police would have been forced to halt arrests. In short, we would have faced a total breakdown of law and order.
We were left in that parlous position because the previous Government, despite all their promises and fine words, delivered only those 500 additional prison places in 14 years. At the same time, sentence lengths rose exponentially. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year. This Government take our duty to protect the public seriously, and that is why we are taking the robust, bold action needed to bring an end to this cycle of crisis, ensuing that the British public are never again put at risk by the failure to have enough prison places.
We are committed to bearing down on the outstanding caseload in the courts, which a number of Members have alluded to, and delivering swifter justice for victims, but we acknowledge the significant challenge facing the Crown court. As part of the spending review settlement, we agreed with the Treasury that we will fund record investment for the courts system by 2028-29, keeping sitting days at record highs over that period. We have 110,000 sitting days in the Crown court just this year.
We recognise, however, that that is not enough given the scale of the challenge we inherited. Even with record levels of Crown court funding and our plans for record numbers of sitting days, the backlog will continue to grow without substantial reform of our criminal courts. That is why the Lord Chancellor has commissioned an independent review of the criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, to consider the options for longer-term reform, as well as reviewing the efficiency and timeliness of court processes through charge to case completion. I hope that that review will report shortly. We will also fund capacity to speed up the processing of asylum appeals, supporting the Government’s priority to reduce illegal and irregular migration.
Legal aid is a vital part of the justice system, as we have heard from colleagues from across the House. It underpins our plans to build a justice system that works fairly for all parties. In December, we announced that criminal legal aid solicitors will receive up to £92 million more a year to help address the ongoing challenges in the criminal justice system and get justice for victims. Following that, in January we began consulting over a £20 million uplift to civil legal aid fees for lawyers working in the immigration and asylum and housing and debt sectors.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), who spoke about the importance of forensic science in addressing miscarriages of justice, as well as prison maintenance issues. We are failing victims if courts cannot deliver swift justice. Prisons run out of places entirely, and crime goes without punishment. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Pam Cox) spoke about that in her contribution. It would have damaging consequences for the criminal justice system if that happened. That is why we are taking the steps to rebuild a justice system that works and that victims can have confidence in.
We are looking at imposing tougher exclusion zones that limit the movement of offenders, instead of limiting the movement of victims, and we are continuing the provision of free sentencing remarks to victims of rape and serious sexual offences. Our reforms will include continuing to expand our application of electronic monitoring to perpetrators of violence against women and girls, and the use of specialist domestic abuse courts, with trained staff to support victims and more co-ordinated management of perpetrators. We will continue to fund services supporting victims and witnesses. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), made some eloquent contributions on that issue, which I heard clearly, and I thank him for that. We are creating a new domestic abuse flag at sentencing, so that domestic abusers are known to the Prison and Probation Service and their victims are better protected.
Since taking office, we have opened 2,400 prison places. Between 2024-25 and 2029-30, the Government are providing £7 billion to deliver the commitment to build 14,000 new prison places by 2031. That is the largest expansion since the Victorian era.
Sir Ashley Fox
During my speech I asked the Minister how much of the extra money allocated to his Department would be spent on higher wage rises, higher national insurance charges and inflation. I am just giving him a chance to respond before he finishes his own speech.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
As the hon. Gentleman will understand, the budget is being applied and worked through in an appropriate way, but the figures I have just given are the figures on which we will deliver, so he can be confident about that.
While this investment is necessary, it is not sufficient on its own, so to address these challenges and ensure that our prisons create better citizens, not better criminals, the Lord Chancellor commissioned the independent sentencing review, chaired by the right hon. David Gauke. As the Lord Chancellor announced in May following David Gauke’s findings, we will be introducing an earned progression model based on a three-part sentence. On this model, offenders’ release points will be determined by their behaviour. If they follow prison rules, they will earn earlier release; if they do not, they will be locked up for longer. However, that will not be true for all offenders. For those currently serving extended determinate sentences with an automatic release point of 67%—it is different for people with earlier releases; we will leave that as it is.
In the second part of the progression model, offenders will enter a period of intensive supervision. That will see more offenders tagged and under close supervision by the Probation Service. The supervision will be tailored according to each offender’s risk and crime type, and bolstered beyond the current system with a set of new restrictive measures and a major ramp-up in tagging and probation investment. In the third part, offenders will be monitored in the community by the Probation Service, and can be returned to prison if they breach their conditions.
Alongside the progression model, we are also taking forward the recommendations to introduce a presumption to suspend short sentences. We will be investing in this model and intensive supervision by significantly increasing our probation funding through the spending review settlement. I welcomed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), and also what was said about the contribution of third sector organisations by my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Rugby (John Slinger). Our additional investment will increase up to £700 million by 2028-29, allowing us to increase substantially the number of offenders on tags and to ensure investment in services that address the drivers of offending.
Tessa Munt
Following the Leveson report, will there be capacity for more funding for his recommendations?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
We await the Leveson report, and when it arrives the Lord Chancellor will update the House. Matters such as that will be rightly dealt with then.
On efficiencies, the spending review has given the Department a settlement, and the Department will ensure that it is good value for money by applying all the appropriate methods.
This Government inherited a system that was creaking under pressure, having suffered chronic underfunding for 14 years. The Justice Committee rightly pointed out that by 2016-17 the day-to-day budget of the Department had fallen by a third in real terms from its peak in 2007-08. That is why we are delivering the ambitious, once-in-a-generation reform of the justice system that the country needs, with public safety at its core.
Andy Slaughter
I do not need to add anything to my opening speech, because the inevitable gaps have been filled eloquently by the subsequent speakers. Let me just take two minutes to thank those who have contributed to the debate.
I thank the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Pam Cox) and for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt), the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde). They are all members of the Justice Committee, although the hon. Member for Eastbourne was wearing his other hat today as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and I thank them for being here today. Indeed, I thank all the Committee members. With the exception of the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, who resumed a distinguished parliamentary career after a short gap, they are all new Members, and they all give a great deal of time to this role in addition to everything else that new Members have to do.
I also thank the other Members who have spoken. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for his forensic dissection of the last Government’s failings in this area, and I thank, in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), who covered ground that I did not have time to cover in relation to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and miscarriages of justice. I am grateful for her work in chairing the all-party parliamentary group for miscarriages of justice, as I am to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson)—who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on access to justice—for her work on that and to other APPGs in this field.
I even thank the Front Benchers for their contributions. The hon. Member for Eastbourne is always very critical but very constructive. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) would like to adopt that approach.
Andy Slaughter
No, I thought not. However, I very much enjoyed our time together on the Justice Committee, and I also enjoy his taking every bad point during these debates—although he should have been kinder to the distinguished former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, who, in my view, produced a very good report. As for the Minister, he is a very good friend of mine, and I thank him for his contributions. We know what a difficult job he has, but that will not stop us being on his back all the time to ensure that the many problems that have been identified today are resolved.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
National Armaments Director
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
Let me begin by thanking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this debate, which, if I may say so, is particularly appropriate in Armed Forces Week. Let me also thank the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, for being here to listen to my speech. I hope the Minister will answer a few of my questions. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), the Chairman of the Defence Committee, who would have joined me following our joint application for the debate, but his Committee has been away from Parliament on a visit.
The defence budget is one of the most important estimates that the House can debate and scrutinise. With war waging in Ukraine, the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict and with what is now happening in Iran, our world feels increasingly unstable. The Prime Minister has recently returned from the G7 and is now at the NATO summit, ensuring that our interests align with our European, AUKUS and American allies, which is critical. As General Walker, Chief of the General Staff, said last July, we must be ready for war within three years, and the rest of my speech is devoted largely to that theme.
I wish first to discuss the figures in the defence budget. I think that most Members are pleased that defence spending is now considered a priority. The strategic defence review announced in early June was welcomed, and confirmed that defence spending would rise from 2% to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027, with an extra 0.1% going towards intelligence and security services contributions. There was a further commitment to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament, but it has been noted that no date has been set so far. The new announcement by the Prime Minister at the NATO summit suggests that the Government will expect to spend 5% of GDP on national security and defence by the end of the next Parliament or by 2035, which includes 3% spent on core defence spending and 1.5% spent on resilience and security.
I ask Members to bear with me while I go through the somewhat complicated figures that this involves. In 2024, 1% of GDP was about £28 billion, according to the House of Commons Library, but hopefully our GDP will increase as the years go by. Members should note critically that a percentage increase in the budget is not the same as an increase in the percentage of GDP, hence the much higher figures that I am about to give. According to the Treasury Red Book, the current Ministry of Defence budget for 2025-26 is £62.2 billion, which is around 2.2% of GDP. For the Government to reach the needed 2.5% of GDP by 2027—setting aside the fact that the MOD budget does not quite align with the NATO-compliant spending—the defence budget must increase to around £70 billion in 2027-28. With the extra 0.1% that I mentioned earlier, the total is £72.8 billion. Therefore, another £9 billion to £11 billion needs to be found in the next two years.
If we are to reach 3% of GDP in the next Parliament, the defence budget will need to equate to around £84 billion in current prices. After today’s announcement, the equating figures are 3.5% or £98 billion on core defence and 1.5% or £42 billion on resilience, so the total spending by 2035 will need to be £140 billion. These calculations are dependent on the GDP staying the same and not increasing, in which case the budget will of course increase as well. I simply ask the Minister: where is all this money coming from? It is a huge amount of money.
Given the failure to produce the defence investment plan alongside the strategic defence review, the SDR is merely a list of ambitions and aspirations, with few receipts and invoices attached. When he gave the ministerial statement on the SDR, I asked the Secretary of State to confirm when we would be able to scrutinise the figures, but I understand that the defence investment plan is still an unfinished piece of work and is not due to be published until the autumn. That is a long way off.
I am Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, which is always looking at how effectively money is spent, whether it could be spent more effectively to give the taxpayer best value for money, and whether spending is feasible. However, the Committee has not been able to fulfil its statutory role of scrutinising defence equipment spending for at least 12 months. The last defence equipment plan was published in November 2022, and it set out a 10-year spending plan for equipment procurement, costing around £305.5 billion. There was a £16.9 billion shortfall compared with the money that was then available.
I am pleased that the permanent secretary accepted the invitation to come to our Committee in April to discuss the equipment plan, but he did not come with any proposals as to how and when we might be able to scrutinise the relevant defence expenditure, to see whether the huge aspirations were affordable in the current budget, in the next budget of 3%, or in the following one of 3.5%. It is really important that Parliament has a timetable for when we can do that scrutiny.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned the equipment plan; does he share the Defence Committee’s frustration that the last time anyone was able to scrutinise that spending was in 2022? Is he aware that when Lord Robertson came to the Defence Committee to discuss the strategic defence review last week, he was surprised that the Defence Committee was being denied access to the equipment programme—as indeed are the Public Accounts Committee—meaning that the Government simply cannot be held to account for what they are spending money on?
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My hon. Friend has made the case eloquently, and I have also made it. The Minister will have heard and, hopefully, she might have something positive to say when she responds to the debate.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
To what extent does my hon. Friend believe that the situation is even worse than he has outlined? Inflationary pressures bear far more heavily on defence than on, with the possible exception of healthcare, practically any other part of public spending, yet I see no evidence in the defence review or anywhere else over the past 12 months of that being properly accounted for by Ministers or those who advise them.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
My right hon. Friend must have read my mind; when I come on to submarines, I will mention that very factor of inflation in defence costs.
The MOD is being reorganised into four sections: there will be a permanent secretary in charge of the Department; the chief of the defence organisation will be in charge of all personnel matters; there will be a new national armaments director in charge of all matters to do with procurement, digital and research, including all the matters to deal with what is now in the Defence Infrastructure Organisation; and there is of course the Defence Nuclear Organisation. This debate is focused on the national armaments director, whose appointment has been ongoing since it was announced on 17 December 2024. I am hopeful that the Department might soon be in a position to announce who they have selected to do the job, which I have to say is very prestigious and very large, with a very large £400,000 salary attached.
As I said, the national armaments director will be responsible for all defence procurement and all of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, including defence housing, as well as digital and research. This represents a huge part of the defence budget. He will have significantly more control over the acquisition process than hitherto. I hope that some of the Government’s announcements will come to fruition, including that on reducing the time it takes to award a contract to a two-year maximum, which the Department hopes to do by involving industry at a much earlier stage in the process, to help to solve problems. Rather than over-specifying on requirements, this should streamline things and simplify the contracts. It should also allow our defence sector to export more equipment to the international market, which will in turn support even more jobs in the sector.
One contract that demonstrates the weaknesses in our procurement strategy was that for the Ajax armoured fighting vehicle programme, which was contracted to General Dynamics. The contract was the subject of many Defence Committee and Public Accounts Committee inquiries and of many urgent questions. It was originally contracted in 2011 for delivery in 2017, then deferred to 2020-21. As we all know, the trials were halted due to safety concerns, and the contract was renegotiated for 2024. Perhaps the Minister could tell us when all 180 vehicles will be in operation?
General Dynamics was also awarded the infamous Morpheus battlefield radio system contract, which has cost £828 million so far. Will the Minister confirm that it is currently in the evolve-to-open transition partnership, and when its in-service date is likely to be? It was intended to replace the existing Bowman communications system by 2026, but that will now have to be extended with modifications to at least 2031, and possibly to 2035. That may leave a capability gap in our defence system. I think the whole House would appreciate an update on where we are with our tri-service battlefield communications system, and how it could be accelerated.
Another contract that should receive more scrutiny is the E-7 Wedgetail early-warning and control aircraft. Although the SDR says that we will procure further units, and share the costs with our NATO allies, the Pentagon has labelled the E-7 “expensive”, “gold-plated” and
“not survivable in the modern battlefield”.
Again, we would be grateful for further detail from the Minister on that contract.
As I said to the Minister in my question on today’s statement, I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to buying more F-35 aircraft—12 F-35As and 15 F-35Bs. The F-35A capability will be an alternative to our seaborne nuclear capability. Another huge commitment as part of the SDR is the one to invest in up to 12 new SSN-AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines. The submarines are due to be in operation in the 2030s and 2040s, with one being built every 18 months, but there are huge challenges ahead due to it being a new class of submarine and concerns with the lack of capacity at Barrow-in-Furness. No cost per submarine has ever been disclosed, and the programme is likely to take more than 10 years, so we really need to see some of the detail. Is the deal underpinned by the Government’s eventual commitment to increase expenditure to 3% in the next Parliament? We need to be able see whether it is feasible.
Speaking of long in-service dates, as I was in respect of the F-35s earlier—and the Minister agreed—we need to see the early work on feasibility and contracts beginning as soon as possible to meet the long tail into the buying, building and commissioning of the submarines.
This strategically important contract will, when costs are announced, need leadership from the national armaments director to ensure that it remains on track and on budget, unlike so many others before it. The Public Accounts Committee has asked for an update by the end of June 2026, which will demonstrate how well defence procurement has improved under the first year of the national armaments director group. The renewed focus on nuclear is important when looking at the ever-increasing nuclear enterprise budget. In 2024, the budget was £10.9 billion, which is about 18% of the whole budget. The 10-year defence nuclear enterprise costs have increased by £10 billion from £117.8 billion to £128 billion, and it is not clear whether the extra £15 billion announced in the SDR that has been committed to the warhead is included in that figure.
The budget is rising due to various factors, including technical factors, inflation, and the speed of manufacturing at which we now need to build these submarines to meet the timetable that is absolutely necessary for our defence. The budget is one of the few that is left unscrutinised due to the sensitive nature of these contracts, but as Chairman of the PAC, I am constitutionally obliged to see the detail. This needs to be resolved, and I am grateful for the commitment of the Secretary of State in working towards a solution. Sensitive scrutiny has never been more important, due to the context of the figures I announced earlier.
Defence personnel is another focus of the defence budget. The budget has had to increase by £14.3 billion to pay for the Treasury’s employer’s national insurance tax rise. The number of people leaving the armed forces is far too high. Last year, for every 100 personnel we recruited to the Army, we lost 130. This is completely unsustainable, especially as the SDR commits to increasing our armed forces to 76,000. The PAC recently held a session on cadet and reserve forces, and the SDR again clarifies that the Government want to increase the number of cadets by 30% and, critically, of reservists by 20%. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed how much that will cost.
We need to make joining the armed forces a much more attractive option than it currently is. Frankly, a prisoner would get better and safer conditions than some of the defence housing I have seen, much of which has mould, rust and leaks. This must change if we want to improve the retention and recruitment of our armed forces by giving them a better package of remuneration and conditions of service. I welcome the £1.5 billion to improve defence housing as part of the SDR and the £6.1 billion spent to repurchase 35,000 homes following the landmark deal with Annington Homes. This will allow the MOD to undertake major improvement schemes.
Another recruitment issue is the length of time it takes to enrol service personnel into training. We used to have an armed forces recruitment centre on every high street in the country. People could walk in off the streets, sign up and be wearing a new uniform within two weeks. There are now stories of recruitment taking well over six months, which is simply not good enough. We need to look further afield to ensure that the military has the right skills for the future. Cyber-warfare is becoming an increasing and real threat, and I believe the MOD could do more to recruit those with artificial intelligence and digital skills, but who would not necessarily meet the medical and fitness entry requirements needed for normal military personnel.
Dr Murrison
Would my hon. Friend comment on the Government’s enthusiasm or otherwise for the Haythornthwaite review of careers in the armed forces? It was put in train by and carried out under the last Government, but we hear tell that there has perhaps been some backsliding since. That is a pity, as Rick Haythornthwaite’s review was magisterial and had already shown signs, through zig-zag careers and the spectrum of service, of being appealing to servicemen and servicewomen, and holding them in—both in the regulars and the reserves. It would be a pity if that process did not continue on the basis of not-made-here-itis.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I cannot tell what is on the Government’s mind, but maybe the Minister will be able to tell us. However, given that the SDR makes it perfectly clear that they want to increase the numbers of our armed forces considerably, we have to consider every aspect of recruiting and retaining more. We must make sure that they do not just leave the Army or the armed forces as soon as they get particular skills. My right hon. Friend has raised a really important issue.
In conclusion, there is no greater duty on a Government than defending the nation, yet all Members of this House and the general public need to have confidence that our armed forces are properly equipped to do the job. That does not mean we can complacently give in to every demand, and it is the role of PAC members to carefully scrutinise the defence budget. Wasted spending and shortfalls are stopping our armed forces keeping us safe in the most efficient and effective ways. It is therefore imperative that the MOD releases more information on its finances in a timely manner, so that we can thoroughly scrutinise it and thus assure Parliament that our armed forces can do their job in the most effective way, with world-beating equipment.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is welcome that this debate focusing on the remit of the national armaments director comes, as the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) said, as the Prime Minister attends the NATO summit, where we are likely to see greater focus and action on the need to increase defence spending. However, as this Government have said, this is not all about numbers on a spreadsheet or a press release, and the national armaments director will allow the UK to focus on how defence money is being spent to increase the lethality of our armed forces and ensure that the deterrent effect of the combined UK armed forces is sufficient to prevent a war that no one in this Chamber wants to see.
The position shows that our Government are delivering the change we promised: greater coherence and a strategic focus on our procurement and industrial planning, cracking down on waste and boosting Britain’s defence industry. I want what I am sure others in this House want, which is for us to move as quickly as possible, because only by doing so can we make sure our adversaries know that we are committed to our own defence. I want to raise three specific issues, and ask the Minister to provide clarification and assure me that these will be among the first priorities for the armaments director and, indeed, the Ministry of Defence.
First, looking at a globe rather than a flat map shows the strategic reality the UK faces as well as the importance of Scotland’s position. From the High North, Russian ships and submarines can threaten NATO, merchant shipping and, crucially, underwater cables in the Atlantic. The strategic defence review highlighted the need for
“improving NATO’s deterrence…in Northern Europe and the High North.”
Recently, NATO Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, emphasised
“a larger role for NATO in the High North.”
This very much makes the UK, and Scotland in particular, a frontline nation in combating Russian aggression. To do that, the SDR spoke of the need for:
“An ‘always on’ supply line for shipbuilding”,
with the Royal Navy continuing to move towards
“a more powerful but cheaper and simpler fleet”.
The Type 31 frigates being built by Babcock at the Rosyth dockyard in my constituency would seem to fit the bill for that kind of move, along with providing the requirement for an “always on” supply of shipbuilding. The first Type 31, HMS Venturer, was recently floated off, and the other ships of the initial five ordered by the Royal Navy are progressing well. I will take this opportunity to once again thank the workforce at Rosyth for the incredible contribution they make to our nation’s defence in the construction of the Type 31, as well as the other incredible work they do for us and our American allies. Can the Minister confirm that the armaments director will urgently consider the need for more Type 31 frigates to reflect the flexibility of this platform as well as the lower cost and faster production that the incredible workforce at Rosyth have been able to deliver?
Secondly, there have been many discussions in this place, particularly those led by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), on the need to improve the UK’s air defence capability. This has been a key theme of the ongoing Sky News podcast “The Wargame”, created by a range of defence experts and advisers. I have certainly been listening to it over the last couple of weeks, although I think I am a few episodes behind at the moment. Improving that capability will require a number of solutions in collaboration with NATO and other allies, but it has been suggested that the future air dominance system and Britain’s next-generation Type 83 programme could be part of countering the emerging threat from hypersonic missiles. With the increased prominence of this type of threat visible in both Ukraine and recent conflicts in the middle east, can the Minister please provide an update on those programmes and on how the armaments director is likely to prioritise this important work?
Finally, as part of our increased defence spending, it is vital that we make defence an engine for growth, boosting prosperity, jobs and growth in every corner of the UK. We are strengthening the UK’s industrial base to better deter our adversaries, and to make the UK secure at home and strong abroad. That means engaging all parts of society and business, including the growing network of high-tech small and medium-sized enterprises and skilled manufacturers in my constituency, in Fife, and across Scotland and the rest of the UK.
This week, we heard from the Secretary of State for Business and Trade about the exciting prospect of a defence growth fund, which could bring together different bodies to deliver on their combined objectives of economic investment and improved defence. In my area, that could include opportunities for Fife council and Fife college, both of which could play a much larger role in delivering on defence and providing the skills and training that our young people need and deserve.
I have raised this topic numerous times in this place. We have seen the total failure of the SNP Scottish Government on devolved matters such as skills and infrastructure spending. We have the farcical position that senior people in the SNP say that it is party policy that public money should not be spent on military equipment; and even more ridiculously, the SNP responded to a request for medical aid from the Ukrainian Government by dictating that the aid could not be used on military casualties, a preposterous view that is utterly detached from reality. That position puts Scotland’s security at risk, and reduces opportunities for young people in my constituency.
Will the Minister provide an update on her discussions with the Department for Business and Trade on the defence growth fund and how it will benefit people in Scotland—something that the SNP has failed to do so far? This Government have responded brilliantly to the global threats that the UK faces, building alliances and partnerships across the world, creating the national armaments director, and undertaking the reorganisation that we have heard about today and in previous statements. I just hope that we can accelerate down that path as much as possible, to ensure that we deal with those threats, as the British public expect us to.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Today this House is quite properly considering the scale and seriousness of the threats we face, from those requiring conventional deterrence in Europe to those of strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific. The case for strengthening our armed forces is not just compelling but essential. However, we must be honest about how we fund this renewal, and what we are willing to sacrifice to do so.
Let me be clear: the case for increased defence spending is self-evident. Like many others, I have long argued that we must invest more in our sovereign capability, critical munitions, advanced deterrence and national resilience, including by expanding both the remit and the resourcing of the national armaments director. The strategic significance of that role has grown substantially. In today’s volatile security environment, the national armaments director is not merely a procurement official; they are the principal architect of our defence industrial strategy, responsible for ensuring that our armed forces are equipped not just adequately, but decisively. Their portfolio spans capability planning, acquisition reform, exportability and the stewardship of our defence supply base, from the factory floor to the frontline. In an age of contested logistics, technological disruption and rapid rearmament by authoritarian regimes, the role is fundamental to preserving both operational readiness and sovereign capability.
Delivering a credible deterrent in today’s world means accelerating procurement cycles, building in modularity and adaptability, strengthening domestic supply chains, and driving long-term collaboration between government, industry and academia. It means ensuring that we can surge production in a crisis, replenish stockpiles at speed and invest in the innovation that gives us the strategic edge. That cannot be done in isolation or as an afterthought. That work must be led, co-ordinated and embedded across defence planning, not in spite of fiscal pressures, but because of them.
If we are serious about resilience, readiness and regeneration, we must empower the national armaments director with the authority, capacity and resources to act not simply as a technical overseer, but as a strategic enabler at the heart of defence policy. Only then can we translate increased spending into real-world capability, and ensure that British power is not only credible on paper, but deliverable in practice.
However, this investment must not come at the expense of our international development commitments. Funding defence by slashing foreign aid is a false economy. Worse, it risks undermining the strategic posture that we seek to build. Aid is not an indulgence. It is not a soft option, and it is certainly not a luxury for easier times. It is an instrument of national strategy—a projection of British values, a tool of soft power, and a forward-deployed asset in the defence of the realm. When Britain pulls back from the world, our adversaries do not hesitate to step in. China in particular has understood this dynamic. It does not wait for crises to send in troops; it sends in investment, infrastructure and influence, often to the very regions from which we have retreated. When we reduce aid, we do not save; we cede ground and create vacuums that others are all too willing to fill.
Let us be frank: foreign aid and defence are not in conflict. They are complementary. One builds resilience, prevents crises and supports our allies; the other protects us as those crises unfold. A truly strategic posture requires both, because real security does not start when the first shot is fired. It starts in the classrooms of conflict zones, in the clinics of fragile states, and in the partnerships we forge before troubles take root. If we choose to retreat from the world, we shall find that the world does not retreat from us.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
My husband was an Army reservist who served in Afghanistan. He has not told me a great deal about what his job entailed, but he has told me about taking flights in helicopters that hugged mountains on which the burned-out remnants of Soviet tanks stood ghostly guard; about his interactions with the people in the Afghan army and the civilians who worked with us; about buying bread from locals; and about visiting the children being treated in the hospital on the international security assistance force army base.
Our armed forces are the best in the world. That can be a throwaway phrase used by politicians, but it is one that I stand by, and I know that many families of our armed forces, both in Derby and across the country, stand by it too. As we celebrate Armed Forces Week in Derby, I will be thinking of them. It is essential that our armed forces have the kit, the arms and the technology that they need, and in my view, those who serve our national security by working in the defence industry and their families should have their contribution celebrated, too.
We are in a new era of threat that demands a new era for UK defence, so it was absolutely right for this Government to announce the largest sustained increase to defence spending since the end of the cold war, and to have already boosted defence spending by £5 billion this year. As the Government increase defence spending, they are making defence an engine for growth, boosting prosperity, jobs and growth in every corner of the UK.
Over the last few weeks, Derby has been mentioned many times in this Chamber. It is one of many cities benefiting from the Government’s commitment to defence and security, which is creating the skilled, secure jobs that we see in our city and across Derbyshire and the east midlands. Under the new defence industrial strategy, UK-based firms will be prioritised for Government investment, and that will drive economic growth, boost British jobs and strengthen national security. Under the last Government, small businesses often felt locked out of defence, and just 4% of Government defence spend went to small and medium-sized enterprises. The Government’s specific support will open the door to small businesses.
Derby has a large part to play in this, because we make things there. Rolls-Royce in Derby is known for having created the Merlin engine, first produced in 1936 and used in Lancaster bombers, Spitfires and Hurricanes, but we also have Rolls-Royce Submarines, which builds the nuclear reactors that power our at-sea deterrent. The UK’s submarines are the most awesome and lethal machines in the world’s history. I believe in the power of politics and the power of negotiation to preserve peace, which we all desperately want. However, we have to acknowledge that our submarines, with their sheer size and power, have spoken louder than words for more than 60 years, and they help to underwrite our security. We cannot wish away the threats that are growing; we have to deter them. Time and again, our Prime Minister has confirmed that security and defence are the first duty of Government, and that priority can be seen in the investment that is being made. From submarines to drones, Derby has a major role to play in supporting the Government in making and keeping Britain safe, so that it is secure at home and strong abroad.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I have been banging on like a howitzer—well, maybe like a small-bore cannon—about the need to mobilise British industry as we ramp up for possible conflict in an increasingly hostile world. I welcome the news that the new national armaments director is being resourced to oversee the alliance between our military brains and brawn and the sinews of the British defence industry.
Civilians talk tactics, but veterans talk logistics, for old warriors know that a modern army marches not so much on its stomach, as in the days of Wellington and Napoleon, as on a very long supply chain, anchored mainly in small and medium-sized enterprises. That extends—to use the military’s favourite phrase—to all domains.
We have had recent sharp lessons on the reality of modern warfare, from the muddy hell of trenches in occupied Ukraine to the arid highlands of Iran. We have seen high-tech systems—drones, cyber, space and stealth—undergo a baptism of fire. We have also seen weapons that would have been familiar to my infantryman grandfather on the shores of Gallipoli in 1915 plying their old trade to deadly effect; artillery remains the queen of the battlefield. While our sailors, soldiers and aircrew are the tip of the spear, the essential shaft is our factories and shipyards, and every corner of the country can play its full part. I say “every part”, but there is bad news from Scotland under the yoke of the SNP, where the nationalists and their Green party fellow travellers have engendered a hostile environment for defence firms. We have seen young apprentices denied entrance to the Holyrood Parliament by an elected representative tipped to lead the Greens; and, in recent days, we have seen former First Minister Humza Yousaf—still an MSP—blundering around on the world stage, shroud-waving about it being a war crime to allow US military aircraft to refuel at Prestwick airport, and bemoaning the proscription of the saboteurs of Palestine Action.
There is a presumption, as we heard from the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), that the Scottish Government will not channel funding towards ordnance—a battlefield prerequisite. That has led this Government to step in and say that they will help to fund a new Rolls-Royce centre of welding excellence on the Clyde, which will be key to submarine and warship building.
The stakes could not be higher. Scotland is already a defence powerhouse. Umbrella body ADS estimates that 16,250 people in Scotland work in the sector, producing Royal Navy warships, cutting-edge radars, optronic masts—do not dare call them mere periscopes—for submarines and smart missiles such as Storm Shadow. Even my rural constituency of Dumfries and Galloway produces the helmets vital to the sensor suite on F-35 Lightning fighter bombers, of which we are purchasing 12 more nuclear-capable Alpha variants.
Figures from 2023 show that the Ministry of Defence spends £370 per person living in Scotland. It is—or ought to be—Britain’s arsenal, and as such, Scotland should be top of the national armaments director’s in-tray, yet firms wanting to set up the new ordnance factories recommended in the strategic defence review, or seeking to expand in order to fulfil new MOD orders, cannot count on financial support via the Scottish Government. Whose side is Scotland’s First Minister on? Will the Minister tell the House what powers the new armaments director will have to eliminate the Scottish Government’s reckless fifth columnist policies on defence?
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I start by thanking everyone in our armed forces who serves, who has served, and who has fallen. Our country is safer and better because of their service.
In assessing the financial necessity of meeting our defence needs, it is important, first, to look at the state of our world—not only our real adversaries but our potential adversaries, our allies and the most powerful country in the world, the United States. In our country and across the world, there is an assumption that the foreign policy of the current President will be a blip, and I do not believe that to be so. For my constituents and for the House, it is important to reflect on that reality as the country and the Government set their path towards a long-term investment in the defence capabilities that we so desperately need.
The 2017 national security strategy of the United States, released by President Trump, said:
“After being dismissed as a phenomenon of an earlier century, great power competition returned.”
In 2022, the national security strategy released by President Biden said:
“The most pressing strategic challenge facing our vision is from powers that layer authoritarian governance with a revisionist foreign policy.”
In 2017, the era of co-operation, which had defined multiple US presidencies in the post-cold war era, was declared dead by President Trump. In 2022, the era of competition that had defined the Trump era was given new life by President Biden—two contrasting presidencies, two sides of the same coin.
As Russia illegally invaded Ukraine, a sovereign, democratic country, and China made clear its designs on Taiwan, a sovereign, democratic country, those two autocracies have deepened their ties, and they have collaborated more closely with other UK and US rivals. It is clear that the consensus that has been emerging in the beltway was accurate. The main priority of American foreign policy as great power competition is clear. The aspiration of the outcome that the US stays ahead of the pack is clear.
We in this House will debate the motivations, character and behaviour of President Trump. They will be open to interpretation, but, in some important ways, his worldview has a more settled nature. With him and Biden as presidents and the United States as a great power pursuing US interests in a world where competition is the enduring and defining feature, our American ally has for some time now been telling a story about how it sees itself and the world, and we would be foolish to see the current presidency as a blip. It is the continuation of a tradition.
Of course, there are differences between the two presidencies: in their approach to diplomacy and how nationalistically it should be pursued; in their assessment of American interests and how aggressively they should be pursued; in their adherence to American values and how devotedly they should be upheld; and in sum, whether to collaborate with countries with which it has always collaborated, such as the United Kingdom, either as an end in itself—to reinforce and sustain an American-led order of democracies—or as a means to an important end, which is to pursue an economic strength and a national security that traditional democratic allies would seek, too.
The presidencies and presidents do not differ in their assessment of the international system and the need for competition. That is a critical point that will define UK defence decisions this year and in subsequent years. I obviously have a preference for a particular style of behaviour. I would much prefer President Biden’s form of foreign policy, but the outcomes that are being pursued are clear. This prompts the question: will whoever succeeds President Trump deviate from or continue his foreign policy? I argue that it will be a continuation.
If the priority of the US, our closest ally, is to stay ahead of those autocracies in the long term, and we have stronger ties and shared values with the United States as it becomes more competitive with those rivals, it is in our interest to do all that we can to counter the rise of those rivals, to mitigate against their worst behaviours, to minimise their risk to our security and to militate against their threats to our values—with the United States wherever possible, and with other democracies that make the same assessment of our threat. That is why it is so important that we invest in our defence capabilities.
We are making the largest sustained increase to defence spending. We have boosted defence spending by £5 billion this year, and we are committed to spending 4.1% of our GDP by 2027, and 5% by 2035. I commend that strongly given the international circumstances that we face. It is so important that we achieve that, and we must educate our constituents about why that is. In this House, it is important that we bring the right scrutiny to our defence decisions.
Tom Hayes
No, I will not. Please sit down.
It is important that we bring the right scrutiny to our decisions and our defence strategy. It is important, too, that across the House we conduct ourselves in an appropriate fashion. In advancing our defence and security, with the decisions that are pursuant to that, the House should be united. Given the ways in which our society has been disunited, we need as a House to come together and find solutions in a cross-party way.
This year we marked the 80th anniversary of VE Day; 80 years have passed, but memory is not enough. Imagine a world without victory in Europe—a world where tyranny had triumphed and darkness endured. Now look at the world today—a world where autocracies dominate, divide and deceive, and where freedom is retreating. We all owe those who fought and those who fell more than remembrance, and we owe those who carried that loss nothing less than vigilance. That means vigilance against those autocracies and against the risk of misjudgment, miscalculation and misadventure.
All of us in this House have an important role to play in the defence decisions of this Government. That means being a strong democracy, cohering our society, strengthening the institutions of our state, growing economically, securing our clean home-grown energy, investing in new technologies and equipping our military with the tools and technologies that it needs. It means being a true ally and telling our allies around the world when things are not working. It means giving them reasons to listen by growing in strength and purpose. We must speak with the affection and wisdom of an old country that has known what it is to rise, to navigate uncertainty, to be attacked at home, to know the blessings of freedom being imperilled, and to decline from great power but none the less to work with allies and partners to secure freedom in our world against very difficult circumstances.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
When I gave my maiden speech just under a year ago, I took the opportunity to express my frustration that the Government had announced a spending review that would essentially buy the political cover to get to a defence spend of 2.5% of GDP. The frustration I expressed was that the dogs in the streets knew that we needed 2.5%, and that we essentially wasted the best part of a year.
The evidence for that is clear to us all. Lord Robertson and General Barrons appeared in front of the Defence Committee when the Government kicked off the strategic defence review, and I said that when Lord Robertson had done his prior defence review, it was very clearly threat-based and foreign policy-led, whereas this one seemed to be saying, “2.5% is the answer, but now what is the question?”. It proved to be the case, because part way through the strategic defence review the Government asked, “What can you get for 3% by the next Parliament?”, and then they asked, “What can you get for 3% by 2034?”, and then, “What can you get for 3.5%?”. As the Prime Minister turned up at the NATO summit, we got the mystery bump up to 5% for defence and security. My suspicion, maybe slightly cynically, is that that 1.5% is made up of 0.75% smoke and 0.75% mirrors, but we shall see. It would be churlish of me, while defence expenditure is going up, to question it. I therefore think it is important to concentrate on how the money will be spent.
I remind the House of an exchange that took place at the Defence Committee the other day with the Chief of the Defence Staff after the publication of the strategic defence review. He said that we come from a position of strength and that this additional expenditure will simply make us stronger and more secure. I said, “I obviously did not expect you to know the answer to this question, but if I were to ask you, how many working tanks have we got?” He batted away the question in the following way:
“I suppose my caution on that would be that, while we are charged with the nation’s security and safety, it may be that having 50 tanks or 100 tanks is not necessarily going to be the defining factor as to whether the country remains safe. To me, that is the problem with those questions.
I come back to this: is our readiness at a level that we are playing our part, with our NATO partners, and achieving deterrence with Russia?”
Clearly not. He continued:
“Are we really confident about that?
The problem with a micro example is that it skips over what is fundamentally our security construct. We are a beneficiary of a collective group of nations in Europe. Never mind our 50 tanks or our modest increase in the Army; they are increasing their armies by tens of thousands and they are increasing their tanks by hundreds.”
If that is the attitude the Minister is getting to our having very few working tanks, she should be wary of the voices she might be getting from certain parts of the Ministry of Defence. I think that she and the Prime Minister would like some options beyond simply reaching for the nuclear button; there needs to be something in between. I hope that she will take that forward in her conversations with the national armaments director on their priorities.
I asked the Minister when we were discussing the national armaments director whether the director would have free range to tear up the book on defence procurement. The book certainly needs tearing up. I speak as someone who, as well as serving on the frontline on four tours of Northern Ireland, the first Gulf war, the second Gulf war, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone, managed to squeeze in about five years in the Ministry of Defence. I am sure the Minister is aware of the conspiracy of optimism in equipment planning, where people in uniform will tell part-truths about how much things will cost to get them into the programme—it is called entryism, and it has been going on for years—and then, all of a sudden, those same people will come back and say, “Minister, I am afraid our aircraft carriers won’t cost the £2 billion we told you; they will cost £6 billion. But what are you going to do? You’ve already announced them, and anything else will cause you huge amounts of political pain.”
I urged the Minister to tear up the rulebook, and she gave me a positive response: the national armaments director will indeed be earning their salary. The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee said it was £400,000—I think that he or she will be on a potential £600,000 with bonuses—but they have got to be worth that. They must have free range to tear up the book. As a member of the Defence Committee, I do not want them giving us evidence a year after their initial appointment and saying, “I wanted to change things, but they just would not let me.”
This is my final point. Alongside the appointment of the national armaments director, we have defence reform going through. It was telling that when Lord Robertson and General Barrons came back to the Defence Committee having published their SDR and I asked them about the culture change required in the whole of defence reform, Lord Robertson told an interesting story. When Colin Powell moved from uniform to politics and was asked, “How do you bring about a culture change in an organisation which has gone in the wrong direction?” General Powell said, “Well, how do you stop a column of ants? You stamp on the first 10.” The Minister needs to prepare herself for some seriously robust conversations with the Ministry of Defence if money is to be spent wisely and honestly on things that go bang and bring about the effect—not just the input—that we all desire.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
It is a privilege to rise on estimates day, during Armed Forces Week, an annual moment of national recognition for the extraordinary contribution of our armed forces, to speak about the importance of our defence industry. Across the country this week, from school assemblies to community events, people will quite rightly pay tribute to the men and women who serve our nation with distinction. I particularly reference my uncle, Donald Campbell, who died in 2016. He joined the armed forces as a youngster straight from school. He left aged 21 after a schizophrenic breakdown, which ultimately defined the rest of his life, but he, like so many veterans, remained extremely proud of his time in the Army and the role that he played, especially in Northern Ireland.
In my constituency, we will mark Armed Forces Week with Proms in the Park in West Bridgford on Saturday, and celebrate the two events. It will bring together families, veterans and the wider community to show their gratitude and support for those who serve. It is those local, heartfelt gatherings that remind us that defence is not an abstract concept; it is about people, communities and the security that we enjoy because of the historic and ongoing sacrifice of others.
In today’s estimates day debate, I will speak both to the reforms under way and to the Government’s broader vision for rebuilding Britain’s security and supporting jobs at home. As I said in a recent op-ed on defence to my constituents, we are now firmly in a new era for defence—one defined not just by increasing geopolitical threats, as has already been described by a number of Members, but by a determination to face them with seriousness, strategy and solidarity.
This Government have committed to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, already boosting spending by £5 billion this year and setting out a path to 2.5% of GDP and beyond. We have heard today about reaching 5% of GDP on defence and security by 2035, and it is important that this House can scrutinise the trajectory for getting to those targets.
Thankfully, this Government have already taken some shorter-term, practical steps that I welcome. They include awarding the largest pay rise to service personnel in 20 years; establishing the new independent Armed Forces Commissioner to improve service life; and spending an extra £1.5 billion, in a record uplift, to fix substandard forces housing. Just as importantly, we are thinking differently and changing how defence operates, ending waste, rebuilding capability and making defence an engine of growth across the country.
That is particularly notable in my constituency in the south of Nottingham. Many of my constituents work for Rolls-Royce and on their behalf, I welcome the £9 billion Unity contract announced in January to design, manufacture and provide in-service support for the nuclear reactors that power the Royal Navy’s fleet of submarines. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), I also welcome the confirmation that Rolls-Royce will receive £2.5 billion to produce the first small modular reactor, which is key to our energy security. Both announcements are good news for thousands of people in my region of the east midlands, who will be part of the supply chain for those two iconic developments.
We cannot confront 21st-century threats with 20th-century systems. The hard-fought lessons from Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine remind us that a military is only as strong as the industrial and technological base that supports it. That is why I applaud Ministers and civil servants for their work on the strategic defence review and the defence reform programme. At the heart of those reforms is the creation of a new national armaments director to lead a unified group responsible for procurement, research, support and innovation. That is a long-overdue development.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the new national armaments director should have as one of their priorities making sure that the welcome uplift in spending by this Government means that SMEs really get a fair share of that, and that that will do great things for constituencies such as my hon. Friend’s and mine, where there are many smaller and medium-sized businesses that seek to benefit from that process?
James Naish
I was just about to get on to the fact that under the previous Government only two of 49 major defence projects were delivered on time, and SMEs have been locked out of that procurement process, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of changing that.
The new defence industrial strategy puts UK-based firms at the heart of procurement, ensuring that Government investment strengthens our national security and supports good jobs at home. That is great news for places such as Rushcliffe, as I said, given that it sits at the heart of the east midlands manufacturing base, which is home to firms in aerospace, engineering and precision technology, all of which are well placed to contribute to our defence future.
Importantly, not only will this new direction open the door to a better relationship with new businesses, but SMEs in Nottinghamshire will be able to be prime contractors, and it will make defence accessible, collaborative and responsive. We will be able to tackle long timelines, improve communication and, of course, invest in skills. As the Member of Parliament for Rushcliffe, I will continue to champion policies that bring jobs, investment and innovation to the east midlands. Defence must absolutely be part of that equation. Our region has a proud industrial heritage and a bright technological future if opportunities such as these are developed.
Finally, I want to return to where I began: our armed forces. All these reforms, strategies and spending commitments come back to them—the people we ask to defend our democracy, uphold international law and respond at moments of crisis. We owe them not just words of thanks during Armed Forces Week but action, investment and reform every week of the year.
This Labour Government are serious about defence and keeping Britain secure at home and strong abroad. After years of drift, we are delivering the long-term decisions needed to safeguard our country and support our communities. We are not just patching up a broken system; we are building a modern, resilient and forward-looking defence infrastructure, one that reflects the values of our armed forces and the aspirations of our country. I therefore welcome the steps the Government have taken to date and are taking through these estimates.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Today’s debate takes place at a moment of acute global instability, with war still raging in Ukraine, mounting threats from hostile states and an unreliable security partner in the White House. The world is more dangerous than it has been in a generation. In that context, the Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Government’s commitment in February to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2027. The Government’s subsequent commitment to a new NATO defence spending target of 5% is also the right decision. It reflects a recognition of the new threat environment that we find ourselves in and of what is necessary to support Britain’s long-term defence.
It remains the case, however, that the Government are still playing catch up on questions of the nation’s security. The last Conservative Government cut the Army by 10,000 troops, even as tanks rolled across continental Europe. That decision was staggeringly short-sighted and irresponsible. Despite that, this Government have dragged their feet on rebuilding the strength and size of our Army and have said that there will be no expansion to Army numbers beyond 73,000 troops until the next Parliament. In the context of the threats we face, that timeline can only be summarised as a day late and a pound short. The British Army remains one of the strongest deterrents we have—if the Government can commit to supporting its regeneration fully. While I welcome this Government’s shift in tone compared with the Conservatives, I urge Ministers again to commit to a much more rapid reversal of those troop cuts.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The strategic defence review mentions that there will be an increase in the size of the Army at some point if funds allow. Does my hon. Friend not agree that, now that we will be spending 3.5% of GDP on defence, we can accelerate that shift and grow the size of the Army now to provide that deterrent effect?
Helen Maguire
I agree with my hon. Friend that it would absolutely help our deterrence if we could increase troop numbers. The Liberal Democrats are calling for new bonus schemes to recruit and re-enlist 3,000 personnel, allowing the Government to reach their target of 73,000 trained troops as soon as possible, meaning that they can grow Army numbers further and faster beyond that in this Parliament. I encourage the Minister to consider those proposals.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I agree that we need an increase in troop numbers, but the challenge for any Government is not only setting the important policy, but saying how they would pay for it. I therefore invite the hon. Member to set out the Liberal Democrats’ plan for paying for her proposals. Please let her not say that it will be funded by a digital services tax, like all their other policies.
Helen Maguire
The hon. Member will know, if he has read our policies, that our proposal costs a maximum of £60 million, which is insignificant compared with the entire defence budget. Getting us to 76,000 as soon as possible will help us with deterrence.
The Government have promised a new defence investment plan for the autumn. That gives them a vital opportunity to provide clarity about how they will effectively address the ubiquitous shortage of equipment throughout the armed forces. However, serious questions remain about why they did not think it appropriate to develop and publish the plan, or a defence equipment plan, alongside the strategic defence review earlier this month. All efforts should be made to accelerate the publication of the plan so that parliamentarians can scrutinise the Government’s proposals at the earliest opportunity.
The threats to our security mean that the Government cannot afford to delay. With President Trump casting doubt on America’s commitment to NATO, the UK must lead in Europe. That means moving much faster to reach the new 5% NATO target than the currently proposed 2035 timeline, which would take us beyond the life of even the next Parliament. I therefore again urge the Minister to convene cross-party talks so that the whole House, representing the country, can together agree a pathway to the high amounts of defence spending that our security demands.
Our attention has turned this week to security crises in the middle east, but it is vital that we do not lose sight of Putin’s continuing barbarism in Ukraine. We are currently sitting on £25 billion in frozen Russian assets. Across the G7, that figure rises to $300 billion. I recently visited Estonia, and I cannot emphasise enough how strongly the Estonians urge the UK and His Majesty’s Government to develop plans on how best to support Belgium in unlocking those assets, and to lead from the front by seizing assets across the UK. Liberal Democrats again call on the UK Government to work with our allies to seize those assets and repurpose them directly for Ukraine’s defence and reconstruction. If Putin’s imperialism is to be stopped, we must act decisively and boldly now.
We also need a strategy that looks beyond the battlefield, because supporting our forces must mean supporting our veterans, service families, and the defence industry. Liberal Democrats would put in place a long-term defence industrial strategy to protect sovereign capability, provide certainty to industry, and ensure investment in R&D, training and regional jobs.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Government to award the New Medium Helicopter contract to Leonardo UK in Yeovil, and to reassure us that a “defence dividend” will include supporting jobs, apprenticeships and the resilience of domestic defence firms across the south-west?
Helen Maguire
I know how important the defence industry is to my hon. Friend’s constituency, so I ask the Minister to consider that.
We would end the scandal of poor service housing by requiring the Ministry of Defence to provide housing above the legal minimum standards. No one who puts their life on the line for this country should live with leaks or mould. We would extend access to military health services to service families, improve mental health support for veterans, and tackle discrimination and harassment in the armed forces by fully implementing the Atherton review recommendations.
As the US has become an unpredictable ally, the UK has a greater responsibility to lead, to stand with our allies and to act decisively. We must now move faster to restore and grow our armed forces, reverse past cuts, and invest in the skills, infrastructure and sovereign capabilities that our military needs.
The UK must rise to the challenges of standing with Ukraine, securing our alliances, and building the resilience to protect our people in the face of a more dangerous world.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to respond to today’s estimates debate on defence expenditure. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, for securing the debate with the Backbench Business Committee, and particularly for timing it perfectly for the NATO summit and Armed Forces Week.
Given the threats we face from Russia and the instability in the middle east and elsewhere, it is welcome in principle that NATO states have agreed at this week’s summit to increase spending. Nevertheless, when we consider what the Government’s announcement means for UK defence expenditure, we must be clear that talk of 5% on national security and 3.5% on defence is nothing but a con. It is unadulterated smoke and mirrors when we need real investment at real pace to produce a real step change in our deterrence.
Consider first the promise of 5% on national security by 2035, consisting of 3.5% on the core defence budget and 1.5% on resilience and security. The Prime Minister confirmed on GB News yesterday that the 1.5% is already being spent. Not a penny of new money is being spent on actual military capability. As for the core defence budget, Labour has promised 3.5% in 10 years’ time, but the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster confirmed on yesterday’s media round that there is no plan to fund that increase, and there will not be one until at least 2029. If there is no plan for 3.5% in the Parliament after next, what about a plan for 3% in the next Parliament? The authors of the strategic defence review wrote on the day of its publication, 2 June, that the decision to go to 3%
“established the affordability of our recommendations across a 10-year programme.”
The problem is this: the Government no more have a plan to fund 3.5% in a decade than to fund 3% in the years leading up to it. It means that the promises of the SDR were dead on arrival, and the headline pledge of “up to 12” nuclear submarines is a fantasy fleet based on fantasy funding. Most worryingly, the smoke and mirrors are not just being used for spending in future Parliaments. What I am about to say is subject to the caveat that in response to our written questions to the Treasury, it is simply not sharing with us the quantum of money that has been moved from the intelligence budget into defence. Nevertheless, as far as we can see, Labour is not going to spend the 2.5% that it promised for defence by 2027.
To recap, in his defence spending statement in February, the Prime Minister confirmed that intelligence spending would be added to the core defence budget, taking it to 2.6%. By our reckoning, that intelligence spend is the equivalent of almost 0.2% of GDP. Subtracting that from 2.6% gives a figure of just over 2.4%. The smoke and mirrors do not end there. That 2.4% will have to cover the cost of Chagos, which is at least £250 million next year, rising to a total of £30 billion. That 2.4% will also have to include spending on election interference, and other non-official development assistance FCDO expenditure that the spending review confirmed would now be added to the defence budget. The significance of that is that if 2.6% is actually in the region of 2.4%, it will mean that the increase in defence spending to 2027 is not the biggest since the cold war, because it will be less than the increase when Boris Johnson was Prime Minister in 2019.
Here is the upshot of the so-called 5% on national security that Labour has announced at NATO: no new money in the 1.5% for security and resilience, just reclassification of existing spending; no plan to get to 3.5% on the core defence budget by 2035; and no plan to get to 3% on the core defence budget in the next Parliament. The detail of the spending review confirmed that when spending hits the supposed figure of 2.6% in 2027, it does not increase towards 3% but stays flat. Worse than that, as I have explained, defence spending does not get to 2.6% on defence at all, but to something like 2.4% at best. It is smoke and mirrors at every turn.
If there is one thing worse than the lack of substance in Labour’s defence spending spin, it is the lack of urgency. Its promises are all about 2035, a decade away, but the threats that we face are real and imminent. As the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee said in his excellent speech, last July the head of the Army, General Walker, said that we must be ready for a war not in a decade or even five years, but within three years. The SDR promised a bigger Army in reserve, but only in the 2030s. Its big headline promise on attack submarines will be delivered into the 2040s.
Warfare is changing fast, but Labour is moving far too slowly. The SDR was promised for the spring, but published in the summer. The defence industrial strategy was also promised for the spring, but the Minister recently confirmed to me in a written answer that it is months away. The Government must move much faster to boost the total lethality of our forces in the near term, not least by rapidly embracing the extraordinary opportunity to boost our overall mass and capability through autonomous systems and drones.
In my defence drone strategy, the aim was to provide high-quality drone and anti-drone tech for Ukraine—which we have done, and I am very proud of that—and then to learn from that, in parallel, to build a UK sovereign drone industrial base, but that has been completely stymied by the procurement freeze effectively in place since the election. Labour is prioritising penny-pinching over rapid rearmament. While Ukraine is producing thousands and thousands of drones every month, Labour ordered just three new military drones for the British armed forces in its first financial year in government.
What would we do differently? We would go to 3% on defence in this Parliament. We would scrap the Government’s crazy Chagos deal and use the money to rapidly rearm, starting with next year’s £250 million on Chagos. That cash could be spent not on tax cuts for the Mauritians, but on drones and anti-drone tech from British SMEs—on tech that is battle-proven in Ukraine and can be produced in months, and that can be ordered at a low cost but a sufficient scale to enable the Army to start training comprehensively in drone warfare by next year. That is the kind of urgency that we need to see against the threat we face.
If the country hears that the Government are going to spend 5% of GDP on defence, it will assume that it will be like in 1985, when we actually spent 5% of GDP on our military, not on smoke and mirrors. That gave us 337,000 regular personnel, over 600 combat aircraft and a full array of tactical nuclear weapons for land, sea and air. Perhaps there is a reason why our 5% then was so different from Labour’s 5% today: in 1985, our Prime Minister actually led the country.
Instead of surrendering sovereignty, Mrs Thatcher stood up to Galtieri and successfully defended the Falklands. She would never have been neutral when asked if she supported strikes by the US on the nuclear programme of a country like Iran. By standing shoulder to shoulder with Washington, she helped to bring down the Berlin wall and relight the torch of freedom in Europe. Far from returning to the days of 1985 and actually spending 5% of GDP on defence, we now have instead a massive con trick from Labour. Unfunded ambitions and smoke and mirrors will not deter our adversaries. In Armed Forces Week, those who bravely serve our nation deserve much better.
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
I thank all those who have spoken in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) on obtaining it, very properly in Armed Forces Week, to highlight some of the issues. I will try to answer a few of his questions. I have had an interesting read of the 32nd report of his Committee; he and I used to serve together on the Committee many moons ago, so I take PAC reports very seriously.
Although it is true that there has been no equipment plan for the last two years—during which time both Governments have been in power—because of some of the disruption around the election and the wholesale reordering of the way in which the MOD works, I recognise the fact that his Committee is not satisfied with the current state of affairs, and I agree that it cannot stay how it is.
Ministers are committed to increasing transparency, and I undertake to work closely with the National Audit Office and the hon. Gentleman’s Committee to try to work out a suitable arrangement going forward that they will be happy with. We are not seeking to undercut transparency or to fail to report properly to Parliament, so I hope that will give him some reassurance. Of course, we have only just received his report; I think we have a couple of months to ensure that we reply to its recommendations properly, and I will take an interest in ensuring that we do so.
I recognise some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his excellent speech. He asked where all the money is coming from—one or two others have asked a similar question, with varying levels of outrage. What I can say is that in this Parliament, we have already committed an extra £5 billion this year and resources to get up to 2.5% in the core defence budget—more than £10.9 billion extra in real terms. I do not think any of the Defence Ministers have turned up at NATO today with a fully set-out plan for getting to 5% by 2035. Each country has its own way of producing budgets and will do so over different periods, and I think it is quite reasonable for us to say that during the election we had a manifesto commitment to get to 2.5%, we have set out how we are going to do that and how we will pay for it. The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said that he regretted the way in which that commitment is being paid for, but we have made that choice—difficult though it is—in order to make it clear where the money that we have committed to in this Parliament is coming from.
We have always met our NATO commitments. That goes for parties on both sides of the House; when the Conservatives were in government, they met our NATO commitments, and we have always met them and will continue to do so. The way that our spending commitments will be funded in the next Parliament will be set out during that Parliament, but we cannot set a path directly from this Parliament into the next one. NATO will be looking at that. [Interruption.] Well, I would say to the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that we do not budget for that length of time in the future, and neither did his party when it was in office. It is not how we do budgeting in this Parliament and it is not how his Government budgeted either.
Maria Eagle
I mean, the right hon. Gentleman has only just walked in. If he wants to start heckling me, I am happy to have a discussion with him in the Tea Room afterwards, but there is no point in him heckling me from a sedentary position when he has not taken part in the debate. [Interruption.] It is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman to allow me to continue my speech. I am trying to answer questions posed by the Chairman of the Select Committee, whose debate this is.
We know that NATO will—as it usually does—check each nation’s spending against its expectations on a yearly basis, so that will be an obvious way in which we can see progress being made towards our goal. We will also continue to report, as ever, and I have no doubt that we will get to 3% in the next Parliament and that there will be a trajectory towards 5% overall, with the 1.5% security and resilience spending. Instead of making allegations about that commitment being smoke and mirrors, it would be better for the Opposition to say that they would do the same if they were in Government. If they did so, we would have a proper consensus to give industry certainty that this is what we are committed to do as a nation. I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats said that they would commit themselves to that goal.
I look forward to engaging with the Chairman of the Select Committee on the recommendations in the report, and I intend to make sure he is satisfied by what we come back with. He had some particular requests about Ajax—we all know that notorious name—including when the 180 vehicles would be delivered. The initial operating capability of Ajax will be by December 2025; I am hoping it might be sooner, but as far as I am aware, that commitment is on track and at least 180 vehicles will be delivered by that time. Morpheus and the broader land environment tactical communications and information systems programme has been a troubled programme in some respects. It is a £6.5 billion, 10-year programme. It involves lots of things fitting together, as the hon. Gentleman will recall. We are trying to make sure that the programme delivers what it is supposed to deliver.
Some of the programmes we have inherited have troubled histories. That is one of the reasons why we are committed to defence reform. One of the problems with our procurement and acquisition system—this was mentioned, including by those who have perhaps experienced it in their professional life, whether in the forces or in the Department—is that it is not fit for purpose when it comes to doing things quickly and delivering what it says it will. The defence reform agenda is not about reorganising for the sake of it. That is not what we ought to be doing. Were the system in perfect order, we would not be reforming it. This reform is about ensuring that the national armaments director is accountable to Ministers and the services for delivering the equipment that the services need in a timely fashion, because that is not what happens now. Currently, each service goes off on frolics of their own. They have their equipment budgets and top-level budgets, and know what they want, and they never really talk to each other across services. As the hon. Gentleman said, a programme might get started because people think that they want the equipment, and it is a 10-year programme that is not funded right to the end, so money gets wasted. We have to do better.
One way we will do better is by having much clearer accountability. The NAD is a tremendously important figure in that. We will also make sure that we shorten our acquisition timescales. We cannot just have CADMID— concept, assessment, demonstration, manufacture, in service and disposal—for everything, with pre-contract phases and so on. We cannot do that any longer. We are not in times when we can get away with taking 10 years to produce something that is not quite what we wanted in the first place. There has been too much of that, and that is why we are segmenting our acquisition budget. The NAD will be in charge of delivering the capabilities that all our services need in much shorter timescales.
As for drones and that kind of capability, we are trying to get to contract within three months. By standing up UK Defence Innovation with a ringfenced budget of £400 million this year, and 10% of our investment budget in future, we aim to ensure that there is the money to innovate fast and get lethality into the hands of our warfighters faster. That is essential. We need to shorten the time it takes to get there, even for nuclear submarines. Members will have seen the aspiration in the SDR to get the time to contract down from an average of six years for those kinds of things to two years. That is a challenging aim.
On spiral upgrades and the new radars for our existing capabilities, we need to make sure that we get the time to contract down to a year. We need a much faster pace of innovation, change and improvement. The NAD will be responsible for that. There will be direct lines of accountability, and direct budget lines for which he is accountable. We have to ensure culture change to empower those at a lower level, so that we do not slip back into the old way of doing things. That is a challenge, but we need to meet it, given the times we are in.
Maria Eagle
The hon. Member is going to ask me about the new medium helicopter.
Adam Dance
The Minister must be a mind reader. Will she give us a timescale for when the new medium-lift helicopter contract will be awarded? I hope it will be awarded to Leonardo in my constituency.
Maria Eagle
I am not making any announcements today, but I have heard what the hon. Member said, and I want these matters dealt with more swiftly than in the past. He needs to listen out, because the announcement will come in due course.
We are undertaking this defence reform to make a real difference to acquisition and a real improvement to our procurement, to stop wasting money, and to get things into the hands of our warfighters faster. We can argue about money, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) likes to, but we must do better with the money that we receive, because the money allocated to defence could be spent on other things—on hospitals, schools, and helping people with their needs at home.
We all accept that we have to show the public—the voters—that we are spending the money in a way that provides us with maximum value. I know that the Select Committee will help the Government to do that, and I am determined to ensure that we do it. That is what defence reform means.
James Cartlidge
The Minister mentioned money, and it is brilliant that she is engaging in that debate. I mentioned the 2.6% issue. This is very important; the pledge is for 2.6% of GDP by 2027. In written parliamentary answers, we are not being told what quantum of money will be added to the Ministry of Defence budget—namely, what the intelligence spend will be, and the spend on the Foreign Office items outside Chagos. Will the Minister tell what that quantum is, so that we know whether the MOD will really be spending 2.5% on the core defence budget?
Maria Eagle
What the hon. Gentleman said at the beginning of his speech was very simple, I must say. I understand the point that he has made, although I have not seen the answers to which he has referred, so I shall have to take his point away. I am happy to discuss it with him on another occasion, but I cannot give him an answer today.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I deliberately included a little bit about recruitment and retention in my speech. There will, I think, be a tension between the armaments director and the Chief of the Defence Staff over recruitment versus the budget for equipment. It is not possible to suddenly turn on the tap and recruit more people; it takes time. Can the Minister say anything today about when she will start to ramp up that recruitment?
Maria Eagle
A great deal of effort is already being made. Both the Minister for Veterans and People and the Minister for the Armed Forces are leading a number of efforts to improve recruitment and retention. As the House will know, in a “flow and stock” situation, it takes time to turn around a long-standing trend, and unfortunately the last Government did not meet the recruitment targets for the armed forces in any one of their 14 years. This is like turning around a supertanker. We have already made some reforms to try to speed up the time that it takes to recruit a young person who wants to join the forces, and that will start to show results in due course.
Maria Eagle
I am conscious that I am probably overusing my time, so I do not want to give way any more. I apologise, but there is another debate to come.
All of us in the House essentially understand the importance of increasing our defence spending in a way that is effective and gives us good value for money, so that we can boost the capacity of our armed forces to defend the nation and deter potential adversaries. I think we are all on the same page in that regard, and that is a good way for me to end my speech. I thank all Members for taking part.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I thank the Minister for that positive contribution. Twenty-five years ago, when we sat next to each other in the Public Accounts Committee, passing each other notes and holding the civil service to account, who would have thought that we would be in our respective positions now? I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) for his contribution. In fact, I thank all Members for a very positive debate. We look forward to seeing positive results from all the requests that have been made today, and to working with the Government, while strictly holding them to account for all the promises that they have made.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Department for Transport
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Whether they are walking or cycling, riding on buses, trams or trains, or planes, transport plays a huge role in the daily lives of our constituents, and for the businesses and public services on which we all depend. I welcome the fact that the Government are investing properly in transport, particularly local transport. I also welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of £15.6 billion to connect our cities and towns, as well as the fourfold increase in local transport grants by the end of this Parliament. This Government’s ambition on transport is way ahead of the last Government’s.
The Transport Committee is tasked with holding the Department to account on its programme, in respect of both delivery and the use of resources, so I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate and to discuss the estimated departmental spend for the coming financial year. It is inevitable that Members will also want to consider the wider transport issues that affect their constituencies, but I will try to keep my remarks mainly to the estimates.
As our scrutiny role means seeking assurance that the departmental estimates link to the Department’s strategic objectives, this debate is important. Following the publication of the supplementary estimates for 2024-25, I wrote to the Department in March seeking clarity on how the spending aligned with the Department’s strategic objectives. The Transport Secretary replied saying that officials would
“work with the House of Commons Scrutiny Unit and HM Treasury to consider any changes to the presentation of the Department’s Estimates.”
I have not received more detail directly, and the Department’s main estimate memorandum provides no additional information to explain how spending is aligned with the Department’s strategic objectives. That memorandum and correspondence is linked to on the Order Paper.
Furthermore, the Department’s main estimate memorandum was not received on time, making it harder for my Committee and others to undertake effective and timely scrutiny. The Department for Transport was one of only three Departments, along with the Cabinet Office and the Home Office, whose memorandums were not provided alongside the publication of the main estimate.
Under the previous Government, outcome delivery plans were produced that listed the outcomes that Departments hoped to achieve through their spending, alongside specific metrics by which progress could be measured. The Department for Transport’s most recent outcome delivery plan was published in 2021. In the 2025-26 main estimates memorandum, the Department said:
“DfT’s Outcome Delivery Plan for 2025-26 outlines the ambition to build a modern, efficient, and sustainable transport network that raises living standards for communities. It details how resources are allocated between DfT’s three Priority Outcomes”,
which are given as growth; greener, safer and healthier transport, and improving transport for people. The memorandum later states that the
“DfT’s ODP includes delivery strategies, delivery plans and a suite of core metrics to articulate progress against each Priority Outcome.”
But the outcome delivery plan for 2025-26 has not been published, and the estimates memorandum does not explain how spending in the estimates relates to core metrics and so on.
The Cabinet Secretary recently promised to share the next set of ODPs with the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, subject to ministerial approval. Without the ODPs, how can our Committee, and therefore the House, be assured that the Department’s policy objectives are clear, and that its spending aligns with those objectives and with the Government’s really important and very welcome missions? I accept that the Minister may want to write to me after the debate to answer some of my questions. Will the Department for Transport follow the Cabinet Office in planning to publish its outcome delivery plan for 2025-26?
To move on to devolution and accountability, there have been increases in funding in the main estimates, with £100 million allocated to the mayoral combined authorities. Subsequently, at the spending review, there were increases to devolved institutions in England, with just over £15 billion for city region sustainable transport settlements and local transport grants.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The previous Government forced Transport for London to come with a begging bowl every year to get the money needed to keep the tube and the buses going in the capital. Does my hon. Friend welcome this Government’s multi-year funding deal for TfL, which is the largest settlement for over a decade, and does she agree that it will bring stability to TfL’s finances and the ability to plan ahead?
Ruth Cadbury
I welcome the intervention from my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. As a London MP, I know that stability in transport provision in London will be of huge benefit to my constituents, Londoners, visitors and commuters to London. We did not get everything we wanted in the spending review—in our case, the west London orbital—but we certainly got a lot more than we got from the previous Government, and for that we are very grateful.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
This Government’s commitment to supporting transport across the country has led to a quadrupling of money for local transport grants, meaning that Bracknell Forest council will receive almost £7 million of transport funding through the spending review. To return to her previous point about strategy, does my hon. Friend agree that, in developing and setting out their national road safety strategy—I hope, later this year—it is important that the Government listen to local communities and areas such as Bracknell Forest. I plan to launch a consultation with my constituents on road safety this summer. Does she hope that the Government will listen to those views?
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend anticipates what I will say about road safety later, but I agree about listening to communities on the devolution of funding. There are also the adjustments to the Green Book, which may have cost us a little bit in London compared with the funding we have had in recent years, but communities across the country will benefit from the overall national perspective on devolution and considering the country as a whole.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, has secured £2 billion for transport to and between Derby and Nottingham. Considering that the east midlands has languished at the bottom of the list for transport spend per person, does my hon. Friend agree that this Government are taking strides to ensure that the growth that comes through transport is felt in every corner of the country?
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend and fellow Transport Committee member is absolutely right. The changes that this Government are making will be felt across the country and in all types of cities and regions.
To return to the specifics of the £15 billion for city region sustainable transport settlements and local transport grants, which I mentioned, they are deliberately not ringfenced, which is good for local democracy, but does create challenges for the Department in achieving national priorities. I heard from one colleague who is concerned that the politics of their authority is very based on cars, and although we want to encourage people to use public transport and active travel, what can the national Government do if the local authority uses that funding for cars?
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech, and her passion for transport is clear for all to see. I welcome the additional funding for bus travel in Essex, but I am very aware that it is for Essex county council, which oversees bus travel there. Does she agree that this is not just about providing that funding to local authorities, but about accountability and ensuring they act in the best interests of residents and spend that money efficiently and in the correct way?
Ruth Cadbury
Efficiently and correctly, but also transparently, and I hope all local authorities do fully, properly and accessibly account for their spending to their residents.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The hon. Member talks about £100 million being available for mayoral combined authorities, but is she confident that that is genuinely new money, rather than money reallocated from other pots for mayors to distribute?
Ruth Cadbury
The hon. Member asks a good question and the answer is that it is a mixture. It is the philosophy of devolution that is important because mayoral combined authorities in particular can deliver in ways that will be different according to their specific priorities and needs.
There has been a potential challenge to the Department in achieving national priorities. It is also worth noting that the main estimate for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government provides additional funding for the West Midlands and Great Manchester combined authorities, so there are other pots of money from other Departments that mayors can pool together to put to best use for their authorities. Will the Minister set out what happens if a devolved institution diverges from departmental priorities, for example by opting not to fund active travel despite the Department’s objective to increase active travel?
The future introduction of place-based business cases, as set out in the spending review, has the potential to transform how Government think about the value and benefit of transport interventions and outcomes. When business cases are reformed along those lines, we look forward to seeing a difference in how the Government draw and think about those connections.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments about the importance of place-based transport investment. Does she share any of my concerns that some of that place-based transport investment is a little too urban and concentrated too much in mayoral combined authorities, and that there may be areas outside those regions where more transformational place-based investment is warranted?
Ruth Cadbury
My hon. Friend makes a good point. One reason that the initial emphasis has been on mayoral combined authorities and urban areas is because work is already being done on such transport strategies, so they are often further ahead. Our buses inquiry deliberately focused on buses connecting communities away from the large urban areas. My hon. Friend is right that as local authorities have been stripped out over the past 15 years, much of that expertise among members and particularly among officers, just is not there, so there are often not the people needed to do that strategic work. I hope that will change and that when our buses inquiry report is published that element of the debate will be included.
I will move on to specific transport modes, starting with buses. Evidence to our Committee inquiry on buses connecting communities emphasised the value of bus services, and the need for measures to promote their use, especially in rural and suburban areas.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Buses are important to my community in Wales, including the No. 65 that connects Monmouth and Chepstow and is supported by an incredible community group called the Friends of the 65 Bus. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must have more funding for buses across the UK?
Ruth Cadbury
I cannot remember whether my hon. Friend was in the debate on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, but there will be more opportunities to make those points. As she says very well, it is one thing to look at the structures through the Bill, but for many areas, unless the funding is in place, the buses are not there. It is interesting that she mentions the 65: I also have a local battle about the 65 bus. However, that battle is within the context of Transport for London, a regulated transport network, so we have a level of accountability, expectation and information about our buses that was stripped out in the 1980s by the Thatcher Government, when buses outside London were deregulated.
We must ensure that there are strategic objectives underlying the Government’s buses policy, funding and fares approach. We welcome the retention of the £3 bus cap until at least March 2027, as it gives bus companies and local authorities an element of certainty that they did not have. I note that fare subsidy from Government has been cut as the cap was raised from £2 to £3, and I would like to understand from the Minister how the funding links with Government objectives. What is the Government’s bus fare strategy? Are they aiming to achieve economic growth, particularly in those towns centres that are failing because the people just cannot get to them to spend their money? Or is this about increased connectivity? Is the bus fare cap policy being used to tackle the cost of living, to increase ridership or to achieve modal shift? We are still waiting for some sense of what the Government are trying to achieve in their bus fare strategy.
I am now going to move on to roads. We are still waiting for the list of road investment projects in the third road investment strategy—RIS3. No scheme was published at the spending review. The more recent UK infrastructure 10-year strategy stated:
“A full list of projects will be set out as part of the development of the third Road Investment Strategy.”
When will that strategy and that list be published?
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
My constituents in Chichester are beyond frustrated by the congestion on our A road, the A27. A bypass was originally included in the road investment strategy pipeline covering 2025 to 2030, but that has since been deferred to 2030 to 2035, with no guaranteed funding. Does the hon. Member agree that strategic investment in key arterial roads is vital not only to unlocking economic growth but to easing the daily pressures on communities such as mine and across the country?
Ruth Cadbury
I do not know the detail of the proposals of which the hon. Member speaks, but I am well aware that there are bottlenecks on our road systems. This has to be looked at carefully. I learned a lesson about increasing road capacity many years ago when I was a planning student, and of course I remember the widening and further widening of the M25. I once had a boss who said, “You can throw seeds to the pigeons but you will get more pigeons coming to get the seeds.” People will remember the old days when we were able to feed seeds to the pigeons in Trafalgar Square, but that was stopped. We have to do the right stuff in the right way, because otherwise we could end up making the problem worse, but I take her point about the sense of frustration for her constituents.
I want to touch on road safety. Given that our serious road casualty and road injury statistics have flatlined in the UK in recent years, I am concerned that the funding for road safety research has been cut, despite the backdrop of the Government’s plans for road safety. I know that we are due to see the road safety strategy towards the end of the year, so why has that research funding been cut?
To move on to maritime, the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions, otherwise known as UK SHORE, has a research and development programme that was set up to develop innovation to reduce maritime emissions and create skilled jobs across the country. Funding for UK SHORE is coming to an end this year. We are still waiting for the final evaluation report. Meanwhile, the advanced manufacturing sector plan, published this week, said that there would be
“a further £30 million towards the development of clean maritime solutions through the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions (UK SHORE) from 2025 to 2026”.
My question is, will that £30 million be sufficient for the Government’s long-term plans for UK SHORE, given that, as I am hearing, the UK appears to be lagging behind competitor countries on decarbonising maritime?
On walking and cycling, I welcome the sizeable increase for day-to-day and capital spending for Active Travel England after the cut made by the previous Government, and the fact that this is an increase for the next year. However, these figures for growth appear inconsistent with the spending review announcement of a four-year figure, which, when divided by four, looks like a reduction. I wonder whether the Minister could respond to that.
The last mode I will mention is rail. Rail reform will no doubt significantly affect the size and shape of the Department’s spending on rail. The Department is right to be planning for savings and efficiencies as a result of the creation of Great British Railways removing duplication, in particular, while also delivering a better rail service for passengers. My Committee will pay close attention to the Department’s rail reform plans—not just the new structures it establishes, but how effectively those new structures are able to achieve the Government’s aims.
Does the Department have a costed, achievable plan for reducing the cost base by £200 million, as stated, and for growing passenger revenue, as shown in the estimates memorandum? What level of subsidy will continue to be required?
I look forward to responses to my specific questions on the estimates, but I would like to address a couple of other issues on revenue and investment funding. Fines, fees and charges are mentioned only once in the main estimates for transport, namely in the increase in the charge for the existing Dartford crossing. In a report published last week, the National Audit Office has said that
“The government is missing opportunities to deliver efficiencies and share good practice.”
and that
“it is unlikely that the current arrangements for fees and charges will deliver value for money for customers, businesses and taxpayers.”
I will provide two examples. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency spends £175 million a year on the costs of licences, but only £135 million comes in through fees. Is that sustainable? The fee for the driving test has been unchanged for years. In effect, learner drivers are incentivised to take their tests too early, as it is cheaper to have a go at the test than to have another lesson. Should the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency not be empowered to respond to that?
Are the Government addressing this policy vacuum on fines, fees and charges? We need a coherent strategy where each is set at a level that addresses a particular objective—this might be to incentivise or disincentivise, to cover costs, to track the retail prices index, or whatever.
It is important to evaluate how capital investment is spent, given past challenges with managing large infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2. I welcome the announcement regarding its reset; the Committee is planning to hear from Mark Wild, chief executive of HS2, on 9 July.
Finally, I will repeat the point I have made before in this Chamber about the need to develop more, and more innovative, forms of funding transport infrastructure —land value capture, risk sharing, private finance initiatives and more. Putting all that together, we can ensure that all parts of the country can benefit from badly needed transport infrastructure investment in the future.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I agree with the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on one thing, which is the importance of transport for connecting communities. I then diverge from her a little, because if this Government are serious about unlocking and delivering economic growth, particularly across the west midlands, they would be serious about funding transport.
This Government’s commitment to £10.2 billion for rail enhancement is welcome, but, as ever with the Government, it lacks detail and leaves unanswered questions. Take the example of the midlands rail hub, for which the previous Government not only committed to the initial £123 million, but pledged £1.7 billion to deliver the hub in full under Network North. However, today, through the spending review and responses to my written questions, it has become clear that the hub is funded not to delivery, but only to the next stage. I hope that, in his summing up, the Minister will clarify once and for all whether the new Government are committed to fully funding the delivery of this project. If so, when will it be completed? It is critical to the infrastructure of the west midlands and beyond.
Staying on the topic of trains, I cannot let this debate go without mentioning Aldridge train station. The city region sustainable transport settlements are also covered in these estimates. It was thanks to the hard work of the previous mayor, Andy Street, working with the then Conservative Government that we secured and set out a fully funded CRSTS programme. That included £30 million to deliver Aldridge train station in my constituency. The funding for the delivery of the station was earmarked for 2027, providing rail connectivity for the first time since the 1960s. Sadly, it was the decision of the Transport Secretary, together with the Chancellor, to approve Mayor Parker’s decision to convert the capital funding to revenue. The funding had been ringfenced for our station, but it has now been moved away from Aldridge train station—I suspect that it has been moved to fund the mayor’s vanity bus project.
The 2025 spending review also confirmed £15.6 billion in funding to provide transport for city region settlements for nine mayoral authorities, including £2.4 billion for the west midlands. The mayor could have chosen to get Aldridge station back on track, but no, he has chosen to keep it in the sidings. This is despite the Chief Secretary to the Treasury indicating in this House on 4 June that the mayor had not spent all his money, and even encouraging colleagues to lobby him on how he might wish to spend the rest. Suffice it to say, the Mayor of the West Midlands knows my views and he knows my ask, and I will continue asking.
Let me turn now to bus services, which are key to connectivity and to opportunity, particularly for communities such as mine which find themselves still without a train station. We have seen in the estimates that the national bus fare cap, which was increased from £2.50 to £3 in January 2025, is being extended to March 2027. That is fine, but the Transport Secretary claims that this is a measure to reduce the cost of everyday journeys for working people, yet for those of us in the west midlands, it is yet another hit on top of what we have already seen from the mayor, who has hiked fares and monthly and annual bus passes by more than 8%.
In the debate on the Bus Services (No, 2) Bill earlier this month, I asked the Transport Secretary about how the so-called “socially necessary” services referenced in the Bill would be protected and how they would be defined. She told me that it is down to individual local authorities to define what is socially necessary, but gave no assurances about how they would be supported to continue to provide these vital services. As we saw, £750 million per year announced in the spending review is to maintain and improve bus services. It would be really helpful to understand what allocation from the spending review will go to fund these services in the west midlands.
Joe Robertson
My right hon. Friend talks about the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which is now in Committee. Does she share my concern that the franchising arrangements that that Bill offers have little attraction for small local authorities such as mine on the Isle of Wight, because if it were minded to go down the route of franchising, it would take all the risk and could end up with a very large shortfall that perhaps metropolitan boroughs can swallow, but certainly smaller local authorities such as mine could not?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point on franchising. He is right to highlight the potential impact and the challenge for smaller authorities, but there are also challenges for the bigger authorities. My constituency is part of the West Midlands combined authority, and also part of Walsall metropolitan borough, but I am equally concerned about how this new model that our mayor is pushing will be sustainable. I fear that, in the future, my residents might find either a reduction in services, or increases in cost. For constituencies on the edge of a large combined authority, there is always that feeling that services are sucked into the centre and that we are left out on the periphery.
Transport is vital to people and communities, and it is vital in accessing employment and opportunity. From the Government’s plans, it is quite clear that they have simply used reviews to move money around to their pet projects, and they are not joining up communities—simply another missed opportunity. For as long as my constituents continue to raise with me the question of Aldridge station, I assure you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will continue to raise it in this place.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Let me begin by agreeing with the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). She is right to welcome the huge ambition that the Government have shown on transport. It is certainly much more ambitious than what we saw under the previous Government. I urge the Government to grow that ambition boldly, particularly for the areas that were left behind under the previous Government, and to enable growth and opportunity to reach every corner of the UK.
Much of my speech relates to my constituency and the great city of Bradford, which will not be lost on you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the recent announcement in the spending review of £2.1 billion for a new tramline and bus station in Bradford. Those projects represent an important step forward, and I am grateful that Bradford is finally receiving the long-overdue attention that it deserves. Communities in Bradford such as mine, and indeed yours, Madam Deputy Speaker, have waited too long to see promises become progress. I have long campaigned for improved transport links in Bradford and across West Yorkshire, alongside colleagues, campaigners and Bradford council, because I know how vital transport is to unlocking economic growth. It is a driver for regeneration, a bridge between communities and a pathway to opportunity.
If the Government are serious about long-term regional growth, they must go further. We need additional funding to ensure that Bradford receives the full investment in transport that it needs, not only to support our local communities but to strengthen the economic performance of West Yorkshire and the wider north. Despite being one of the largest cities in the UK, Bradford has historically been left behind when it comes to national transport planning. The absence of strong rail connectivity continues to limit our potential, and that must change.
I believe that Bradford would benefit significantly from a new, modern and fit-for-purpose railway station. While I welcome improvements to Forster Square, we must be far more ambitious if we want to deliver a station that truly connects Bradford to the rest of the country and enables wider regeneration in our city centre. A new railway station is deliverable and could be built at pace, with low risk of cost increases. I understand that different Departments have already been looking at the business case and evidence for it. The benefits would be transformative. Improved connectivity between Leeds and Bradford would unlock our huge growth potential.
I would also like to make the strong case for Bradford to be linked into the £11 billion trans-Pennine upgrade. I know that there have already been consultations on its feasibility, and I ask the Minister to address that in his remarks.
By linking Bradford to Huddersfield on the trans-Pennine line, we would have direct access to the wider region. It would speed up journeys to Manchester by half, help put Bradford on the map and be a huge boost for growth. I ask the Treasury to continue to work with the Department for Transport and regional partners to explore improvements in east-west connectivity to complement the city’s long-term growth strategy.
Let me turn to the huge economic benefits not just to Bradford or West Yorkshire but to the whole of the north. Maximising investment in mass transit and Bradford rail would open key regeneration and housing sites. It is central to delivering Bradford’s southern gateway—West Yorkshire’s largest regeneration opportunity—and could unlock up to 10,000 homes across the wider city centre. More investment in Bradford would be not a cost but a long-term saving: it would mean lower welfare dependency, better access to jobs and learning, and a more prosperous, healthier population.
If Bradford were just to meet the UK average for productivity, enterprise and employment, we would unlock over £4.5 billion in additional annual economic output. As the House will know, Bradford’s 2025 city of culture programme is already unlocking billions in regeneration across West Yorkshire, but to truly meet the Government’s growth objectives and level up opportunity, we need a fair, ambitious settlement, because without mobility there is no capability.
I welcome what the Government have done for transport in Bradford so far, but again I make the case for a new rail station, which I know the Minister and different Departments are looking at seriously. I also ask the Minister to consider the strong case for giving Bradford real access to the trans-Pennine line. I urge the Government to set out what additional funding and support can be made available.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I know that a fully connected Bradford will lift the entire region. We will continue to campaign for the transport investment that Bradford so clearly deserves.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
I am grateful to the Chair of the Transport Committee and the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to debate the transport estimates.
I felt a bit underwhelmed by the Chancellor’s offering for transport following the spending review. I am not really sure what she had to offer my constituents in North Norfolk. We saw funding for the continuation of the bus fare cap, which is welcome, but still an increase to the £2 cap that was previously in place. Other than that, what will help them? Upgrades to the Ely and Haughley junctions, which would support improved connections for business and passengers out of Norfolk, were once again overlooked, which will lead only to a higher cost when the Government eventually realise they are necessary. There were also questions over funding for active travel at a time when we should be investing more to encourage modal shift and making walking and cycling an easier and more attractive option, and a complete fiscal straitjacket was placed on the future of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, on which I will focus my remarks.
I am serving on the Bill Committee, and we have learned that the Government have applied a money resolution that means the Bill can incur expenditure only under existing Acts and not create anything of its own that would require any actual money. It often feels like we are living through a certain political sitcom in this place. In this instance, the Treasury has effectively shut the Department for Transport in the back of a taxi and tasked it with coming up with something incredibly popular and completely free. I fear it is only a matter of time until we get a ministerial statement doubling the number of quiet carriages on trains.
The serious point is that we cannot deliver the radical change and improvement that our rural public transport network needs without new money to support it. The Minister responsible for buses, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), has made laudable efforts—I believe that he really believes in buses—and there is a lot of really good stuff in the Bill, but just creating and distributing powers without any funding to support their use, and barely any funding to support and develop best practice on how to use them, will not deliver the improvements we need. Indeed, the Department’s Bus Centre of Excellence is staffed by a grand total of three people, and with day-to-day spending cut by the spending review, we are not likely to see a hiring spree any time soon.
Supporting rural public transport helps across Departments. It supports people’s access to medical appointments in a timely manner, reducing missed appointments or worsened conditions. It reduces the benefits bill by widening access to employment and training opportunities. It is better for the planet, reducing car journeys and the resulting emissions. Revolutionising rural public transport would be a cross-Government win. I hope the Treasury can see it that way too and finally give it the funding that it needs.
Catherine Fookes
Monmouthshire is a rural county and access to transport is critical, so I am delighted to speak in this estimates day debate. Transport enables people to get to work, school, hospital appointments and, of course, anywhere else they need to be. It also enables me to get up here from Monmouthshire. I have already talked about my favourite bus service, the No. 65, which goes through the lovely villages of Trellech and Devauden, and is incredibly important for allowing young people who cannot drive yet to get to work and so on.
I am delighted with the expenditure outlined in the comprehensive spending review for improving transport links across south Wales and reaching over the border. This has the potential to be an absolute game changer for my constituents. A lack of regular, reliable public transport is holding our county back, and it is frustrating and restrictive for residents. More importantly, it is a major barrier to economic growth, which is the main mission of this Government.
That is why I and Monmouthshire residents were over the moon when, in the spending review, £445 million was committed to Welsh rail. The funding is being made available for the Burns stations—five stations outlined in the Burns review that run between my constituency of Monmouthshire and across to Cardiff. That includes an important station to me: the station of Magor and Undy. Hundreds of new homes have been built at Magor and Undy, and the commuters who live in them do not have a viable option to get to work other than by road. There are major road congestion problems around Magor, particularly on the nearby M4, so this transformative rail funding will see huge benefits for my community and allow huge numbers of people to avoid using a car at all for their commute.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. My community, like hers, also depends on rail services running from London to south Wales. I want to underline the benefits she is outlining based on my own experience. Reading has benefited hugely from the Elizabeth line and the rebuilding of the station, and that is linked to new homes and businesses clustering around the station. Does she agree that the Government’s strategy, as outlined earlier, brings forward real benefits to many constituencies across the country, and that there are already such examples where Labour councils and the Government are working well together?
Catherine Fookes
I strongly agree. It is great to see two Labour Governments working together, here in Westminster and down in Cardiff, to deliver those better transport links between London and Reading and all the way down to south Wales.
It is important that we have Magor and Undy station as soon as possible. It is a walkway station, which is really innovative; people will walk to the station from the surrounding area. It is innovative, it is green and it is an affordable choice to kick-start this important new set of transport links. We have to start somewhere with our five stations down in south Wales, so I am using this debate to strongly suggest that Lord Hendy and the other Transport Ministers support starting the journey at Magor and Undy.
Another key issue we face is the closure to heavy goods vehicles of the M48 bridge over the Severn. That is really impacting businesses around Chepstow, particularly on the Newhouse Farm industrial estate. Drivers are being forced to add miles to their journeys. Of course the safety of our bridges is incredibly important, but the closure of the M48 bridge is bad for businesses, bad for the environment and bad for everyone driving locally, as they face even more congestion. Sadly, the situation is expected to continue until late 2026, but I am delighted that the Roads Minister has confirmed to me today that she is encouraging National Highways to expedite the process as soon as possible. I must stress that current timescales are going to hit Monmouthshire hard, so support for local businesses, many of which are in the logistics sector, and help for National Highways to move faster would be extremely welcome.
We need the bridge fixing and we need our station at Magor. Those are two really big transport issues for Monmouthshire, proving the importance of the UK and Welsh Governments working together to improve connectivity, sort out congestion, reduce vehicle emissions and, ultimately, supercharge economic growth. I wholeheartedly welcome the funding outlined in the spending review to help us take steps in that direction.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I praise and thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for her wide-ranging opening speech to this important debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving time for it.
There is much to welcome in the spending review announcements for transport, particularly the capital investment in many parts of the country, but it is going to be important to hold the course and be consistent in the support for such schemes. For example, proposals for a West Yorkshire tram have been in and out so many times that people living in that region have understandably lost count. Hopefully, this time it really will happen.
Beneath the positive headlines about capital spending, and hidden a little in the footnotes, is a 5% cut to operational expenditure during the spending review period. Looking at the detail, there are some somewhat optimistic assumptions that form the basis of how that will be borne. For example, in section 1.7 of the DFT memorandum for the main estimate 2025-2026, it is clear that the assumption as to how some of those savings will be made is through ongoing recovery of passenger revenues since the pandemic, as well as planned cost efficiencies from rail reform. It states,
“Should revenue growth be lower or implementation of rail reform be slower than anticipated then that could result in spending pressures.”
Although Great British Railways certainly has the potential to improve things, I think all concerned would accept that on its own, it will not solve all our problems.
Given that our transport system is not going anywhere —we are not going to see closures of railways or large cuts—I think it is time that we collectively stop viewing it as a burden and spend intelligently to make the most of the assets and the costs that come with them. By spending a little bit more or approaching things a little radically, we can make far more of those sunk costs that go into our transport system and will continue regardless.
It is important to recognise the suggestions at the moment that funding for the existing network may well be constrained by the expensive disaster that the implementation of HS2 has become. We do need high-speed rail in this country, but the costs are simply unbelievable. However, I suggest to the Government that it would be as wrong to punish the conventional network for HS2’s failings as it would be to deprive local roads of investment because of an over-budget motorway project.
Here are a few friendly suggestions to the Minister and his colleagues for how that 5% operating expense gap could be plugged by growing revenue. When it comes to taking the railway to the next level, there are some things that cost very little, if anything, that could be done. I personally find on-train ticket checks to be inconsistent. Where guards are present, they really should be present on the train, ensuring that we maximise revenue gathering from ticket sales. Full electrification of our busiest and fastest inter-city and freight routes would lead to higher train reliability, better acceleration and therefore more capacity, making the most of what we already have. It is not just me who thinks that a rolling programme of electrification would reduce costs; chief executive of Network Rail Andrew Haines recently said in front of the Transport Committee that it is “incontrovertible” that it would do so.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the electrification of railway lines boosts capacity and enables them to ship more freight across our great nation?
Olly Glover
My hon. Friend is quite correct. Having previously worked on this subject in my past life, modelling of acceleration shows that electrically hauled freight is transformative compared with diesel, and it enables more to be hauled, making the most of the limited capacity that we have.
Let me give an example from my constituency. The electrification of the 10 miles between Didcot and Oxford would reduce operating complexity and costs by reducing the long periods when trains sit idle at Didcot because of the split between London to Didcot, which is electrified, and Didcot to Oxford, which is not. It would also enable the sort of fast and frequent suburban service that is needed to serve a proposed major housing development and an artificial intelligence growth zone site at Culham. Full electrification of East West Rail would cost very little, as the project is based on new and heavily upgraded railways, yet massively increase its potential.
Rail freight promotion would reduce the need for costly upgrades to roads such as the A34. Even National Highways acknowledged that to me in a meeting the other day. The A34 through my constituency has heavy freight traffic from Southampton’s ports, including container haulage heading to the midlands and the north. There are capacity constraints that prevent more of that freight being taken on the railway between Southampton, Reading and Birmingham.
As a recent excellent report by the Transport Committee on accessibility highlighted, accessibility improvements make our railways far more attractive. Last night, it was my pleasure to attend a meeting in Cholsey, where people are campaigning hard for accessibility improvements at their station. Such improvements have been made down the line at Pangbourne, Goring and Streatley. New stations on existing lines, such as at Grove and Wantage—an area of major population growth in my constituency—would make more of the infrastructure that we already have.
Do the Government plan to think radically, or will they be stuck in a rut, doing more of the same? Government support for more depot capacity at Temple Mills in Stratford is all that is needed to get more people using international rail services. The private sector will do the rest. That would free up landing slots at the ever-busier Heathrow airport, potentially avoiding the need for a costly and disruptive third runway. I call on the Government to provide sustained and generous funding for Active Travel England, so that it can continue its strong work of ensuring that local authorities provide not tokenistic cycle paths that go nowhere, but the highest quality infrastructure to get us all walking and cycling. Innovation in retail systems to make it clearer where and when the cheapest fares are to be had has the potential to increase revenue yields.
As we found on a recent visit to the port of Dover, there is great electrification potential for the Dover-to-Calais route, which is one of the shortest and busiest shipping corridors in the world. French ports are ready for rapid charging of battery ships, but we were told that Dover needs power supply and grid capacity upgrades. No plans are in place for those, which means that we are missing an opportunity to achieve a global first: fully decarbonised freight.
Noah Law
The hon. Member is making a detailed and impassioned speech about the possibilities for transport investment throughout the country. Does he recognise the value of electrification of the Cornish main line? The benefit would be in the region of 10 times the cost, and there would be potential for a grid upgrade of the kind he mentioned.
Olly Glover
I agree that full electrification is the best solution for the Devon and Cornwall main line, and we can use battery trains on the branch lines once that has been done. I would welcome a longer conversation with the hon. Member, because I understand that the current thinking is for discontinuous electrification with batteries, which is not the right solution for that critical artery across Devon and Cornwall, given that there are dual carriageways, but the railway has had very little investment in the past 40 years.
Integrated transport is key to growing confidence in and therefore use of public transport. It improves interfaces between modes, as well as easing pressure on our creaking road network. The forthcoming Government integrated transport strategy is welcome, but it must address disintegrated timetables for the railways, buses and other forms of transport, baffling and expensive fare structures, unwelcoming bus stations, and the lack of walking and cycling routes. Integrated transport is how Switzerland achieves the highest rate of public transport use in Europe.
The key question for our transport system, which is so critical to our economy, our environment and social inclusion, is whether we want more of the same, or whether we want to create a transport system that really enables access to jobs, social mobility and economic change. Current plans suggest a little too much of the same, rather than a real change of course.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank speakers who have taken part in the debate, and I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the Chair of the Transport Committee, for her comprehensive speech.
Transport is a huge priority for residents of Dartford. The constituency contains the only Thames crossing east of London, as well as a stop on High Speed 1. My constituency has several key railway stations and bus services that need major investment. It is fair to say that Dartford provides some good examples of Government policy starting to get it right, as well as of challenges that we all face.
I will start with roads, and I put on record my appreciation for the announcement in the spending review that the Department for Transport will create a £1 billion structures fund to repair the rundown transport infrastructure—roads, bridges and the like—that this Government inherited, and for which there is no other available funding. Nowhere will that be more welcome than in Swanscombe, where the collapse of Galley Hill road more than two years ago has left residents unable to use the main road out of their town. They are also blighted by heavy goods vehicles that are using roads that are far too small for them. I particularly thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), for visiting soon after her appointment following last year’s election. I look forward to more information in the coming months about how Kent county council, and other councils across the country, can apply to that structures fund.
I warmly welcome the development consent order, and the funding announced for vital work on the proposed Lower Thames crossing, which, when finally built, will relieve the traffic overspill that regularly brings Dartford to a complete halt. Residents in Dartford and beyond eagerly anticipate further news on the funding package. We saw £690 million announced in the comprehensive spending review, but they want further funding in the months ahead—private sector funding, as well as more public sector funding. I look forward very much to working with Ministers to make that happen. The jobs, training and new business opportunities that the construction and operation of the crossing will offer will help to drive economic growth across the Thames estuary, and in the wider region beyond.
Money for potholes, including £54 million for Kent this year, is incredibly welcome, after our roads in Kent became a visible sign of decline under the Conservative party. Residents will be looking to the new Reform county council to make a real improvement to our roads with that money, so let us see it properly spent.
Joe Robertson
It sounds as if the hon. Member is placing his faith in his new Reform county council. Is that really the case?
Jim Dickson
Having seen the DOGE unit turn up in Kent on day one—people with no knowledge of Kent, wearing baseball hats—I am not hugely confident that the council will spend the money well, but let us give it a chance. I throw that challenge out to them. Our community needs Kent county council to put the £23 million of funding that the Government have provided to good use. It must also use the new franchise powers that will be available through the Bus Services (No.2) Bill to improve bus services in Dartford and across Kent. Again, we will be holding the council to account. I also want to say a quick word about welcome developments in rail.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Up north, we are chuffed about the record investment in the trans-Pennine route, and chuffed about Northern Powerhouse Rail. Will my hon. Friend back my calls for better train wi-fi, so that our constituents can check their emails speedily, and my little boy Robin can stream “Paw Patrol”?
Jim Dickson
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Wi-fi not only enables people to work on trains and maintain the connectivity that they need to live their life while using public transport, but provides huge opportunities for entertainment. I know there are many “Paw Patrol” fans out there who will want improved wi-fi on my hon. Friend’s services.
The other equally important rail development that we want in Dartford is further improvements to the reliability of services provided by the Southeastern and Thameslink lines. It is encouraging that on Southeastern, which has been Government-owned for some time, we see an early example of integrated management—the track was previously run by Network Rail—and train operations of the kind that will become the norm under Great British Railways. We are pioneering that in the south-eastern part of Network Rail in Dartford. If we only had more stations with step-free access, including at Swanscombe, where that access is particularly badly needed, that would be incredibly welcome.
On high-speed rail, I note the welcome development mentioned by the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover): new entrants to the international rail services routes have signalled their intention to stop at one or both of Ebbsfleet and Ashford in Kent, restoring international services to our county. We welcome continued support from Ministers for that new international rail connectivity.
Finally, Dartford residents want a couple of extra things to come down the line. We want the highly successful Elizabeth line—or Crossrail, as it was originally known—to reach Ebbsfleet and beyond, rather than terminating at Abbey Wood. I appreciate that funding is not on the table for that project, but given the size of the growing community in Ebbsfleet and the need for sustainable transport links to our capital, I hope that over the course of this Parliament, we may be able to look at how an extension of the Elizabeth line from Abbey Wood to Ebbsfleet might be funded.
Residents in my constituency will warmly welcome these estimates, the Government policy set out in them, and the action that the Government have taken so far to improve transport infrastructure and connectivity. As I have said, I very much look forward to continuing to work with Ministers to get Dartford moving.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I rise to thank the Government for the emphasis that they have placed on transport and critical national infrastructure in their agenda so far; to urge them to go further; to dangle before them the very exciting prospects offered by my constituency, which has economic potential to unlock; and to draw attention to the unmet needs of my constituents.
Along with the rest of south-east England, Surrey Heath is often seen as a well-connected and prosperous part of the country, but that perception has allowed a troubling complacency to take root. Beneath that surface impression lies a set of worsening transport challenges that limit opportunity, stifle growth and place a daily strain on residents across the towns and villages of my constituency. We are the second most car-dependent constituency in the country, with 1.64 cars per household—well above the national average. That figure is the result not of convenience or affluence, but of necessity. Public transport is patchy, unreliable and poorly integrated, and in some areas it is absent altogether.
That car dependency comes at a huge financial cost to my constituents and places a huge pressure on our road infrastructure. Junction 3 of the M3 is frequently overwhelmed and is a daily staple of the morning and evening traffic reports. Any listener to LBC or BBC Radio 2 will know the otherwise wonderful village of Lightwater by its association with congestion and long delays. That is terribly unfair, because it is a rather lovely place. The A322, our principal arterial route connecting several villages, is frequently at a standstill. Frustrated drivers bail out and cut through nearby villages such as Windlesham, which is equally lovely, turning residential roads into rat runs. The Lightwater bypass, which is designed to ease traffic flow, regularly grinds to a halt. This issue is not only congestion, but safety and liveability for those communities. Residents along the A322 report frequent speeding, dangerous driving and noise. There have been serious accidents, some of which have tragically been fatal, but calls for basic safety measures such as speed enforcement remain unanswered.
Jess Brown-Fuller
My hon. Friend mentions safety measures. In my constituency, we have the Fishbourne roundabout on the A27, which many of my constituents avoid like the plague. I was on that roundabout in my car just the other week with a staff member, and we had a very near miss. Does my hon. Friend agree that dealing with the problem once there has been an accident or a fatality is absolutely the wrong way to ensure protections on these roads? We need to fix the problem before deaths occur.
Dr Pinkerton
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I entirely agree with her. We have had several fatalities, and very often our local county council makes the same claim—that it cannot, or will not, do anything until there is greater evidence of safety need. Tragically, the ultimate expression of that need is often a fatality.
Bus services in my constituency are sparse, and are non-existent in some areas. In villages such as Chobham, there is no regular bus service at all, and where buses do run, they are often poorly timed with train connections, leaving residents waiting or missing links. For many, the only option is costly private transport. That disproportionately affects the elderly; young people who have not yet learned to drive, or have not been able to access driving test appointments because of the current crisis in that particular part of our civic life; and lower-income households. In 2025, the simple act of attending work, school or hospital should not be dependent on car ownership or on expensive taxi journeys, often costing more than £50.
Those pre-existing challenges now collide with demands for rapid additional development. With the Government’s commitment to build 1.5 million homes, Surrey Heath is expected to deliver a 113% increase in housing over the coming years, but 74% of my constituency is already constrained by green belt or other planning restrictions. For example, in the village of Deepcut alone, the former Army base that has become notorious in the public imagination has already delivered new homes, and will continue to deliver 1,200 new homes over the next couple of years. That is good, but it places thousands more vehicles on roads that are already under pressure, because no public transport has been introduced alongside those housing increases.
Meanwhile, our rail infrastructure has not only failed to keep up with the times but gone backwards. Camberley, our largest town and the home of Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, is just 28 miles from central London, yet journeys regularly exceed 75 minutes in duration. There are only three direct trains per day, none of which is aligned with standard commuting hours. It now takes longer to travel from London to Camberley in 2025 than it did in 1925. Commuters are often forced to jump into their cars and travel to Woking, Brookwood or Farnborough, adding to road congestion and hindering any meaningful move towards the realisation of sustainable transport aspirations.
We need a long-term, strategic approach to infrastructure. That means faster, more direct train links, dependable and integrated bus routes, and delivery ahead of—not after—major housing developments. For that reason, I call on the Government to commission a national survey of local connectivity, in order to build an accurate picture of travel times within and between our communities and regional economic centres. We must identify the areas that are most underserved and ensure that investment is guided by evidence and lived experience, not just assumptions of affluence and connectivity. Such a national review would enable a more coherent strategy to emerge.
In an era in which I think we all recognise that every single pound matters, that kind of connectivity mapping would provide a valuable guide for critical investment decisions, which must unlock latent economic potential in areas that have been left behind. Without anticipating the results of such a survey, I have every belief that it would show communities such as mine in Surrey Heath to be ripe for that kind of economic investment. If we are serious about building sustainable, connected communities and making every pound of investment count—which surely we all are—we must begin by listening, identifying the gaps, and acting to close them.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate to take place. I very much welcome the investment in transport—especially public transport—in the spending review. The commitment is really clear; for example, there is £2.3 billion for the local transport grant, which will support local transport improvements such as bus lanes, as well as £616 million to build and maintain walking and cycling infrastructure and £2.6 billion to decarbonise transport, which is all very important.
Investment in public transport, particularly in buses, brings multiple benefits. First, it reduces congestion.
Catherine Atkinson
In the east midlands, we saw our bus routes cut by 60% under successive Conservative Governments. Does my hon. Friend agree that buses have a huge impact upon people’s lives and their ability to access opportunities in training and work, to get to health appointments and to connect with family and friends? Does my hon. Friend agree and welcome this Labour Government’s focus on enabling better bus travel, which is the right direction to go?
Alex Mayer
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I know she is normally a champion for trains in her constituency, so I welcome her branching out into buses. The Campaign for Better Transport says that £1 of investment in buses brings £4.55 in benefits, and I am absolutely up for that. While we are on the subject of better buses, where we have good public transport, such as busways in my constituency, people come to them. That is why I back the campaign to extend the Dunstable busway west towards Leighton Buzzard and then ideally on to Bletchley.
In her opening remarks, the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) talked about fees, particularly for driving tests, which we have been discussing in Committee. Will the Minister consider looking at fees as a way to change behaviour? I have been contacted by constituents who have been told they will have to wait up to nine months to get a driving test slot, which is utterly ridiculous. People are putting their lives on hold for such things. One issue we found when we gathered evidence in the Committee is that people are booking up tests, regardless of whether they are ready to take a test. As my hon. Friend said, it is cheaper sometimes to book a driving test than to book a couple of lessons, and that cannot be right.
I cannot imagine any Government out there would relish putting up the price of a driving test. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) was challenging us to find policies that are both popular and free, but we could think about driving tests a little bit differently. For example, how about putting up the fee, but giving everybody one free go at it? Basically if someone passes their driving test, they would get a refund. That would encourage everybody to only go for it when they really thought they would pass. We could probably make it cost-neutral, and it would free up slots, because only those who thought they were definitely ready would go for it, and it would be offset by putting up the charges for everyone who fails again and again. That probably would not have done me any good; I failed my driving test about five times, but I eventually managed it.
Moving on, local roads make up 98% of the road network and carry 60% of all traffic. Every journey, however it starts—whether by foot, by bike, by bus or by car—starts and ends on a local road, and local roads are managed by highways authorities, but highways authorities are not always transport authorities. This will become an increasing issue as the Government roll on with their devolution agenda, which I welcome, and more strategic transport authorities are established. With buses, for example, whether it is an enhanced partnership agreement between a local transport authority and a bus operator, or franchising carried out with a transport authority that is not the Highways Authority, there are things that it is difficult for the transport authority to do to keep a bus running on time, because that is dependent on the road on which it is running.
As we all know, roads can be blocked by roadworks, they can be in a poor state of repair and a bus lane can be obstructed, yet a stand-alone transport authority does not have control over any of that. Such authorities do not manage the planning system, do not collect the community infrastructure levy, do not own the bus stops and do not get any cash from bus lane enforcement—none of that comes their way. However, they are the authorities expected to get on with delivering the funding, such as the £15.6 billion transport for city regions settlement.
May I ask the Minister what lessons have been learnt from CRSTS in respect of delivery? I am thinking especially of any blockages that may have been encountered because of the split between transport and highways, and indeed the lack of passenger transport executives or their equivalents. I have talked to other Ministers about that, but I am delighted to see this Minister on the Front Bench, and it would be interesting to hear anything from him on the subject of passenger transport executives.
As I have said before, we could have a much more cost-efficient system. The Government are rightly bringing track and train together, and I think we now need to have a conversation about bringing bus and bus lane together.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
When we talk about national renewal and about building a fairer country, that promise must be visible in places such as Cornwall. I am speaking today not just as the Member of Parliament for St Austell and Newquay and the clay country, but on behalf of a nation and region that has for too long been overlooked when it comes to transport infrastructure. While urban areas receive wave after wave of capital funding, Cornwall—despite its strategic economic potential—has to fight for anything more than basic improvements.
The Mid Cornwall Metro was billed as a flagship rail project for regional regeneration, but this summer we face the real possibility of reduced services, delays in driver training, and a fractured promise to towns such as Newquay that rely on connectivity to survive and thrive. That is not fairness; it is failure. We must move beyond piecemeal, incremental improvements. A “real” Mid Cornwall Metro would link St Austell to Newquay via the western clay country, and is about as shovel-ready as is possible with a major project of that scale in Cornwall. It is backed by rigorous analysis and an albeit outdated feasibility study, and has a cost-benefit ratio of 2.3. It would connect our critical minerals industry with global opportunity, it would help our young people gain access to jobs and training, and it would breathe life into some of the most under-invested communities in the south-west.
We know there are still announcements to come, but Cornwall cannot sit at the back of the queue any longer. Over the period covered by the spending review, the south-west will receive £201 million in local transport grant funding. I think that is about a quadrupling of the present amount, which is extremely welcome, but just £24.4 million of it is allocated to Cornwall. In the same period, the West of England combined authority, despite its similar population, will receive £752 million. We should like to see the same progress on investment in transport as we have seen in so many other areas, such as local government—with its fair funding—and health, given today’s announcement about the Carr-Hill formula. What we need is a Department for Transport that works with us in Cornwall, not around us. We need proper devolved authority over our local rail system to optimise transport integration and to serve forgotten communities such as Foxhole, Nanpean, Treviscoe and St Dennis, where our track turns to trackbed; we need investment that reflects our economic and industrial ambition; and we need decisions that are based on public good, not on postcodes.
The Green Book review, in proposing place-based approaches to investment, sets our Government a clear challenge. Cornwall is ready to step up to that challenge. Much of the shadow of what we now see as our infrastructure was cast in the last industrial revolution, but with the right investment in Cornwall, we can lead in the next.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
As we all know, strong connectivity is vital to economic growth and social prosperity. It is not just about convenience; it is key to boosting productivity, attracting regional investment and raising living standards. Central to that is making public transport more available, affordable and accessible.
The transport crisis in this country is clear. Since 2015 the number of local bus journeys has dropped by more than 1 billion—a quarter of all trips—with many routes cut and fares up by more than 50% since 2013. Rail use remains below pre-pandemic levels, while Government rail subsidies have surged to over £22 billion, 65% higher than they were before the pandemic, despite repeated above-inflation fare increases. So what is the plan? The estimates offer us some hope, but the picture is mixed.
Let me begin with the positive aspects. The 4.4% rise in capital spending is welcome, especially the boost for Transport for London and High Speed 2, which shows much-needed recognition of the transport network’s capital needs. The continued support for East West Rail and the trans-Pennine route upgrade is also welcome, as they are vital to connecting communities and driving growth—exactly the kind of strategic investment we need.
Sadly, although the Conservative Government claimed to back motorists, they did the opposite, and fewer than half our roads are now in good condition. The new road funding settlement is good news therefore, but it clearly falls short of what is needed. The support for devolution is also encouraging. Local leaders are best placed to deliver for their areas, and increased autonomy for transport in city regions is positive, even if not all the new money is in fact new. However, areas outside combined authorities must not be overlooked.
Of the negatives, the most concerning is the £150 million cut to day-to-day spending this year and over the spending review period, which will affect subsidies for trains and buses. The reductions threaten already fragile services and the efforts to promote walking and cycling, and raise serious doubts about the Department’s ability to achieve its stated priorities.
There is a clear mismatch between the Government’s ambitious transport goals and their budget priorities. An £81 million rise in central administration costs, largely to cover the higher employer national insurance contributions that the Government introduced, raises questions about whether resources are being prioritised towards administrative overheads, rather than directly supporting frontline transport improvements.
Despite pledges to address climate change, the budget lacks detail on funding for green infrastructure, public transport decarbonisation and active travel, leaving the DFT open to accusations of setting green ambitions without a clear financial or operational pathway—greenwashing, effectively.
The £50 million in costs tied to the closure of phase 2 of the HS2 programme further reflects issues with long-term strategic planning. Not only does the expenditure represent sunk costs, with no return on investment; it casts doubt on the Department’s ability to deliver the major infrastructure projects that are so vital for national connectivity and economic growth.
The Liberal Democrats propose simplifying ticketing, improving accessibility and boosting connectivity, and also increasing usage and income by freezing fares. We also advocate a 10-year rail electrification plan—investing in zero carbon by ensuring that all new lines are fully electrified.
Buses, the nation’s most popular form of transport, get little support from the estimates. The franchising reforms in the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill are welcome, but they will not restore regular, affordable services without funding and expertise. We need more than just three people in the bus centre of excellence. Years of neglect following Tory deregulation have destroyed much of our national bus network, isolating communities and holding back growth. Clearly, the Chancellor’s hike of the fare cap from £2 to £3 should be reversed, as it is causing real hardship for some of the poorest in society, yet the estimates reveal continued cuts to bus subsidies, which is precisely the wrong approach when communities desperately need reliable, affordable bus services.
The Liberal Democrats believe that active travel infrastructure must accompany public transport reform, but the Government’s approach is disappointing. Although £246 million is currently allocated to Active Travel England, funding is set to be cut by more than £90 million next year, undermining Labour’s earlier promises of unprecedented investment. The Liberal Democrats propose a different path: a nationwide active travel strategy to build new cycling and walking networks that are better integrated with existing transport. This cost-effective, ecofriendly approach would connect homes, schools, high streets and transport hubs.
These estimates show a Department and a Government who lack ambition. While increasing capital spending and investing for the future are positive, cutting day-to-day spending is a poor decision from a Government who say economic growth is their highest priority. We need a transport system that works not just for the next decade, but for the next bus, the next train, the next school run and the next hospital visit. This means funding day-to-day services properly, empowering local authorities and putting passengers at the heart of every decision, for which the Liberal Democrats will continue to fight.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) for securing this important debate.
Transport has always been about more than how we get from A to B. Infrastructure is the connective tissue of our economy, and investment in infrastructure can propel economic growth. I think the whole House would agree with that statement. In that light, I welcome the fact that the spending review confirmed that capital investment, excluding spending on HS2, will increase at a real-terms annual growth rate of 3.9% between 2025-26 and 2029-30. The Government have outlined where much of this capital will be directed in the spending review and the 10-year infrastructure plan, and I am pleased that many of these projects align with the commitments set out in the previous Government’s Network North plan. I look forward to the publication of the infrastructure pipeline in July to see further information.
Wendy Morton
Although some projects in the Network North plan have been transferred over and continued, Aldridge train station was not one of them. It was funded through the city region sustainable transport settlement, so does my hon. Friend share my disappointment for my communities that it has been scrapped by Mayor Parker in the West Midlands?
Gareth Bacon
My right hon. Friend is a doughty champion for her Aldridge constituents. I share her disappointment. It is not the first time I have heard her raise that disappointment in this Chamber in the past few months and—
Gareth Bacon
No, I suspect it will not be the last time I hear it.
There will be occasions when Labour Members fail to read the previous Government’s announcements, so for their benefit let me point out how the funding sums promised to authorities by the previous Government have been closely replicated, in some cases identically replicated, by those promised in this Government’s spending review announcements. For example, for West Yorkshire, £2.115 billion was promised in 2023, and £2.115 billion in 2025; for Greater Manchester, £2.47 billion was promised in 2023, and £2.47 billion in 2025; for the Liverpool city region, £1.58 billion was promised in 2023, and £1.58 billion in 2025; and for West Midlands, £2.65 billion was promised in 2023, and £2.4 billion in 2025. I could go on, but Members will recognise the point. The estimates and the spending review are not new and they are not innovative.
Turning to the substance of the Government’s plans, I want to take this opportunity to examine some of the assumptions underpinning this spending review. I am afraid those assumptions are flawed. The first relates to the supposed benefits of nationalisation. The spending review anticipates that the Department for Transport’s resource departmental expenditure limits, which is its day-to-day revenue spending, will fall by 5% in real terms during the next three years. I do not dispute that it is possible to make savings in the Department for Transport, but I do question the means by which the Government expect to deliver those savings. The spending review claims:
“Resource DEL funding falls in real terms over the period, primarily driven by a declining rail passenger services subsidy as passenger ridership and revenue continue to recover post COVID-19 and efficiencies and savings are made through public ownership.”
This is another entry in the ever-growing list of benefits that Labour claims nationalisation will deliver—lower fares, no strikes, better services and now lower spending.
Let us be clear: this is political daydreaming, not economic reality. The first train operating company to be brought into public ownership by the Government was South Western Railway, and we have already seen unexpected costs with its rolling stock. Credible reports show that mistakes made by the Government will cost the taxpayer an anticipated £250 million more. The Transport Secretary herself has admitted that nationalisation is not a silver bullet. She is right, but the narrative presented in the spending review and these estimates continues to rely on assumptions that remain unproven.
Labour’s ideological plan to nationalise even the best performing rail operators will benefit neither passengers nor taxpayers. Beyond the loss of private sector investment, nationalisation also poses a deep structural risk, because under a single nationalised employer, there will be enormous pressure to harmonise terms and conditions across the entire railway workforce. That may sound harmless or even desirable, but in practice it means the trade unions openly calling for levelling up pay, benefits and working practices to the most generous standards currently found in the system, and they have wasted no time in doing that. I am sure that their members will be delighted by that, but for the Government, the taxpayer and the fare payer, that has one inevitable outcome: rising costs, almost certainly with no corresponding rises in productivity. Far from delivering savings, this sets the stage for spiralling costs, renewed industrial action and even poorer services for passengers.
Turning to the wider economic picture, the Government claim their infrastructure plans are
“creating the conditions for sustainable economic growth in communities throughout the UK.”
However, the truth is that the greatest barrier to growth in this country is not a lack of spending. How could it be when current levels of spending are just about the highest in our entire peacetime history? No, the greatest barrier to growth is the economic mismanagement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and this Labour Government.
We know that to fund this increased spending, Labour has not got control of the welfare bill, or reduced the size of the state, but simply changed the fiscal rules to allow billions more in borrowing. More borrowing is certainly not the long-term answer—this is not free money. Britain already spends almost £106 billion a year just to service its debt. For context, those payments outweigh what we spend to protect our country not just from foreign threats, but from crime at home, because our debt-servicing payments exceed the combined amounts allocated in the spending review to the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. That is not just unsustainable, but irresponsible.
Higher spending and higher borrowing fuels inflation. It undermines growth and it blows a hole in the public finances. Of course, we all know how Labour plans to fill that hole—with higher taxes. Will the Transport Secretary urge the Chancellor to restore discipline to the public finances? I hope she does. Will she set a credible strategy to deliver efficiencies within the Department for Transport? I hope she does, so that come autumn we are not hit with yet another round of tax hikes.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this estimates debate, exploring their priorities for Government spending, including those Members who presented a vision with which I might disagree. We must acknowledge that the Government continue to offer more questions than solutions. In transport, we are presented with legislation to change bus policy without the funding that we know will be required to implement it properly. We await pipeline plans, railway reform papers and road investment strategies. When I was appointed shadow Secretary of State, I was initially faced by the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh), who constantly declared that she wanted
“to move fast and fix things.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 446.]
But nearly a year into this Government, it feels as though things are moving at the speed of a canal boat in reverse—very slowly and taking the country backwards.
The problem is not the current Transport Secretary, or the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), who is responding to the debate today. The problem emanates from No. 10 and No. 11 Downing Street, because when the captain and the first officer of the ship have no ideas of their own, refuse to scan the horizon and see it for what it is, rather than what they would wish it to be, the journey ends up lost and directionless. For the good of the country, I hope that the Government will come to understand that real change means supporting British business and backing the everyday commuter. In the meantime, I fear these estimates are indicative of a Government who are not listening, failing to heed the warnings and will continue steering the ship of state straight towards the iceberg.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. As you cannot speak from the Chair, may I say what a doughty champion you are for the reopening of Manston airport, in your constituency?
First, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) for securing the debate and for the work they have done on the Transport Committee. I am grateful for all Members’ important, interested and varied contributions, and will try to address as many as humanly possible—there were an awful lot of questions in many of them. I know that Members are anxious for news on specific schemes in their local areas, but I will not be able to announce any new decisions today. We will make announcements in due course through the usual processes.
Let me address the comments made by the Transport Committee Chair about how spending is linked to the Department’s strategic objectives. Our spending is wholly orientated towards delivering this Government’s missions and our plan for change. At the heart of our approach is harnessing transport to drive growth, as better transport will connect people and opportunities and ensure that businesses can grow and thrive. That is why we are investing in vital public transport services, repairing our road networks, transforming our railways and providing unprecedented investment for local leaders to invest in their priorities. Five out of the first 10 Bills in this Session were on transport—we did not have five transport Bills in 14 years under the last Government. We are moving at pace.
In the financial year 2025-26 alone, we are delivering £1.6 billion for local road maintenance, £1.3 billion for local transport in our big city regions and over £1 billion for bus services. We are also providing more than £420 million for our smaller cities, towns and rural areas, as has been mentioned today. Our investments will help to drive growth in every part of the country and raise living standards for everyone.
We are supporting the transition to net zero and an economy powered by clean energy, with more than £200 million to accelerate the roll-out of electric vehicle charge points this year. We are investing in active travel infrastructure to improve the health of the nation, with an additional £150 million of investment in cycling and walking infrastructure in this financial year alone. We are supporting bus services and capping fares to connect people to jobs and to boost opportunity. We are also supporting safer streets by making public transport safer—including, most importantly, for women and girls. Across our work, we are making sure that every penny of taxpayers’ money is put to good use, from greater efficiency within the Department to getting to grips with the spiralling costs of HS2 and bringing that project back on track.
Although this debate concerns the estimates for 2025-26, I note that only two weeks ago, the Chancellor set out how our ambitions for the transport sector will last the whole of this Parliament. With the settlement we have received for 2026 onwards, we will deliver increased local transport investment in England’s towns and cities, prioritising funding in the north and the midlands and giving local areas more control over how the money is spent. We will improve everyday journeys across this country and invest in the critical national infrastructure needed to connect our cities and our towns in the long term, enabling economic growth. This will ensure that transport plays its part in delivering the plan for change and a decade of national renewal.
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for her speech. She asked me a number of questions about when we will publish the outcome delivery plan. This will be done by all Departments, co-ordinated through the Cabinet Office, later this year. She asked about subsidiarity, and what happens if mayors do not use the money and new powers we have given them on the things that we want to do, citing active travel as an example. Even with subsidiarity, mayors have to deliver against Government outcomes and objectives, and we hope to work with them in a spirit of co-operation to ensure that that is done right.
My hon. Friend asked what our bus reform and £1 billion investment was meant to achieve. We introduced the new £3 fare cap on single bus fares in England outside London, which has had the cap for a long time, ensuring that millions of people have access to affordable fares and better opportunities to both go to college and work and to see friends and family.
With UK SHORE, we have moved fast with the decarbonisation plan, and the research and development funding for this will continue. We have worked internationally with the International Maritime Organisation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across our planet. We have also announced £185 million through safer roads funds to invest in the 99 most risky A roads, and we have made clear commitments on rail cost base and subsidy.
The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), the former Rail Minister, is a doughty champion for Aldridge station—well done to her for that. The money was reallocated by the current mayor to cover the costs of schemes implemented by the former mayor that did not have the funding. She also talked about buses; I have already mentioned the £1 billion that we have invested in better buses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who cannot be in his seat at the moment, is an astonishing champion for Bradford. May I pay tribute to him and to Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe, the leader of Bradford city council, for their work in this area? The £2.1 billion train line and bus station investment is transformative. Some £35 million of Government money will see an additional five daily services to London, and we will be making announcements in the next few weeks regarding Northern Powerhouse Rail and how important it is to connect the cities of Leeds, Bradford, Manchester and Liverpool.
Wendy Morton
While the Minister is still talking about rail services, I just want to ask about Aldridge station to be absolutely clear about the situation. When the money for the station was allocated, it was ringfenced. It was his Government who decided to move the money from capital to revenue, so it is simply unfair to blame it all on Andy Street; it is not right.
Mike Kane
I thought the former mayor was quite a talented individual and he was succeeded by another talented individual, who has had to make tough choices around funds that were committed but never implemented under the previous Government. Promise after promise was made, but with no delivery whatsoever. None the less, the right hon. Member should carry on campaigning.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) rightly talked about buses. I have already mentioned the amount of funding that we are putting in there, and the £616 million for active travel, which has been mentioned by a number of Members, on top of the £300 million that was allocated last year. I had a great time last Easter cycling with my wife around the hon. Member’s constituency on Rebellion Way, which is a wonderful piece of Sustrans infrastructure.
Steff Aquarone
I thank the Minister for coming to North Norfolk; he is welcome at any time. Having experienced at first hand the reality of rurality in my constituency, does he agree that we need to look at alternative models for rural public transport?
Mike Kane
We are giving back control of buses to local authorities—as difficult as it is in some circumstances. It is a £1 billion commitment. People in rural economies need to get about just as much as people in cities and we are committed to making sure that that happens.
Let me turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes). I cannot wait to visit and to ride on the No. 65 bus. She is a doughty campaigner for her constituency. She also talked about two Labour Governments working hand in hand to bring rail investment to Magor and Undy station, and I am glad that she has had correspondence with the Roads Minister on the safety of the M48.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) rightly talked about HS2. He highlighted the need to connect our maritime industries on the south coast with the rail network, so that we can take maximum advantage of both maritime and rail to get that freight off our roads.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) summed it up when he spoke about the collapse of Galley Hill Road, which I thought was a metaphor for transport under the last Government. We have committed to the Lower Thames Crossing, with an initial investment of £590 million, and we will be making announcements on that in due course. We have also put in £54 million to fix potholes in Kent. The Government are showing that we are committing to the Lower Thames Crossing, with announcements to come, and are fixing the roads, and yet not one Reform Member came to this debate. Let us remind the people of Kent day in, day out about Reform’s lack of commitment to improving their lives compared with what we are doing.
I was with the predecessor of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) at the British Ports Association. Do they only elect Scottish Members to the Surrey Heath constituency? I noticed that even some of the mannerisms were the same. The hon. Member made some important points about evidence-based transport systems. I think we are demonstrating that we are not a cultural, woke Government but are looking policy data to drive our decisions about how we best connect this country up. He also talked about road safety. Our manifesto included a commitment to long-term connectivity for transport across the country. That will be coming, so I hope he gets involved in the debate when it comes forward.
The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage talked about HS2. We have accepted James Stewart’s recommendations about the cost overruns, although the hon. Member was right to highlight them. He also asked about how our railways and maritime industry can work together. Green shipping corridors will be key to the future of shipping, but the grid capacity in our coastal communities is not up to scratch. He knows that and we know that, and that is why we made manifesto commitments on our grid capacity. I note that we have already made announcements about greater European train connectivity, but I understand the point he makes about depot constraints; the Government are looking at that as well.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) is a real champion for Cornwall. I was glad that we could announce £4.1 million for Cornwall alone in 2025-26 in addition to the £201 million —which, as he mentions, is four times greater than the last settlement. We hope to see things improve in that wonderful part of the country.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) always astonishes me. He is like some latter-day Hilaire Belloc in his pinstriped suits and polka-dot tie. He was so positive about the Government that I thought he was going to cross the Floor for a second; we will give him time. He mentioned being disappointed about some areas, but we have done more to decarbonise transport this year, more for buses than any Government have done for a generation, and more for active travel in one year than any Government for a generation.
Mike Kane
Under this Government, Active Travel England gets settlements that go forward. I have to say that I thought the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip—the former Prime Minister—was actually very good in this space, but the announcements he made were then all pared back. Local authorities need to have long-term continuing investment to connect routes and get people walking, wheeling and cycling. My constituents die of type 2 diabetes, hypertension and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—all things that can be fixed by more of us walking, wheeling and cycling. Active travel is key to the Government’s health mission as well as to our transport mission.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for his contribution. He mentioned that the settlements for West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and the west midlands were similar to those from 2023. Yes, they are, but this Government are delivering on these settlements. We had so many promises from the last Administration, but we are delivering.
We will take no lessons from the Opposition on the costs of Great British Rail, which I think the nation is proud of, given that we were left to clear up the debacle of the overrun costs of HS2—a project that was cut by the previous Prime Minister while he was at the Tory party conference in Manchester. It was the most astonishing decision, and the most astonishing place to announce it. As a proud trade union member, I am glad that the trade unions have come to the table this past year. After years of industrial strife, we are solving the disputes, particularly in the railway industry, and services are beginning to improve.
On long-term investment, I gently remind the shadow Minister that he voted for Prime Minister Liz Truss’s Budget, which left us with a £22 billion black hole. We have been tackling that as well as setting out our ambition for the future. We are fixing the foundations of our transport system to deliver the Government’s priorities. Our funding settlement for 2025-26 enables us to press ahead with reforming our bus and rail services, to get to grips with the maintenance backlog, to empower local leaders to deliver, and to build transformative new routes for the country. The settlement announced earlier this month will build on that; it will drive progress on the Government’s missions, and improve transport for people and businesses across the country.
I thank hon. Members for contributing to the debate. I am grateful for the important work of the Transport Committee, and look forward to continuing to work with it. I commend the estimates to the House.
Ruth Cadbury
I will do what I omitted to do at the start of the debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for awarding us the opportunity for this debate. I also thank all hon. Members who contributed to it.
I was thinking about the themes of the debate, and the most common issue, mentioned by hon. Members from across the country, was the need for a new station, or even stations, in their constituency. All gave really coherent and rational reasons why those stations are needed. When I was growing up in Edgbaston in south Birmingham, we did not have a Five Ways station or a University station. Those stations were installed about 30 or 40 years ago, but it is unbelievable to think that they were not there, because the amount that they are used is incredible. There is a really fast service to New Street station, as the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) probably knows, although she represents the other side of Greater Birmingham.
I also want to mention the new mid-Cornwall metro that my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) spoke about. He made a powerful case for the needs of communities that are, in many places, quite deprived. Many people go on holiday to Cornwall, but we must remember that there are economically deprived, left-out places, and they need new lines, whether full rail lines or light rail. The right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made an important point that we picked up in our buses inquiry about the need for decision-makers to remember outer areas, which are as important as core city areas.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) not only made a passionate plea for a new station, but thanked the Government for at last funding a tramline and bus station. That is a really good example of what the Government are already achieving, and it shows how long the community has been fighting for those services.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), who is on the Transport Committee, gave a strong speech about the issues facing very rural constituencies, for which public transport solutions are not easy. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) mentioned the downsides of high rates of car dependency. In a very rural area, there is literally no way to get about unless one can drive a car, and that often decimates the population of rural villages and hamlets. In the London hinterland, high rates of car dependency have implications for congestion. I do not often drive outside London—or in London—but I recognise the issues well. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath also raised an important point about the inadequate alternatives to car travel for those living in new developments. The Government’s new planning policies seek to address that gap in policy; if that does not happen, we will just build car dependency into new developments.
My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) made an important point about the implications for the local economy and local people when a major piece of infrastructure is closed. I hope that the M48 bridge is opened before too long. The hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), another member of the Committee, made, as ever, many expert points about rail. If anybody has any questions about rail, they can just ask him. He was possibly the only Member here today—or almost—who mentioned freight. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) mentioned the importance of accessibility. I urge those who have not read the Transport Committee’s first report of this Session to pick it up, though the work was done in the previous Parliament. It is called “Access denied: rights versus reality in disabled people’s access to transport”, and it is about the experiences of people with disabilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford mentioned a subject that comes up for us again and again: potholes. Our second inquiry is on street works, the damage that potholes cause to vehicles, and the disruption caused when utility services do not repair potholes properly and repairs are outstanding for a very long time. My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of the Elizabeth line extension. Despite criticisms over the years about the cost of Crossrail and the delays to it, now we can only look at the massive success of the Elizabeth line. It has so many huge benefits for growth; it enables new developments; and it takes pressure off underground lines, such as the Heathrow branch of the Piccadilly line in my area. That set of benefits comes from extending lines or bringing in new ones. The Elizabeth line being in London and the south-east is an example of how cheques from the Treasury are not necessarily needed to fund such projects. That is a good example of how land value capture could fund these projects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) talked about the value of buses and the bus fare policy. She also made an innovative suggestion around the charging for the driving test, which should be noted by the Minister. I hope, as I say, that the Government look at fees and charges, and that is a new suggestion.
Turning to the Front Benches, there was nothing wrong in any of the individual projects in themselves mentioned by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), but as often happens with Liberal Democrat ideas, it would be financially unachievable as a programme. The Labour party is in power already delivering strategies and specific changes, but it is doing so within the financial constraints that this Government inherited.
The shadow Transport Secretary omitted to mention his Government’s lack of coherent transport policies while also trying to criticise our Government’s policies. He omitted to mention that the criteria for funding local schemes under their Government was decided more on the basis of the marginality of their Members’ seats than the rationality of those transport proposals. He also omitted to mention that cutting then stopping HS2 cost billions and billions of pounds.
Finally, the Minister reminded us cogently of the importance of transport to the Government’s missions, and that we cannot make unfunded promises.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Delegated Legislation
Haemochromatosis Screening
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I ought to begin with an explanation of what is a very long word. Put simply, haemochromatosis is too much iron in the blood—haemo, blood; chroma, iron; and tosis, too much of it. To save time and the good offices of Hansard, I will refer to it occasionally as HCT in this debate. It is an inherited genetic condition, a disorder often known as the Celtic curse, because it is particularly prevalent in Celtic bloodlines and is common in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I think it is more probably a Viking phenomenon—an old genetic response to times of famine that we carry into modern times.
Untreated haemochromatosis can lead to several common conditions that we might describe as Scottish diseases of ill health: cirrhosis of the liver, heart disease, arthritis and so on. Once spotted, HCT is easily treated by venesection—another long word—which simply means bloodletting. About 450 ml of blood is taken off the patient at each session to chase down the iron levels in the body to normal levels. Generally haemochromatosis is asymptomatic, and without a test to measure for ferritin levels, it can be easily missed.
I have a bit of knowledge of the bloodletting side of the business, because for the past 17 years, I have been attending the Knutsford ward at the Royal London hospital on a regular basis for venesection. I am grateful to the staff there for the incredible treatment they have given me, including consultants such as Richard Marley. I am also grateful to my younger brother, Donald, who was tested and found he carried the gene in 2008.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman—I am not going to pronounce his constituency, as I would get that all wrong with my Ulster-Scots—for bringing this debate forward. He and I spoke last night about HCT and its prevalence. He is right that it is called the Celtic curse. Some might say that maybe I am a curse on some people. I am sure nobody would come to that conclusion. However, one in 10 people have this disorder, which features strongly among the Northern Irish, the Scots, the Welsh and even Cornish communities —all the Gaelic cousins and people. However, even with that prevalence, screening does not naturally take place and quality of life is impacted for years before someone even goes to their GP. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is unnecessary to live with something that can be easily treated?
Torcuil Crichton
The hon. Gentleman’s interventions are always a blessing, never a curse. I have some information of particular interest to his part of the world later in my speech.
I have declared my interest, as I have haemochromatosis, but it is not just my experience, but that of my constituents and the make-up of my constituency in Na h-Eileanan an Iar that have spurred me to secure this debate. It is not all about me.
A groundbreaking DNA study headed by Professor Jim Flett Wilson of Edinburgh University discovered that the Western Isles are a hotspot for haemochromatosis, this genetic mutation that the body at some stage adopted for survival. People are at risk of developing the condition if both their parents have the faulty gene and they inherit one copy from each of them. They will not get haemochromatosis if only one of their parents carries the gene and they only get one copy, but there is a chance they could pass the gene on to their children. If people inherit two copies—that is, both their parents are carriers—they will not necessarily get haemochromatosis. About half of people with two copies of the faulty gene develop the condition, and it is not known exactly why.
What is known is that the Viking genes DNA study by Professor Jim Flett Wilson took DNA samples from islanders in Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, and it threw up some amazing discoveries. People wanted to find out if they had Viking heritage, and many sent in swab samples and filled in the questionnaires in sufficient numbers for the scientists to crunch the numbers. I did not do that myself. Feeling Viking by name and by nature, I did not think it necessary.
Analysis of the data, and cross-examination with other gene studies, showed that in Orkney and Shetland, participants in the study had rare and unique cancer genes, which led to them being alerted to their condition. The study saved lives and is credited with doing so. The good news for the Western Isles—for Na h-Eileanan an Iar—is that no rare cancer genes were found. While the results are still being finalised, it is clear that the Western Isles are a hotspot for haemochromatosis and inherited high cholesterol, which can lead to heart disease.
According to Professor Flett Wilson, the numbers in the Western Isles are sufficiently high to justify population-wide screening. For instance, one in 212 people in the south and east of England carry two copies of the faulty gene, as opposed to one in 62 in the Outer Hebrides.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on genetic haemochromatosis, and my constituent Lorraine asked me to attend the debate. She suffers from the disease, and has found a way to manage it by donating blood regularly. She is pleased that genetic testing enabled her to know about her condition so she did not suffer severe organ damage, which can affect many people with the disease. Does my hon. Friend agree that genetic testing for those who are more likely to be diagnosed is essential if we are to help people lead healthy lives without the need for medical intervention?
Torcuil Crichton
I do indeed agree. Haemochromatosis, although widespread, was not widely known about until very recently, but genetic testing, as well as simple ferritin level tests, will inform many more people. Early intervention is vital to preventing people from developing crippling illnesses which might otherwise be wrongly ascribed to a condition other than haemochromatosis.
It is not just people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent who are affected. In Northern Ireland—or the north of Ireland, depending on how we view our maps—the situation is even more stark than it is in the Western Isles. Among the population of “Ulster Scots”, if I can call them that, there is a one in 123 occurrence of two faulty copies of the gene, which is similar to the incidence in mainland Scotland. The Catholic community in the north-west of Ireland have the highest concentration in the British Isles: one in 54 carry two faulty copies. On the basis of Professor Flett Wilson’s work, we can predict that one in 94 men in the Western Isles will develop HCT, and one in 80 men of north-west Irish ancestry—and the Irish diaspora is present in constituencies in Scotland, in London and across the United Kingdom—may have the condition, perhaps undetected and perhaps mis-diagnosed, and are possibly suffering from the long list of illnesses associated with an iron overload.
In Orkney and Shetland, analysis of the Viking genes study uncovered rare cancers and lives were saved. In my constituency, people who were found to have the HCT gene have been alerted by letter. The figures for the Western Isles do not include people who did not take part in the study, but they constitute a timely warning about the advisability of screening, a procedure that is not expensive. In the Hebrides, it looks as though we should act on the spike in iron overload. Professor Flett Wilson has recommended islands-wide screening for this common blood condition, but I want to go further: I think that everyone in the Western Isles, or Na h-Eileanan an Iar, should be screened for too much iron in their blood, but I think they should also be offered DNA tests across the board to show what other inherited conditions they might have.
Jim Shannon
I will be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am descended from the Stewarts of the lowlands of Scotland, and I am probably the hon. Gentleman’s Gaelic cousin. This screening needs to be carried out in Northern Ireland as well as Scotland.
Torcuil Crichton
I do not disagree with that. Screening would be revolutionary. It would save money for the NHS in the short term and the long term, and, more important, it would save lives and put us two decades ahead of the rest of the world in preventive medicine. It would be transformative for my constituency. It would be radical, but only as radical as plans to offer every baby in the UK whole genome sequencing within a decade, a plan backed by the Health Secretary. Genomics, like these tests, would put us on the front foot in preventive medicine, as the Minister well knows. Of course it would cost money—£650 million is earmarked for the boost to genomics by the Department of Health and Social Care—but a smaller and more defined pilot scheme to lead the way in preventive medicine is to hand with the samples of high levels of HCT in the Western Isles. Given the given the cost per head of screening, it is logical that starting in the places with the highest rate of faulty genes would be the most cost-effective option.
Initially at least, the Bill ought not to go to the national health service. The bill for gene testing in the Western Isles should be part of the community payback for the large-scale wind farm developments that are planned for the islands. There are already negotiations for community benefits, community funds and community shares in the many planned wind farm developments in rural Scotland. The renewables revolution is about saving the planet, but right now the consumer offer is simply to reduce bills. By properly harnessing the wealth of wind, we can not only make communities better off but transform the life chances and health chances of people and their children.
The Viking genes results are not limited to haemochromatosis; they also showed high levels of hypercholesterolaemia in the Western Isles. That is simply inherited high cholesterol —a gene fault—that leaves many islanders, and many of my constituents, with high cholesterol and many with heart conditions, which again could be avoided with predictive medicine and early lifestyle and diet changes.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the need to test in the Western Isles, and his solution of using the community payback from wind farms is an excellent idea. Would he want to go further thereafter and test more widely? My brother has haemochromatosis, and it was discovered completely by accident. The rest of the family were then tested, and one or two cousins were found to have it, although I fortunately do not. It is much more prevalent than any of us ever imagined, and I had never heard of it until my own brother was diagnosed.
Torcuil Crichton
My hon. Friend anticipates much of the remainder of my argument. As I said, the research and DNA testing in the islands could and should be paid for by community funds from large-scale renewable projects, just as similar screening projects proposed for Orkney and Shetland could be paid for by funding from wind farms there. From those discrete samples, much learning could be had, and then sampling and testing could be rolled out across not just the rest of Scotland but the rest of the UK.
Luckily for me, my siblings and I were spotted early but, as I said, if left untreated and undiagnosed this gene can lead to serious arthritic symptoms, liver cancer and heart disease, the consequences of which are often attributed to other conditions and lifestyle factors but could have been easily prevented by testing. Given the resources, we could test for a wide range of conditions and help this generation and future generations of islanders to live healthy lives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) said, if it works for a small, discrete population—there are only 21,000 adults in the island chain—the experience and lessons learned could be rolled out across the UK.
I know, as we all know, that health services in Scotland do not fall within the ambit of the Minister, but the future of healthcare is in all our hands, and I urge UK Ministers and their counterparts in Holyrood to seriously consider a pilot screening study in the Western Isles. There is a clearly identifiable risk from haemochromatosis, and we should use the lessons from that screening to roll out haemochromatosis screening across the rest of the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) for securing this debate and for sharing his personal connection as someone who has haemochromatosis. In honour of World Haemochromatosis Week earlier this month, from 1 to 7 June, I pay tribute to the important work that my hon. Friend and our colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group are doing to raise awareness of genetic haemochromatosis.
As we have heard, genetic haemochromatosis can have debilitating consequences, including arthritis, joint pain, diabetes, fatigue, psychological or cognitive difficulties, skin conditions, menstrual problems, impotence, breathing and heart problems, abdominal pain, liver problems and hair loss. This genetic condition, which allows iron levels to build up in the body, particularly affects people of white northern European backgrounds.
It is estimated that as many as one in 150 people in England and Wales, one in 113 people in Scotland and one in 10 people in Northern Ireland are affected. Health is a devolved matter, and I am delighted to see Members from the devolved nations represented in this debate. I note the interventions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), who is the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.
All four nations in the UK are advised on screening matters by the same independent scientific advisory committee. The UK National Screening Committee is an independent scientific advisory committee that advises Ministers and the NHS in all four countries on all aspects of population and targeted screening, and supports implementation. Using research evidence, pilot programmes, economic evaluation, expert stakeholders and consultation, the UK NSC assesses the evidence for national screening programmes against a set of internationally recognised criteria. These cover the condition, the test, the treatment options, the effectiveness, the ethics and the acceptability of the screening programme. It is only where the offer to screen provides more good than harm that a screening programme is recommended.
The UK National Screening Committee reviewed the case for screening for genetic haemochromatosis in adults in 2021. After consideration, it recommended on balance against a national screening programme at that time. That was because although a faulty hereditary hemochromatosis protein gene—the HFE gene—is known to cause iron to build up, that does not happen to every person with the faulty gene. Screening could therefore result in people being told that they have a condition that would not go on to impact their lives, which may cause undue worry. Screening would identify people who may never experience symptoms.
A screening programme would be most relevant for this condition if pre-symptomatic treatment showed significant improvements in an individual’s prognosis. However, there is limited evidence on whether treatment is more effective in individuals without symptoms compared with those who have symptoms. Currently, there is no evidence that a screening programme is the best way of helping people with the condition.
However, the UK National Screening Committee keeps its decisions under review. It welcomes any new published peer-reviewed evidence that suggests the case for a new or modified screening programme via its annual call. Any individual or organisation can submit a topic to the UK NSC to consider a new screening programme or modification to an existing programme.
Haemochromatosis is one of the most common genetic diseases, and genetic testing is available. For patients in England who show unexplained iron overload suggestive of hereditary haemochromatosis, genetic testing is available at one of the seven genomic laboratories. Any healthcare professional who suspects their patient may have haemochromatosis can refer their patient for testing via their local NHS clinical genomic service.
As we have heard, the main way to treat the condition is venesection, which is a procedure to remove some of an individual’s blood. This may need to happen every week at first, but only two to four times a year once the condition is stable. For those who cannot have blood removed, chelation therapy is an option. This medicine reduces the amount of iron in a patient’s body. I know that the NHS Blood and Transplant service works with many patients who have genetic haemochromatosis. While some genetic haemochromatosis sufferers will not be well enough, many of these individuals are well enough, and like Lorraine, the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), offer to give blood as an alternative to venesection. Turning a life-altering condition into a lifesaving opportunity is to be commended. I take this opportunity to thank each and every patient who is able to do so and has opted for that route.
To conclude, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar for bringing forward this important debate and every Member who has contributed. Let this be the beginning of a conversation about how we can best support people with haemochromatosis. The condition affects many in our constituencies, and this has been an important opportunity to highlight how we must support their diagnosis and treatment in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities etc.) (Amendment) Order 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities etc.) (Amendment) Order 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.
Consumers have waited too long for the change before us. More than 10 million people now use buy now, pay later products. When used responsibly, such products can help people manage their finances. Many especially value the fact that the products are interest-free, often making them an affordable alternative to credit cards and personal loans. Yet, unlike those traditional forms of credit, buy now, pay later products sit outside the UK’s consumer credit regulatory framework. That is because buy now, pay later products fall under an exemption originally designed to help small businesses offer instalment plans to their customers. In recent years, however, innovative fintechs have used the exemption to roll out buy now, pay later products offering to customers, usually at an online checkout, new ways to pay via the likes of Klarna, PayPal and Clearpay.
Small firms do not need authorisation from the Financial Conduct Authority, nor are buy now, pay later agreements required to adhere to the Consumer Credit Act. That approach makes sense for small businesses offering simple instalment plans for goods and services, but it is not right for the large-scale consumer credit lenders now in this market.
Back in February 2021, under the previous Government, the Woolard review set out the risks of that unregulated market. First, there are no rules on what information buy now, pay later firms must give their customers. Too many people are left unclear about what they owe, and some do not even realise that they have taken out credit. Secondly, the firms are not required to check whether people can afford these products. Finally, that lack of checks brings real danger.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that this draft legislation is particularly important to protect those facing hardship? Potentially, people—certainly residents in my constituency—may feel the need to turn to buy now, pay later products, but given that they are not regulated, that could lead them into further debt.
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend makes an important point that is generally relevant to financial services regulation: we want the availability of credit for people, but we want it done safely. That is exactly what the changes are about. As I was saying, debt can quickly mount up when people take out several buy now, pay later products at once, with no one checking what they already owe.
The previous Government rightly pledged to bring the products into regulation, although sadly did not get to the point of delivering on that promise. I am proud that, in May, this Government laid this draft order to bring unregulated buy now, pay later products offered by third-party lenders into regulation under the Financial Conduct Authority. That will bring proper oversight of such firms and strong protection for consumers.
In future, buy now, pay later firms will have to carry out robust affordability checks, ensuring that consumers are protected from taking on debt that they cannot afford. Firms will also be required to give consumers clear information. That will help people to decide whether buy now, pay later is right for them, and to know that support is available if they face financial difficulty. Buy now, pay later users will gain strong rights under the Consumer Credit Act, including section 75 protection. That will make it easier for consumers to get a refund if something goes wrong with a purchase. Crucially, consumers will have the right to take their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. That will guarantee them access to a fair, independent resolution if problems arise. Those are the rights and protections that users of other regulated credit products already enjoy. It is only right that users of buy now, pay later products receive them, too.
There is also something new: the Financial Conduct Authority will be able to develop a modernised information disclosure regime for buy now, pay later products, set by FCA rules, not by the Consumer Credit Act. We have recognised, in line with feedback, including from consumer groups, that the existing provisions of the Consumer Credit Act on information requirements do not suit interest-free, short-term buy now, pay later products. However, this is not special treatment for these products. On the same day as we laid the draft order that we are debating today, we launched a consultation to reform the Consumer Credit Act more widely.
Lastly, let me stress that a new regulatory regime is not just a win for consumers. Buy now, pay later firms will benefit as well. For years, they have faced regulatory uncertainty. This order ends that uncertainty, and we have ensured that the order delivers a smooth transition to regulation for them. They will be able to continue lending under a temporary permissions regime while the FCA authorisation is under review. That guarantees business as usual, for them and for customers, throughout the transition.
Twelve months after this order is made, the new regulatory regime for these products will come into force. In that time, the FCA will consult on and finalise the rules that will govern buy now, pay later lending. We must not delay giving millions of consumers the vital protection that they deserve.
I thank the Committee for its attention to this issue and would welcome any questions from the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury or any other Members.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is an absolute joy to serve under your very professional and diligent leadership and chairmanship of this Committee, Mr Stuart. I also congratulate the Minister on his debut in a Delegated Legislation Committee. He does it masterfully.
These buy now, pay later measures, as colleagues will recall and as pointed out by the Minister, were consulted on extensively by the previous Government. As the Minister also pointed out, there was an unfortunate general election, which got in the way of us actually—
Mark Garnier
That rather depends on one’s point of view. I think it was fortunate for everyone in this room apart from Conservative Members.
Moving on, we are absolutely supportive of bringing these products within the scope of financial regulation. As we have heard, the sector has seen rapid growth. Because the products are now used by millions of people, the last Government rightly acted to protect consumers from harm—or wanted to act. The proposed regulations require FCA authorisation, affordability checks and clearer information for consumers, which are all measures that we absolutely support. An ability to access the Financial Ombudsman Service will also give consumers an avenue to escalate any issues.
However, as these regulations have been developed, several concerns have been raised by businesses operating in the BNPL market, and I hope that the Minister may be able to address those issues today. First, the exemption for merchants offering their own BNPL products could create inconsistencies and consumer risks. I appreciate the sentiment for keeping an exemption, and Conservative Members do not want to expose small businesses to burdensome regulation. For example, the local gym should not be required to undertake the FCA approval process to provide a 12-month membership; I am sure that many people would agree with that. However, a potential loophole still exists. A large e-commerce website, such as Amazon, could offer BNPL directly and not come under these regulations. That is because there is no way in the Consumer Credit Act to distinguish between a large e-commerce site and a small or medium-sized enterprise. Currently, no online retailer is operating its own version of BNPL, as opposed to using a third party provider. However, I am sure that the industry would welcome reassurance from the Minister today that the Government will be looking at any knock-on effects that these regulations might cause.
Opposition Members also welcome the Treasury’s saying that work is under way to review and reform the Consumer Credit Act, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that the review will specifically address the issue of definitions, ensuring that there is a way to distinguish between the largest retailers and small businesses. Will the Government also provide further details on how they will go about monitoring the prevalence of retailer-provided BNPL services, and at what point they will intervene once they see evidence of such activity taking place?
Secondly, short-term lenders have highlighted the fact that although interest-free agreements under 12 months will fall under a new regime, longer or interest-bearing agreements remain subject to older rules. A 10-month interest-free instalment agreement and a 14-month low-interest agreement may be economically and structurally similar, but one will benefit from modern disclosure rules while the other will not. I hope that the Minister can address whether that has the potential also to be reviewed as part of the review of the CCA.
Finally, the regulations do not address late fees, which can disproportionately impact vulnerable consumers, so again I would welcome the Minister’s setting out today whether the Government will also keep that under constant review.
The Opposition support the intent of these regulations, but call for the Government to address some of the outstanding points raised by the industry in order to ensure robust consumer protection and a level playing field for everybody participating in this market.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
We Liberal Democrats warmly welcome this statutory instrument, which will introduce long-overdue consumer protections. We particularly welcome the fact that buy now, pay later will fall under FCA regulation, as well as the fact that consumers will have access to the independent complaints system under the Financial Ombudsman Service. We are also delighted to see the introducing of affordability checks. All three of these measures are consistent with our own party policy, which we debated fiercely among our membership at our autumn conference last year.
However, like the official Opposition, we are concerned about the proposed merchant exemptions. We know that merchants who provide credit directly will be outside the scope of this particular regime, and we know that respondents to the Government’s consultation raised concerns that exempting these merchant providers, where the provider of the goods and services is also the provider of the credit, could create an uneven playing field. My understanding is that the Government have committed to closely monitor the merchant-provided market for buy now, pay later, and to take action if there is evidence of consumer harm. Can the Minister set out how the Government intend to closely monitor the situation, and over what timeframe?
I have a few other questions for the Minister. If he is not able to answer them, I would be very grateful if he were kind enough to write to me with the answers. First, will the Government also be putting rules in place to stop buy now, pay later firms from engaging in harmful or misleading advertising, and requiring them to make it clear that buy now, pay later is a form of credit? Could he clarify whether that is covered by this statutory instrument, or are further measures needed? Can the Government confirm whether buy now, pay later will be brought under the consumer duty rules for financial products, which require that key information is clearly set out and that products are designed to enable informed consumer decisions? Could the Minister also outline whether the FCA will have the powers to consider setting a centralised cap on late fees for buy now, pay later, to promote fair and consistent treatment across all the different platforms?
On two slightly separate but related issues, do the Government have any broader plans to improve awareness of debt relief orders, and to seek ways to expand access to the scheme? We know that there are around 3.7 million UK adults in debt who are unaware that they can seek help through those debt relief orders. More broadly, do the Government have any plans during this Parliament to look at widening access to low-interest credit, such as through community banks, which would be a completely alternative source, so that people would not have to use buy now, pay later mechanisms in the first place?
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I would like to ask a few questions about article 3 of the order. In practice, its current drafting means that the order would regulate Klarna, if it offered buy now, pay later agreements to customers shopping on Amazon, but it would not regulate Amazon, if it offered such agreements in the future to its own customers.
Given that FCA research shows that adults with vulnerable characteristics are disproportionately likely to use buy now, pay later, with 44% of the most frequent users of buy now, pay later already over-indebted, there is concern that the consumer focus of buy now, pay later is not about informed borrowing but engineered overconsumption. I accept that the Minister may feel that it is not currently an issue, but would it not be wise to regulate proactively and take action now to prevent buy now, pay later being offered directly by merchants in a way that would cause the very harms that we are currently trying to avoid from third-party providers?
Torsten Bell
I thank Members for their comments. Let me try to do justice to their questions in turn.
The core question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and both Opposition spokespersons was about merchant-offered credit. First, we do not see huge evidence of that happening. As things stand, we cannot see large providers doing that, and there are good reasons why they would choose not to.
Secondly, where large providers look to do that kind of thing, they tend to do it through a separate finance arm. Where that is the case, it will be required to be FCA-authorised, and the wish to avoid that lending sitting on the balance sheet of the retailer is a strong disincentive to the kind of activity that is being discussed. There are risks on the other side, because if we accidentally bring instalment plans or gym memberships into regulation, that would be a significant loss to consumers. We do not see the evidence today, but as I said, the Government will keep this under active review.
I can confirm that the wider CCA reforms will look at the question of definitions. The big picture is that when the CCA was created, the FCA did not exist, so primary legislation was very prescriptive about the nature of regulation. However, markets, technology and products have changed significantly, so we do not need the primary legislation to be as specific as it has been in the past, and there is more role for FCA rules to carry out that purpose.
In terms of next steps, the first phase of the review is under way. There will be a second consultation covering rights and protections later this year, and then there will be one Bill, bringing together the conclusions of that, to introduce that reform. That is also the answer to the question that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest asked about the unfairness of a 12-month cut-off in terms of the level of regulation we are talking about on the disclosure of information requirements that will apply to buy now, pay later. The lessons from that consultation over the next year will also inform what the future FCA rules might look like for the wider market under CCA reform. I am sure we will keep debating that, and that he will debate it with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in the months ahead.
The hon. Member for St Albans mentioned the consumer duty. I can confirm that, because these will be FCA-authorised firms, it will apply in the normal way. The question of fees was also raised. I should remind everyone that FCA-authorised firms are already not allowed to impose fees and charges on customers who are in arrears or default beyond the costs required to match their costs. They are not allowed to rack up arrears and fees for people who are already in that situation. That is progress that has been made in recent years.
Lastly, I can confirm that the Government will publish their financial inclusion strategy, covering many of the issues that have been raised. It is a chance to pick up the wider questions about financial inclusion that I know are important to all Members.
In conclusion, let me stress once again that millions of people are using buy now, pay later products every year. They value that in many cases, but they deserve vital consumer protections, and we must not keep them waiting any longer. That is what this order does, so I hope Members will join me in supporting it.
Question put and agreed to.
Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
Wednesday 25th June 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesUnauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill 2024-26 View all Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for members of the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@ parliament.uk. My selection and grouping for today’s sitting is available online and in the room; there will be a single debate on clauses 1 and 2.
Clause 1
Offence of unauthorised entry to designated football matches
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Following your guidance, I intend to speak to the whole Bill in my remarks. I thank everybody for coming along this morning; I hope that, with Members’ agreement, this former prosecutor can place a new offence on the statute books.
As the title suggests, the Bill is designed to address the issue of unauthorised entry to football matches. It creates a specific offence of entering, or attempting to enter, a designated football match in England and Wales without a ticket that the person is eligible to use. The Football Association reports that unauthorised entry to football matches causes significant operational, safety and security problems for major events at Wembley stadium, as well as football matches at other grounds across the country. Unauthorised entry commonly occurs when a person pushes through the turnstiles, often behind an unsuspecting, ticket-holding fan, which is known as tailgating, or colloquially as piggybacking or jibbing. There are often around 600 tailgating attempts per match for major events at Wembley stadium.
I recently attended the Carabao cup final with the Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, who I am pleased is responding on behalf of the Government this morning. We were taken down to the turnstiles and within around 30 seconds we witnessed our first tailgater, with several more thereafter in the short period for which we there.
Such behaviour presents a danger not only to the stewards and security staff who seek to apprehend them, often leading to a scuffle, but to the safety and enjoyment of the fans, who should be free to enjoy the build-up to the game without the worry that this sort of incident brings. With the increased popularity of the women’s game, under the fantastic stewardship of the Lionesses, we see more and more families attending matches. In one tailgating scuffle that I witnessed, a young boy was knocked into. It is time that we take steps to safeguard fans from this sort of behaviour.
At worst, unauthorised entry takes the form of mass entry, where large crowds seek to push their way into the ground. Members may recall the disorder at Wembley stadium on 11 July 2021, during the UEFA Euro 2020 final, when an estimated 1,900 so-called fans entered without a ticket. Between 1,200 and 1,300 managed to get into the inner areas of the ground, creating further danger. Of course, unauthorised fans do not have allocated seating, and their entry to the ground, particularly when it occurs in large numbers, creates problems of overcrowding and blocking of gangways and staircases.
For me, this is of personal significance. My friends Ross and Siobhan were at the game that day. They are avid sports fans who attend many sporting events across the world. Despite usually feeling at ease in those surroundings, it was a frightening experience that day. Siobhan told me:
“We arrived Wembley around an hour before kick off…it was obvious that things were not as they should be…I felt very uneasy about the atmosphere…We went to the turnstiles, which were still very busy and there were people there without a ticket who had managed to get through the first ticket check and were asking people to let them push through with them…I’ve been to many events at Wembley that are sold out and have never seen it in such a mess. We went straight to our seats which we were able to reclaim from the people occupying them at the time and the rows were overfilled and the stairways were full of people…The place was clearly filled way past capacity…Overall I found it to be unpleasant and a potentially dangerous environment…It has put me off…attending England games and I haven’t been to one since.”
That is from an avid sports fan.
Following the 2020 final, Baroness Louise Casey was commissioned to conduct an independent review. Her report found:
“Unauthorised entry to football grounds does not attract specific enforcement measures and is unlikely to have long-term consequences sufficient to deter repetition or emulation.”
Baroness Casey’s report was, sadly, prescient. At the UEFA champions league final at Wembley stadium on 1 June 2024, there were around 1,000 tailgating attempts and three mass entry attempts by around 300 to 400 people.
At present, people gaining entry without a ticket are likely to be ejected but not to face any other consequences. Those attempting to gain entry are moved on, but will often try again and again to get in. There is no specific offence of entering a football match without a ticket. The Bill seeks to remedy that.
Clause 1 will create a specific offence of unauthorised entry to premises for the purpose of attending a designated football match, by inserting a new offence into the Football (Offences) Act 1991. The offence aims to deter people from attempting to enter stadiums without a valid ticket.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Bill; it is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for football supporters and a proud Aston Villa season ticket holder. Can my hon. Friend explain why the Bill uses the word “premises” rather than “stadium”?
Linsey Farnsworth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the intervention, and I commiserate with him on his choice of football team—I put on record that Everton are a much more preferable team to follow. As Siobhan described, at the Wembley incident, fans managed to get through the first ticket check. Many stadiums, including Wembley, have a wider perimeter cordon that protects fans. The use of “premises” rather than “stadium” would allow arrests to be made and prosecutions to be brought if someone went through that first cordon, before there is danger in the stadium itself.
As a member of the Justice Committee and former Crown prosecutor, I am only too aware of the extensive court backlogs, particularly in the Crown court. The offence in the Bill is summary only, and the maximum sentence is a £1,000 fine; it can therefore be tried only in the magistrates court. The offence strikes a balance by ensuring a sufficient deterrent against tailgating and mass entry while not adding to the court backlog. The stronger deterrent, however, is that a conviction for an offence is likely to lead to a court-imposed football banning order, which would prevent a person from attending football matches for between three and five years, with a potential prison sentence if the banning order is not obeyed.
The Bill encompasses the designated matches set out in orders made under section 1 of the Football (Offences) Act 1991. Currently, those are matches in the premier league, the championship, leagues one and two, the national league, the women’s super league and championship, the Cymru premier league, and international fixtures held in England and Wales.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I declare my interests as a season ticket holder at Portsmouth football club and as an elected member of the board of Pompey Supporters’ Trust. I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the Bill. I understand the need for it, but members of the public buy tickets not only for football matches but for other large events, such as other sporting or music events. Why is she seeking to change the rules only for football?
Linsey Farnsworth
I thank my hon. Friend for her attendance today; she is a real champion for her football team and her constituency, and I am sure that they will be grateful for her attendance. She raises a valid point: this offence could apply to other sporting events. Sadly, there have also been tragic incidents at music festivals, such as at the O2 Academy. However, the legislation is being introduced as a private Member’s Bill, and in order to effectively change the law through this mechanism it needs to be quite contained in nature. When I went to Wembley and spoke to the police and staff there, they indicated that football was a type of event where this regularly happens. That is where the risk lies, particularly at the most competitive games. It could equally apply to other types of event if the Government saw fit. The staff at Wembley voiced concerns about some of the upcoming sold-out gigs; I will not mention the band in question, but if I could get tickets, I would—but I will not be tailgating at that event.
I served on the Public Bill Committee for the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Act 2025—commonly known as Martin’s law—which received Royal Assent on 3 April this year. Although that Act deals with a different type of threat to the public, and is a different type of safety measure, it is clear that this Government are keen on keeping members of the public safe at all kinds of events. I hope that Parliament considers whether the Bill could be the start of greater protections at other events, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North.
Clause 1 provides a number of defences. A defendant can show that he or she had lawful excuse or authority to enter or attempt to enter the premises for a specific purpose. That would cover, for example, employees, journalists and emergency workers at the ground. It is also a defence if a person entered through an entry point normally used for spectators while believing that they had a ticket for the match when they did not. In other words, it is a defence to show that that person unwittingly held a counterfeit ticket. The Bill is not about villainising football fans, and this defence acknowledges that fans are sadly sometimes duped by unscrupulous ticket fraudsters.
The final defence is using a ticket that the defendant was not entitled to, for example, an adult using a child’s ticket. There is a defence for that, because in those circumstances there would be a reserved seat, so the safety issue is not fair. Again, that demonstrates that the Bill is about the safety and safeguarding of football fans.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I declare my interest as a season ticket holder at Tottenham Hotspur, both home and away—I suffer, yes. The hon. Lady is rightly referring to match tickets. The vast majority of premier league clubs have now moved to digital tickets, so that individuals have to produce a smartphone of some form. Those digital tickets can also be transferred to other people. Will the hon. Lady make it clear that the Bill applies to digital tickets as well as physical, printed tickets?
Linsey Farnsworth
The hon. Member is absolutely correct that in the modern day not many people have paper tickets. The Bill will apply equally to the electronic version, so I am grateful to him for allowing me to clarify.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I have read paragraph 19 of the explanatory notes, but given the physicality of the description in the Bill, what is the legal justification for saying that it also covers electronic tickets? We can assume that it does, but I can see a defence barrister making a lot of the physicality in the description in proposed new section 1A(4) of the 1991 Act. There must be some legal reason why we can say absolutely that that description includes electronic tickets.
Linsey Farnsworth
Proposed new section 1A(4) of the 1991 Act says:
“‘match ticket’ means a ticket or other thing (whether in physical or electronic form),”
so I think that is expressed in the Bill, but I am grateful to the hon. Member.
Baroness Louise Casey, in her report following the Euro 2020 final, concluded that the events of that day could have resulted in a tragic loss of life. Given that England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are set to jointly host the Euro 2028 competition, the time for this Bill to pass is now. I urge the Committee to support the Bill, which is backed by major football bodies, such as the English Football Association and the Football Association of Wales. I thank both bodies for their assistance. The Bill is also supported by His Majesty’s official Opposition and the Government.
I extend my thanks to Lord Brennan of Canton, the former Member for Cardiff West, whose version of the Bill ran out of time at the last general election. The work he did as the original sponsor to get the Bill through this place in the last Parliament has undoubtedly made my job much easier. If the Bill moves beyond Committee stage today and passes Third Reading in this House, we both hope that he will be able to oversee its passage through the House of Lords, in what I am advised could be a unique parliamentary example of starting a Bill in one House and finishing in another.
It is fitting to end with the remarks of Lord Brennan in a previous debate:
“By allowing the Bill to be reported, we can send a resounding message that such conduct as was seen at the Euro 2020 final will not be tolerated, emphasising the importance of ensuring safety and security when attending football matches. The legislation reaffirms our dedication to the wellbeing and integrity of football, and restores our collective duty to tackle the challenges confronting the sport. It upholds the role of the sport as a unifying force in our society. I urge hon. Members to endorse the Bill, including the amendment, thereby contributing to the enhancement, safety and enjoyment of football matches for all.”––[Official Report, Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Public Bill Committee, 8 May 2024; c. 6.]
I could not have said it better myself.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers—it feels a bit like a reunion of the Backbench Business Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing the Bill back to the House. As has been mentioned, the issue was raised in the previous Parliament, and I am hopeful that we can continue to have cross-party agreement on it.
I declare an interest, as a supporter not of a premier league team or even a championship team, but of a non-league football team, my beloved Harlow Town, both at home and away. Not all football clubs are full of cash to make multimillion-pound signings, and people jumping barriers can have a huge impact on a club’s finances—notice that I use the word “people”, and not “fans”.
Although support for the Bill ultimately comes down to a question of safety, as my hon. Friend has correctly outlined, I want to talk briefly about the issue of fairness. There should absolutely be consequences for those who try to enter a football ground without a valid ticket. Many people in Harlow and beyond pay good money for football tickets. They work hard all week and going to watch a football game is something that they, like me, enjoy. They should be able to do so in a fair way, and it is not fair that others do so without paying for a ticket.
Even non-league football clubs impose a maximum capacity, and they do so for safety reasons. It is important that clubs know how many people are at a game and can stop people entering, particularly those who have previously displayed poor or unacceptable behaviour.
I will keep my remarks short, but once again I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing the Bill forward. I hope it will give confidence—to those who give up their time, voluntarily in non-league cases, to man the turnstiles and do all the other things at football grounds that bring the community together—that people will not be able to get away with tailgating, and that only those with a correct ticket will be able to enter the ground.
Linsey Farnsworth
I think I have got to the bottom of it. The Bill that has been printed for the Committee today is the old Bill, which has since been slightly amended to deal with that very point. That is why there is confusion, because I have a copy of the new version of the Bill.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley on bringing forward this Bill, and on speaking so eloquently. This is not just about people being able to enjoy football matches, but also about safety and preventing serious injury and—God forbid—in the worst cases, death. I would like to declare that I am a very tortured Manchester United fan—I see some heads shaking in disapproval—but I do enjoy my football. The Bill speaks to me. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to Baron Brennan of Canton, who introduced this Bill, albeit in a slightly different form, in the previous Parliament. The previous Government supported the Bill, and it is a pleasure to be here today to add the support of His Majesty’s official Opposition.
In 2021, like everyone around the country, I was on the edge of my seat as our heroic national men’s team came so close to bringing it home. Sadly, it was not to be, as we lost to Italy on penalties in the final. Everyone here will be familiar with the scenes at the game where fans tried to force their way into Wembley stadium. Gates were stormed, fans gained entry by tailgating through turnstiles or forcing emergency exits, and there were shocking reports of some stewards being attacked or bribed. The then Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee was right to label that day as a day of “national shame”.
The safety of spectators at sporting events is of the highest importance and the last Government took decisive action to help protect spectators. I hope that one day I will be able to take my children to a winning Manchester United football match—I hear the joy from the Committee as I said that—but perhaps also one day I can let them head to games on their own.
Bob Blackman
I will not dwell on the final at Bilbao, where we finally won a trophy after 17 years. My hon. Friend quite rightly refers to the events at Wembley in 2021. I live in Wembley and I was leader of the council when we got Wembley rebuilt. Not only was that particular day fraught with attempted break-ins to the game, but a huge numbers of fans congregated who did not have tickets. One of the issues that we have must look at is how fans can be dispersed before they get anywhere near a ground, rather than actually charging into it, and I hope the Minister will respond on that point.
Saqib Bhatti
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; he clearly has great experience of Wembley. That is a very fair challenge for the Minister. No parent, family member or friend should ever be worried about the prospect of their loved one getting hurt watching the beautiful game. That is why, in 2022, the previous Government amended and strengthened the football banning order regime. As a result, the Crown Prosecution Service can now ask courts for tougher penalties for online abuse involving race, sexuality or religion. Previously, FBOs could only be issued for in-person offences.
Furthermore, in November 2022, the previous Government added the possession or supply of class A drugs at football matches to the FBO regime. Following the addition, there was an increased willingness among the police to make arrests at football matches for class A drug offences. FBOs are not just about preventing troublemakers from attending matches at home and abroad involving a team from or representing England or Wales. They demonstrate that the UK has taken action to ensure that individuals involved in football-related violence and disorder can be stopped and prevented from attending football matches.
The previous Government also supported the Football Association’s commissioning of the Casey review, which highlighted the failures that took place at Wembley and recommended strengthening penalties for football-related disorder, including tailgating. I would like to pay my own tribute to Baroness Casey for her independent review of the appalling disorder that occurred during the Euro 2020 final. However, it is also important to highlight that tailgating is not the only problematic behaviour. Various other routes are used to attempt entry into football matches, such as scaling walls, climbing through windows, forcing exits and using fraudulent tickets. The fact that the Bill is drafted in a way that captures all those who are attempting to evade security measures is welcome.
I hope that the Minister agrees with me that football should be welcoming to all, and spectators at games should be safe. Those who bring disorder or evade security should not be present, and I welcome the fact that the Bill seeks to ensure that these people are prohibited from attending live matches. Everyone should be able to enjoy the beautiful game. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Amber Valley has brought forward the Bill, which I entirely welcome.
The Chair
Just before I call the Minister, I want to let Members know that the correct version of the Bill is available online, if anybody wants to double-check it.
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Vickers, on this lovely June day. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing forward this Bill. I was also interested to note the involvement of Lord Brennan; in the previous Parliament, he nearly got such a Bill on to the statue book, and I hope he will play a part in the other place, if the Bill concludes its passage through the Commons today.
I am very grateful to the other Members who have participated in this discussion, many of whom declared their allegiance to various football clubs, some more dubious than others. Clearly, a wide range of clubs is represented and supported here today, and Members are very clear that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed. There has been a high degree of consensus, and I am very pleased to say, right at the outset, that the Government support the Bill.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley has set out, the Bill would create a new offence of unauthorised entry or attempted unauthorised entry to elite football matches that are covered by existing football-specific public order legislation in England and Wales. I want to reflect on the fact that we are very lucky to be in the capable hands of a former Crown prosecutor in navigating this new offence through Parliament.
I also heard questions from Members about whether the Bill should have a wider application, and I will of course reflect on the comments that have been made. On the issue of the dispersal of large crowds gathering outside football matches, that is obviously an operational matter for the place and I have seen at first hand the planning that goes into dealing with those kinds of issues, but I will certainly raise the concerns of the hon. Member for Harrow East with the police when I next speak to them, particularly the Metropolitan Police.
Amanda Martin
The hon. Member for Harrow East made a really good point; there have been some developments on that issue through things such as fan zones. Fans can buy a ticket for such a zone, which is an area outside the stadium, and that allows for dispersal. It also allows fans to watch the game, particularly if they are going to Wembley. Portsmouth went a number of times and could not have all the ticket allocation, so fans could instead buy a ticket for a fan zone outside. The hon. Member is right that it is down to both club logistics and the police, but there are really good ways of letting people who do not have a ticket come and watch the game, such as in an area slightly outside the stadium.
Dame Diana Johnson
There is obviously a great deal of knowledge on this Committee about how these things operate. As someone who is not necessarily a huge football fan, I am certainly learning a lot today about some of the measures that are being put in place to help fans enjoy the event in a safe way.
Bob Blackman
I thank the Minister for that reply to my point. The Bill quite rightly seeks to penalise those who try to gain admission to football grounds without tickets. However, it is silent on anyone who facilitates that entry, such as an individual who works for a club or stadium, or who is somehow in charge of a gate. I do not think it is reasonable for a private Member’s Bill to look at that issue, but could the Minister consider what else the Government need to do to ensure that those people are also penalised?
The Chair
Order. Just before the Minister comes back in, I want to advise Members that the new, amended copy of the Bill is now available, if anybody wants to have a closer look.
Dame Diana Johnson
Before I deal with that point, I have some information that might help the Committee. The police have dispersal powers under section 34 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, which can be used as appropriate. That is the operational side that I was referring to. The Bill, when enacted, would stop ticketless fans from testing the stadium security, and the police have powers and public order offences that can be used if there are threatening and abusive words or disorderly behaviour. In other words, there are powers already available to the police to deal with the dispersal of fans if there is a large group. The hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned those who may be employed by the stadium who facilitate and allow such behaviour. I will reflect on that important point. There are probably offences being committed there, which I may return to in a moment.
The Chair
Before I call the hon. Member for Amber Valley to wind up, as the new copies of the Bill are now available, if any Member has an objection to proceeding to the vote, I can suspend the sitting so that they may study it.
Mr Kohler
In the original drafting of proposed new section 1A(3), it was not a defence to knowingly use a ticket that had already been used. However, under the new wording of subsection (3), it is a defence if someone uses a ticket that has already been used, even if they know about it. Is that deliberate or a flaw in the drafting?
Linsey Farnsworth
A ticket that has already been used? I am trying to remember; I think it goes back to the purpose of this change in the law and the desired effect of increased safety. If there is a valid ticket, there is a reserved seat, which is what I think the defence is getting at. The offence is being introduced to prevent overcrowding.
Mr Kohler
If someone is using a ticket that has already been used, it is an overcrowding issue, so is there a flaw in that change? The previous drafting made sense: if two people had a photocopy of the same ticket, and knowingly attempted to enter using that same ticket, that was not a defence under the original drafting, unless they reasonably believed that the ticket had not already been used. That has been removed in the final version, and I wonder whether that is a mistake in the drafting—I cannot see the logic of that.
The Chair
I think I will call Linsey Farnsworth to wind up, and perhaps she could clarify the situation before we move to the vote.
Linsey Farnsworth
Thank you, Mr Vickers. I thank all Members for their contributions today, as well as the Minister and the shadow Minister. I will return to the comments that the Minister kindly made about members of staff—
Saqib Bhatti
I just want to say that, if there is anything that the hon. Lady wishes to correct, that can always be done on Report.
Linsey Farnsworth
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I will look into that. I remember discussing the changes to proposed new section 1A(3) with the advisers here, and I remember being satisfied that there was good reason for them. I am very sorry that I cannot bring those reasons to mind at the moment, but I will commit to looking at that during the remaining stages of the Bill’s passage.
Bob Blackman
One of the challenges with electronic tickets is that people can print them out multiple times. When fans approach the ground, those tickets are barcoded and will be scanned, and multiple copies can be scanned to allow entry, which would mean that someone could potentially enter illegally. On Report, the hon. Lady may wish to look at a way of ensuring that making duplicates would also become an offence.
Linsey Farnsworth
I am grateful to the hon. Gentlemen for their contributions. I will commit to looking at that issue again and tabling any necessary amendments on Report, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister.
Going back to the Minister’s comments on the Fraud Act and the Theft Act, it is correct that members of staff can be charged under those offences, if the evidence allows and if the Crown Prosecution Service’s public interest test is met. With a member of staff, there is a level of trust and a duty of care to members of the public coming into the stadium. Because of that duty of care, it is more likely that an either-way offence, which takes up more time and resource in the court, would meet the public interest test than a member of the public turning up without a ticket. I think that there is already provision for those hopefully rare circumstances.
What we are trying to do with the Bill is provide a summary-only offence, with the deterrent of the football banning order, to deal with offences that are committed in much bigger volumes, while not clogging up the court system. I think the Bill strikes that balance, and there are those provisions for the prosecution of members and staff, as and when that happens. I think that is everything I wanted to cover.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill
Wednesday 25th June 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesControlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill 2024-26 View all Controlled Drugs (Procedure for Specification) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee except the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. My selection and grouping for today’s sitting are available online and in the room. There will be a single debate on both clauses. I remind colleagues that the scope of the Bill is quite narrow, and I expect their remarks to be confined to it.
Clause 1
Amendment of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison.
Many hon. Members will be aware of the blight of drugs on our streets. The recent and ongoing emergence of novel synthetic opioids, particularly fentanyls and nitazenes, poses a particular risk to public safety and public health, not least because of their very high potency. It is those drugs that the Bill seeks to address, because with the rapid development of synthetic drugs, it is vital that new controls can come into force at the earliest opportunity to enable the police and other authorities to act in the interests of public safety.
The Bill seeks to amend the delegated power to specify controlled drugs under section 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, so that the form of statutory instrument is regulations made by the Secretary of State rather than an Order in Council. The statutory instrument remains subject to the draft affirmative procedure and the statutory preconditions of acting after consultation with or on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
For Members who are not aware, the UK-wide Misuse of Drugs Act is the principal legislation to control substances that are dangerous or otherwise harmful. These substances become controlled drugs by being listed and classified as class A, B or C under schedule 2 to the Act, according to their relative harmfulness, or by being specified in a temporary drug class as a drug subject to a temporary control order.
The Act imposes the criminal penalties that many of us will be aware of in relation to offences such as unlawful possession, supply, offer to supply, production, and importation and exportation of those controlled drugs. Currently, any amendment to schedule 2 to control, remove from control or amend the control of drugs is made by Order in Council—in other words, by the King in Council. Orders can also be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council.
For newbies like me who are not aware of what that means, let me explain. If we are looking to add a new substance to the list, we first have to go through the draft affirmative procedure with debates and approval by both Houses of Parliament. A statutory instrument then has to be made at the Privy Council and will come into force on a specified date, which is generally 28 days later. Given that the Privy Council generally meets only once each month, and not at all during recess, this means that it will be an additional four to six weeks following the debates in Parliament for a substance to be controlled under the law. In the interim, that means the police have limited powers to tackle those substances and are not able to throw the full force of the law at individuals supplying or possessing those substances, which, as we know, are very dangerous to public safety.
The Bill is very short. Clause 1 seeks to amend the 1971 Act by removing the requirement for an Order in Council so that any amendment to the list of controlled drugs under schedule 2 would require only debates in both Houses under the draft affirmative procedure. Importantly, the clause continues to state that the Secretary of State can act only following consultation with or on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. In terms of its impact and effect, the Bill is limited to that area.
Clause 2 is even shorter, providing that the Bill extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which is very standard.
The Committee will be pleased to hear that we are not expecting the debate to be too long, and I recommend that all members of the Committee vote in favour of the Bill.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I support the Bill in the context of my liberalism. For years, the Liberal Democrats have campaigned for better access to medicinal cannabis for those who rely on it to manage their symptoms. The current system is too restrictive and necessitates a more compassionate, patient-centred approach to ensure that nobody is left to suffer unnecessarily. The Government should investigate the merits of permitting general practice to prescribe cannabis-based products.
That said, this retired military police officer does not find his liberal values to be at odds with the Bill. In fact, the Bill increases protections for citizens from dangerous substances and simplifies and shortens the control systems set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I welcome this Bill, which, in the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, sheds light on a system that is not working well and proposes an appropriate fix. As a pharmacist, I am well aware of the problems we have with controlled drugs, and novel and designer drugs that are produced at speed pose a risk to patients. I believe this Bill will do exactly what it says on the tin and help us to control a growing problem. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us here today.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
After a year of being a Member of Parliament, it is wonderful that not a week passes without my discovering a new arcane practice that seems designed to stand in the way of doing things well and at speed. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gloucester for taking the opportunity to get rid of at least one regulatory burden so that we can speed up the process of keeping people safe.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am broadly in favour of the Bill, but I have a few questions that I hope the Minister can answer.
The Home Affairs Committee report of 2023 made a number of recommendations, including the rescheduling of psilocybin and other similar substances under the MDA 1971. I hope the Minister can confirm that, if it is passed, the Bill could be used to speed up the ability to move some controlled substances down the scheduling list and others up the scheduling list. Can she also confirm that passing this legislation will not further intensify the failed war on drugs model, as we hopefully seek to move towards an evidence-based harm reduction drug policy in this country?
The Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester on his success in taking the Bill to this stage and on his eloquent speech today. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill has the Government’s support.
I am grateful for the comments of the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset made an important contribution informed by his professional background in pharmacy. He knows the importance of the Bill and how it will deliver on speeding up the process for dealing with illicit drugs.
The hon. Member for West Dorset said that he has been a Member for just one year, and that he is finding new arcane practices all the time. Having spent 20 years in this place, I feel his pain. He will find many arcane practices during his parliamentary career. My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North has been a doughty campaigner on the issue of drugs for some time. I hope I will be able to respond in detail to the particular issues she raised.
I know the Bill appears technical, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, its impact could be great in controlling new dangerous substances in the UK. As we all know, drugs can have a devastating impact on the lives of families and communities. In the UK, we must continue to ensure that we invest in preventing drug misuse, helping people through treatment and recovery, and protecting the public from these harmful substances through legislation. We must continue to be alert to the potential for dangerous substances, especially synthetic drugs, and it is critical that we have the appropriate tools to make any necessary legislative change at the earliest opportunity. The Bill will enable the Government to make timely changes to respond to emerging drug threats.
There were 3,618 deaths related to drug misuse registered in England and Wales in 2023. That is the highest number since records began, in 1993, and 16% higher than in 2022. Furthermore, in 2023, nearly half of all drug-related poisonings involved opiates, and potent synthetic variants of these are emerging at a concerning rate. When the Bill was introduced, at least 284 deaths had been linked to nitazenes, a potent type of synthetic opioid, across the UK. Sadly, that number now stands at over 450.
We are working very quickly to face the ongoing threat of synthetic opioids in the UK. Last year, 20 substances were controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, 15 of which were synthetic opioids, with 14 being nitazenes. This year, we went a step further by introducing a generic definition of nitazenes in the 1971 Act, meaning that new variants of these substances that meet the definition are automatically controlled. While it is right that these changes receive an appropriate degree of scrutiny, the rate at which new variants of substances such as nitazenes are emerging demonstrates that pace is of the essence. Until such changes come into force, our law enforcement agencies do not have the ability to pursue the toughest penalties for criminals who are knowingly supplying these dangerous substances to vulnerable users, many of whom do not know what they are taking.
The Bill seeks to amend the delegated power contained in section 2 of the 1971 Act so that the form of amending statutory instruments will be regulations made by the Secretary of State, rather than an Order in Council. This will ultimately support our aim to ensure that substances are more rapidly made subject to controls under the 1971 Act.
Charlotte Nichols
On a point of clarification, as part of this process will there be reviews of the evidence for keeping drugs within those schedules? We know, for example, that cocaine is class A, and cocaine deaths increased by 30% last year. We all want to reduce drug harms, so at what rate will this be reviewed if the Bill is passed?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend will know that we keep drug policy under review. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs offers advice to the Government. That process is ongoing, but the Bill is specific and technical in its purpose.
As it stands, the process for controlling, removing or amending the control of drugs needs to go through the draft affirmative procedure. Following debates in both Houses of Parliament, the statutory instrument is then made by the King at a Privy Council meeting and comes into force on a specified date, generally 28 days later. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said, the Privy Council meets only once a month, which can delay the statutory instrument coming into force by an extra four to six weeks. As a result, any new substance listed in the statutory instrument will not be subject to the provisions of the 1971 Act until the Privy Council meets and the order can be made.
In the interim, if the substances are captured by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, there will be no possession offence other than in a custodial setting or with intent to supply. It is also possible that, under the 2016 Act, there will be lower penalties for the supply, import or export of that substance.
On that basis, the Government support the Bill and wish it a smooth passage.
Alex McIntyre
I thank every hon. Member who contributed to this debate. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Government for supporting the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, who is a fierce campaigner in this area, for discussing mental health, drugs and related policy areas.
The hon. Member for West Dorset is entirely correct in saying that this place has far too many arcane rules and procedures. If we remove them one at a time, we may be here for a long while, but we should do so none the less.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset brings a wealth of expertise as a pharmacist, and I am grateful for his support for the Bill. I am sure the Minister will have heard what the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, who is my constituency neighbour, said about medicinal cannabis, and I am sure that he and his party will continue to campaign on the issue.
In these 15 minutes or so, the Committee has had a good opportunity to debate this short and technical, but none the less important, Bill. It is important to my constituents that we tackle the war on drugs and protect vulnerable people while ensuring that criminals are behind bars.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Alex McIntyre
I think this is where I am meant to stand up and thank the Clerks, the Committee members, the Doorkeepers and Hansard—I know it has been a long and arduous process to get to this point. I look forward to the Bill’s further progress. I also thank you, Dr Murrison.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
GP Funding: South-west England
(1 day, 19 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
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered GP funding in the South West.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. GPs are the front door of the NHS. They diagnose and treat illness, prevent disease and provide vital mental health support. As Lord Darzi once observed, general practice displays “the best financial discipline” in the NHS family while constantly innovating to keep patients out of hospital. However, GP funding is complex, obscure and insufficient. The bottom line is that the amount of money GPs receive is insufficient to deliver the obligations they carry. That is a view held by every single one of the 28 practice managers I met in and around my district, who tell me the situation is unfunded, unsustainable and unsafe.
GP funding is broadly based on two elements: a so-called global sum for core service costs, and additional quality and outcomes framework payments. The global sum starts with a payment per patient per year of £121.79—that is less than we might pay for our dog to go to the vet for an annual check-up, or about a third of the cost of servicing a Renault Megane. It is no wonder that practice managers spend their evenings juggling spreadsheets simply to keep the lights on.
It gets worse. That paltry sum is then modified by something known as the Carr-Hill formula. Carr-Hill was designed for a different era. It weighs patient numbers and postcodes but underrates deprivation, multimorbidity and today’s population health priorities. The consequences are stark and deliver what is known as the inverse care law. In my constituency, the Buckland surgery looks after some 4,000 patients on its list but is effectively funded for 3,200.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
The hon. Member talks about the number of patients that GP practices have on their books. We have an ambitious plan for building more houses. Does he agree that we need to consider not just existing GP practices but funding the infrastructure for future practices, so that we have adequate services for people? There are places in Swindon that will be expected to take on thousands more patients, and the infrastructure is simply not there right now.
Martin Wrigley
The hon. Member is absolutely right: we have to consider these things. I have spent many hours persuading my local hospital trusts and the integrated care board to talk to the local authorities and work in the cycles of the local plan, so that they get their requirements into that plan. All too often they say, “A new housing development has just been built. We need a new GP practice with it,” and that is too late. The cycles do not add up. The system is broken, and we need to change that.
The Buckland surgery is underfunded by some 800 patients every year. It is part of the Templer primary care network, in which 2,500 patients are effectively treated for nothing. This means that the Buckland practice faces an annual shortfall of approximately £84,000—money that would cover another GP. If we then look at the changing number of patients per GP, in 2019 each GP was supporting 1,800 patients, compared with around 2,400 today.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
My constituents tell me of their difficulty in getting an appointment with their GP. Does the hon. Member share my view that GP practices should get a bigger share of NHS funding, which would enable them to improve the health of our constituents? And does he share my concern that much of the extra money allocated by the Government risks being swallowed by increased national insurance contributions, inflation and pay awards?
Martin Wrigley
Practice managers tell me that that has already happened and they are less funded now than they were last year.
On the changing numbers, each GP was supporting 1,800 patients in 2019 and is supporting 2,400 today, but safe care is often estimated to be closer to 1,400 per GP. So we are overloading GPs with patients. Practices make heroic use of pharmacists, physios and nurse practitioners, but the arithmetic does not add up. Meanwhile, the other part of their funding, the quality and outcomes framework scheme, has faced changes that have negatively impacted primary care. This meant that, nationally, £298 million was redistributed from the QOF into the global sum—we can see how bizarre this funding set-up gets; the names are just weird—and into cardiovascular disease prevention funding. Another £100 million of funding was repurposed but does not put extra capacity into the system. Rather than providing new money to support GPs, this felt to practice managers that the Government had been rearranging the deckchairs.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He is right to address this issue—I spoke to him just before his introduction. We have great difficulty across all this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when it comes to securing GPs for practices. In recent years, I have been trying to ensure, with the health service, that action can be taken regarding the student loans of young medical students, if they give a commitment to remain in a GP practice for a set period of, say, five years. That would enable more GPs to stay in the system. Does he feel that that is something the Minister and the Government should take on board?
Martin Wrigley
All those things help, along with things like bringing back nurses’ bursaries. On rearranging the deckchairs, it is no wonder that practice managers described this year’s settlement as unfunded, unsustainable and unsafe.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that the increase of over 7% in GP contract funding for 2025-26, which the Government put in place, represents the biggest investment in GPs for more than 10 years? We always want to get more money for GPs and the Government are committed to that, but does he think that the largest increase in 10 years should make at least some difference for his constituents in Newton Abbot as well as mine in Mansfield?
Martin Wrigley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but sadly, I must disagree. That is not what practice managers are telling me. Their costs have gone up so much that all of the increase has been swallowed up, and they are not sure they can keep the lights on. They are really struggling. I have partners in GP practices who are paying themselves less than the minimum wage, which is not sustainable.
Patient demand has also increased post pandemic, and continued cuts have seen the removal of many services and social care that have supported what GPs do. On top of the cuts to Sure Start and a 40% drop in health visitors since 2015, carers already stretched thin face the prospect of losing personal independence payment support, which will inevitably rebound on general practice—the first line of defence. That is not to mention long covid and pandemic backlogs. All of those drive more people to want to see their GP. The cost of living crisis is compounding multimorbidity, where the most vulnerable in society with chronic illnesses are further pressured.
And then, we get the new requirement to run the appointment schedule from 8 am to 6 pm, filling every single slot. From October, practices must hold digital front doors, open all day, for non-urgent requests. With 100% booked appointments, there is no spare capacity for the person who falls in the care home or for the child who needs attention after school. Partners in the Albany surgery in Newton Abbot warn me that an unlimited invitation will flood a service that simply cannot be limitless. This is unsafe—unfunded, unsustainable and unsafe.
Talented doctors are leaving. The partnership model, still the cheapest and most community-rooted option, is no longer attractive when partners shoulder unlimited liability for premises, pensions and payroll, yet cannot guarantee safe staffing levels. The Royal College of GPs reports a 25% fall in GP partners over the past decade. The chair, Professor Kamila Hawthorne, put it bluntly:
“It makes no sense that trained GPs cannot find sustainable posts while patients wait weeks for appointments.”
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Patients in Lynton, one of the remotest communities in North Devon, will soon have access to a GP, but that only happened because of a spirited campaign by local patients. Does he agree that if we are relying on an active community to highlight gaps in provision, it will always be the marginalised communities who find it hard to see a GP?
Martin Wrigley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I commend him on obtaining a ministerial visit to his hospital in North Devon. North Devon district hospital is fantastic and we need to ensure that it gets the investment it needs—just so long as we can get some south Devon patients there as well.
In Teignmouth, the previous four practices have merged into one, mostly due to not being able to find new partners. In Newton Abbot, one practice was on the verge of handing back its patient list due to not being able to replace retiring partners. We have not even talked about specific issues facing some of these surgeries, such as the unbreakable lease on a building that is not fit for use as a GP surgery, where the only possible course of action they could see was to declare themselves bankrupt. As doctors, that ends their careers.
And yet, these practices are doing amazing things. The Kingsteignton medical practice, partnering with the charity Kingscare, has created a model that is delivering for patients. Just think what could be done with a better funding model. Buckland surgery would like to link with the local school to tackle adverse childhood experiences before they turn into permanent ill health, providing better family support—much as it has already done with its links to a number of local support services through the Buckland hub.
Prior to the election, the now Health Secretary often quoted that a GP visit cost £40, whereas an A&E visit cost £400. I am not sure I agree with the absolute numbers, but the principle is fine: it is 10 times more expensive to put somebody through A&E than it is to put them through a GP. If we talk to Devon integrated care board on GP resilience and prevention, the evidence is crystal clear: prevention saves money. And yet, as Torbay and South Devon NHS foundation trust remains in NHS operational framework 4—we might perhaps equate it to “unsatisfactory” if it was a school—because of historical deficits, it is tasked with huge efficiency savings and is understandably risk-averse. Community services that once propped up primary and secondary care—the stroke recovery group, Devon Carers hospital service, the Torbay and Devon dementia adviser service—have vanished as funding evaporates. Closing gaps in prevention only widens cracks elsewhere. It is not getting better.
To sum up, the funding formula is broken. It delivers the inverse care law that the availability of good healthcare tends to be inversely proportional to the need for it within a population. We need to fix it. I am asking the Government today to: end the Carr-Hill formula, and make deprivation, rurality and workload properly weighted; invest in core general practice, not just peripheral schemes, so that partnerships remain viable; protect prevention budgets in the next spending round, as it is cheaper to keep people well than to rescue them later; support premises and digital infrastructure so that online access enhances rather than overwhelms safe care; and publish a workforce plan that retains experienced GPs, accelerates training and makes partnership an attractive career again.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called. I ask for some self-restraint, with speeches restricted to six or seven minutes, so that we can get everybody in.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate and for his contribution on this matter of long-overdue concern.
Cornwall faces some of the most severe health inequalities in the country. In January, more patients waited more than 30 minutes in ambulances outside hospital in Cornwall than anywhere else. That is not just a statistic; it is a clear sign that our health system is under serious pressure locally.
We know the reasons: our higher levels of deprivation, an older population, poor transport links that make it harder to recruit and retain the NHS and social care staff we urgently need, and the enormous impact of our visitor economy, which is finally going to be taken into account in local government funding, thanks to the fair funding review. Those deep-rooted structural challenges mean that many people across Cornwall struggle to access timely care.
For that reason, I welcome the forthcoming announcement by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that the Labour Government will top up the system with £2.2 billion to improve general practice in the poorest areas with the highest health need. That is the right decision and the right priority for communities like mine in St Austell, Newquay and the clay country. The impact is already being felt. In mid-Cornwall, Newquay health centre and Brannel surgery are already set to receive vital upgrades. That is part of the biggest investment in GP facilities for five years, even before today’s announcement.
Steve Yemm
Last month, the Government announced the primary care utilisation and modernisation fund, which will deliver more than £100 million for upgrades to more than 1,000 GP surgeries. A number of GP surgeries in my constituency will benefit, including the Sherwood Medical Partnership surgery in Forest Town, Mansfield. Does my hon. Friend agree that that funding will make a huge difference? It will enable practices to boost productivity by seeing more patients and will improve patient care overall.
Noah Law
Yes, I agree. I am greatly relieved for my hon. Friend and his constituents that vital funding is already coming through and that the urgency has been recognised. In Newquay, for example, people have not even been able to sign up with a new GP. That is shocking, given that it is now Cornwall’s biggest town and one of the fastest growing. The assertion should not be levelled that we are not doing enough to invest in infrastructure and services alongside house building, because we are coming forward with the needed investment.
Nationally, we are looking at 8.3 million more GP appointments a year, but it is not just about the numbers. It is about restoring trust in the NHS—trust that the infrastructure and services that we need will come together with growth, which will make care local, accessible and timely. We are fixing the front door of the NHS in our GP surgeries and, thanks to our Health Secretary’s leadership, we are fixing the corridors, the consultation rooms and the care that happens before patients reach A&E, as the hon. Member for Newton Abbot mentioned. That should be the goal.
Cornwall must not be overlooked. We must be prioritised in the 10-year plan for health. How will the Government ensure that rural and coastal communities such as those in Cornwall are prioritised for once and receive their fair share of new investment, particularly considering our peninsula penalty—just as we are now starting to see happening through local government? Will the Minister commit to delivering not just more appointments, but a long-term workforce plan that reflects the needs of our ageing population and the barriers to staff recruitment in rural areas? Cornwall’s health inequalities have been ignored for too long, but with this new Labour Government we finally have a partner in Westminster that is listening and acting.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate on GP funding in the south-west, and for his passionate speech.
I want to shine a spotlight on a village in my constituency called Sherston, where the future of the local GP surgery hangs in the balance. I realise that Sherston may not be the centre of everybody’s universe, as it is of mine, but in many ways it is a microcosm of the wider issues facing NHS-funded GPs in the rural parts of the south-west. For years, residents of Sherston and the surrounding villages have lived with growing uncertainty as to whether they will continue to have access to primary care close to home.
Here is the situation: the lease on the current building for Tolsey surgery expires in 2027 and, for a range of reasons, it cannot be renewed. A local housing developer stepped in and offered to build a brand new surgery at no cost to the NHS, in exchange for a modest increase in the number of homes in a proposed development. Understandably, the community overwhelmingly backed the plan. The only missing piece is a commitment from the integrated care board to fund the running of the surgery.
The issue has been running and running. It is not just the local residents who have been calling for action; the parish council, our county councillor and I have all repeatedly urged the ICB to commit to supporting this facility—not just the bricks and mortar, but the long-term operation of a much-needed service. After months of dialogue, however, no clear answer has been given.
The ICB relies on a toolkit to decide how to allocate resources. Early in our discussions, it acknowledged that the toolkit was designed with urban settings in mind and is not well suited to rural areas, yet the ICB has continued to defer to the toolkit, as if it is unable or unwilling to apply common sense to a rural context. It argues that there is spare capacity at the Malmesbury primary care centre, but anybody familiar with these places knows that that is simply not the case. Staff are stretched, appointment slots are limited, car parking slots are even more limited and patients are already struggling to get seen. Understandably, the people of Sherston are at their wits’ end. This is not just about one surgery; it is about a broader failure to meet the healthcare needs of rural communities.
Access to healthcare in rural areas is closely tied to transport. Sherston has no regular reliable public transport to Malmesbury, which is five miles away. Many elderly residents no longer drive. For a sick or disabled person in significant need of a GP, or for a parent with young children, getting to a GP appointment in another town can be close to impossible. Once again, as in so many other contexts, we see rural issues—transport, healthcare, infrastructure and resilience—being treated in silos, when in reality they are deeply interwoven. We must start recognising that in the system.
Following the Health Secretary’s announcement in May of new funding for GP surgeries, I wrote to his Department to ask whether Sherston might benefit. Unfortunately, the reply was disappointing. I was told that the surgery did not meet the criteria and has
“not been selected for this year’s funding.”
Well, Sherston surgery does not have very many years left. This response reflects a deeper issue: a fundamental lack of understanding of rural life in our national decision making. A site visit and a short attempt to navigate the journey from Sherston to Malmesbury by bus—or, more likely, the lack of a bus—would speak volumes. I understand that not every village can have its own GP surgery, but when a brand-new, purpose-built facility is being offered, free, to replace a much-used existing practice, why would we say no?
It is not just Sherston. Across the south-west, rural GP surgeries are being overlooked in NHS investment planning. If we are serious about levelling up healthcare access, that has to change, so I have launched a petition to save Sherston surgery. I invite residents to sign and share it. Once we have gathered sufficient support, I will present it in Parliament to show the Government just how strong the feeling is.
I was impressed by the figures from the Health Secretary that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot cited—that the cost for a GP visit is about £40, versus about £400 for an A&E visit. Failing to fund rural GPs adequately is a false economy. For economic reasons as well as for health reasons, rural communities should not be treated as an afterthought. Everybody, wherever they live, deserves compassionate, reliable and, above all, accessible healthcare.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain.
GPs epitomise the NHS for us all. They support us from cradle to grave like no other part of the NHS. Although they represent 90% of the patient’s experience of the NHS, they get less than 10% of the budget. To better understand these issues, I have spent recent months meeting doctors and practice managers, but I have also spent a morning shadowing a GP at Walford Mill medical centre in Wimborne to see the reality of their life at first hand.
I thank Dr Wright and every patient who kindly allowed me to observe often deeply personal and distressing consultations. I witnessed high-quality, compassionate care. Despite a busy schedule, the GP took time to liaise with hospitals, arrange tests, write referrals and fully support his patients. Almost every patient was supported with more than they arrived to discuss. He sensitively raised worrying comorbidities with them and encouraged them to come back and think about their wider life. I could not fault the care that he gave.
That brings me to appointment times. The British Medical Association recommends 15-minute appointments for GPs. Most surgeries allow only 10 minutes, but they typically try to get away with five minutes. There is no way a GP can look after a person in that time, particularly given the emotional connection that they have with their patients. One minute they are telling a patient that they have cancer; the next, they are comforting a new mum who is worried about the health of her baby. How does a doctor download their own emotions in between, particularly when they are dealing with financial pressures and their own home lives too?
GP surgeries are also struggling with having to do things that they were not designed to do and not being reimbursed properly. One of the issues I witnessed was the reimbursement of blood tests. That practice recently negotiated a contract with NHS Dorset, which not only did not agree with the amount that the GP said they needed, but cut it dramatically. The GPs are being reimbursed at 25% of the actual cost to them, so they personally subsidise every blood test that they undertake, in a drive to push blood tests to hospitals where patients do not want to be and that they cannot get to. It is quite distressing for them. It is in the patients’ best interests for blood tests to be taken locally.
On the flipside, NHS Dorset’s pathway for cancer means that the follow-up investigations, including some very personal examinations, have to take place at a surgery with a GP who does not know the patient. The patient does not start their cancer journey by going to the hospital and seeing people who actually know about cancer. I found that quite worrying and distressing.
The other issue I experienced was the discrepancy between the electronic systems used by GPs and the paper systems used by doctors in hospitals, where letters were still being sent by post, causing delays and additional administration in surgeries. Bizarrely, paper prescriptions were still being issued by hospitals, meaning that patients were not able to leave to get their prescription elsewhere, and people rushing to get their family member home were having to get a new prescription, creating more delay and unnecessary work for GPs.
I have some examples with which the Government can perhaps help. I am grateful to the Minister for replying to one of these cases, so it may be familiar to him. The GPs at Wareham surgery are all partners, and they are working out of a building that was part of a hospital and ambulance station, but the building is falling down. The hospital was going to be rebuilt, but that was shelved long ago, and the surgery has finally found a new building. Unfortunately, the building comes with a 25-year lease, which extends beyond even the most youthful of partners, and there is no break clause. It also has a requirement that there be at least three GP partners, and if there are not, retiring GPs will remain personally liable until there are.
However, what we are finding in both Wimborne and Wareham is that people can no longer afford to be a partner in these surgeries. Bethan, my niece, is a GP in her early 30s, and she has probably accrued more than £100,000-worth of debt to get there. She probably has a £250,000 mortgage, because she lives on the south coast. How on earth can she, as a young woman, be expected to take unlimited personal liability on top of that? More people are therefore becoming salaried GPs. They are working their socks off in clinical terms, but they do not have any of the burden of running their surgery, taking that responsibility and subsidising patients.
The GP surgeries I mentioned are struggling to find people willing to be a partner, so that they can take up that lease. I did not hear from the Minister any real reassurance or understanding of the fact that the nature of being a GP is changing. What are the Government doing? Are we expecting the GP partner model to be phased out, and if so, what will replace it? How do we make sure that these organisations can remain?
I was most bothered when the chief executive of NHS Dorset said that GPs are independent contractors and are responsible for sorting out their own businesses. I find it absolutely appalling that we treat our GPs as if they are the local carpenter. GPs are the heart of our communities, and we need to start talking about them as an integral part of the NHS, not as an independent business that needs to make money. These people are not making money; they are saving our lives and keeping us well, and we need to treat them much better.
The population of Wimborne has doubled, and people are worried because the town has lost a GP surgery. They are constantly writing, “We need another surgery.” The surgery in Wimborne, like most surgeries, wants to expand, but one of the problems with the funding model that GPs can access—I would be grateful if this could be looked at—is the requirement to bid, design, obtain planning permission and build within a financial year. With the best will in the world and the most efficient planning system, there may be a tiny district that can do that, but I do not know anywhere that can complete the whole process in a year. We need to find a way for GP surgeries to access funding over multiple years, so that communities know they have an NHS fit for the future.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important debate.
GPs are the front door of our health service, particularly in rural constituencies such as Yeovil and many others in the south-west. Despite their hard work, GPs in Yeovil are stretched thin because the necessary funding and support simply are not there. Everyone deserves access to safe and accessible local healthcare, and all of our constituents should be able to see a GP within a week. Unfortunately, 23% of patients in Somerset are waiting more than 14 days for an appointment, and over 7% are waiting more than 28 days. I have heard from too many constituents who have waited that long or even longer, which is also not good enough.
We need to ensure that everyone has the right to see a GP within seven days, or within 24 hours in urgent cases, and we need more GPs to deliver that. We should also ensure that everyone aged over 70 or with a long-term health condition has access to a named GP. Many of my residents and constituents are concerned that they do not know who their GP is, or that they do not have access to a named GP. They find it concerning that they regularly have to see different GPs or locums.
Many of our GP surgeries are struggling with their buildings. As I have previously said, I am grateful to have received confirmation from the Minister that Crewkerne health centre and Church View medical centre in Neroche are set to receive a share of the £102 million to deliver upgrades to their practices, but other surgeries are seriously struggling and feel overwhelmed and overlooked. Ariel Healthcare in Chard urgently needs funding and support to upgrade its services to help local residents with urgent needs.
We cannot support our GPs in isolation. We desperately need to improve public transport in the south west so that people can get to their appointments. The cancellation of the No. 11 bus service in Yeovil highlights that issue, and residents, particularly those who are vulnerable, now struggle to access Preston Grove medical centre and Hendford Lodge surgery.
We also urgently need to fix NHS dentistry, because people are forced to go to their GP or hospital for help. Can the Minister provide a clear timeline and costed proposals for fixing the NHS dental contract? The British Dental Association has only had scoping meetings so far, so I hope the Minister and the Government will push that.
We also need to increase investment in public health. Somerset is 11th from the bottom in public health grant allocation despite having a growing public health crisis, particularly around addiction. I was a public health cabinet member for two years and we had only £100,000 to push dental health. It is just not good enough.
On average, we are £13.6 million short across the country, and public health desperately needs reforming. I hope the Minister takes on board our calls to ensure that GPs in the south-west get the funding they deserve and desperately need to support our residents. Without our fantastic GPs, there is no future for our NHS.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this important and timely debate.
I will quote a GP in Melksham and Devizes who also covers part of the neighbouring constituency. He wrote in an email to me this week:
“Without a significant improvement in GP contract payments, the ICB will push us into a position where we have to reduce the hours our surgeries are open. This for us at best means closing sites 1-2 days per week to try to minimise our staff wage bill which is our largest expense. Depending on what happens in 1-2 years, one or more sites would have to close.”
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a strong case for Three Shires medical practice, which has three surgeries in my constituency. Does he agree that if any of the surgeries were to close, it would be a disaster for patients because of the poor public transport links? Does he agree more generally that it is more expensive to deliver GP services in rural areas because we cannot centralise to save money without dramatically reducing patient access?
Brian Mathew
I totally agree with my hon. Friend.
On funding, although the general medical services baseline is around two thirds of our income, it has gone up by 7.2%, with 6% eaten up by the increases in employer national insurance contributions and the national living wage. Our other income streams—dispensing, QOF and enhanced services—have gone up very little. Our emergency section 96 one-off funding has helped us to postpone that decision, and further tightening our belts has stabilised our financial position. However, partner income remains lower than it was two years ago, and it is little more than that of salaried GPs, making reappointment difficult.
Most of the new money is tied to the primary care network, so it is centralised, or it is delivered via the additional roles reimbursement scheme, which is mainly restricted to non-GP roles such as pharmacists. There has been a scheme to allow PCNs, not practices, to employ newly qualified GPs in a temporary capacity—for example, at a central hub practice. That arrangement disadvantages rural practices, as resources are centralised towards urban centres.
At Three Shires, we have reduced our use of locums to cover GP absences by about 60%, resulting in fewer appointments overall. We have allowed retiring nurses and salaried GPs to leave without replacement, or only be partly replaced, to make savings. That has meant offering fewer appointments and greater work for remaining staff. Our patient participation group has been amazing. It formed the Friends of Three Shires, which has fundraised for new equipment, such as ECG machines and examination couches, helping to keep facilities up to scratch for patients.
The integrated care board has effectively imposed a deadline at the end of September for us to demonstrate that we can continue. Would the Minister be prepared to meet me and GPs from my constituency to hear directly from them about the stark realities of rural GP practices, so that they can help?
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing today’s important and timely debate. He is a tireless advocate for his local community, and I commend him for shining a spotlight on GP funding and the broader state of healthcare in the south-west. He spoke about the funding model for GPs, which is complex, obscure and outdated, and does not account for rurality.
As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for hospitals and primary care, I hear all too often from my constituents and from people across the country who are struggling to access the care they need. Our NHS is the pride of the nation, but years of underfunding and mismanagement under the last Conservative Government have left services in crisis.
Nowhere is that more apparent than in general practice, with patients facing increasingly long waits to see a GP, as highlighted by my hon. Friend’s statistics. In 2019, the average GP had 1,900 patients on their books; today, they have 2,400, and some people cannot get an appointment at all. People rightly tell me that they are not included in the Government’s waiting list statistics because they have not managed to get on a waiting list in the first place—or even speak to a doctor.
Those are not isolated complaints. I am sure many hon. Members will recognise those concerns from their own constituency surgeries, or from spending a morning with their local GP, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) described. We also need to be honest about the scale of the problem. In 2024 alone, more than 2 million people in the south-west waited over 28 days for a GP appointment, and that pattern is repeated across the country. Chichester is not in the south-west, but nearly 30% of patients in my constituency had to wait more than two weeks, and around 8% waited more than a month. That is not acceptable.
The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) made an important point about tourism. The population of my coastal communities such as Selsey, Pagham and the Witterings doubles over the summer months with holidaymakers, which can put additional stress on primary care services.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) made an important point about the role that planning and ICBs play. Too often, developers come forward with large site proposals that include a GP surgery on the site. However, unless they have buy-in from the ICB, so often those GP surgeries that have been specifically designed for that purpose sit empty without a GP practice to go into them.
My hon. Friend also spoke about her village of Sherston. It might not be the centre of my universe—that is my little rural village of Westbourne—but both Sherston and Westbourne face the exact same problems. My village of Westbourne is about to lose its rural surgery; we are waiting for the ICB’s final decision. Residents of Westbourne do not have a public transport link to the GP that they are being asked to go to, across the border in Emsworth.
The Liberal Democrats believe that everyone should have the ability to live a healthy and fulfilling life, which means they must have timely and local access to healthcare, whether that is from a GP, a dentist, a pharmacist or a mental health professional. We must invest in early access to community care, in order to relieve the burden on hospitals and fix the social care crisis that leaves too many people stuck in hospital beds waiting for help that never comes.
Research by the House of Commons Library that was commissioned by the Liberal Democrats found that funding for GP practices was cut by £350 million in real terms between 2019 and 2024. Those cuts have hit communities hard, and the impact is being felt not only by patients but by the hard-working professionals trying to keep the system going. GPs who I speak to are burnt out and overburdened, and GPs in general are leaving the profession in record numbers. The result is a vicious cycle, with fewer staff, longer waits and growing public frustration. I know some incredible GPs, and New Zealand is really lucky to have them, but I would rather they were here. Despite a 2019 Conservative pledge to hire 6,000 more GPs, by the general election last year there were 500 fewer GPs than when that pledge was made. In fact, the UK has 16% fewer qualified GPs per capita than comparable high-income countries.
It does not have to be that way. Healthcare is not a luxury. It is a fundamental right and not a privilege. Everyone should be able to see a GP when they need to, and that is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a legal right to see a GP within seven days, or within 24 hours if the situation is urgent. To make this a reality, we are calling for the recruitment of 8,000 more GPs. We would achieve that by supporting junior doctors to specialise in general practice and by introducing new schemes to help experienced GPs to return to the workforce.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) said, we also believe that everyone over 70 and those with long-term conditions should have access to a named GP. Such continuity of care is not only vital for building trust and supporting staff morale; it also improves health outcomes and saves money in the long term. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who is the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, has said, continuity of care is key. Patients who have had the same GP for more than 15 years have a 25% lower chance of dying compared with patients who change GPs regularly. Continuity of care builds trust, improves outcomes and reduces hospital admissions. It is good for patients, good for staff and good for the system as a whole.
We must also address the broader picture. Community pharmacies are closing at an alarming rate when they should be playing a bigger role in delivering frontline care. Fairer and more sustainable funding is needed to keep these services open, to relieve pressure on GPs. I am a big fan of Pharmacy First and I know that the Minister is, too; I have heard him talk about his passion for it. But pharmacists in my constituency tell me that with the regular increase in targets, they are struggling to keep up.
Adam Dance
I spent an evening with one of my local pharmacists, and it was so shocking that people were coming 20 or 30 miles to his pharmacy, because it was the only one open near my village of South Petherton. He was struggling so much because he could not get the medication that people needed, despite the fact that they were travelling so far to try and get medication from him. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is just not good enough and that the Government need to support pharmacies a lot more?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I am sure the Minister will talk about the hub and spoke model that the Government are championing, but my hon. Friend is right about the difficulties in rural areas especially. Many constituents have talked to me about the distance they are having to travel to get basic medication that means they can function, go to work the next day or get their children to school.
This is why we have been calling for a fairer and more sustainable long-term funding model for community pharmacies. They play a vital role in relieving pressure on GPs, yet they are being squeezed out of existence. Since 2017, 1,200 pharmacies have shut their doors. Community Pharmacy England has warned of real-terms funding cuts of at least 25% since 2015, leaving the network on the brink of collapse.
This is not just a failing system; it is a broken one. This Labour Government have a responsibility to act. They were elected on a promise of change, but that change must begin with fixing our NHS. I am sure the Minister will celebrate the budget increase, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) said, this has been swallowed by the increased costs and national insurance contributions. That is why the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to exempt healthcare services from the NICs rise, which the Government chose not to accept.
General practice is the front door to our health system. If we do not invest properly in GP services, everything else suffers. We must not let that door remain closed to so many. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot rightly said, we do not have to accept broken systems—we can fix them, and now is the time to prove that we will. Will the Minister commit to the Liberal Democrat proposal of a legal right for patients to see a GP within seven days, or within 24 hours in urgent cases? Does he agree that everyone over 70 and those with long-term health conditions should have access to a named GP?
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Dame Siobhain, and to be here. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate on a topic that I am all too familiar with, having spent time as a GP. This place may not be so familiar with the inner workings of GP practices, so it is fantastic to have the chance to discuss it. I declare an interest: many of my immediate and wider family are GPs, and it is important to put that on the record.
This debate has allowed us to discuss a huge variety of things, including the Carr-Hill formula and the QOF. We did not touch on DES and LES—directed enhanced services and local enhanced services. Rural dispensing practices are a really important funding stream. We have talked about the partnership model, retention, joining up services, ICBs and their toolkits, the interaction with the planning department and rurality, which has a particular impact on services in my area.
I want to pick up on the comments made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). Fair play to her for going out and shadowing a GP to see what their life is all about. At the heart of what she said was the good care that goes on. If we were to believe the Daily Mail, every GP is on the golf course and only cares about the money. The money is important, but GPs care far more about the patients and the quality of care they give. That is what drives them and gets them out of bed each day. We in this house must not forget that when we discuss healthcare, because it is important. We will get far better healthcare than ever before in the last few decades, and we must not lose sight of that.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newton Abbot for giving me my first chance as a shadow Health Minister to debate general practice and ask the Minister some questions. Without further ado, I will turn to those questions. First, what is the Government’s current position on primary care and its models? In an interview in The Times in January 2023, the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said:
“I’m minded to phase out the whole system of GP partners altogether and look at salaried GPs working in modern practices alongside a range of other professionals.”
He went on to speak at events held by the King’s Fund and the Institute for Public Policy Research, where he acknowledged that he has
“observed a GP partnership model in decline where very soon we’re going to have more salaried GPs than partner GPs”
and that the
“status quo is not an option”.
Then 18 months ago, just six months before the election, the Secretary of State stated,
“What we were minded to do is to sort of phase it out over time. I’m still not sure whether or not the GP partnership can survive in the longer term. But I haven’t reached a sort of firm conclusion that says that it shouldn’t.”
In the light of that, and given the importance of the partnership model, could the Government clarify their position with regard to the partnership model and any other models that are being considered?
Vikki Slade
I thank the hon. Member for his comments about my visit to the GP, because it was an absolutely wonderful experience. If the proposal is to phase out the partnership model and move to a salaried model, how would that work, given the severe cuts that ICBs are facing? With 50% cuts to most of the ICB funding, somebody will have to pick up the costs of running these organisations, rather than the clinical side of it.
Dr Evans
The hon. Lady is spot on. I posed my question to the Government because we know that primary care is one of the most efficient parts of the NHS. Why? Because the people running those businesses—they are businesses, and we have to be open and honest about that—pay attention to where the money comes in and goes out. They take full pride in it, first, because they care, and secondly, because their salaries are paid from the profit that comes out of that. Again, “profit” is a dirty word that people do not like to use, but it is the reality of what we are dealing with when it comes to how we break down the funding.
The Government have proposed to get rid of NHS England, and it is still unclear not only how much that will cost, but how much it will save and where the administrative burden will fall. On top of that, we do not know what will replace the partnership model if we lose it, and this is the question to be asked. Given that it was only six months before the election that the Secretary of State stated his intent, I too am keen to find out the answer.
I have a second question to pose to the Government. There are concerning reports this month in the Health Service Journal, which has had sight of a leaked version of the Government’s 10-year plan to improve the NHS. It says that the plan will push back the Government’s ambition to increase the share of NHS spending on primary and community care to 2035, rather than 2029 as originally promised. Can the Minister confirm or deny those reports?
When it comes to funding, the Government raised taxes directly on GPs as part of the national insurance increase. Has the Department made any assessment of how much of the £886 million uplift that has been allocated to GP practices will be needed to meet the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions?
I turn to the figures for the ARR scheme. The Government announced in April that they thought they had reached 1,500 new GPs, but as the RCGP pointed out at the time, although having
“more GPs employed in the workforce is encouraging, when considering full time equivalent GPs—which gives the most accurate picture of the GP workforce and the care and services GPs are able to deliver for patients—the numbers published today are lower, at 851 GPs”.
The increase is encouraging, but when we dig into the data, it appears that we are simply seeing more locum doctors coming back into the scheme. I would be grateful to understand exactly how the numbers are made up, and where the inference of 1,500 GPs comes from.
More importantly, where is the scheme going in the future? Is it time-limited? Will it continue? Will it be expanded and, if so, what does that look like? Although it is an important part of addressing provision, we also need to understand exactly what is going on. Initial reviews of the data suggest that appointments have not kept up with the pace of the introduction of GPs, so I am interested to understand from the Minister why, despite the supposedly new GPs coming in, the number of appointments has not increased proportionately. I would be grateful for any comment on that.
Finally, I turn to recruitment. Training new GPs has understandably been seen as the priority when it comes to solving the long-term workforce problems in England. As Pulse magazine puts it:
“This is probably one of the areas of workforce planning that could be considered a success. Health Education England, which has been incorporated into NHS England, has been able to meet its target of over 4,000 new GP trainees a year.”
The NHS workforce report, launched under the previous Government in 2023, made commitments to increase that. It set goals to increase the number of GP specialist training places to 6,000 by 2031, ensure that all foundation-year doctors do a rotation in general practice, and require GP registrars to spend the full three years in general practice.
There has been progress, but along with progress come new problems. The British Medical Association has warned that up to 1,000 GP registrars could face difficulty when qualifying in summer 2025 without funding for GP practices to recruit newly qualified, unemployed or underemployed GPs. What active steps are the Government taking to avoid that, and what support will they be offering newly qualified GPs?
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The ARR scheme in my practice at May Lane surgery in Dursley is employing newly qualified GPs who provide a lot of extra appointments for the surgery, so the scheme is working quite well for newly qualified GPs.
Dr Evans
I am pleased to hear that the scheme is working well, but the question is—as the hon. Member would know if he had been here for the start of the debate and all the way through it—what does it look like going forward?
In other places, are locums simply being stepped into the ARR scheme because there has been a shift in the way that GPs commission their work and PCNs are looking to deal with that? That is the question at the heart of it. We seem to be training more GPs than ever, yet at the same time, we have a disproportionate number of people at the top end who are not able to find work.
It is important to build up multidisciplinary teams that take account of the pharmacists, nurses and mental health workers around GPs, and I welcome the fact that the ARR scheme allows that. It has been widened to get more funding but, as the hon. Member will know, there is a discrepancy in how much doctors are funded for and there are limitations on how long they can work in the scheme. If I were to return to practice, I would not qualify under the scheme. The Government need to pose these questions; although the scheme is welcome, does it solve the whole problem? I do not think so, and my final set of questions relates to that.
We have seen a trend in international medical graduates coming to work in the UK, with the number of international medical graduates overtaking domestically trained medics for the first time in 2023. Have the Government considered something similar to the Australian scheme? Australia classifies locations using the modified Monash model or the Australian statistical geography standard to rank areas from major cities to remote regions, and then prioritises overseas doctors into the areas of most need. That could help to deal with the disparities across different parts of the UK. Will the Government consider that model in attempting to address those disparities? Whether it is right for the UK is for the Government to decide.
Hospitals might save your life, but your GP has been quietly guarding it for decades. That fact is often lost in our debates, so it has been a privilege to remind the Government, the House and the public of that fact today. I look forward to the Government’s response.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) for securing this debate and raising this important issue. I pay tribute to every hon. Member who has taken part in the debate for their insightful contributions.
The health and wellbeing of constituents across the south-west remains a top priority for us all; I welcome the opportunity to address the concerns that have been raised today. The issue strikes at the very heart of the NHS and its ability to serve our communities effectively. General practitioners are the cornerstone of the NHS. They provide the first point of contact for millions of patients, enabling access to specialist services, managing long-term and chronic conditions, and delivering preventive care.
The south-west is a unique part of our country with a population that faces distinct challenges, from its rural geography and dispersed communities to an ageing demographic and areas of health inequality. The dedication of GPs and primary care teams, often working under difficult conditions, is a testament to the NHS’s commitment to accessible healthcare. I thank those professionals for their invaluable service.
I was pleased to see the fantastic interest and engagement that we had from the south-west in our 10-year health plan consultation. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot and his colleagues from the area will be pleased to note that the south-west had a higher than average response rate compared with the rest of the country on our change.nhs.uk platform. We also saw that 126 community-led events were run in the south-west using our “workshop in a box” toolkit, which demonstrates just how important reforming the NHS is to people in the region.
The Government recognise that GP practices in rural and remote areas face specific pressures, including recruitment difficulties and population fluctuations due to tourism. We also acknowledge the demographic reality. The south-west has a higher proportion of older residents, which increases the demand on primary care for managing complex, long-term conditions. These challenges require tailored and effective responses.
Since taking office, the Government have made primary care a central pillar of NHS reform. We have committed to strengthening GP services nationwide through a series of measures designed to increase funding, support workforce growth and improve patient access. These measures support progress towards a neighbourhood health service, with more care delivered locally to create healthier communities, spot problems earlier, and support people to stay healthier and maintain their independence for longer.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The Minister mentions the ageing demographic of the south-west. I do not know if it is actually a fact, but one of my favourite things that I have ever been told about the population of West Dorset is that if we were a country, we would have an older population than Japan—we would be the oldest country in the world. The only things older than our population are some of our GP buildings; about one in five predates the NHS itself. Can the Minister outline how the Government intend to help GP surgeries to upgrade their facilities?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and for that fun fact. I will come on to it a bit later in my speech, but the £102 million primary care utilisation fund will make a major contribution to upgrading the creaking primary care estate. He is right to identify that as a major challenge. It is also major drain on productivity. We must ensure that our GPs have the tools at their disposal to do the work they need to do.
Adam Dance
Will the Minister visit Ariel Healthcare in Chard in Somerset, where the building is really not fit for purpose, and meet the GPs to talk about their concerns?
Stephen Kinnock
I am impressed by the way the hon. Gentleman did that and I congratulate him on it. If he would care to write to me to set that out, I will have a look at it and get back to him.
I want to take this opportunity to briefly outline what we have done since July 2024, and what we intend to do, to ensure that GP funding and services in the south-west are fit for purpose and capable of meeting the needs of the local population. In February, we concluded the annual consultation between the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and the general practitioners committee of the British Medical Association. For the first time in four years, GPC England voted in favour of the GP contract package, which illustrates the progress we are making to rebuild our relationship with the profession.
The 2025-26 contract is already improving services for patients and making progress towards the Government’s health mission. It supports the three key shifts the Government want to achieve: from analogue to digital; from sickness to prevention; and from hospital to community care. Patients across the country can expect online GP services to be available throughout the day, and better continuity of care for those who would benefit most. Patients can also expect a stronger focus on prevention, in particular to tackle the biggest killers, such as cardiovascular disease.
In 2025-26, we are investing an additional £889 million into the core GP contract to fix the front door of the NHS. Despite the difficult financial situation this nation faces, we are backing our health workers with above-inflation pay rises for the second year running. We are accepting the Doctors and Dentists Review Body’s recommendation of a 4% uplift to the pay element of the GP contract on a consolidated basis.
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister talks about contracts, which is an appropriate point to question him again on his Government’s position on the GP partnership model. It is not clear what that looks like from any of the documentation, so I would be grateful to understand that or, if the Secretary of State is considering new models, what they are and when we can see them.
Stephen Kinnock
We recognise that the partnership model has many strengths. It is a very important part of the system, and it helps to drive efficiency, innovation and a kind of go-getting approach to general practice. That is what we want to see—innovative approaches.
We are committed to substantive GP contract reform. We see the partnership model as a really important part of that, but we also recognise that fewer GPs are interested in going into partnership. The partnership model is not the only model delivering general practice; GP practices can and do choose to organise themselves in different ways. Many practices cite evidence of good outcomes on staff engagement and patient experience through the partnership model. I do not think it is right to say that there are any specific plans to change the partnership model, but we recognise that there are a number of other ways, and we will always keep the way in which the contract is delivered under review.
Vikki Slade
For some leasehold properties, there is a requirement that practices have partners. How is the Minister ensuring that such practices can be taken on, either by the ICB or the DHSC? Somebody has to take responsibility for those practices, and if we are moving to a model of having more salaried people, who will do that?
Stephen Kinnock
In debates about how we deliver health and care in our country, the question often comes up about the balance between the role of the DHSC at the centre, the role of ICBs and the role of those who are at the coalface delivering services. I do not think there is a single answer to that question. What is important is that we commit to devolution and to empowering those who are closest to their communities, because they are in the best position to make the decisions that work for their communities.
It is vital that we at the centre agree on and set desired outcomes for health, access and quality that the entire system is expected to meet. We have to set a framework, and it is then up to those at the coalface to decide how best to deliver it. It would not be right for me to say, on specific leasehold cases for example, that case A should go this way and case B should go that way; to try to dictate that from the centre would be a recipe for disaster. We do need to hold the system to account, however, and the system needs to hold us to account. That is the way to deliver true political and strategic leadership.
Jess Brown-Fuller
It is interesting that the Minister mentioned devolution, because the effect of the cuts to ICBs has meant that Sussex ICB is now having conversations with Surrey ICB about a merger. The cuts are therefore achieving the exact opposite of devolution, because such a merger would move power further away from communities. Does he have any thoughts on that?
Stephen Kinnock
Integrated care boards in the south-west have received almost £1.3 billion in their primary medical care allocation for ’25-26, which is an increase of nearly 13% compared with ’24-25, so I am not quite sure where the hon. Lady is getting her figures. For me, a 13% increase is not a cut.
That growth in local resources includes the south-west’s share of the additional £889 million agreed for the GP contract, as well as the transfer of some additional roles reimbursement scheme funding that had previously been held centrally by NHS England. Those funding allocations will be further uplifted to fund in full the pay recommendations of the DDRB and the NHS Pay Review Body.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I appreciate that recruitment, including of GPs, is extraordinarily difficult in the south-west. In Minehead, there is one GP practice and just one doctor. He is outstanding, and everybody knows him—to that extent, he fits the named GP pledge—but he serves 11,000 people. Rural premium or not, would the Minister agree that that is simply unacceptable and unsustainable, irrespective of where in the country one might be?
Stephen Kinnock
That is an extraordinary statistic. There are clearly major imbalances in the way the system works and general practice is funded in our country. A little later I will come to the Carr-Hill formula; I am sure hon. Members will have seen announcements trailed in the media today about what my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will say shortly in a speech in Blackpool. The issue raised by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) is directly pertinent to the work we are doing around the formula for funding GPs, to ensure that it is needs based, unlike the current, deeply anachronistic and dysfunctional funding system.
On funding, general practices are funded through a range of streams, the majority from core payments known as global sum payments. The rest is made up of incentive schemes, premises payments and enhanced and additional services. The Carr-Hill formula is applied as a weighting of 50% to 60% of GP funding allocated through the core contract, and is a workload-based formula designed to reimburse practices for their expected workloads.
The formula takes into consideration patient demographics, such as age and gender, and factors such as morbidity, mortality, patient turnover and geographical location. I am truly proud that today my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is in Blackpool to announce that we are reviewing the Carr-Hill formula, which is outdated and not fit for purpose. Currently, GP surgeries that serve working-class areas receive on average 10% less funding per patient than practices in more affluent areas, and that needs to change.
Politics is about choices. For 14 years, the Conservatives —propped up for five years by the Liberal Democrats, I am afraid to say—chose to favour the richest. Who can forget the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) boasting about how he had deliberately redirected funding from deprived urban areas to leafy suburbs? This Labour Government are reversing that ethos. Our decision to reform the Carr-Hill formula is a clear example of how we are putting our Labour values into practice.
We recognise the importance of ensuring funding for core services is distributed equitably between practices across the country. In our upcoming 10-year health plan, that is what we will do, through our review and reform of the Carr-Hill formula. Alongside that work, the Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation—ACRA—will be asked to advise on how the setting of ICB allocations can better support the reduction of health inequalities, to ensure that resources are targeted where they are most needed.
On workforce and recruitment, we recognise the difficult situation whereby patients have been unable to get GP appointments and recently qualified doctors have been unable to find jobs. That is why, in August last year, we announced £82 million in ringfenced funding, allowing primary care networks to recruit newly qualified GPs through the additional roles reimbursement scheme. More than 1,700 GPs have now been recruited through that scheme.
As part of the 2025-26 GP contract package, we made the additional roles reimbursement scheme more flexible, to allow PCNs to accommodate local workforce needs better. That includes removing restrictions on the number or type of staff covered, including GPs and practice nurses. When I took up my ministerial responsibilities in July, I was astonished to find that it was not possible to recruit GPs through the ARRS. We have bulldozed that red tape, which has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of GPs on the frontline.
Dr Luke Evans
On that point, what would the Minister say to junior doctors, now coming to be registrars, who will be looking for a job? Should they look to the ARRS as the way forward when they qualify? What will he say to them if they do not get a job? Should that be the route they look to? Is it an expansion he is asking for? What are the alternatives for those graduating in August?
Stephen Kinnock
We have been really pleased with the take-up under the ARRS. It is a rapid and clear way of recruiting, particularly because it has the ringfence and the reimbursement system underpinning it. We absolutely encourage newly graduating GPs to take up opportunities through the ARRS; it is an important tool for bringing more GPs on to the frontline. The challenge is not so much the number of qualifying and graduating GPs in the pipeline, but getting them to the parts of the country that need them most. That variation in provision is the No. 1 priority. The review of the Carr-Hill formula will also have important synergy with the issue of recruitment and workforce.
Dr Luke Evans
It seems pertinent to ask this question now: the Australian scheme I mentioned is one way that another country has dealt with the issue. Would the Government consider placing overseas doctors in the areas of most need? Is that something under consideration?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member raises an interesting point. We are thinking strategically about the whole way that recruitment and workforce function. Similarly, on another part of my portfolio, we have several thousand international dentists who are waiting to do the overseas registration exam. We need to get that sorted out, because we have issues with capacity and there are ways of addressing them. We are absolutely committed to prioritising the training and appointment of our home-grown talent, but we also need to look at other options and solutions. We are going into this with eyes open, and I thank the hon. Member for that suggestion; it is definitely something we are looking at.
In addition, the newly launched £102 million primary care utilisation and modernisation fund will help create much-needed additional clinical space in more than 1,000 GP practices across England. The investment responds directly to findings from Lord Darzi’s independent review of the NHS, which highlighted how outdated, inefficient premises can hinder the delivery of high-quality patient care and negatively impact staff productivity and morale. This is the first dedicated national capital funding stream for primary care since 2020, and a clear demonstration of the Government’s commitment to strengthening primary and community care infrastructure.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Newton Abbot for securing this debate and thank all Members who have spoken for their passionate and insightful contributions. The Government remain fully committed to ensuring that GP funding in the south-west reflects the region’s particular challenges and needs. Through investment in the workforce and infrastructure, we aim to deliver a sustainable, high-quality primary care service for all. We also remain committed to delivering a neighbourhood health service that will improve people’s experience of health and social care and will increase their agency in managing their own care, health and wellbeing.
As we get our NHS back on its feet, and as we build an NHS fit for the future, we need more care closer to people’s homes and in people’s homes. For too long, NHS resources have been tilted towards hospitals and away from communities. The result is poorer services for patients who would benefit from care closer to home and in their communities. Moving care from hospitals into the community will be at the heart of the 10-year health plan, which will set out how we will continue to transform the NHS into a neighbourhood health service. The full vision will be set out in the plan, which we will publish very shortly.
We recognise the pressures on GPs and the impact on patients, and I assure hon. Members that addressing those challenges is a top priority for the Government. The NHS is evolving, but its founding principle remains: healthcare free at the point of use, accessible to everyone, everywhere.
Martin Wrigley
I am not quite sure what to say now that the Minister has actually said that my prime ask will be delivered. That is fantastic, and shows the emphasis of these debates.
I thank colleagues from across the House for their contributions. We all agree on the importance of GPs and the need to fix their funding. It is vital to recognise the many good things that GPs and GP practices have been doing in what have been difficult circumstances for a good number of years.
It has been delightful to hear that MPs have been interacting with their local GP practices to understand the problems with the funding formula. Delighted as I am to hear the Minister announce changes to the Carr-Hill formula, GP funding is still complex. I tried to show how complex it is by focusing on just on two of its elements, but we have heard from other hon. Members that the extra funds are even more complex. The fact that the 7% increase is eaten up by the 6% increase in wages, NICs and so on shows that it is not simple.
I thank the Minister for being here—
Martin Wrigley
I have never been interrupted by a Minister before—I would be delighted.
Stephen Kinnock
I do not even know whether an intervention is allowed here, Dame Siobhain—this is a revolutionary step—but the hon. Gentleman raised some concerns about the quality and outcomes framework, and I wanted to say that we have retired 32 out of the 76 quality and outcomes framework indicators, reflecting the fact that we agree with him: it was way too complex and there were too many indicators. By retiring those, we freed up £298 million, £100 million of which will go into the global sum, maximising the flexibility for practices to do what is right for their patients. The remaining £198 million will be repurposed to target cardiovascular disease prevention.
Martin Wrigley
I thank the Minister for the intervention. I am not quite sure what the protocol is; I do not think that that has ever happened. This is a most fantastic debate.
Capital investment in GP practices and buildings is welcome, but we have heard from across the Chamber that we need more. The problems with ICBs and the difficulties with trusts that are in NHS oversight framework segment 4 still impact GPs and how their funding works.
I will push my luck, because the Minister has been very generous with his time and very patient with us all: will he meet me and some practice managers to talk about the complexities of managing the practices with such a level of complication in funding, and to see whether the Government can identify further ways of making it easier to run these businesses, so that they can get on with delivering what they are there to deliver: healthcare for the greatest number of people with the maximum possible benefit? That would be helpful. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I respectfully say to Members that, while I do not have the power to stop interventions from people who turn up 45 minutes, an hour, or an hour and three quarters into a debate, speaking on a personal level—I am not the most formal of Chairs—I think it very impolite to make an intervention when you have not had the opportunity to hear from other Members. I do not have the power to enforce that, but if I could, I would.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered GP funding in the south-west.
English Wine Production
(1 day, 19 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
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered English wine production.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring forward this debate at a timely moment: the middle of English Wine Week. The theme this year is creating new traditions, and I cannot think of a more fitting description for the English wine industry as it stands today. It is a sector that combines modern ambition with rural heritage, and world-class expertise with local entrepreneurial spirit. It is a sector that is growing, not only in economic potential but in the public imagination.
As one of my local winemakers puts it, English wines tend to have a steely, citrus backbone. I like to think that this is an apt description of our nation’s character too: resilient, bright and quietly distinctive. English wine is increasingly a source of national pride, and we should be doing everything we can to support and protect it. The industry is growing fast, and the Government should be helping rather than hindering.
In 2023, UK vineyards produced over 21 million bottles of wine—a new record—and it is exciting that sales of English wine continue to buck wider market trends. Domestic wine sales were up 10% in 2023. Sales of UK sparkling wine have nearly trebled since 2018, from roughly 2 million bottles to over 6 million. Similarly, sales of still wine have more than doubled over the same period. We should all be toasting that success.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Northern Ireland does not produce any of its own wine; we do not have the necessary climate. We could use European Union grapes to make wine, due to Brexit regulations—but that is by the way. What can we do in Northern Ireland to ensure that English wine is something that we like to have? How can it be promoted, not just in England but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Why not buy British, as we should?
Katie Lam
The hon. Gentleman is a fantastic champion of our Unionist and one nation principles. The best thing that our friends, brothers and sisters in Northern Ireland can do is to purchase English wine and drink it. That is a win for all concerned.
British wines are now exported to 45 different countries. There are healthy markets in Norway, Japan, America, Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Hong Kong and South Korea, to name but a few. We now have over 1,100 registered vineyards and more than 240 wineries.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
One of those many vineyards is the Oatley vineyard in my constituency, run by Ned Awty and his family. Mr Awty raised with me, on a recent, pleasant visit, that small brewers and cider makers benefit from a duty relief scheme to encourage production. Would my hon. Friend join me in asking the Minister to extend that scheme to small vineyards?
Katie Lam
I will discuss later in my speech what support I think would be appropriate, so my hon. Friend will hear my thoughts on that in due course.
I am incredibly proud that the Weald of Kent boasts some of the best vineyards and wineries in the country. Across the nation, 4,200 hectares of land are under vine—more than double the area just a decade ago. It is no coincidence that even French producers are quickly buying up land in southern England. They recognise the opportunity here, and so should we.
Our English vineyards are not centuries-old family estates, handed down through the generations, like on the continent. They are new businesses, built on entrepreneurial risk, with eyewatering start-up costs, and land that is among the most expensive in Europe. The vineyards springing up in Kent, Surrey, Sussex, Hampshire and beyond are often founded by families who have risked everything: buying land at a premium, planting vines in an uncertain climate—that we all experience—and investing in years of training, equipment and marketing before even a single bottle is sold. Many vineyards are warning that rising national insurance contributions, and the recent increase to minimum wage payments, have left them unable to reinvest in their businesses.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate during English Wine Week. I could not allow her to list the places where we produce wine without mentioning beautiful West Dorset, which has 11 small wine producers, many of whom have been in touch with me about what this Parliament can do to help small producers in England. Dorset Downs Vineyard suggested that draught relief and small producer relief could be raised from 8.5% to 14% because most English wine sits between the 11% to 14% marks. Currently, beer and cider produced locally get all the benefit, but English wine producers do not. Does she agree with that suggestion?
Katie Lam
That is a similar point to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). It is not uncommon for vineyards and wineries to produce both types of drinks, and so have to operate under two different duty systems, which is also additional bureaucracy. I think that change would make a substantial difference.
Our producers represent the future of winemaking. They certainly should not be hindered by rising costs. We need long-term policies that will support their continued growth. WineGB estimates that there are 16 million potential visitors to the UK wine tourism sector: a huge untapped market. In my constituency, the excellent Chapel Down welcomes over 60,000 visitors a year for winery tours. It continues to be a major contributor to our local economy, and that is just the beginning. Producers such as Gusbourne, Westwell, Biddenden, Balfour, Dingleden, Ham Street, Warehorne, Woodchurch, and Domaine Evremond all play a part. We are so fortunate in the Weald that I could not even attempt to name them all in the time I have in this debate. It is, of course, a tremendous chore to visit them all, but my commitment to public service remains unwavering.
Many vineyards now make up to 50% of their sales directly to consumers, in so-called “cellar door sales”. That is often the only way for small producers to avoid the razor-thin margins created by intermediaries, excise duties and distributor fees. The potential is enormous. Wine tourism helps to create skilled jobs in rural constituencies like mine. It supports regional identity and allows producers to build a direct relationship with their customers. A targeted duty relief on direct-to-consumer or tourist cellar door sales would help wine producers, in the way that beer and cider receive help from draught relief and small producer relief, as we have heard from hon. Members in this debate.
Will the Government consider implementing a wine tourism relief, to recognise this youthful industry’s potential and give small producers the boost they need to truly thrive? More broadly, visits to UK vineyards and wineries were up more than half in just two years. That is extraordinary growth by any measure. What plans does the Minister have to support one of the few industries in the UK that is demonstrably expanding, creating rural jobs, driving tourism and building our export potential from the ground up?
If we are serious about backing British agriculture and business, this is exactly the kind of sector that deserves targeted support. Yet, as is too often the case in the UK today, the more businesses grow, the more they seem to be penalised by heavy-handed regulation. Take the extended producer responsibility—EPR—scheme, which affects businesses, including winemakers with a turnover of £1 million or more—a threshold that many of our leading vineyards are proudly surpassing. That success comes at a cost. EPR imposes disproportionately high fees on glass packaging, but glass is the only viable material for sparkling wine. On top of all that, winemakers now face hours of additional paperwork collecting data on the type and weight of materials used, simply to remain compliant with opaque packaging rules.
That is not the only example of over-regulation choking the industry. The previously flat wine duty has now been replaced by 30 different rates based on tiny, 0.1% increments of alcohol content. In the context of wine, that makes no practical sense. As has already been pointed out in the House by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), ABV varies naturally by vintage and by vat. It is hugely difficult to predict and the system causes confusion, not clarity. Although I accept that the Minister did not create that system, will he take the opportunity to outline what steps the Government might take to ensure that our wine producers can spend more of their time tending their vines, rather than filling out forms?
While the previous Government may have implemented some regulations that caused challenges to wine producers, they recognised the need for active investment in the UK wine industry. I was pleased to see them establish the future winemakers’ scheme, with £1.5 million set aside for training opportunities for the next generation of viticulturists. Will the Minister recommit to the scheme today, ensuring that the UK wine industry secures the future talent it needs to reach its full potential?
Though welcome, deregulation and training schemes alone are not enough. If we allow the definition of English wine to be blurred or co-opted, the industry risks dying on the vine. There is serious concern among winemakers that third-country producers could ship foreign-made still wine in bulk to the UK, carbonate or transform the product here, and market it in a way that implies it was locally made. That would be misleading to consumers, would undermine the integrity of the English wine label, and would make a mockery of the investment our producers have made in their land, climate and local communities.
I want to press the Minister on a simple point: will he commit to ensuring, particularly as the Government restart their third round of post-Brexit wine industry reforms, that wines sold as British or English must be made exclusively from British-grown grapes? He knows as well as I do that the majority of UK wine is sparkling. I am sure he would agree that English wine deserves the same protected designation of origin—PDO status—that champagne and prosecco receive in their respective markets.
There are few products that bring together so many public goods: rural jobs, tourism, export potential, environmental stewardship and national pride. English wine is not a nostalgia project or a romantic curiosity; it is a viable, growing industry—one that sits at the intersection of agriculture, manufacturing, hospitality and culture. To support this fantastic product is to invest in our countryside and our brand as a country. We have the chance, as English Wine Week says, to “Create new traditions.” I ask the Minister to seize that opportunity: let us support wine tourism and, above all, ensure that the label “English wine” means what it says—wine made from English grapes on English soil.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), a fellow Kent MP, for securing this absolutely critical debate on a sector that, as she has admitted, has fizz, body and character. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on GB wines, an area of significant passion to me. As mentioned, it is English Wine Week, an annual celebration of English wines, during which growers, merchandisers and wine consumers—including me, and probably many in this room—will shine a spotlight on some of the excellent English wines.
This sector is one of our most successful agricultural growth areas at the moment—not only because of the changing climate, but because of the quality and long-standing tradition of wine growing that we now see across parts of Kent and elsewhere in the country. I would suggest to other hon. Members that it is not just in the south of England that vineries are growing; we are seeing increasing numbers in Scotland, north-east and north-west England. So be very careful: I suspect we might see vineries in Northern Ireland very soon as well, especially as the way grapes are grown has changed. It is a universal success story, and I am very glad that hon. Members agree.
We know that vineyard registrations are up by 7.1%, as has been mentioned, and 21 million bottles of wine are now produced annually, with over 241 vineyards across the country and 4,300 hectares under vine. We are also seeing significant export success—net exports are up 8% per year. This is one of those sectors that, if nurtured, can grow to success. It is a cyclical industry; we know that 2023 saw a record harvest and a blossoming sector, but some years it is not as successful. It is inherently risky, and we have seen a lot of people starting up in vineries who need extra support when launching, because it can take up to five years before they see a return.
The sector has some unique challenges—not least the climate and the way the Government work. Both parties and both Governments need to do more to support this sector. I welcome the fact that, over the last 14 years, vineries and the wine industry have grown significantly. That is the result of a real focus in that space. However, we are up against significant headwinds and risks—not least that our main European competitors have state-based subsidy and sponsorship of their wine industries. In parts of Europe, up to €1 billion is set aside just to support the culture of wine consumption and production. That is not something we do here. We are also up against the headwinds of an increasing diversity of different alcoholic products. As the chair of the APPG, I echo some of the statements that have been made today.
I will ask the Minister about three things in the brief time that I have. What can we do to promote the export markets here? WineGB has specifically said that it is after very small amounts of money to ensure that we present a professional approach to our exports, so that when we visit trade fairs around the world, our presentation does not put us at a competitive disadvantage compared with other nations. This market is growing in Japan, the USA, Switzerland and South Korea. We know that our wines are very much in vogue and we can successfully market them for very little investment. What can the Government do to promote those exports and create the global Britain that we promised?
I absolutely agree on wine tourism relief. What more can we do to promote tourism in this sector? Vineyards are now diversifying their businesses into restaurants, hotels and other markets, so what can we do to support that?
Also, what can we do to provide support for energy and other production costs? The Government have this week announced energy provision support for some sectors. Wine production is an energy-intensive industry. Is there any consideration of offering start-up energy cost reductions to such businesses? This industry can be an extremely successful driver of agricultural growth at a time when rural economies are struggling, so what can we do to promote the industry, to ensure that it continues to grow and to be the success it is today, and also in 10 years’ time to be double or triple the size?
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I think the hon. Member has finished speaking. The hon. Member for Winchester might want to intervene on the Minister at an appropriate time.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) for securing this very important debate. As she said, this is English Wine Week, so it is a timely and fitting moment to celebrate the remarkable achievements and growing global reputation of the English wine industry. Wine events and regional showcases taking place across the country this week demonstrate the increasing breadth and variety of domestic wine production. It is an industry that not only carries historical and cultural significance, but is also a modern success story of innovation, investment and rural regeneration.
The Government absolutely recognise and celebrate the rapid growth of the English wine sector. It is one of the fastest growing agricultural industries in the UK, with production, exports and consumer demand all on the rise. For example, exports of English wine doubled from 4% of production in 2021 to 8%, as was celebrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), whose contribution as chair of the all-party parliamentary group I welcome. It is imported by 45 different countries across the world, and that growth is a testament to the hard work, vision and entrepreneurial spirit of those working across the sector.
The area represented by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent is home to some of the most distinguished and pioneering vineyards in the country. Chapel Down, Balfour and Squerryes Winery are shining examples of excellence in English wine production. They not only produce award-winning wines, but contribute significantly to local employment, tourism and rural development. Their success reflects the broader momentum of the English wine industry and the exciting opportunities that lie ahead.
English wines have built a well-earned reputation for quality and high standards, and the Government are committed to working with the industry to champion and protect that reputation both at home and abroad. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford asked how we can help to boost those exports. We have an excellent group of agricultural attachés who work very hard across the world to boost our exports and products. I am conscious that they are working very hard to make sure this brilliant British product is exported across the world.
The Government are steadfast in their commitment to support rural economies. We are determined to ensure that the UK has a thriving and diverse economy that promotes local jobs, boosts growth and supports communities across the country. The English wine sector is a really good example of that vision in action.
Dr Chambers
I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that Hampshire sparkling wine is the very best in the country, and the awards prove it. On supporting the wine industry in rural economies, Sparsholt college in Winchester—an agricultural college—has recently started vineyard curating courses as part of its horticulture courses so that the local wine industry has a trained workforce. Can the Minister look at rolling that out to the rest of the country, in areas that are appropriate?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is really important that we get the skills in place for the future. I recently had the pleasure of visiting Domaine Evremond and the Simpsons’ Wine Estate, and I was knocked out by them, frankly. They are not just vineyards, but symbols of confidence in the UK’s wine industry. They export half their produce to international markets, with Norway being the top destination. The scale of investment and the ambition are inspiring and yet, exactly as hon. Members have said, we are probably only scratching the surface of what is possible. The opportunity for growth in relation to both domestic and international investment is enormous and absolutely aligns with the Government’s broader mission of boosting economic growth and global trade.
We are committed to working together with the sector to support the ambitions for growth and exports. We are also focused on ensuring that the growth translates into high-quality, sustainable jobs in rural communities, exactly as the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) suggested. I am talking about jobs that support families, strengthen local economies and preserve our countryside.
We are working closely with stakeholders to improve the English protected designation of origin and protected geographical indication schemes. One exciting possibility under consideration is the creation of a separate sub-category to allow alternative production methods under the PDO scheme, which would further broaden the appeal of our wines and open up new market opportunities. My officials are engaging with local producers, including those in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent, to support an application for formal recognition of distinctive regional areas such as the Kent Weald. This initiative aims to highlight the region’s unique geological and agricultural characteristics, which contribute to the exceptional quality of its produce. By talking with stakeholders on the ground, the Government are ensuring that the application reflects the authentic identity and heritage of Kent’s landscapes. Such recognition not only promotes regional pride, but enhances market opportunities for local producers, reinforcing the area’s reputation both nationally and internationally.
A number of questions were asked, and I will try to address them. The hon. Member asked about the possibility of a wine tourism relief. We are very interested in linking the production to the tourism offer, and I understand that WineGB is about to launch a campaign for a wine tourism relief. I cannot make any commitments today, because it is a Treasury issue, but certainly, it is something that we are interested in looking at. On my visits, I was very struck by the ingenuity and entrepreneurial zeal of the winemakers in linking it to a really sophisticated tourism offer—I think that when I visited, they were hoping they would not get too much rain over that weekend; it now seems extraordinary we should even be thinking about rain. But this shows how it is possible to transform not just the wine production area itself, but the local economy: the local pubs, hotels and so on. It is really exciting.
The hon. Lady also asked about packaging and the extended producer responsibility, which has been a long-running issue. I can tell her that the latest set of fees will be announced on Friday, so that should bring some certainty, I hope. She also asked about transformation. That is a complicated issue, which we will look at when we come to the third phase of wine reforms. However, I can assure her that any wine that is imported into the UK but not transformed—if it is shipped in bulk and only bottled in the UK, but not transformed—cannot be marketed as being made in England, or similar. We are very clear about that.
Sir Ashley Fox
Small cider producers in Somerset benefit from a duty relief scheme. I realise that the Minister is about to conclude his remarks, but he does not appear to have touched on the subject of duty relief for small vineyards. Will he at least give a commitment that he will talk to the Treasury about that, because it seems illogical that small brewers and small cider producers benefit from duty relief but small vineyards do not?
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to stray into Treasury matters. What I will observe is that the 8.5% limit is part of the health approach, and I think we will stick to that.
To conclude, the UK wine sector is a source of confidence, growth and success. I am committed to working with it—and have very much enjoyed working with it so far—every step of the way to drive growth, boost exports and ensure that rural communities across the UK share the benefits of its success. When we see the climate being transformed before our eyes, that produces a lot of challenges for the food sector in general, but this is an opportunity that, it seems to me, we should really seize.
I again thank the hon. Member for Weald of Kent for securing this debate. In English Wine Week, it is especially important that we recognise the passion, progress and future of this vital industry. We are committed to supporting the English wine industry by listening to its concerns and acting upon them, and by working collaboratively towards common goals.
Question put and agreed to.
Armed Forces Recruitment: North-east England
(1 day, 19 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
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered armed forces recruitment in the North East.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. It is an honour to lead this debate in Armed Forces Week, as we take time to mark the huge contribution that our service personnel make to the security of the UK and our allies. As we celebrate their public service, in this debate we will discuss how to recruit the next generation of warfighters that our country needs.
There has never been a more important time for this discussion. The recent strategic defence review called for
“a landmark shift in our deterrence and defence…moving to warfighting readiness to deter threats and strengthen security”.
A step change in how we recruit must be a fundamental part of that. As a region with a proud history of supporting our armed forces, the north-east can make a significant contribution in the future.
I will make three points today. First, I will talk about transforming armed forces recruitment to meet the rapidly evolving threats that we face. Secondly, I will explain how we can attract the high-tech warfighting skills that we need for the future. Finally, I will discuss how we can modernise recruitment to harness our armed forces as an engine of social mobility.
Let me start with transforming armed forces recruitment to meet the rapidly emerging threats. From the many visits that I have made to RAF bases at home and abroad as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, and having met service personnel in my constituency, it is clear that our armed forces’ greatest asset is their people. They demonstrate extraordinary commitment, resilience and professionalism day in, day out, and I am sure we can all agree that our men and women in uniform represent the very best of British public service. But as the Defence Secretary said:
“The world has changed. The threats we now face are more serious and less predictable than at any time since the Cold War”.
That means we need to look again at how we make sure we have the right people in the right numbers, and with the right skills, across our armed forces.
How do we do that? First, we need a step change in the number of people joining the regular forces and the reserves to give us the mass that we need to meet evolving threats. In doing so, we need to tackle the recruitment crisis that Ministers inherited from the last Government. It is incredibly disappointing that in the last four years, the number of people joining the regular forces fell by 40% in the north-east region. Across the country, it fell by just under a third. Over the last year, we have seen a welcome 19% increase in recruits, but as Ministers have made clear, there is much more to do.
To improve the scale of recruitment, we must transform its speed. It is vital that military recruitment, like all other aspects of UK defence, quickly starts operating at a wartime pace. For too long, new entrants have faced bureaucratic barriers, delays to medical screening and outdated restrictions on pre-existing conditions. This has meant that the length of time between filling in an application form and donning a uniform has often been too long.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on this crucial issue. Does he agree that the system used to apply to join the armed forces is outdated and often cumbersome? I am very happy to say that a constituent of mine has successfully been able to submit an application, but this was after finding that she did not get a notification to say that she had missed some bits of her original application, so she had been waiting indefinitely. She is a keen young person from Darlington who really wants to serve the country, and we absolutely need to take advantage of having people like that.
Alan Strickland
I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention, and I entirely agree. I, too, have had casework in my constituency involving people who are keen to join the forces, but whose applications have been lost or delayed. In other cases, medical checks have never been booked. I hope that the Minister will set out some of the practical steps that will be taken to speed up the process.
The problems that we are discussing have hampered recruitment efforts and led to the loss of highly skilled applicants, and we must tackle that. The top priority must be to deliver faster, more flexible and more dynamic recruitment that delivers at pace the new generations of talented servicemen and women that we need.
I turn to attracting the high-tech warfighting skills that we require. As we know, the nature of warfare has changed dramatically in the last few years, and in the appalling conflict in Ukraine, we see it evolving rapidly every single day. In response to that, the strategic defence review makes it clear that our warfighters need a broader range of skills across a wider range of professional and technical specialisms. That is because we need to defend and deter across the five domains of modern warfare— air, land, sea, cyber and space—all of which are developing at pace. I see that clearly in my constituency and across the north-east, where, alongside the manufacture of conventional defence supplies, we have a growing cluster of world-leading space and satellite businesses, many of which are involved in defence.
This rapid innovation means that our military personnel not only need to be skilled in deploying the latest technologies, but must be able to use the full range of defence capabilities in a seamless and integrated way to project maximum force. How do we make sure that people with this evolving and sophisticated range of skills can be successfully recruited into the armed forces?
First, we need to find ways of making roles in the regular forces attractive to those who might not have traditionally seen defence as a career option for them. That means convincing cyber experts, satellite engineers, drone operators and those from a range of high-tech industries and jobs in science, technology, engineering and maths that a career in uniform could be a valuable use of their talents.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on his fantastic speech. To take a slightly different angle, does he agree that our many cadet units across the region, which are often based in very deprived areas, provide wonderful opportunities for young people to gain many life skills and get high-skilled qualifications, leading to good jobs, and that they promote opportunities for young people to consider a career in the forces? Does he look forward to hearing about the Government’s plans to boost cadet forces by 30% over the next five years?
Alan Strickland
My hon. Friend is right to set out the vital role that our cadet forces play, not only in encouraging young people to think seriously about the armed forces, but in developing their skills, teamwork, leadership and a range of really valuable things that we want young people in the north-east to be able to access.
In addition to the cadets, we need to be innovative in rethinking how we recruit to our reserve forces. There will be many in the north-east and across our communities who have specialist skills that are of huge value to the armed forces, but who may not be able to serve full time. By establishing the digital warfighter group recommended in the SDR and promoting a range of other opportunities, we could provide flexible and fulfilling part-time roles for those with the skills that we really need. Also, let us look at the opportunities to retrain and reskill our existing personnel, so that our modern warfighters evolve as quickly as modern warfare.
Finally, I will talk about how we can better harness our armed forces as an engine of social mobility.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, for securing this debate in Armed Forces Week and for the fantastic speech that he is making. Proportionally, the north-east sends more of our young people into the armed forces than any other region in the country. I am proud of that contribution, yet relative to other regions, we have fewer armed forces personnel stationed in the region, and the Ministry of Defence spends less with businesses and industry in the region—in fact, I think it spends the least there. Does he think that the Ministry and the armed forces could be more visible and do more to champion the contribution of the armed forces to our region?
Alan Strickland
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, for that intervention. She is right that as well as making sure that we recruit from the north-east and that there are opportunities there, through the work that is happening on the defence industrial strategy, there must be an opening up of procurement opportunities not just across our region, but particularly for high-tech small and medium-sized enterprises. We know that, for too long, they have been excluded from defence contracts in our country.
Just as our renewed defence industries can be an engine for growth across our country, our efforts to transform recruitment can be a powerful engine for social mobility, spreading opportunity more widely across our nation. When meeting RAF personnel as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have been struck by the extent to which careers in our military can genuinely transform lives. On one of my first visits to a base, I met a young recruit from Tyneside, who said that being in the RAF had given him opportunities he could never have dreamed of. He was a working-class lad and he said that many from his family had struggled to find and secure jobs. He proudly told me that the RAF had trained him, trusted him and invested in him. The Air Force gave him the chance to train as a world-class engineer, broadened his horizons and allowed him to work all over the globe—all by his early 20s. I have had inspiring conversations like that at base after base. It has been brilliant to hear at first hand just what a difference military careers can make.
In the north-east—a region where, for too long, opportunities have not been spread as widely as talent—the routes our military provides into world-class skills development are all the more powerful and all the more needed. I would be grateful if the Minister can set out how we can show more young people in the north-east that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) mentioned, supporting our armed forces—whether that is through the cadets, reserves or regulars—could not only make a huge difference to our collective defence, but have a transformational impact on their lives.
Lola McEvoy
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with his time. He is making an excellent speech in Armed Forces Week. Does he agree that the important incentives for joining the forces include not just pride in the country but a secure career afterwards? Does he also agree that the work the Government are doing to ensure people have decent careers in sectors that really need those with resilience, excellent teamwork, good discipline and grit is a great way to ensure that people think about joining the armed forces, as well as about what they do afterwards?
Alan Strickland
My hon. Friend is right that the range of skills that our servicemen and women develop, particularly as we move into a rapidly evolving technical warfighting age, set people in good stead for their future careers. On my RAF visits, station commanders often complain that because they have trained people so well, their personnel are snapped up by the private sector.
One of the things the review mentions is that this does not have to be a binary choice. As my hon. Friend said, there could better opportunities and more sophisticated ways of encouraging people to get trained in the military and contribute. If they move into the private sector for a while and come back into the military full time or go to the reserves, or take part in defence manufacturing, they stay within the defence family, but move around. We actively support that because it means keeping those skills in the wider sector.
I would be grateful if the Minister can set out what more we can do to ensure that schools, colleges and universities do not shy away from talking about military careers, but actively encourage and embrace them. What message will he send to people in the north-east, of all backgrounds and ages, about why they should seriously consider lending their time to UK defence?
As I draw my remarks to a conclusion, let us in this Chamber send a very clear message. If you are a young person looking for an exciting and challenging career, get involved in your local cadets. If you have the specialist skills that Britain needs for defence in a highly technological age, why not share them through the reserves? Be one of our new cyber warfighters. If you are an employer with staff who want to lend their talents to our armed forces, back them, support them and encourage them. And if you are considering how you might have a fulfilling career that develops the skills that my hon. Friend mentioned, why not consider becoming a regular and joining the forces?
Of course, the fundamental reason that this is so incredibly important—the reason why we must think so hard about these opportunities and challenges—is that our final message from this Chamber should be this: if you are a hostile nation, if you are an adversary of the UK and our NATO allies, we will in the next few years be taking major steps to recruit a new generation of world-leading warfighters who will provide world-class defence and deterrence.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland), not only on securing the debate but on his doughty championing of the armed forces in our region and around the UK.
Armed forces recruitment in the north-east is of regional and national importance, and matters very deeply to my constituents in Stockton, Billingham and Norton. Our armed forces community is a great source of pride, as hon. Members will have seen if they were with me on Stockton High Street on Saturday, when we had a flag-raising ceremony for Armed Forces Week. There were representatives of our local regiment, the Royal Yorkshire Regiment; the Royal Military Police, which has a base in Norton in my constituency; and our cadets—the sea cadets and RAF cadets based in my constituency, and Royal Marine cadets too.
Those brave members of the regulars and reserves deserve more than my words and the words of hon. Members in this Chamber; they deserve real action. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the reality is starkly different from some of those words. The British Army is now at its smallest size in 200 years. With due respect to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who I know is personally a strong supporter of the armed forces, the last decade did not cover his party or the previous Government in glory on this issue.
The armed forces have been hollowed out. They have been underfunded, overstretched and undervalued. As we have heard, over the last decade the number of recruits in the north-east has fallen by a third. This in an area that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) said, is proud of its commitment to the armed forces, and where people know that joining the armed forces provides a route of opportunity that is sadly lacking elsewhere in our economy.
Lola McEvoy
What does my hon. Friend think are the causes of the drop in recruitment in our area? I frequently speak to veterans and the aftercare for people coming out of the forces has been really poor. Does he agree that the Labour Government have an opportunity to show not only that we are proud of people when they are serving, but that when they leave, they need to be looked after properly?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is right that aftercare is very important. On why recruitment levels have fallen, I would expand on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor made about the recruitment process and criteria, such as the medical requirements.
When Admiral Sir Tony Radakin spoke to the Public Accounts Committee in April, he clearly said that there is no shortage of people wanting to serve—as we know in the north-east—but too few of those applications are turned into recruits. The rigidity of medical standards is certainly an issue: 76,000 applications were rejected on medical grounds in the last five years, and the MOD’s website makes it clear that even a minor or historical health issue that does not affect daily life could disqualify someone.
Sir Tony is far more qualified than I am to speak about this, but he made a very compelling point that we are assessing people for 22 years of service when most will serve only 10. In fact, if we could take a more flexible approach and think about a five-year service interval, that would open the door to thousands more capable recruits willing to serve.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for his kind personal remarks. He is absolutely right, and I will be saying more about this point in my speech, but would he acknowledge that whatever colour of party is in government, all armed forces across the western world are now struggling to recruit and, particularly, to retain personnel? The problem is not unique to the United Kingdom, or indeed north-east England.
Chris McDonald
The right hon. Member has a point. Many countries struggle with recruitment, and perhaps the cuts to the armed forces and the delivery of the so-called peace dividend have been an issue in some countries. In the north-east in particular, however, which is the subject of this debate, there is no shortage of committed people desperately wishing to serve. Ultimately, it is the systems in place that are preventing them from doing that.
We are clearly in an increasingly hostile world. We have war in Europe, an increasing threat from China, and, of course, what is happening in the middle east. People are seeing that on their TV screens each evening and they are wanting to serve. We should make it easier for them to do that. If the right hon. Member wants a more direct answer, I think that the outsourcing of recruitment, which was fundamentally a cost-cutting measure as part of austerity, has weakened not just our public services, but our national security.
When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence took office, he inherited a system that had missed its recruitment targets every single year for over a decade—we had more people leaving the forces than joining. That is why I welcome his commitment to modernisation. We need to cut red tape, to scrap these outdated entry requirements, and to make it fundamentally easier for people to serve.
The strategic defence review recognises the scale of the workforce crisis with plans to invest in infrastructure and people. That includes the award of a 4.5% above inflation pay rise for personnel, which is the beginning of proper recognition of the professionalism and sacrifices of our armed forces, and the commitment of £1.5 billion for armed forces housing. I am sure that many hon. Members have been appalled by the current housing conditions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) mentioned, if we want to retain talent, we need to think more long term about how people are treated when they leave, and how their families are treated while they serve.
Every day, our armed forces keep Britain safe at home and abroad. They deserve more than gratitude; they deserve a system that works for them. Service personnel in Stockton, Billingham, and Norton know that they are fully supported by our local community, and I am sure they also know that they are now fully supported by this Labour Government.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for setting the scene. I was here for his first debate in Westminster Hall; I am now here for his second, and I am sure I will be here for many more to come.
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. Obviously, the title of the debate is armed forces recruitment in the north-east, but I want to speak about Armed Forces Day, as other hon. Members have, which we had last Saturday in Newtownards. I will also speak about the tradition of service in uniform in my family, including among my uncles, who fought in the second world war, and my cousins. When I was an eight-year-old boy—which, by the way, was not yesterday; I am long past that—I wanted to be a Royal Marine commando.
I never made it to a Royal Marine commando, though not because I did not try—go for the highest!—but the Minister for Veterans, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), did get that job. I always liked the look of him; he achieved that goal and we all have great fondness for him. I think of him climbing Mount Everest—wow, if you are not impressed by that, you should be.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
As we all know, the tagline for the Royal Marine commandos was “99.9% need not apply”. When it comes to parliamentary spoken contributions, the hon. Member is in top 0.1%, so he has achieved that goal.
Jim Shannon
That comment is on the record.
I always wanted to be in the Army and I joined the Ulster Defence Regiment as an 18-year-old. There were different rules back in the ’70s—everyone will now be able to judge my age—and I served for three years as a part-time soldier in that regiment. It was clear that that was an anti-terrorism role; those were incredibly difficult times for all of us in Northern Ireland.
I later left the Ulster Defence Regiment and joined the Royal Artillery as a Territorial Army soldier, where I served for 11.5 years. Altogether, I served for 14.5 years, and they were some of the most exciting times of my life. I used to make a silly joke: people would ask me what I was in, and I would say, “The SAS”. Of course, their ears would perk up and they would say, “The SAS?” I would reply, “Yes, Saturdays and Sundays.” Those were the days when we did our training and our competitions, and made ourselves try to be soldiers in whatever role we were playing.
Last Saturday, as hon. Members have already said, we hosted Armed Forces Day for Northern Ireland in Newtownards in my constituency of Strangford. What a day that was: the sun was shining and the children were laughing, but most importantly the armed forces were honoured, with an estimated 60,000 people coming to Ards to enjoy the host of food stalls and armed forces stalls, as well as all the different charities and regiments that were able to be there. There was also the chance to see—as we all wanted to when we were small, and not because we are from Northern Ireland—the guns, the helicopters and the other things up close, as well as the dancing and the fun on the fields. Those things were all part of last Saturday.
The Falcons started off the aerial events, and I could hear the gasps and the comments from the watching public. Those guys were coming out of the sky, and people were pointing at them, but my eyesight is not what it was and I am afraid I could not even see them until they were almost there. We saw what they did, and how precise they were in landing exactly where they needed to on the airfield—if it were me, I would probably be in Strangford lough somewhere. We learned about the regiment and wondered at their skill. The drumhead ceremony was respectful, and the sounds of the crowd singing the national anthem will stay with me for a long time.
Of course, the highlight of the day for many were the incomparable Red Arrows, whose skill and showmanship reminded us all of the strength of the armed forces in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—undoubtedly the best in the world. The beating of the retreat was the perfect end to the day, and I thank the Royal Irish Regiment bands for their world-class performances.
I am sure that the event has given many young people the desire and opportunity to see how they can join the best in the world, as hon. Members have referred to, in particular the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor. We need to encourage more local authorities to highlight those opportunities in their area, including in the north-east and across the whole United Kingdom.
Northern Ireland has historically given a higher proportion of service than any other country in the UK, and that remains the case. In the latest recruitment year, Northern Ireland has again contributed a large number of individuals to the UK armed forces. That figure represents recruitment to the Royal Navy, the Royal Marines, the Royal Airforce and the British Army. Overall, UK armed forces saw a 19% increase in recruitment in the 12 months to 31 March 2025, with the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines experiencing the largest percentage increase. That is great news, but it is obvious that more needs to be done, which is why we are having this debate.
I apologise for not welcoming the Minister to his place. He is a good friend of the armed forces—I do not say that to give him a big head; I mean it. Whenever he faces issues that refer to Northern Ireland, he asks all the Northern Ireland MPs for their input. That shows his interest, and that he wants to hear what our constituents are telling us and feed that into the process. I very much look forward to his response; I do not think anybody in the Chamber will be disappointed by it.
There are things we should do. First, we could do more with the cadets. I understand there are issues for the cadets, and I am anxious about those; the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) referred to the cadets in her constituency. I visited Ballykinler three months ago and met the cadets from County Down who had their weekend camp there, and I was greatly impressed.
I understand that the role of the cadets is not to make people want to join the forces—and I understand the reason for that; they are at a young age—but I am keen to get the Minister’s thoughts on how we can do better. When I talk to the officers and those who train the cadets, I say, “You’ve got a potential recruitment pool here. Can we do more?” I know that some of those cadets will go on to join the Army, particularly the Royal Irish Regiment or the RAF, but we could do more. I leave that question for the Minister.
Secondly, on Saturday, I also spoke to some people who hold ranks in my old regiment, the Royal Artillery, including the commanding officer. I asked him how recruitment was going with the TA, and he told me, “Jim, it’s not as good as it used to be.” I said, “Is it not? I thought we were recruiting well in Northern Ireland.” He said, “Yes, we’re recruiting above the quota in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom, but here are some ideas.” I said, “Tell me what your ideas are.” He said, “We need to promote more of the skills that can be learned in the forces.” I understand that the Government, and the Royal Air Force, the Royal Navy and the Army, enable people to do skills courses that give them better opportunities for recruitment.
Thirdly, the commanding officer also said, “Employers need to be more flexible.” I said, “What do you mean by that?” He said, “Maybe with getting time off, for instance, at the weekend.” Is there a job to be done with employers to ensure that we do something better? Those are three positive ideas for the Minister—that is always how I do things—and if we can do them, I think we will encourage people.
There is no doubt that the 60,000 people who were at the Armed Forces Day in Newtownards last Saturday felt pride in the country, pride in the flag and pride in the uniform. Pride in the flag and uniform transcends both sides of the community, some of whom fought tooth and nail over 30 years of a terrorist campaign. Both sides of the community serve in uniform. For instance, the cadets in Northern Ireland come from both sides of the community, and percentage-wise it is equal. That tells me that the forces of today have appeal right across both the spectrum of political opinion, if that is what it is, and across the communities of Northern Ireland. There are good things happening, but there is much to do.
Lola McEvoy
I thank the hon. Member for his interesting outline of the differences in what is going on in Northern Ireland. On his point about good things happening, does he agree that this Government have taken direct action in their first year, with the Armed Forces Commissioner, to tackle some of the institutional problems that have put people off joining the forces? Add to that the biggest pay rise in a generation, and those good things should hopefully see a boost in our numbers.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady is right to outline that. Clearly, the Minister should be in no doubt that I commend him and this Labour Government on their commitment to the armed forces. I am impressed by what has happened, and I am also impressed by the 5% commitment to GDP by 2035. How could anybody not be impressed by that? Today, on the Floor of the House, there was a clear commitment to new nuclear-certified aircraft and I welcome that. That is the right thing. The policies that have been carried out by Ministers, the Labour Government, and the Defence Secretary are to be welcomed and I wholeheartedly support them.
Moving on to the increase in spending to 5% of GDP, although we need increases in cyber tech, know-how and weaponry, we also need boots on the ground. We cannot fight all wars with drones; the cyber age seems to be taking over. The message needs to go out that all skillsets are needed and wanted in the Army. I wrote the next sentence before the hon. Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) intervened, by the way: this Government are committed to strengthening the armed forces across this United Kingdom.
I hope the Minister will agree that the greatest fighting men hail from Ulster, with great respect to everyone else in the rest of the United Kingdom. One of my favourite quotes on the world war is from Wilfred Spender; I know the Minister will remember it, and perhaps others will, as well. It was spoken after the battle of the Somme:
“I am not an Ulsterman, but yesterday, the 1st July, as I followed their amazing attack, I felt that I would rather be an Ulsterman than anything else in the world. My pen cannot describe adequately the hundreds of heroic acts that I witnessed…The Ulster Volunteer Force, from which the Division was made, has won a name which equals any in history. Their devotion deserves the gratitude of the British Empire.”
What I love about the British Army is that it is a British Army of us all in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is the Scots, the Welsh, the Northern Irish and all the English, all together as one. That is how it should be. This is the courage that flows through our veins. It is this courage and expertise that makes us—British soldiers, the Air Force and the Royal Navy—simply the best in the world.
We need to get the message out to people throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that we are better together—and we fight better together. What people might associate with Ulstermen is that whenever they are not fighting somebody else, they are fighting themselves. I am not quite sure if that is true, but I know this: boy, do we fight better together.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan.
It is a privilege to participate in this debate in Armed Forces Week, given Sunderland’s proud tradition of military service and as a member of a serving armed forces family. My good friend Dr Dan Jackson, in his excellent book “The Northumbrians” on the history of the north-east, outlines in some depth the martial tradition of our region. His central thesis is that for a significant part of our history we were a border region and that over the centuries the north-east, through a range of different conflicts and wars, has contributed significantly to our nation’s defence.
Men from Sunderland were traditionally recruited to the Durham Light Infantry, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) will speak about. Of course, Bernard Montgomery, having served alongside the DLI throughout the second world war, said:
“There may be some regiments as good, but I know of none better.”
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend is giving an excellent overview of regiments in the north-east. He mentions “The Northumbrians”, so will he join me in welcoming to the Public Gallery Ammar Mirza CBE, an honorary colonel of the 101st (Northumbrian) Regiment Royal Artillery? Does he agree with me that he is doing an excellent job by attending this debate, demonstrating the commitment in the north-east to our regiments not just from politicians, but from our honorary colonel?
Lewis Atkinson
I will absolutely do that. I commend the gentleman in the Public Gallery and all those who serve. The tradition of connection between place and service is so important and an asset that we must continue to use as we consider recruitment in the future.
One in 20 of my constituents are veterans, probably one of the highest percentages in the UK. Sunderland as a whole—not just my constituency, but the local authority area—has 11,000 veterans. That is partly due to that proud military tradition, but also because, particularly in the ’80s during the period of deindustrialisation when the pits and the shipyards closed, young people lacked work opportunities and, naturally, they joined the forces. There are veterans alive today in my constituency who made incredibly significant contributions in the Falklands, Iraq, Afghanistan and other conflicts. As other Members have mentioned, the forces offered apprentice-style careers that gave people great life chances, apprenticeships and opportunities to travel around the world. They opened up opportunities and horizons for working-class men and women in the north-east.
Our cadet units play a key part in that tradition. I will not repeat the points that my hon. Friends have made, but I want to pay tribute to the units in my constituency. For example, the excellent Southmoor academy, a local community school, has a combined cadet unit embedded in it, enriching the curriculum for those who participate and those who do not. It provides a pathway to options for further recruitment. There are also Territorial units and facilities in my constituency, in particular the Territorial Army centre in Seaburn, which is a base for the Rifles and a medical regiment.
I will, however, refer mainly to issues regarding our regular forces. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing the debate and opening it, and, as he said, there has been a recruitment crisis in the wider country and particularly in the north-east of England. The most recent statistic available for Sunderland Central is that around 10 people per year have joined each of the services. If we contrast that with the 11,000 veterans across Sunderland as a whole, we can see the drop-off.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for the speech he is giving. I am very proud that the Royal Naval Reserve is based in part on the banks of the Tyne, on Gateshead quays. Does he agree that visible representations of armed forces bases in our communities is incredibly important in encouraging people to know that such careers are available to them?
Lewis Atkinson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There are occasionally differences between the Tyne and the Wear, but this is absolutely not one of them. I think of the Royal Naval Association on Roker Avenue in my constituency, another representation of the community and the service of generations of seafarers and those who have served in the Navy, and I know that in his constituency HMS Calliope fulfils that role.
As the Secretary of State reflected recently, the fact that three in four recent applicants for the forces gave up before they reached even the medical element or were rejected for any other reason is just not good enough. I am sure that the Minister will say more about the mobilisation of the new recruitment service, which I welcome. I understand that it will operate on a tri-service basis, which will be increasingly important as we seek to have multi-skilled forces that are able to work on that basis. It absolutely makes sense—including, presumably, economic sense—for recruitment to occur on a tri-service basis, so that different forces are not competing. Will the Minister say something about the mobilisation period, which I understand extends to 2027? How quickly does he expect the delivery of the training start date within 30 days of application?
Terms and conditions are important for both attraction and retention, but when we talk about retention we sometimes miss the link back to attraction. There should be no better advert for joining the forces than current service personnel. If they are having a good experience, they are the best recruiters for others.
Lola McEvoy
As it is fresh in my mind, I wanted to mention that I was recently at park run in Darlington where two young men won in record time—unbelievably, intimidatingly quickly—and it turned out that they were armed forces personnel who were stationed at Catterick. They were great adverts for the health benefits and discipline of being a member of the armed forces. Does my hon. Friend agree that that level of fitness has wider mental health impacts?
Lewis Atkinson
I absolutely do, and that applies to both the regular forces and, for example, the cadets and reserves, as others have mentioned.
The 6% pay increase last year and the 4.5% increase this year are hugely important to ensuring that serving personnel of all types receive above the national minimum wage, but equally important is action on housing, not only for serving personnel but for their families. We are talking about serving men and women. Historically, of course, personnel in the north-east and across the country were men, but the recruitment of talented, patriotic women into our armed forces is critical.
We should not apologise for saying that for anyone, men or women, serving needs to be compatible with family life. Everyone who is inspired to serve understands that, at moments of conflict and crisis, they must be willing to go wherever our nation needs them to go, without notice and at significant cost to their families. The psychological bargain, as it were, is that in times of peace and for planned activities in the UK—for example training—the more certainty that we can give serving personnel about where they will be, the better. That allows them plan their lives, increases retention and, critically, increases attraction into our armed forces in the first place. I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on that.
Finally, at the end of that cycle through from recruitment to retention is aftercare and care for our veterans. The veteran population in Sunderland is fortunate to have a fantastic veterans’ charity, Veterans in Crisis—it was an honour to host the Minister for Veterans and People there recently. Ger Fowler, the founder of the charity, says that people feeling they will be looked after when they leave is another advert for the forces.
Mary Glindon
My hon. Friend is giving a marvellous speech. On that subject, will he commend all the veterans’ charities that work across our region and the support provided by volunteers, particularly with mental health and finding homes—all the social issues that affect people who come out of the service back into civvy street? They work tirelessly, and our well-deserving veterans would have many more problems if those charities were not in our communities.
Lewis Atkinson
I absolutely share my hon. Friend’s sentiments. The strength of the veterans’ charities network also speaks to the wisdom of the Government’s approach to veterans. It is about building a network of support for veterans—on top of the fantastic work that our veterans charities do—through Operation Valour and the £50 million that the Government are investing, recognising the strength of community that already exists.
It has been a really good debate this afternoon, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to contribute. I hope that by giving people in our communities the opportunities that they need while strengthening our armed forces, we can make some changes in the coming years to strengthen recruitment under this Government.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this important debate, and all hon. Members on their contributions. It is quite tough to follow them and to add anything, given the quality of the speeches that we have already heard.
It is very appropriate that we are having this debate in Armed Forces Week, and it was a pleasure to speak at the Armed Forces Week flag-raising event that was held in Stanley Front street on Sunday. Such is the passion for the armed forces in North Durham that Stanley gets two bites at the cherry, as there is also a ceremony this Sunday to mark the end of Armed Forces Week. Front street will be full of gazebos from different military units, cadet forces and veterans’ organisations.
As has been flagged already in the debate, North Durham is closely associated with our historic county regiment, the Durham Light Infantry—the DLI, known as the Faithful Durhams—whose record of service in the two world wars and further back in British military history is incredible. I pay tribute to the individuals involved in that, but also to the many others who answered the call to duty across all branches and units. When I go door to door or meet people in the street, it is like a quiz: do I recognise the cap badge or know something about the history of the different units that people have been involved in?
As other hon. Members have said, the north-east has contributed immensely to the defence of the UK. At the 2021 census, there were over 100,000 veterans in the north-east, and the statistics for my constituency are similar to those for the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson): one in 20 individuals in North Durham is a veteran, and one in 10 households has a veteran in it. I am so proud to represent the many veterans, serving personnel, reservists and their families in my constituency, as well as what will hopefully be the next generation. I will just name-check the combined cadet force at Park View school in Chester-le-Street, where the headteacher was really proud of the pupils’ involvement.
As we rightly renew our nation’s defences in the face of a much more unstable and uncertain world, we must recognise that the most important element of our defence is its people. Sadly, the number of people serving in the UK regular forces decreased significantly under the previous Government, and the headcount at the end of April 2024 was down by over 15% compared with a decade earlier. As armed forces recruitment has fallen in recent years, the impact has been particularly acute in the north-east compared with other regions, perhaps because recruitment was disproportionately high in the north-east. Between 2015 and 2024, untrained intake into the armed forces reduced by 14% across the UK as a whole, but the reduction in the north-east was 34%.
I welcome this Labour Government’s commitment to tackling not just recruitment in the armed forces, but retention. As hon. Members have mentioned, we have seen the largest pay rise for personnel in over 20 years, as well as recruitment reforms to scrap outdated policies and make the process more straightforward for those who wish to join our armed forces. We also now have the Armed Forces Commissioner Act, which is a key part of renewing the nation’s contract with our armed forces. It was a privilege to serve on the Public Bill Committee alongside the Minister and the shadow Minister.
Mr Francois
I am ever so sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but technically it is still a Bill. We are debating it in the main Chamber next Wednesday.
Luke Akehurst
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for correcting the record. It is indeed still a Bill, but soon to become an Act.
The introduction of a new independent armed forces commissioner is a key part of the Government’s plans for improving service life for personnel and their families. For too long, morale and satisfaction with service life among our armed forces have been falling, as measured in the continuous attitude survey.
I also welcome the Government’s action on military housing, which has shamed our country for too long and has often been a factor in people leaving or being put off joining in the first place. Bringing the armed forces housing estate—more than 36,000 service family homes —back into public ownership is a decisive break with the past, reversing the privatisation made by Conservative Ministers in 1996, which failed British taxpayers, British service personnel and their families.
The members of our armed forces, who put their lives on the line for the safety and security of our country and people, give the greatest service possible. I pay tribute to every one of our men and women in uniform, including the many hon. and gallant Members, the veterans who serve on both sides of the House, whose contributions I have heard today. My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) brings insights as a former member of the RAF. On that note, I will conclude and once again thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for so ably chairing the debate.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is as pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing the debate.
Few topics are more important for the armed forces than recruitment and its partner, retention, which the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) ably articulated. I am the Liberal Democrat spokesperson today but I am also a proud former soldier. I will try to encompass the whole of the armed forces in my remarks, but my natural tendency is to substitute the word “Army” because that is where I was shaped as a young man.
The Army is on its knees. The cuts it faced under the previous Government were as merciless as they were reckless: 10,000 soldiers were cut from the Army, in addition to failing recruitment. The latter has continued and we have lost 2,000 members of the Army since the general election. We are left with the smallest Army since the 1790s. As we know, that is while a war is happening on NATO’s border in Ukraine. I would argue that that decline in our Army has left us dangerously exposed.
In addition, only 75% of our troops are medically deployable. When we look at the size of the recruited Army, that is a deployable force of only 52,000, which is incredibly small when one considers how dangerous the world is at the moment. Depending on which figures are to be believed, Russia, by contrast, has 750,000 troops in Ukraine. There is a glaring mismatch.
We saw some of that play out in conversations around the coalition of the willing, and whether we could put troops alongside allies in Ukraine. As some other hon. Members have mentioned, it is not just the UK; other European forces also suffer from smaller armies than they should have and problems with recruitment. I am sorry to repeat the words of the Minister back at him, but recently he told the Defence Committee that “more work is needed” to ensure that the UK is ready to fight an enduring war. I would contrast that with the national security strategy published yesterday, which says that we need to be ready to defend our homeland now. I encourage the Government to take away the juxtaposition of those statements and respond.
We often hear people say in the media, “Do we need soldiers in an age of cyber, information and space? Perhaps we don’t need people anymore.” This is the siren call about how technology will solve our military problems, but the answer is: yes, we do need those people. There are no alternatives to having boots on the ground. It is only troops that can take and hold territory—and the last time I checked, land is where everybody lives, so that is the decisive domain in warfare. Perhaps more importantly, when we look at how dangerous the world is at the moment, ground troops are what deter, more so than any other type of force—and I for one can think of nothing scarier than a division of Northumbrians, Mackems and Geordies facing me. [Laughter.]
That is why—from jokes to serious policy—the Liberal Democrats are proposing to reverse the Conservative cuts of 10,000 to our Army. I note that the Government hinted in the strategic defence review recently that they might increase the size of the Army at some point—I think the wording was that it would be desirable—but that this must of course fit within our financial envelope. With the new announcement of 3.5% on core defence expenditure, perhaps we could accelerate some of that increase in the size of the Army, because although the SDR was a very good document, I think it represents jam tomorrow, and I would argue that the threat is today—as I think the Government would also accept.
In addition to reversing those cuts, the Liberal Democrats would focus on the recruitment problem. Although the pay increases are welcome to our hard-working armed forces—indeed, we also welcome that as Liberal Democrats —we would argue that specific recruitment and retention bonuses would help to accelerate recruitment into the forces. We therefore propose a £10,000 bonus for new recruits who complete their phase 1 and phase 2 training and then serve for two years—that is, their initial commitment. We would also pledge a further £20,000 bonus for those who have left the forces and then return. We could then get them in already trained, so to speak; they would just need to do their annual training to get back up to speed. Those two things, coupled with some of the pay increases that have come through recently, would help with the recruitment pipeline.
As hon. Members have said, recruitment into our armed forces in the north-east accounts for a disproportionate share of the total, with the region contributing 7.3% of new recruits despite accounting for only 4.6% of the working-age population. It is also the region with the highest rate of per capita recruitment in the country. This reflects a deep sense of pride and patriotism, which I saw for myself when serving in Afghanistan alongside members of the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, who are so distinguishable by their headdress—a red hackle, in Labour colours, appropriately for today.
But we cannot rely just on the north-east, nor can we ask more of our forces without giving them the support that we need, and this is where we come to retention. So many forces personnel are leaving because of the conditions they face. I would like to focus on two things. The first is an issue that we have explored repeatedly, but where things have perhaps not improved as quickly as we think they should have: bullying and harassment, particularly —almost exclusively—of female recruits and women in the armed forces. This was laid out comprehensively in the Atherton report, and recently we had the service chiefs in front of the Defence Committee, which I sit on. I questioned General Sir Roly Walker, the Chief of the General Staff, on this, and I read out to him some accounts.
One woman described being pinned down and assaulted in front of a senior officer, yet nothing was done about it. That was just one example. How can we expect women to remain in the armed forces when they are not respected for the important contributions that they make? Obviously, this is a cross-party issue; no party would seek to make political capital out of it. We all agree that it is completely unacceptable. But I urge the current Government to continue to push hard on it and to make sure that the service chiefs understand that it is a political priority and a leadership issue.
I will conclude now. We have discussed a plethora of issues and there have been many good suggestions from across the House today. Some of the failures reek of apathy, which I hope is being corrected. I hope that we are going forward into a new era of better funding and greater focus on some of the recruitment and retention problems that the armed forces have faced. Unless we take action, we will fail those people who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Allin-Khan, and to sum up for His Majesty’s Opposition on the important subject of armed forces recruitment from the north-east of England.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing a debate on such an interesting topic, in Armed Forces Week to boot, and, if I may say so, on introducing it so very ably.
The British armed forces have a proud tradition of recruiting soldiers, sailors and, more recently, airmen from the north-east of England. I will take the Army as an example; being a former infantry officer, I hope that the hon. Member and the Minister will forgive me if I concentrate on infantry units. There are many proud regiments across the Army, both the teeth arms and those who support them, that historically have recruited from this corner of England.
To begin with, the Coldstream Guards, which is the oldest continually serving regular regiment in the British Army, takes its name from the village on the English-Scottish border where it was first formed in 1650. It was originally Monck’s Regiment of Foot, before becoming the Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards following Monck’s death in 1670. It was, of course, instrumental in restoring royal rule after the civil war and proudly remains part of the Household Division to this day.
However, there are others. For instance, the Northumberland Fusiliers was first raised as an infantry regiment of the British Army in 1674. In 1751, it became the 5th Regiment of Foot and in 1836, after the Napoleonic wars, it was designated a fusilier unit and became the 5th (Northumberland Fusiliers) Regiment of Foot. This proud name is now incorporated into the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, the deputy Regimental Colonel of which is now Colonel Jez Lamb, an excellent officer with whom I had the privilege of serving in the Ministry of Defence.
There are other proud names, too. For instance, there is the Durham Light Infantry, which was formed under the so-called Childers reforms in 1881 and is today part of The Rifles, one of the largest regiments in the British Army. The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) paid handsome tribute to the Durham Light Infantry and he was absolutely right to do so.
Of course, both the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines have also actively recruited from the north-east of England in the past. The RAF has maintained an active presence in the north-east of England, not least at RAF Boulmer in Northumberland, which I visited when I was a Defence Minister and which plays a vital co-ordinating role in the air defence of the United Kingdom. In short, the north-east has always played a part in the defence of these islands and no doubt always will.
As I am sure the Minister will go on to agree, armies across the western world find it difficult to recruit and especially to retain regular armed forces personnel. Given modern lifestyles, it is increasingly challenging to find enough people who wish to undergo the rigours of service life, including the pressure that it puts on their families. Indeed, we know from the armed forces continuous attitude survey, or AFCAS, that although there are often a number of reasons why people leave the armed forces, the pressure of service life on family life is the greatest determinant of that decision and has been for several years now.
As the Minister may recall, this is a subject I know a little about. After I left the MOD, where I served as the Armed Forces Minister, in 2017 I was commissioned by the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, to write a report about how to improve recruitment into the armed forces, which was submitted to No. 10 in 2017. It was entitled “Filling the Ranks”, and it is still available on my parliamentary website. Following that work, I was recommissioned to do a further study on retention. Even when looking at recruitment, we soon become involved in discussions about retention, because in effect they are two sides of the same coin. To put it another way, there is no point widening the aperture of the recruitment tab if we cannot put a retention plug in the sink. Partly as a result of that work, I was recommissioned by the same Prime Minister to write a second report on retention, entitled “Stick or Twist?”, which was submitted to No. 10 in February 2020, albeit to a different Prime Minister and just a month before the country went into lockdown because of covid.
I am pleased to say that the previous Government actioned the vast majority of the recommendations in both reports, including those designed to help recruiting by taking a more realistic attitude to minor medical ailments that previously disbarred some enthusiastic potential candidates from joining the armed forces. However, as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) ably pointed out, there is still much further to go. As the Minister knows, one of the principal challenges to speeding up the recruitment process is gaining access to candidates’ GP medical records. I have to say that it has at times been like trying to cut the Gordian knot. There must be more that can be done in this area, even if it means—and I do not say this lightly —amending the GP contract.
As the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor correctly pointed out, the challenges faced by people living in the north-east of England who want to join the armed forces are not so different from those around the rest of the country. In 2012, the Army decided to outsource its recruiting to a consortium led by Capita. At the same time, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force decided to stick, as it were, and retain their recruitment in-house. Although I admit that it happened under a previous Conservative Government, the outsourcing contract was not an outstanding success. The number of soldiers actively recruited into the Army, including from the north-east, began to fall dramatically shortly after Capita took responsibility for that function, and it has hardly ever hit its recruitment target since. Before the Minister leaps to his feet to intervene on me and point out that that happened under a Tory Government, I would simply offer that I served on the Defence Committee for seven years, during which there was no fiercer critic of Capita than me.
We now have a situation in which personnel, including those from the north, are leaving the armed forces faster than we can recruit them. Indeed, Ministers have said several times in the past few months that for every 100 who join across all three services, 130 leave. Against that background, the MOD has recently decided to relet the recruiting contract to a new consortium led by Serco. However, that does not fully go live until April 2027, and there will be a transition period during which Serco will prepare to take over from the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, and will work in tandem with Capita as it runs down the current recruiting contract. In a very knowledgeable contribution, the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) rightly touched on that point.
I want to take the opportunity to express real concern about the process and, in particular, the period of joint working between Capita and Serco. All experience suggests that if Capita is unable to hit its targets during the interregnum, there is likely to be a great deal of finger-pointing between the two companies. But it will be the strength of the regular Army, including recruitment from the north-east of England, that suffers, so I very much encourage Ministers to be alert to that.
There is a further challenge to recruiting, including in the north-east, and it is one for which a previous Conservative Government cannot be blamed: the current Government’s plans to use a remedial order to excise parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. As of 15 minutes ago, 137,953 UK citizens have signed a parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, which we will debate in this Chamber next month. Suffice it to say that I believe all the contributions made by Labour Members have been entirely genuine—indeed, passionate—and I have to believe, therefore, that they would be very reluctant to go through the Lobbies this autumn to vote for a proposal that not only opens up our Northern Ireland veterans to prosecution, but would make it easier for Gerry Adams to sue the British Government.
Although I am an Essex Member of Parliament, I am also a bit of a military history buff, so I know that there are counties in the north-east of England that have a proud tradition of providing personnel for what are now His Majesty’s armed forces. I conclude by congratulating again the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor on securing such a timely debate. I look forward with genuine interest to what the Minister has to say to us.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
It is very good to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. You and I being in the same room will probably alert the Whips—they will be keeping an eye on us both very shortly. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for introducing this debate, putting this on the record and being a proud champion of the north-east and of the men and women from the north-east who serve with such distinction in our armed forces. He has done his constituency and his region enormous credit with the way that he introduced the debate. I will turn to some of the points he raised in just a moment.
Let me say how warmed I am by the contributions to this debate from all parts of the House in Armed Forces Week. It is so important at this time that we take a moment to thank the people who serve, celebrate their service and highlight that a career in the armed forces not only provides the opportunity to keep our country and our allies safe, but provides someone with a lifetime of skills that, as we know, are in demand in the private sector and will give them pride in what they do. One of the members of the armed forces that my hon. Friend spoke to said that the armed forces had trained, trusted and invested in him. That is exactly what we seek to do for all the members of our armed forces.
I must declare an interest as the son of a Royal Navy submariner, albeit one based in Devonport in Plymouth rather than in the north-east. I am confident that, wherever we are in our proud United Kingdom, we can all feel a sense of pride in the service of the people in uniform and, importantly, the families that stand behind them. The people of the north-east have a long and proud tradition of doing just that—a tradition captured by the permanent exhibition at Newcastle’s Discovery museum, reflected in the annual military parade in Sunderland, which is traditionally the largest outside of London, and honoured earlier this month by 100 soldiers from the 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, who departed King’s Cross in their scarlet tunics and bearskin caps to make the symbolic pilgrimage to Berwick-upon-Tweed, where they were formed 375 years ago and where they were received today with great pride.
Service personnel from the north-east have been and continue to be central to the history of our armed forces. They are central to the missions we deliver today to keep our country safe and central to the future of our armed forces. As Britian moves to warfighting readiness through the commitments set out in our strategic defence review, we have placed defence personnel at the heart of our plans.
Chris McDonald
I thank my hon. Friend for his warm speech about the pride of the various regiments in the north-east of England, but there is a big gap at the moment. A number of years ago, the Durham Light Infantry lost their national memorial when the building that was housing it was no longer fit for purpose. That is a sad loss to our region. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in calling on the new Reform Durham county council to pick up the plans previously put down by local people to recreate a fitting memorial for the Durham Light Infantry in our area?
Luke Pollard
I commend and thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is so important that we tell our story. We have not just accidentally arrived today—we are here because of the contributions of the generations that came before us. It is right that we acknowledge and remember the sacrifices of the people who served in uniform in countless battles and wars in the past. To have a permanent, fitting memorial where people can see that contribution seems a very good campaign, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman and all Members present to get behind it. I hope that the council he referenced will understand its value.
Since coming into office, we have taken a number of decisive steps to deal with the serious retention and recruitment crisis that we inherited from the previous Administration. We have sought to make recruitment more efficient. We have eliminated over 100 outdated recruitment policies already. We have slashed the time to access medical records from weeks to hours with a new digital pilot that we hope to roll out across all our services. We have restructured Army recruitment, and are moving towards a tri-service recruitment scheme, which will make recruitment easier, more efficient and, most importantly, faster for the people involved.
We have made a career in our armed forces more attractive by awarding service personnel the biggest pay rise in more than two decades. Importantly—this is a source of great pride not just to the Defence Secretary but to all Defence Ministers and, I imagine, all Labour MPs—for the very first time, every person who serves in uniform is now paid the living wage. That should always have been the case. It was not, but it is now. That is the difference that this Government are making.
I am pleased that many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), spoke about the importance of upgrading military accommodation. It was a national scandal that so many of our people and their families are being asked to live in housing that is, frankly, not fit for purpose. The £7 billion that we will invest in military accommodation, including an extra £1.5 billion to be spent in this Parliament, will make a substantial difference by upgrading military accommodation nationwide.
We are trying harder to keep the valued people who are most at risk of leaving. We have introduced a £30,000 retention payment for about 5,000 eligible aircraft engineers and an £8,000 retention payment for around 12,000 eligible Army privates and lance corporals. The results speak for themselves: year-on-year inflow of recruits is up 19% and outflow is down 7%. The Royal Navy has exceeded its yearly recruiting target, Royal Air Force applications are up 34% compared with early 2024, and the British Army has recorded a seven-year high in applications.
We are determined to go faster and further, starting with cadets. I was pleased to hear from hon. Members about how cadets contribute to their communities and provide people with opportunities to understand that a career in the armed forces is good not only for their employment, but for their mental health and their community. The cadet experience raises awareness of exciting careers and opportunities. Former cadets account for around 40% of officers and 35% of other ranks, and on average those who have served in our cadets serve six years longer than their peers. That is good for our armed forces.
The commitment to increase our cadet forces by 30% is an important SDR recommendation. I encourage all Members, whether or not they are in the north-east, to be part of the expansion of our cadet forces and to work with their local cadets, whether they are sea cadets, air cadets or whatever else—a number of varieties are on offer—to encourage people to get involved. Most importantly, let us tell the story for those communities that do not always access the cadets, especially those from some of our poorest and most deprived communities, where participating in the cadets could have a profound and positive effect for their entire lives.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive and helpful response. I had a conversation with the Minister for Veterans and People some time ago, and he told me personally that extra money would be available for the cadets in the Northern Ireland, specifically to recruit another 1,000 cadets. The cadet forces and others have told me that that money will ensure that the 1,000 other cadets can come in. I welcome that commitment by the Veterans Minister to Northern Ireland—which I think he told me before he announced it.
Luke Pollard
Don’t be saying that we have been out telling people things before we announce them—we will get in big trouble for that, as the hon. Member will know. He is exactly right to talk about the possibilities that come from further investment in cadets and was right to raise those issues with my colleague the Minister for Veterans and People. We are not undertaking Operation Mountain Goat, climbing up Everest; the Minister is certainly powering the expansion of our cadets and activities in reserves.
Mark Ferguson
While the Minister commends the work of cadets, will he join me in commending 361 Gateshead air cadets for the critical role they played in remembrance services by leading the parade through the centre of Gateshead last year? Does he agree that the role of the cadets in remembrance is incredibly important in building a sense of community and a sense of the role that we all must play in remembrance, alongside the cadets?
Luke Pollard
I join my hon. Friend in celebrating the work of 361 Gateshead air cadets. What he has just done speaks to the critique, which I often hear, that young people are not interested in service. Nothing is further from the truth. Our young people are absolutely determined and feel a sense of pride, but as a country we have not provided the vehicle for them to be able to serve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) gave the stat that three in four people leaving the recruitment process because it takes too long, but it is worse than that. In the situation we inherited from the previous Administration, 84% of people left the recruitment process because it took too long. The time of flight, which is how we categorise the period between the application form and donning the uniform, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor described it, is far too long—in some cases over a year. That is not an acceptable time of flight.
We are determined to cut that, which is why we have introduced the 10/30 policy. That means that we want all applicants across all forces to have an indication of whether they are acceptable within 10 days—have they passed the nationality check or do they have a criminal record that would disbar them?—and to have an approximate start date at a training establishment within 30 days. That is so important because it provides people with the certainty to understand how long they will have to wait.
The targets that we are setting internally in the Ministry of Defence to reduce the time of flight are serious and substantial, because we know that we lose too many good people as the process takes too long. That is why we are working not just to enhance and cut the time taken to access medical records, but to do security vetting and to make sure that people know when they can start. That will make a big difference to our ability to help people to understand whether they can take a part-time job or go travelling, or whether they need to wait a bit longer or have time for additional study before they start. The lack of certainty poisons our recruitment process; we are taking steps to deal with that properly.
I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor spoke about digital warfighters because it is true that, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin), said, we need to have troops to hold ground, but we also need people with cyber and digital skills to deal with the threats we face every single day. Luckily, we are not under missile attack every day, but we are under cyber-attack every single day from hostile states, from those that wish to undermine our security, and from criminal networks that can be state-backed. The new direct entry into cyber that we have begun is a pioneering scheme. We have had a huge number of applications, including from people from the north-east. We will make further announcements about that success as the cohort starts its training.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor was right when he spoke about many of our people being snapped up by the private sector. That is what happens with austerity and pay pressure, which mean that our armed forces personnel have faced real-terms pay cuts—as many of them have for the last 14 years, under the previous Government—and their wages have not kept pace with their market value. That is why we have introduced two above-inflation pay rises for our people since coming to office.
That is also the reason why we are looking at zigzag careers, so that people serving in a regular role in our armed forces can undertake reserve work and apply for the reserves while they are serving—rather than having to leave and apply, as they do currently—so that they can then undertake work in our private sector, in our defence contractors, after which they will be able to rejoin. At the moment we zig, but we do not zag. We need to improve the system. That is what we are seeking to legislate to deliver. That will mean an increase in people being able to return.
Keeping people within our larger defence family is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah) was right to speak about the importance of investment in our defence industries. At the moment, we spend approximately £380 million in the north-east, which is not enough. It is the determination of this Government to make sure that we spend more of the Ministry of Defence’s increased budget with British companies, creating good, well-paid apprenticeships throughout the country and making sure that we can create the products that we can sell to the world, not just to ourselves.
Mr Francois
As the hon. Member is well aware, many of those who served on Operation Banner were recruited from what we would now call red wall constituencies, many of them in the north-east of England. As we have many north-east MPs here this afternoon, will the Minister give us an absolute assurance that the Government will not proceed with their totally counterproductive remedial order to throw those veterans to the wolves?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Member has made his point; I am turning to the points raised by other Members, if he will forgive me.
We currently spend £380 million, but we want to spend more. To do that, we not only need defence companies to invest more in manufacturing facilities; we need many of the companies that already operate in the north-east to realise that they could be defence companies. They might be able to support the provision of gizmos and gadgets for our equipment, or they might be technology companies that could expand into providing new services. That is why the new defence industrial strategy, which we are publishing later this year, will help to direct more attention and more spending towards our industries in Britain, including those in the north-east.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for talking about the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, which is going through Parliament. I want it to achieve Royal Assent soon. The ping-pong needs to come to an end. We need to get it passed into law, complete the recruitment of the Armed Forces Commissioner and get on with providing an independent champion for the people who serve. It is vital to restore trust and confidence.
I am grateful to the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, for talking about the need to address culture, because the toxic culture within our military is not acceptable. It is not acceptable in our politics and it should not be acceptable in our armed forces. However, I point out to him that the Fusiliers do not wear Labour colours. It is a proud hackle that came from their traditions—it just happens to be red. It is important that at this time we do not seek to politicise any of our armed forces, because they should enjoy cross-party support. He gave me a fair challenge, though, about whether we need to do more work or defend the homeland now. The answer, of course, is both. That is why the SDR sets out 62 recommendations, which we have accepted in full, to do more to defend our country, to develop new technologies to replace the old capabilities, and, perhaps most importantly, to invest in our people.
Finally, the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), raised a number of topics that are of concern to many people. I welcome the debate that will be taking place in this Chamber very shortly. That will be a matter for the Northern Ireland Office, as he is aware, but my colleague, the Veterans Minister, takes a great deal of interest in this matter as well; I am certain that he will be able to contribute further.
At this very moment, there will be people up and down our country, including in the north-east of England, wondering whether to join our armed forces—wondering whether a career in uniform will support them and their aspirations, and will provide the opportunities for them to start a family and to buy their own house, and contribute to a lifetime of skills. Let the message go out clearly from this debate: whether you join the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, there are incredible skills on offer in our armed forces, and incredible opportunities to travel and to keep our country safe.
I am grateful to all Members across the House for contributing to the debate. They have made the case for improvements in recruitment, highlighted the armed forces as a great career to join, and supported Armed Forces Week.
Alan Strickland
I thank all hon. Members who have taken part today, and you, Dr Allin-Khan, for your excellent chairing, which has kept us in good order. I also thank the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). He said in his comments that he was slightly terrified of all the angry Geordies and Mackems coming at him in battle; I hope we were not too scary today. I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) did not make it as a commando, but his 14-and-a-half-year service to our country does us proud, as does the service of the shadow Ministers.
In Armed Forces Week, I thank everyone who serves in uniform to defend our nation, all veterans who have served, the armed forces charities that do brilliant work, and the armed forces families who sacrifice so much so that our nation can be so well defended.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered armed forces recruitment in the North East.
Flags: Public Buildings
(1 day, 19 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
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the flying of flags from public buildings.
Thank you, Sir Desmond, for calling me to speak in this debate about the importance of flying flags from public buildings across our United Kingdom. I have studied and campaigned on the subject for many years, even before I entered the House of Commons. In 2000, as a councillor in the London borough of Havering, I campaigned for the Union flag, also correctly known as the Union Jack, to be flown all year round from the main flag mast at our townhall in Romford. It was a great sadness to me that the then Labour council, supported by some members of the Havering residents association, voted against my motion to do so. That led to a public outcry, leading to the eventual backing down of the then administration, which accepted that the people of my borough wanted to see their national flag flown 365 days of the year.
I mounted a similar campaign when I entered Parliament in 2001, calling for our national flag to fly from the Victoria Tower throughout the year. But the tradition then was that it would only fly when Parliament was in session. After nine years of campaigning for this rule to change, I finally managed to persuade the powers that be that it was only right and proper that the Union Jack should fly all year round, during weekends, evenings and recess periods—at all times.
The idea of the flag flying only when the House was sitting originated, so I was told, from when the monarch looked out of their window at Buckingham Palace to see whether the flag was flying and know whether Parliament was in session. When Her Majesty, our dear late Queen Elizabeth II, visited Romford around the time of the golden jubilee, I was proud to sit with her over lunch in the Wykeham Hall of St Edward’s church in Romford market and was able to discuss the matter directly with her. I was surprised to learn that Her late Majesty had never heard of that tradition. She told me that when she wanted to see whether the House was sitting, she would generally switch on BBC Parliament.
After much debate, following that revelation, the Union flag was eventually raised permanently above the Victoria Tower on 6 January 2010, where it has proudly flown every day ever since, for the millions of visitors to London to see and for everyone to take pride in.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, which intrigues me. Coming from Northern Ireland, we are a nation of flag fliers; I have flown a flag nearly all my life. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only flag that should have pride of place on public buildings is the Union flag? We should take the opportunity to fly it to encourage a sense of national pride, and as a symbol of the things that unite us. We have different colours, creeds, genders, ambitions, qualities and skills, but we are all British, and together we can make this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a better place for everyone.
Andrew Rosindell
I entirely concur. I commend the hon. Member for his patriotism, his love of country and his understanding of the importance of being proud of being British. Flying the Union flag is an essential part of that.
I refer the House to early-day motion 1199 of 29 March 2010, signed by Mr Speaker himself, which records the significant moment in parliamentary history when the Union flag was raised permanently on the Victoria Tower in the Palace of Westminster. In 2007, I established the all-party parliamentary group on flags, which became the APPG on flags and heraldry, and which now forms a central part of the APPG on British heritage, which I am proud to chair.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
It was in that guise that my hon. Friend came to see me on the subject when I was a Cabinet Office Minister. We had some success in that venture, as he will recall, and subsequently, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), we had further success. We worked together to ensure that flags were flown from Government buildings across Whitehall; no doubt my hon. Friend will tell us about that. He deserves great praise for his endurance, perseverance and determination.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank my right hon. Friend for his continued support for flying the Union flag and other national flags across the United Kingdom. When he was a Cabinet Office Minister, he was entirely supportive of the campaigns that I have been running for many years. I thank him for that.
The APPG on British heritage is meeting today at 5 o’clock to discuss issues relating to flags, heraldry, national symbols, historic counties, patron saints’ days and all things important to the heritage of our proud island nation. I put on record my thanks to the president of the Flag Institute, Captain Malcolm Farrow OBE, and the institute’s chief vexillologist, Graham Bartram, for their support and guidance over all these years on matters relating to flags.
I commend the work of the Flag Institute, the expert institute that understands the importance of flags and the protocol that surrounds them across the United Kingdom, the Crown dependencies and the British overseas territories. I also commend the College of Arms and Peter O’Donoghue, the York Herald, who has given us extremely good advice on the topic over many years. The College of Arms registers flags in its institution: they are there for all to see, admire and recognise as important parts of our national character.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Many towns and boroughs, such as Stockton and Billingham in my constituency, have achievements of arms featuring important emblems of the past of the town. In Billingham, we have a ship as our crest; in Stockton, there is an anchor and a sea lion, celebrating our shipbuilding and maritime past. Does the hon. Member agree that the flying of achievements of arms as flags over town halls not only enables heraldists like myself to experience some joy, but enables people in the local area to have real pride in their town or borough?
Andrew Rosindell
I completely agree. I only wish that my own London borough of Havering would recognise that. I have tried for many years to ensure that the Romford town crest is displayed in Romford. Sadly, however, because of the corporate identities of London boroughs, my borough has steadfastly refused. I fought that battle against my own party, which governed the council for 20 years and failed to do anything about it, and I am still fighting against the current council, which is controlled by the residents association. Local patriotism, local town crests and local flags are also very important to the culture and make-up of our great British society.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Prior to my election to this place, I was provost of West Dunbartonshire council; “provost” is the Scottish term equivalent to “mayor”. One of my civic roles was to have complete responsibility for which flags would be flown from our civic buildings across the whole of West Dunbartonshire.
My experience is that flying flags is often a source of division. Somebody would always object when I decided to fly the Union flag or to fly the saltire. Does the hon. Member agree that the authority to fly flags should never be used to stoke division or hate in our communities? It should always be used as a force for good, such as in the flag-raising ceremonies that we often had on national days across the United Kingdom? We had flags for international Holocaust Memorial Day, Merchant Navy Day, Armed Forces Day and Commonwealth Day. We would fly those flags on our civic buildings. Does the hon. Member agree that there is a purpose to that?
Andrew Rosindell
Yes, I do. I thank the hon. Member for his helpful intervention. I will refer to much of that later in my speech.
On the matter of flying flags from public buildings, I draw the attention of the Minister to my early-day motion 1452, which so far has been supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor (Jack Rankin), for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) and for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and the hon. Members for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). I also thank Ryan-Mark Parsons and George Bundock, the staff of the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), for their advice and amazing support for the campaign to uphold neutrality in flying flags from public buildings.
It is now more important than ever for this House to recognise and unequivocally support the importance of maintaining the institutional neutrality of Government and publicly funded spaces. That is particularly vital when seen in the context of a range of entirely new and overtly political flags or banners—as they should be correctly referred to—being flown not only by individuals, as is their right, but by publicly funded bodies such as local councils, town halls, civic centres, hospitals, schools, universities, police stations, railway and underground stations, bus garages and other institutions and organisations, as well as Departments of His Majesty’s Government.
This innovation of recent years is not only alien to the civic traditions of this country. I believe that it is emblematic of a declining understanding of the importance of national unity and pride in our national heritage and constitution that is often alienating to many hard-working, law-abiding citizens of this great country who see themselves, first and foremost, as British and not part of a minority or a separate community. I believe that the British people firmly stand for upholding neutrality of the public square, enabling all to have their welcoming corner, but under one nation, one Union flag and one King.
The recently announced policy of Reform UK is actually the policy that I have long championed. I am glad to see it adopting that stance in the local councils that it now controls across England. I believe that all political parties should do the same. Our free society is one that I cherish, but all that we have in Britain today is founded on our forebears, embracing one cultural heritage based on the customs, traditions, conventions, laws and constitution of these islands. I am sure that some in this House may hold a certain reticence about the position that I am taking, but I say to them that it is abundantly clear that the flying of identity-based political banners, especially those representing what is sometimes only a slim, exclusive and often exclusionary subset of a particular interest group or social movement, is often seen as implicitly endorsing a specific viewpoint.
Some may ask why there is any problem with that being a permissible approach for public bodies to take. They may say that this great nation should accommodate freedom of belief and expression that finds voice in flying flags. I fully accept, and indeed endorse, the notion that free individuals and organisations on their private property may express their identities and customs in whichever manner they see fit, but a publicly owned building or a state-owned or funded institution must, I believe, maintain neutrality.
For example, if a town hall chooses to fly a banner for one group of people, it would surely be obliged to fly one for another group, and another group, and so on. In so doing, the council will inevitably appear to be endorsing every cause, identity and political campaign, of which there are absolutely no limits. Not only is that divisive to many who do not necessarily support the cause in question, but the costs and staff time spent on displaying a seemingly never-ending array of banners and flags to please and appease every possible cause—not to mention the organisation of individual ceremonies to go with them—is devaluing the significance of flying the flags of nation, country, county, city, village and town that unite and represent everyone in that community. Indeed, it is becoming unmanageable, as so many banners representing a multitude of groups and causes are being added to the list. It simply has to stop.
We must restore a flag protocol regime that upholds our national identity, which should always come first, followed by that which represents our country, boroughs, counties, cities, towns and villages. Of course, no flag of any kind should take precedence over the Union flag on a public building, apart from the royal standard when His Majesty is present.
Private expression of political sympathies, and other institutional expressions of political sympathies, are entirely different. Although individuals and communities must continue to be free to express their identities and customs, including by flying flags of public institutions, they should exercise extreme caution and professionalism in order to remain inclusive to all British citizens regardless of their views. Quite contrary to silencing minorities, this age-old position ensures that everyone can pursue their expression and association, find a place and be represented in this country under our nation’s official flags. That is the only logically defensible position, and it is the stance taken by the vast majority of British people, with whom I am in profound agreement.
Once we have accepted the importance of maintaining the neutrality of the public square, enabled by the local and national publicly funded institutions of this country, the particular rules for how that should be governed must be decided and expressed in plain English. There is guidance on flag etiquette and rules on flying flags, and the Flag Institute are the experts in this field. I hope the Minister will take advice from them in making sure that everything is handled in the correct fashion.
Flag protocol largely dictates how flags should be handled, including how they should be put up, taken down and illuminated. There are flags that require special consent to be flown, and others that do not and ought not, such as national flags, the Commonwealth flag and flags of the United Nations. They should, of course, be flown. There are also flags that are rightly and expressly banned from being flown, most notably those of proscribed terrorist organisations. These rules should strictly be enforced in their entirety. However, there is a grey area in the middle that has been not only occupied, but actively exploited by minority and sometimes extreme political factions—as well as their subscribers or sympathisers—in public institutions.
That is the area for which new guidance and rules ought to be implemented, published and enforced, so that we can prevent the domination of public institutions and the public square by overtly political interest groups. That would prevent the continuous vying for a position of institutional dominance by a range of sometimes extreme minority groups, of both the left and the right, which are unrepresentative of British people, culture or heritage, and enable freer expression and a sense of belonging for all British people.
I therefore call on all public bodies, especially those representing national and local government, to adopt clear and consistent policies limiting flag displays to flags representing the nation, country, county, borough, city, town and village or those representing the monarch, the royal family or officially recognised flags, to preserve neutrality, true freedom and toleration.
Andrew Rosindell
I am afraid I have to continue as I have very little time to complete my speech.
When representatives from other countries visit, it is of course right that, out of courtesy, their national flag should fly for the occasion. Alternatively, when there is a tragic event in a particular country, it is right for that nation’s flag to fly for a strictly limited period out of respect and sympathy.
I firmly believe that we are reaching a point of broad consensus on the flying of flags, and it should be based on the principles of neutrality of public institutions, public buildings and the public square when it comes to matters of deep political controversy, much like the position of Speaker of the House of Commons. That is needed now more than ever.
I have here a copy of the booklet on the approved flying of flags. It is available in the Speaker’s Office. It explains the policy on flying flags on flagpoles on the parliamentary estate and outlines what I consider to be, with a few exceptions, a broadly correct approach. However, I strongly believe that the cross of St Patrick or the red hand of Ulster should be flown on 17 March for St Patrick’s Day, in addition to the cross of St George, the cross St Andrew and the red dragon for St George’s, St Andrew’s and St David’s Days respectively.
However, in many town hall and public buildings across the UK, political polarisation has reached a new height. Change in a variety of social and political principles is coming fast. Civic unrest is on the rise and I do not believe that ever more calls for diversity are the answer. We need a more unified approach, with the British people represented by national symbols, including flags, which bring us together and do not divide us further. One example is the so-called Progress Pride flag, which many believe promotes a contentious ideology that harms women and vulnerable children. It is clearly politically divisive and should not be flown from public buildings anywhere in the United Kingdom.
There is a clear and simple expression of the position that I believe we ought to adopt. We must recognise the importance of institutional neutrality in government and publicly funded spaces. We must acknowledge that the flying of political flags can be seen as implicitly endorsing specific viewpoints.
We must enable individuals and communities to freely express their identities and customs, while ensuring that public institutions exercise strict caution to remain inclusive to all British citizens. We must call on all public bodies, especially those representing national and local government, to draw up clear and consistent policies limiting flag displays to country, county, city, borough, town, village, military or those that represent the monarch, the royal family or officially recognised flags such as Armed Forces Day, VE Day, VJ Day, and for occasions such as the Royal Air Force flag for Battle of Britain Day, the red ensign for Merchant Navy Day, the Royal Navy flag for Trafalgar Day and the British Army flag on Waterloo Day.
We, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, must give a firm answer to the grey area filled with uncertainties and questions. It must be one of unifying patriotic neutrality. Finally, I commend His Majesty’s Government for continuing the tradition of flying the flags of historic counties for one week in July every year. Our historic counties, my own being Essex, make up the genuine identities of peoples across these islands, separate from the administrative and council boundaries. However, I strongly believe that the display of county flags in Parliament Square each July for Historic County Flags Day should be strictly restricted to the historic county flags alone. Regional flags and other flags can be flown on other days, but it is important that only historic flags representing the historic counties are flown.
Sir Desmond, thank you for allowing me to speak at such length today. I commend the Minister for her interest in this subject. I also thank her for visiting the Channel Islands earlier this year, where I am sure she was proud to see the flags of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark for their 80th anniversary of Liberation Day. Pride and patriotism in our countries is something that all people, and all members of all parties, should be proud to uphold. I have no doubt that the Minister will not disappoint Members of this House today.
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I call the Minister, in the time that remains to you.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I will do my best to do justice to this very important subject in the very short time I have. I begin, of course, by congratulating the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) on securing this important debate, and on what was a thoughtful and passionate speech about an issue he has cared about for many years. I join him in thanking the flag institution, the College of Arms.
Flag flying is a very British way of showing joy and pride as regions, as communities and as a nation. It brings people together to express shared identities. The Union flag is the primary symbol of our nation and rightly takes central position in flag flying as a source of unity. It appears on the flags of many of the UK’s overseas territories and our fellow Commonwealth members. The Union flag is a joint expression of our history, our national identity and the UK’s place in the wider world. I was especially struck by its importance and meaning when I attended the Liberation Day event in Jersey on 9 May, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I know he takes a really keen interest in that subject. Of course, that event marked 80 years to the day that the islands were liberated from Nazi occupation, with a re-enactment carried out by Force 135, the British liberating force of 1945, supported by the Royal Marines. It included the raising of the Union flag, as it occurred on Liberation Day on 9 May 1945.
In Wales and Scotland, flag flying on public buildings is a devolved matter. In Northern Ireland, the issue is subject to special regulations set out by Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office.
The Government support state and ceremonial events by helping London look its best for occasions, such as the recent commemoration of VE Day and Remembrance Sunday each year. They often involve flying flags on some of the most highly visible public buildings and spaces in the country. Every year, we adorn the Mall, Horse Guards Parade and Parliament Square with flags for state visits, trooping the colour and other occasions, visible to thousands of people each day. The Cenotaph is the public space where flag flying is at its most sensitive and poignant. It is the national war memorial and focal point for public mourning. Last month, to mark the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe, the Cenotaph was draped in two large Union flags, emulating the way in which it was first revealed to the public in 1920. As I am sure that Members would agree, the results were spectacular.
In addition to the events described, the Government take an active role in promoting public flag flying across Britain. We disseminate an annual list of designated days on which all UK Government buildings are required to fly the Union flag. That ensures that it is flown on some of our nation’s important cultural occasions, including to mark Remembrance Sunday and the anniversary of the King’s accession.
The Union flag has its origin as a royal flag, developed first in 1606 by James I and added to in 1801. For much of its early history, it was flown solely above royal residences, aboard naval vessels and in other specific circumstances. By the 1920s, the practice of flying the flag had been formalised into the list of designated days—such as the sovereign’s birthday, or anniversary of the coronation—on which Government buildings, in addition to royal properties, were expected to fly the flag each year. As a legacy of that practice, until 2008 Government buildings were expected to fly the Union flag only on specific dates. That was consulted on following the 2007 Green Paper entitled “The Governance of Britain”, which highlighted the importance of the Union flag and sought to broaden its use.
As a result, in 2008 the Labour Government, under Prime Minister Gordon Brown, allowed Government buildings to fly the Union flag on any day of the year, rather than solely on royal and ceremonial occasions. That was further expanded in 2021, at the decision of Ministers. Since then, Government buildings have been not only allowed but actively and formally encouraged to fly the Union flag every day. Consequently, more Union flags are now flying from Government buildings than ever before, actively fostering the sense of national unity and pride that we all value so highly. The hon. Member for Romford spoke movingly about the history of the flag flying over Parliament and the important change in 2010. Of course, another important Government duty regarding public flag flying is that in times of national mourning or tragedy, instructions are issued to require the half-masting of the Union flag on UK Government buildings.
The approach taken by Departments to flying flags more generally on their buildings has evolved organically over the last 15 to 20 years under successive Governments. With the approval of Ministers in government at the time, Departments have, in addition to the Union flag, increasingly flown other flags to show support for causes in Britain and throughout the world. For instance, many people will have seen on the way here the Armed Forces Day flag flying proudly from buildings along Whitehall in preparation for the day itself, which is this Saturday. I began this week by attending the flag-raising ceremony at Barnsley town hall to see our Armed Forces Day flag raised and flown as we pay tribute this week to our brave service personnel ahead of Armed Forces Day on Saturday 28 June.
I know that the hon. Member for Romford has long encouraged the Government to fly the flags of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies to recognise their importance, and I am pleased that although they were not frequently flown in the past, that has become more common. Hon. Members will be aware that those flags are currently flying in Parliament Square, alongside the flags of Commonwealth nations along Horse Guards, and Union flags along the Mall. This is since the 80th anniversary commemorations of VE Day in May, and with the upcoming state visit by President Macron of France, they will continue to fly.
The practice of Departments flying the Pride flag, which the hon. Gentleman referred to, or other LGBTQ+ representative flags, has increased since March 2014, when the Cabinet Office flew the six-stripe rainbow flag to mark the first same-sex weddings taking place in Britain. The then Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, said at the time:
“Raising the rainbow flag on Whitehall is a small symbol to celebrate a massive achievement.”
After that, more Departments have chosen to fly it. That does come from a conscious decision of the elected Government of the day, but I want to acknowledge that over time the Government approach to decision making for flag flying from Government buildings and the implementation of central guidance have developed organically, following the policies of successive Governments. That has enabled individual Government buildings to select and fly flags whose meaning is rooted in their Department’s specific remit, or that have particular significance.
Although the Government’s primary duty in relation to flag flying from Government buildings is to celebrate and encourage the Union flag as a symbol of the UK as a whole, we are working with officials to consider whether further central guidance to Departments regarding flag flying may be helpful to ensure that decisions and implementation by Departments are as consistent and transparent as possible. That would mirror the approach taken at local level. In the time that I have left, I want to echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments on historic counties and how local decision makers do know best.
In relation to Government buildings, we acknowledge that the individual processes for decisions on flags will vary and could benefit from further accountability and transparency. I am a very passionate believer in the Union flag. I have it displayed in both my offices—here in Westminster and in the constituency. One of my formative memories is of drawing a St George’s flag to fly when England were in the semi-finals of Euro ’96, although sadly it did not have the desired effect. And as Minister for VE and victory over Japan commemorations, I have been encouraging local communities to display Union flag bunting as part of local events. I know the joy that it brings to many.
Flag flying on public buildings is an emotive subject, and we respect the strongly held views of people across the country who want to see it represent our unique strengths as communities, regions and a nation. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Romford for bringing to the House this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire
(1 day, 19 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
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to banking hubs in Hertfordshire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank Clementine Manning from my office for the extensive work she has put into researching for this speech and many of my other contributions to the House. I urge colleagues to be gentle with me; this is my first Westminster Hall debate, and I have yet to learn how to do these things properly. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is here to show me the way, with hopefully an intervention in due course.
Access to banking services is essential for everyone across the country, and more and more our rural and semi-rural areas are seeing their access to banking services reduced. That is a particular issue for those who are unable to use technology to access online banking, and I know that many who are able to use online banking still feel more reassured if they are able to carry out banking activities face-to-face. Having seen the immensely positive impact that increased access to banking services through the post office has had in Rickmansworth in my constituency of South West Hertfordshire, I am campaigning for the establishment of a banking hub in Abbots Langley, another area in my constituency, to ensure that as many of my constituents as possible are able to access these essential services. I appreciate that everyone else here wants the same.
Hertfordshire in particular has felt the impact of the withdrawal of banking services, as, despite there being over 160 banking hubs now opened, just four are in Hertfordshire, with none in my constituency. Rural areas are twice as likely to depend on their local post office for cash and banking services, and it is essential that people in those areas are not left behind. Post offices have always been, and remain, critical assets to our communities, providing essential services. I have had the pleasure of meeting local postmasters in Abbots Langley and Rickmansworth, as well as visiting a Royal Mail distribution centre, to learn more about the sheer volume of service provided by their hard workers. From speaking to those postmasters, the essential role that they play in supporting our communities in all ways is clear. With many people unable to use technology, or simply more comfortable with face-to-face provision, the provision of banking hubs is just one of those essential services.
In the UK as a whole, 99% of the population live within three miles of a post office branch, as do 97.9% of the UK’s rural population. Post offices also make up more than 66% of all branch-based cash access points in the UK. That is particularly relevant because of the decline in the number of bank branches. This is not just an issue in Hertfordshire or my constituency; across the UK, we have seen 6,200 bank or building society branch closures since 2015. In my constituency of South West Hertfordshire, 89% of banks have closed since 2015, leaving us with only a Nationwide in Rickmansworth.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right that this is a problem felt across Britain, as banks abandon their customers and close branches in my constituency in Crowland, the Deepings, Holbeach, Long Sutton and Sutton Bridge. The key thing about this issue is that it affects those least able to bank online; it also affects all of us who believe that banking should be an experience where people meet other people and personal service counts. I thank my hon. Friend for this debate. I call on the Minister to have more banking hubs, as the Payment Choice Alliance has requested—I hope she will say that when she sums up.
Mr Mohindra
My right hon. Friend has obviously had early sight of my speech, because I was going to get on to exactly that about human interaction, but I will let colleagues hold off for a few minutes while I carry on the main body of my speech. As my right hon. Friend said, the situation is deeply desperate, but sadly, not unique to South West Herts. I know other Members in this House will be feeling similar circumstances, as one in seven constituencies across the UK have only one bank or no bank at all.
Access to cash is essential, and it is important that we retain the ability to withdraw and deposit cash to support that, particularly as that allows those who do not use online banking to keep an eye on their personal finances. The post office supports this vital service and is essential for people in my area. On average, £1.6 million is withdrawn from post offices in my constituency every month, while £3.5 million is deposited. Although the post office provides an amazing service, a banking hub in a post office gives people proper support. We must prevent the closure of post offices, many of which are now run by a single person and are not necessarily profitable. It would be a great damage to all our areas if post offices were to close too.
Although post offices such as the one in Rickmansworth have stepped up to provide greater banking services than those normally available, we cannot expect our constituents to rely on post offices to replace the banks if there is no banking hub in place, as they do not provide the same level of service. Although Rickmansworth is fortunate to have some banking services available via the post office, as well as in the Nationwide branch, since I was elected in 2019 South West Hertfordshire has lost NatWest, Barclays and Santander in Rickmansworth.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about the need for in-person banking services. In my constituency, we have experienced exactly what he has described in the south-east of England. My experience is that many who are vulnerable, or overwhelmed by getting into the town centre or have mobility problems are particularly affected, and so are many small businesses that deal in cash. Would the hon. Gentleman like to comment further on the need for those groups to be better served?
Mr Mohindra
Once again, an hon. Member has pre-empted part of my speech. As the hon. Gentleman alludes to, the issue is not specific to the south-east, but occurs across the country. I look forward to reassurance from the Minister in her speech.
The situation is worse in other parts of my constituency. Many of my residents do not have access to any banking services on their high street. That is particularly the case in Abbots Langley where, in 2021, the Barclays branch closed, leaving residents in the town and surrounding area with no access to banking services. The issue matters greatly to people in my constituency. I joined forces with our local Conservative councillors, Vicky Edwards and Ian Campbell, to support a campaign to bring a banking hub to the post office on the high street. I met with the local postmaster and Vicky and Ian recently to discuss the value that would bring to constituents.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I have had similar challenges in my constituency in the Scottish Borders. Like him, I have been campaigning for banking hubs—in Selkirk and Eyemouth. Indeed, I presented a petition in the House of Commons a few weeks ago. The banking hub we have in Jedburgh is working very well, but part of the problem for getting new banking hubs is the criteria that Link uses to determine whether a community is suitable. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns, and will he put further pressure on the Minister to persuade Link to extend the criteria, so that more communities can get the benefit of banking hubs?
Mr Mohindra
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for his constituents. Part of my remarks today, and I am sure of others’ later in the debate, concerns that exact point about increasing flexibility. We must not create criteria for banking hubs that do not necessarily solve the problem; we are trying to solve access to cash and banking services for all our constituents, irrespective of where they live.
More than 1,300 residents have already signed a petition in support of our campaign in Abbots Langley for a banking hub. I continue to push hard for that to be achieved, as that area in my community would greatly benefit from a banking hub as an obvious solution to the current lack of access those residents have.
Returning to the importance of access to cash, it is essential that the key service provided by banks continues to be available to people. I appreciate that we are moving increasingly towards a cashless society. It is rare now to find a shop that does not accept card payments, or indeed accepts cash at all. The idea of carrying emergency cash may, for many of us, seem less common. As someone with a background in small business, I understand the importance of cash for small and medium-sized businesses. Although ATMs make cash available to the wider population, it is not the same as the face-to-face interaction that a banking hub provides. I am glad that the major banks have recently signed a five-year access to cash deal with the Post Office to allow free withdrawals and deposit of cash, but that is a small step compared with the need for the services that banking hubs provide.
Of small businesses, 28% use cash at least weekly, and with more than 5,500 small businesses in South West Hertfordshire, banking facilities are not a service they can go without. Ahead of the debate, I thought it was important to speak to local businesses in my area. I contacted businesses across Abbots Langley, Rickmansworth and Kings Langley for their views on banking services and the role that cash plays in their everyday business. Many of the businesses I engaged with supported banking hubs, because they regularly need to deposit cash. Business owners in Abbots Langley told me that because they have no access to banking services, they often have to travel long distances to Watford to deposit large amounts of cash, which is time-consuming and potentially unsafe. That would be solved if Abbots Langley had a banking hub.
Small business owners are not the only group affected by the digital exclusion that comes with the loss of high street banks. Nearly a third of people over the age of 65 across the UK say that they feel uncomfortable using online banking, particularly for large or delicate transactions. Some 19% of people in my constituency are over 65. Having a banking hub allows the elderly and vulnerable to feel more comfortable, because they can access and deal with their finances in person. It is great that people often feel that they can trust their postmaster. Again, this may be some of the only social interaction that many people have, and it benefits their mental health and wellbeing.
It is not just the elderly who are affected by the move towards a cashless society. I have long advocated ensuring that the infrastructure in South West Hertfordshire, including essential services such as banking, is accessible for everyone. Those with a disability or impairment are also being impacted by the move away from high street banks. In a recent survey of a group of 2,700 people who had a disability or impairment, more than half said they had been negatively impacted by bank closures. They struggle with security features, authentication checks and speaking to their bank over the phone. They are simply left with no other alternative, and should not be forced to travel to other towns, often on unreliable, infrequent public transport, simply to access their money.
More than 1 million people in the UK rely wholly on cash, and 8 million adults report that they would struggle in a completely cashless society. For the elderly and the vulnerable, the opening of local banking hubs reduces the risk of their becoming victims of financial abuse and allows them to remain independent. As I have said, post offices and the postmasters who run them are often more than just a post service. They see their regulars frequently, and will notice if someone has not been seen or does not look well. They are not healthcare professionals, but they are another set of eyes and ears that can tell how customers are doing.
The process of opening a banking hub is currently undertaken by Cash Access UK, Link and supporting banks, and I look forward to meeting with Link shortly to begin discussions about getting a banking hub in Abbots Langley. I previously discussed the process with other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who expressed concerns about the parameters that are used to determine whether an area qualifies for a banking hub.
Matt Rodda
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point about this issue. My experience is that the criteria appear to be drawn too tightly, and that there is perhaps a lack of appreciation of the scale of need in some areas. In my own area, although there is frequent public transport from the Reading suburb of Caversham to the town centre, Caversham falls 1 minute outside the minimum criterion for travel time, yet it has thousands and thousands of residents, as well as a significant older and disabled population. Surely it would be wise for Link to consider the broader context, not just travel time.
Mr Mohindra
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which I think will be echoed in later contributions. The criteria feel too stringent. With the Minister’s support, I hope that conversations with Link and others will mean that the criteria are a bit more flexible, so that banking hubs are accessible to all, rather than just fitting an arbitrary parameter.
I have already expressed my concerns about the parameters used to determine whether an area qualifies for a banking hub, and I will emphasise in my meeting the importance of ensuring that the proximity of Abbots Langley to Watford should not prevent it from getting a banking hub, for the reasons that I have already outlined.
The problem with semi-rural areas such as mine—and Reading, by the sound of it—is that the criteria established by Link for determining the need to set up a new banking hub are likely to miss areas such as Abbots Langley, because they focus on when the last bank branch in a town closed. Abbots Langley is a village that has not had a bank for a very long time. I will raise this with Link in my meeting, especially because villages and smaller communities have been disproportionately affected by bank closures, losing 70% of their banking network since 2015 compared with less than 50% in urban areas.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
After a long campaign, we have finally been successful in securing a banking hub in Ilkley, despite having to wait for the last bank to announce its closure. However, securing access to cash is not just about securing a banking hub; it is about securing an ATM that people can access when the hub is closed. We found that, unfortunately, Cash Access UK and Link, which decide applications for hubs, have determined that we should not need an ATM on the outside of the building. Does my hon. Friend agree with me about the importance of such an out-of-hours facility?
Mr Mohindra
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for his community, and his point about access to cash outside of office hours is really important. One of my community’s frustrations is that while they may have access to an ATM, the money runs out very quickly on, say, a Saturday morning, so if someone needed cash on a Sunday, they would have to travel further, because that cash machine would not be restocked until the following Monday. I agree with my hon. Friend and hope the Minister will take on board his point that it is about not just having a banking hub, but making sure that ATMs are available and stocked with cash at all times.
Link has deviated from its standard framework for approving banking hubs in around 32 locations so far, and I hope that that could be the case in my area. I am sure that the hon. Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and others will encourage it to consider the exceptional circumstances in their own areas. The alternative to the establishment of a banking hub is for Abbots Langley post office to get enhanced banking services, such as a deposit service, similar to the one that was set up in Rickmansworth following the closures there.
The Government should be doing more to ensure that all UK residents have access to adequate banking facilities. I will continue to work with local post offices, banks such as NatWest and Barclays, and Link to bring more banking hubs to my constituency, and I know that others in the Chamber are doing the same. We cannot allow our high streets and residents to be without access to financial services, and I hope to see the Government do more to support this endeavour.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. I suggest that Members limit themselves to five minutes.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) for securing this very important debate.
In recent years, banking services have been withdrawing from my constituency. Every single high street has seen bank branches close, and we now have fewer of them, but Cheshunt has borne the brunt. Cheshunt is a busy town of 40,000 people, right in the heart of my constituency, but not a single bank branch remains. That simply cannot be right.
The lack of in-person banking facilities is depriving individuals and businesses of access to vital services and, for so many older and vulnerable people, causing huge difficulty and frustration as they are forced to use digital services and smartphone apps. My own nan is one of them, and she is not happy about it. Across Broxbourne, more than 3,000 people are living with sight loss, and that group is particularly reliant on in-person banking services. Many cannot use online banking at all, and they feel the pressure that not being digitally connected puts on them. That is why they like going into a bank branch, to get help from a real person to access their cash. They might specifically pick a bank with a branch on the high street, but if it closes, some banks now require customers to use an app to get a code in order to speak to the bank over the phone. That does not solve the issue.
It is the sensible view of me and my constituents that Broxbourne needs a banking hub and, in particular, that the town of Cheshunt would be the perfect place for one, as it is right in the middle of my constituency. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire mentioned, the process for securing a banking hub is far from sensible.
Link has told me that Cheshunt does not meet the criteria for a hub because
“there are already cash access services and facilities within a 1-mile radius which are suitable for the needs of the local area”
and “the deficiency does not” affect my constituents enough. Well, not having a bank really does affect my constituents. This is typical civil service protocol on where policies should be implemented and where they should not be. The rules simply need to change.
Link points out that my constituents can take a 15-minute bus journey to Waltham Cross, where a handful of banks remain for now, but do not get me started on the state of the bus services in Broxbourne. It is true that there are bus stops in the precise centre of Cheshunt and a few of my constituents will be able to get a bus—if it turns up and it is on time. In most cases, buses simply do not turn up on time or do not turn up at all.
However, the vast majority of the people of Cheshunt do not live on top of a bus stop. Link has told me that journey times of less than 15 minutes are deemed acceptable, but many of my constituents living in residential areas off the high street, in neighbourhoods of Cheshunt such as Flamstead End, Rosedale or Bury Green, or in the village of Goffs Oak have much longer journeys even to board a bus, let alone to travel to a bank. That is not acknowledged at all in the assessment process, which uses only an
“approximation of the centre of the high street”.
That is not acceptable; it does not reflect the wider catchment area of towns such as Cheshunt and the role that Cheshunt serves for my constituents.
The criteria need to change to ensure that any town that wants a banking hub can have one. Surely that is within the Minister’s gift. I thank her for meeting me recently to discuss my campaign to get a banking hub in Cheshunt, but every time that I have asked for one, I have been told that we do not meet the access to cash criteria and that there is nothing the Government can do about it—they simply wash their hands of it. I was told in a written answer that it is all down to Link, or the financial services sector, or the Financial Conduct Authority. Well, I have met Link and it tells that it cannot help; I have met the Financial Conduct Authority and it says that it is up to the Government to change the law. Will it really take the closure of every bank in my constituency before we are even considered for a banking hub? It looks inevitable that that day will come.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech about banking services in Hertfordshire, but I want to make a broader point about the criteria for allowing banking hubs. To be fair to the Minister, she has engaged well with me, too, but surely the point has come for Government intervention, to try to persuade—or tell—Link that the rules have to change, because they are no longer fit for purpose, and that those communities that desperately need these banking hubs should be allowed to have them.
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I completely agree. Now is the time to change the rules and it is up to the Government to step up, be accountable to the electorate they serve and change the rules, rather than hiding behind unaccountable bodies such as Link, which do not determine the rules but just sit in their ivory towers and say, “This looks good on paper,” when it does not work in reality. I hope that the Minister will commit to go away and change the rules so that we can get more banking hubs open, not just in Hertfordshire but across the United Kingdom as a whole.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) for securing this important debate.
I begin by acknowledging that my constituency does not fall within the boundaries of Hertfordshire; it is slightly further north. However, as we have heard, the issue of access to banking hubs is an important one across the UK. My constituents, like those of the other hon. Members here today, understand the difficulties brought about by banks closing. Older constituents who have no access to digital equipment or services are often the worst affected. For some, their family members step in to support them with things such as making NHS appointments, but for many, handing over control of their banking feels like a step too far and a loss of independence. Others have no family nearby to help. Being pushed to use complex online banking is not always appropriate for these customers.
In addition, as we have heard, the ability to deposit cash is crucial for many local businesses, and with the closure of more and more post offices, it is a growing problem. Despite having many elderly residents, Bearsden in my constituency has lost all its bank branches and it appears that there is no access to an ATM. There are also no plans for a banking hub there.
The Government have made assurances that by 2029 banks will have set up 350 banking hubs. The truth is that that is woefully inadequate and much too slow. The number of bank branches operating dropped from almost 15,000 in 1986 to just 5,745 by 2023.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady is making a powerful point and she is right about the number. The Payment Choice Alliance, to which I have already referred, estimates that if every community with a population of 5,000 or more were provided with a banking hub, there would be about 1,200 of them. Ministers want solutions, not just questions, and that is a solution. I invite the Minister to consider that: any community with a population of 5,000 or more that does not have a bank should have a hub. I think that would be reasonable.
Susan Murray
I thank the right hon. Member for making a good point for the Minister to consider.
The closure of branches and their replacement with only 350 hubs represents nothing more than big banks trying to increase their profits further at the expense of their customers. That is not just a mild inconvenience; it presents a serious accessibility issue, as we have heard. For the disabled, the elderly and those without technical know-how, bank branches are often a vital resource.
John Lamont
In addition to some customers not being comfortable using digital, some are unable to do so because they do not have broadband. I am sure the hon. Lady’s constituency is like mine. For some communities, if the bank branch has gone, using the banking app is not possible because the broadband capability is not there.
Susan Murray
The hon. Gentleman is correct. Even in my constituency of Mid Dunbartonshire, we have dark spots where people cannot access wi-fi. That is an important point.
A vital local resource, banks allow people to deposit cash and cheques, withdraw their money or check their details, and get help from staff. To allow the closure of banks without suitable access to a replacement banking hub is not just inconvenient; it is a step backwards for equality. With that in mind, I urge the Minister to look at the Liberal Democrat proposal for a financial inclusion strategy that would ensure that the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority take into account financial inclusion. That would help to protect access to cash for those who need it, ensure that rural communities are not excluded from accessing resources and, importantly, support banking hubs.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) for securing the debate. Banking hubs are really important in his constituency, as they are in rural constituencies across the country, including mine.
My constituency is 700 square miles of the most beautiful towns and villages, which are a delight. With that beauty and tranquillity come remoteness and lack of connectivity for many people, who can feel isolated. We have seen the decline of the high street bank over years. Some services that we took for granted are no longer available, though they are still of huge importance to local communities.
We recently lost Lloyds banks in Bridgnorth and Ludlow, which is seen as a major loss to both towns. I was quick to launch a survey to find out what residents thought. They were overwhelmingly upset, because they still require face-to-face services and access to cash. We were fortunate that Dudley Building Society came to Bridgnorth recently, opening a branch just opposite my office, but it does not offer the full service of traditional banks, and setting up banking hubs, which is hard to do, is not viable at the moment.
I wrote to many organisations to see what support we could get on our high street. Link came back to me and said it had conducted an assessment—as many Members have said—but it did not recommend any additional services in any of my rural towns. It believed that there was adequate access to cash and banking services for local residents in all those areas. I disagree with that.
Bridgnorth is served by Nationwide and HSBC, while Ludlow has NatWest and Nationwide. However, if people are not with those banks, they are stuck. They might have been with Lloyds for years, only to find that they have to travel to Wolverhampton—or, if they are in Ludlow, to Hereford, which is probably 40 minutes away. That is not suitable for everyone. This is a reactive approach, just watching the decline of our high street. We should change the regulation so that we can be proactive and allow Link to put services into the high street. I do not want to wait for every bank to close before we can get a banking hub. That is not the right approach.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for his part in this largely harmonious debate—although I challenge him briefly on which is the most beautiful constituency. I represent a constituency similar to his in many ways. The hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) registered the point about flexibility and Link. When that situation arises, the impact falls not just on those living within the tightly drawn parameters that Link draws, but on the more rural towns and villages that lie just outside those one-minute, 10-minute or 20-minute commuting distances. A hub would help businesses there, including hospitality businesses. Prudhoe in my constituency has just lost a branch, meaning that businesses have to go often from the borders of County Durham into Newcastle to access their bank of choice. Adding to the flexibility would be incredibly valuable and would grow and benefit the wider rural economy.
Stuart Anderson
The hon. Member is right; I said that people have to go 40 minutes from Ludlow to Hereford, but some might take 20 minutes to get to Ludlow. Given the inaccessibility of remote areas and rural towns, the system is not working. When the Minister sums up the debate, I would appreciate it if she could address the issue of how Link assesses access to banking hubs and the criteria used, and if she could tell me what support she can provide to get more banking hubs in South Shropshire.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) for securing this debate. He said that it is his first Westminster Hall debate; no doubt, now that he has the taste for it, he will be back next week for another one. I jest, of course, but I am sure that he will be back at some time in the future.
I am a strong supporter of banking hubs and offering communities the service that they deserve, so it is great to be present both to support the hon. Gentleman, and to ask the Minister for help constructively across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Banks are not closing just in South West Hertfordshire; they are closing everywhere else in the United Kingdom. Over the past six or seven years, 11 banks have closed in my constituency. We feel the pain of that even today.
Speaking locally, from the point of view of my constituency, local high streets in Northern Ireland have witnessed a series of banking closures over the past 12 to 24 months. The Ards peninsula, where I live, is a banking desert. All the banks that were on the peninsula have closed. In fairness, they have been replaced by two credit unions, and the post offices have been strengthened, so there are some things to fall back on—but the banks on the Ards peninsula are all away. They went to other towns and bigger cities, which do not have the same accessibility for those who need them, especially those who are vulnerable, elderly and isolated. The hon. Gentleman mentioned bus services, but they are not always available to get to the banks or even to the cities, so the accessibility of the services is limited.
Banking and post office services are used daily and are essential to the lives of our constituents. Northern Ireland has a range of banking hubs across the province. This year, it was announced that two are to be developed in my constituency. One has opened in Comber. It is in an excellent location, exactly in the centre of the town. The post office is there, and the four banks—two of which used to operate in the town—do a half-day each in the Comber hub. From the point of view of a potentially good service, the hub is a step in the right direction. The other hub, in Ballynahinch, is to open shortly as well. The same offer will be available there; the banks that were in the town will do a half-day each and the post office is available within that. Will that meet all the banking requests that people have? Probably not—but it does, by and large, give people access to the banks.
The problem I have with bank hubs is that, between when the banks closed and when the hubs were instated, there was a time of perhaps two years. Cash Access UK is delivering those hubs to support residents with the services that they require. We undertake a lot of discussion nowadays on digital inclusion and exclusion. While it is great that we as a society are able to modernise, that does sometimes mean our elderly population, who are used to doing things a certain way, are left behind. Face-to-face services that are accessible for them are imperative. I hope that in future we can look to a greater scope of hubs across the UK, which will also increase employment in local areas.
I conclude with this comment as an example of the problem we are facing: last year one of my staff bought her first house, and her solicitor required a printed statement from her help to buy ISA for Barclays bank. The Barclays in Newtownards, where she lives, closed in 2023. The Barclays mobile service in Bangor, around a 15-minute drive away, could not carry out that function as it did not have the services available. She had to travel to the centre of Belfast, which is 40 minutes by car, to obtain a single, one-sided document. Banking hubs and mobile vans are great, but they must be accessible in terms of what services they can carry out for people; otherwise, in many cases, there is no convenience. Banking hubs delivers some things, but they do not deliver them all.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) on securing his first debate, and securing such an important one. It is a pleasure for me to respond on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, and as a fellow Hertfordshire MP.
I have been particularly struck by the number of contributions from colleagues who have highlighted just how important access to cash is for so many people, particularly older people, small businesses and people with disabilities. I know from my own experience supporting somebody who is learning disabled that, even in a physical bank, the design and signage can be incredibly confusing and put people off—let alone when banking online, even if they have the internet to do so. We would all welcome comments from the Minister about what more the Government can do to support people who are not digitally confident, and in areas where people are digitally excluded.
We Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s move to introduce more banking hubs and their promise to set up 350 banking hubs by 2029. We continue to call on the Government to do more to protect access to cash and face-to-face banking services. I know that the Government will shortly be introducing a national financial inclusion strategy, so I repeat the calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) and ask the Minister to confirm today whether that strategy will include measures to ensure that both the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority will be required to have regard to financial inclusion. I also ask the Minister whether the Government are able to guarantee that they will at least consider expanding the roll-out of banking hubs beyond the 350 target if they consider that that is needed.
We Liberal Democrats welcome the changes made last September to the eligibility criteria, which previously excluded towns and villages with a building society, even if that building society did not provide business banking services. That change has enabled Liberal Democrat-led Harpenden town council to open a new banking hub in the town hall. I give credit to local resident and campaigner Derek French, who has been a real driving force in that constituency. I know that colleagues in the town, which is very near to St Albans, are working with the Post Office, Cash Access UK and other partners to find a permanent home for that well-used hub. I congratulate the town council and Derek French on driving that fantastic project forward.
I understand the frustration of residents in Abbots Langley, which is not too far from St Albans, because residents there lost their last remaining bank, the Barclays branch, in 2021. I know that Liberal Democrat-run Three Rivers district council is keen to support the efforts of the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire in his campaign to secure a banking hub in the village, and I would certainly encourage him to reach out to work on a cross-party basis, as we often do in Hertfordshire. Across Hertfordshire, my Liberal Democrat colleagues have been hugely supportive of the temporary banking hubs in Hatfield and Royston and are keen to make sure that those hubs get permanent homes.
In St Albans, we are fortunate to still have a number of banks and building society branches on our main high street, but many businesses rely on the incredibly busy and conveniently located Crown post office branch on St Peter’s Street for banking and cash-handling services. As the Minister may know, Post Office Limited has been proceeding at pace with plans to sell off the Crown post office branches, and we have had confirmation that ours will soon be put out to franchise. Will the Minister make sure that Post Office Limited guarantees access to personal and business banking services on our high streets when the final Crown post office branches disappear in the coming months? The villages around St Albans—Colney Heath and London Colney, for example—also rely on their local post office branches for basic banking services and access to cash.
Finally, many areas that do not have branches, banking hubs or post offices have to rely on ATMs for access to cash. We have heard from a number of Members during the debate that, for many communities, it is frustrating not to be able to access cash outside core hours—and, of course, many ATMs are inaccessible for disabled people. The Royal National Institute of Blind People reports that fewer than four in 10 ATMs have audio assistance, which is critical to enable their use by the blind and partially sighted, and often machines are out of reach for wheelchair users or those with other impaired mobility.
Once again, I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire, on securing this valuable debate. We can all agree that banking hubs are a lifeline in rural and semi-rural areas, essential to our high streets and vital to make banking inclusive for all.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your talented leadership, Sir Desmond. It is very good to be here. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). This may be his debut debate in Westminster Hall, but I am sure that it is the first of many. He has always been a champion for his constituency and I am surprised that he has not been here a thousand times before. As he eloquently put it in his opening remarks, banking hubs show why banking must remain at the heart of all our communities, and we should cherish the role of banks in our society.
I have long been a huge fan of the banks, having been on the banking commission, which was a great opportunity to see just how important they are. We all talk about their importance for banking local businesses and local communities, but banks perform two extraordinarily complicated functions. The first is taking money from where it has accumulated and delivering it to where it is needed—for loans for businesses and all the rest. But they also do something else—they are almost like Doctor Who in their ability to transform time. They take money that has been put on deposit overnight and turn it into a 25-year mortgage that pays for all our constituents to buy their homes and bring up their families. We must never forget how incredibly important banks are.
The previous Government recognised the importance of maintaining essential banking services as a foundation for public confidence in the sector. We provided a system of free and convenient access to banking through Post Office’s branch network. The banking framework partnership between Post Office and more than 30 of the UK’s banks and building societies means that consumers and businesses can access banking services through the Post Office network where there is not an alternative bank. Post Office now has more branches than all the banks and building societies combined. I hope the Minister agrees that the banking framework was a real success story—one of many success stories, by the way—of the previous Government.
However, we in the previous Government also recognised that post offices do not completely fill the hole left by the loss of the high street bank. That is why we also introduced banking hubs, as we have heard today, which have been a successful concept where they have been delivered. I welcome the fact that the new Government have now embraced the idea and set an ambition to deliver hubs across the country by 2030—I understood it to be 500, although the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), said that it was 350, so it would be helpful if the Minister clarified exactly how many the Government are hoping to have.
The new hubs, whether there are 350 or 500, are a new solution to meet wider banking needs, particularly in communities where the last bank branch has closed. Members have made many eloquent points about the decline of banking services in their constituencies. In my constituency, adjacent to that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson), Stourport-on-Severn, my second biggest town, has just one bank left—a TSB—and Bewdley, the third biggest town, now has no banks at all.
I hope the Minister will address how Members could be more involved in deciding where new banking hubs will be located—that is an important point. I am sure that all Members would like to have input and make representations to get these services in every constituency. Local knowledge and community engagement must be at the heart of these decisions. That is why Members of Parliament, as the elected representatives of these communities, must be part of that process.
Banking is rightly a commercial sector, so I would also like to hear how the Minister can encourage banks to deliver their own innovations. For instance, the multi-bank kiosk proposed by the Building Societies Association has already been piloted. With a cost of just one third of a traditional banking hub, the kiosks offer a cost-effective, building society-led solution that could work alongside banking hubs in areas that have a strong mutual presence but lack a high street bank. Will the Government support the expansion of the kiosks and encourage more private sector innovation alongside banking hubs?
I do not want to hold the room for too long, so I will draw my words to a close. Today’s debate and the recent Backbench Business debate on high street banks have shown just how much Members support high street banking services. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government will support our high street banking services. Once more, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire for the extraordinary hard work he does for his constituents.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your excellent chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra); this may be his first Westminster Hall debate, but I am sure it will be the first of many. Can I just say how much I enjoy the debates in Westminster Hall? We often get a bit more time to express opinions, and the Government can give a greater degree of detail than I certainly could in the Backbench Business debate on the Floor of the House a few weeks ago.
I thank all the hon. Members present, who have come from beyond Hertfordshire, if my geography is good. I know the beautiful rural areas of Shropshire extremely well because I have family there. When the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) was talking, I could not suppress a smile at his description of the beautiful hills of Shropshire, which is where I spend many of my recesses with my children. My parents live in his constituency, in the beautiful town of Ludlow. I could go on, but I had better stop there.
From Shropshire to Strangford and beyond, we have heard perspectives from different parts of the country. I have met many hon. Members who have championed their constituencies and campaigned for banking hubs. It was good to hear from the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who is a doughty champion. We have had a number of discussions in private and in the House, as well as in written questions. I know he has real concerns, and is campaigning, particularly, for the banking hub in Cheshunt. It was good to hear from the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), who stressed the importance of rural areas, which I will come back to. The hon. Member for South Shropshire also mentioned that, referring to his 700 miles of beautiful countryside. He also asked about the criteria for the Link assessment, as did other hon. Members.
It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He often asks difficult questions on a variety of subjects. The way in which he is able to range across different subjects in the House is really quite impressive. He talked about digital inclusion and exclusion, as did other hon. Members, and I will come back to that. I thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper); I met her constituent Derek French, who is a doughty campaigner for access to cash and banking. I pay tribute to his work.
Daisy Cooper
Derek French is a constituent in my neighbouring constituency of Harpenden and Berkhamsted —I just want to put that on the record. Harpenden very proudly defends its independence from St Albans and I do not want anybody to be inadvertently offended by my trying to secure some recognition from the Minister in the House, but I thank her for her congratulations.
Emma Reynolds
I am grateful for the correction. I would not like to get in trouble with the hon. Members that represent different parts of Hertfordshire, not least our Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), who also represents a constituency there. I have better knowledge of Buckinghamshire, which is nearby, but I thank her for that correction to the record. I do not want to get in trouble with the hon. Lady’s colleague, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), who was very active in our previous debate on this issue.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), for his speech. I will come back to the points that he made in a moment. I also thank, for their interventions, my hon. Friends the Members for Hexham (Joe Morris) and for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and the hon. Members for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). I have met some of them separately to this debate.
I thank again the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire—I was going to call him my hon. Friend; the debate feels very friendly. I have looked in detail at his constituency, thanks to his calling this debate, which is always a benefit of having such Westminster Hall debates, as he will attest to. I have had a look at Abbots Langley and Rickmansworth. I often go through his constituency on the way home, particularly the Rickmansworth area. They are very different parts of the constituency, from what I can see, in terms of the scale of the population and the number of shops in those areas. In Abbots Langley, I am told—he can correct me if this is not true—that there has been no community access request, as of our information. So if he does want to campaign for a banking hub there, it is open to him and his colleagues on the council he mentioned to request such a thing. Equally, I know he has an enhanced post office in Rickmansworth. Again, it is open to him or others in the community to make the application so that Link would assess the criteria.
Mr Mohindra
I thank the Minister for her summing up. In terms of Abbots Langley, she is correct that the post office has not yet put in an application. It was first establishing the criteria and trying to learn lessons from others. The postmaster is now in a position to actively pursue that, and part of my local campaign is to support that. I hope the Minister will give her blessing and potentially a letter of support, if that is within reason, to ensure that Link and others think that is practical. In terms of the Rickmansworth one, she is correct. It is an enhanced banking hub rather than a full banking hub, as the debate suggests.
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman will have to excuse me; I cannot offer letters of support. If I were to do that, there would be a number of letters that I would be writing. The Link assessment is independent and is what the previous Government set up and legislated for, in terms of access to cash. I will come on to that in a moment, if that is okay, and give him some more clarification on that.
We need to recognise that the landscape for retail banking has changed significantly in recent years, turbo-charged by the pandemic. For example, last year we had 93% of people with current accounts access their bank online or via a mobile app. That obviously does not include the nan of the hon. Member for Broxbourne, who I have heard about on numerous occasions, but there are lots of people who access their banking in that manner. There has also been a shift among older customers, with 83% of those aged over 75 now using online or mobile banking, compared with just 27% in 2017. That is a marked shift.
We know, however, that there are vulnerable groups, such as the elderly and people with disabilities, who very much appreciate and value in-person banking. Branches can act as anchors in a local community and are very important to small businesses, as several hon. Members mentioned, not least the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire. When a high street branch closes, particularly the last branch on the high street, it can be a real blow to an area, especially where the alternatives are limited.
That is why the Government, when we were in opposition and formulating our manifesto, secured the industry’s commitment to roll out 350 banking hubs—that is in totality. I say to the hon. Member for St Albans that that is not a limit, and actually, we are quite far along that journey. We have 230 that have already been agreed, and more than 170 are open. That includes 108 that have been open since the general election, and we are not even a year into our Government. We promised 350 by the end of the Parliament, but we are running much more quickly than that. I hope that we will surpass 350 by the end of the Parliament.
Robbie Moore
I would like to put on record my thanks to the Minister for her interaction with me in my endeavours to get a banking hub in Ilkley. Could I ask the Minister about the assessment criteria that Link and Cash Access UK are using? Is it the right course to get to the point where we are relying on the final bank to close before we start looking at applications? Secondly, does the Minister not feel it is right that when we do manage to secure a banking hub, an ATM could be located on the outside of that banking hub so that people could access cash out of hours?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman brings me to the meat of my speech, which I must move on to, as I do not have very long left. I always get lulled into a false sense of security in Westminster Hall, where I think I have quite a long time to speak. I made the position very clear on the Floor of the House a couple of weeks ago, when we had a similar debate. The hon. Gentleman will know that under the previous Government’s Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, Parliament legislated to protect reasonable access to cash. Specifically, Parliament gave the Financial Conduct Authority new powers to ensure that communities could both withdraw and deposit cash, but that governs only access to cash; it did not include access to in-person banking.
The hon. Member asked about the Link criteria, an issue that has been raised in previous debates. The Government do not have the power to amend the assessment criteria. Any decisions on changes to Link’s criteria for access to banking services are an independent matter for Link. As he will know, the set-up of banking hubs is a voluntary initiative by the banks. I visited a very good banking hub in Buckingham that has different community bankers coming in every day of the week, which works extremely well.
The hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire and others asked whether we are minded to change this situation. We continue to monitor it, and we have heard lots of concerns expressed today. I continue to meet hon. Members, and I have another session next week for those who, if they have not met with me, would like to. Currently, however, the Government are not minded to change the legislation. I am soon to meet John Howells, the chief executive of Link, and I have listened to the concerns of hon. Members, particularly those with rural constituencies, including the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. I think that Link should take into account his point about the different rules for what is rural and what is urban.
I am running very low on time, and I am conscious that the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire should be allowed a brief wind-up. I promise to respond in writing to some of the questions asked about the Post Office in the debate.
Mr Mohindra
I thank the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for that response. She will have heard the sentiment around the Chamber that all of us want to see more banking hubs throughout the country. Although the target of 350 may once have been ambitious, that does not mean we should not have more, especially if we already have 230 in place. I thank hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions and for making my first Westminster Hall debate so enjoyable.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered access to banking hubs in Hertfordshire.
Switzerland Free Trade Agreement Negotiations: Round 7
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The seventh round of negotiations on an enhanced free trade agreement with Switzerland took place in London between 5 and 13 June 2025.
Economic growth is our first mission in government and FTAs have an important role to play in achieving this. An enhanced trade agreement with Switzerland will support British businesses, back British jobs, and put more money in people’s pockets.
Switzerland is the UK’s 10th biggest trading partner and the UK-Swiss trade relationship was worth more than £45 billion in 2024. Services exports account for more than £18 billion of this, making Switzerland the UK’s sixth largest services export partner. This included over £700 million from Scotland and £1 billion from the north-west in 2022. The trading relationship supported 130,000 services jobs across the UK in 2020.
An enhanced FTA with Switzerland aims to deliver long-term certainty for UK services firms, by locking in access to the Swiss market, guaranteeing the free flow of data and cementing business travel arrangements.
This round saw momentum in a number of areas:
Services and investment
Constructive discussions were held across services, including with regard to market access.
Negotiators also made good progress and agreed several key commitments in cross-border trade in services and domestic regulation. Progress was also made on financial services, with both sides confirming our shared ambition in this area.
On mobility, talks focused on long-term certainty for UK businesspersons travelling to and delivering services in Switzerland.
Innovation
Both sides discussed how the FTA can support trade in innovative goods and services. This could include mechanisms to bring together businesses, academia and Government to discuss ways to address any trade barriers and opportunities that arise from innovation in the future. This is an important request from businesses in the UK and Switzerland.
Intellectual property
During this round, the UK and Switzerland focused on geographical indications, with the aim of retaining the GIs already protected by the UK and Switzerland as well as establishing a streamlined process for the protection of new GIs. Negotiations will continue with the aim of agreeing a comprehensive framework for the protection of intellectual property.
Goods
Progress was made on goods market access as we continue the process of modernising the existing agreement. The 99% of UK goods exports to Switzerland by value are already tariff free. We reached provisional agreement on rules of origin which will make it easier for UK businesses to use imported materials in their exports to Switzerland through a new cumulation article and provide continuity by preserving the existing product specific rules.
We also reached provisional agreement during the round on policy areas including dispute settlement, development, consumer protection, animal welfare and anti-corruption.
Next steps
Round 8 of negotiations is set to take place in Switzerland in autumn 2025.
The Government are focused on securing outcomes in an enhanced FTA that boost economic growth for the UK and Ministers will continue to update Parliament on the progress of negotiations.
The Government will only ever sign a trade agreement which aligns with the UK’s national interests, upholding our high standards across a range of sectors, alongside protections for the national health service.
[HCWS737]
Health Inequalities: England
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
Today I am updating the House on steps the Government will take to ensure the NHS is playing its part in tackling deep and long-standing inequalities in our country.
First, we are determined to better allocate funding to primary care providers in a way that reflects the additional complexity of delivering care in communities with high levels of ill health. GP practices serving more deprived areas receive on average 9.8% less funding per needs-adjusted patient than those in less deprived communities, despite having greater health needs and significantly higher patient-to-GP ratios. We recognise the importance of ensuring that funding for core services is distributed equitably between practices across the country. The Government will therefore commission a review of the Carr-Hill formula to ensure fairer allocation of resources to general practice. The Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation will also be asked to advise on how the setting of integrated care board allocations can better support the reduction of health inequalities to ensure that resources are targeted where they are most needed.
Secondly, I am confirming today that the Government intend to phase out deficit support funding starting from 2026-27. This funding was worth £2.2 billion in 2025-26. This change will help ensure that NHS funding is not simply directed to overspending systems, but instead reaches parts of the country where poor health outcomes and inequality are most concentrated. Details on how this change will be implemented will be set out in the medium-term planning information published later this year.
Thirdly, the Government will harness the role of the NHS as the nation’s largest employer by launching a new £5 million widening access demonstrators programme. In 2025-26, funding will be allocated to 10 integrated care systems to support 1,000 people nationally, from working-class communities disproportionately affected by unemployment and economic inactivity, into roles in health or social care. Participants will receive tailored training and employment support to help them move into employment or further training, with a focus on supporting individuals into permanent or longer-term employment opportunities, including in roles such as healthcare support and pharmacy support, or as administrative or facilities staff.
These measures form part of our commitment to delivering a fairer, more accountable, and more effective NHS, with resources and opportunities focused on the areas and communities that need them most.
[HCWS738]
Housing Safety: “Awaab’s Law” and Electrical Checks
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
The Government are clear that homes must, above all, be safe. Safety is non-negotiable, and landlords must take urgent action to respond to issues when they arise. We want housing providers to put the people who live in their homes at the heart of their mission, approaching their relationships with tenants with care and professionalism so that mutual trust and respect is established. While many landlords do deliver effectively for their tenants, we know this is not always the case, and in some circumstances tenants have felt completely let down. As such, establishing clear standards and requirements of social landlords, and timelines to meet those requirements, will eliminate uncertainty for both tenants and landlords helping to ensure all tenants can live in the safe homes they deserve.
To this end, the Government are today introducing two important pieces of safety legislation. “Awaab’s law”, laid in Parliament today, will put in place clear protections for tenants by making sure dangerous damp and mould and emergency hazards are addressed quickly. New electrical safety regulations, also laid in Parliament today, will ensure electrical safety checks are carried out at least every five years in the social rented sector. We also want the courts to be prepared for these changes, and we are committed to working with the Ministry of Justice on tackling claim farms to aid the justice system.
On 21 December 2020, two-year-old Awaab Ishak died as a result of a severe respiratory condition due to prolonged exposure to mould in his home. I pay heartfelt tribute to the resolute campaign that Awaab’s parents have led in their son’s name. Awaab’s tragic death was entirely preventable and has brought to light the acute need for reform within the sector, to make sure that such a tragedy never happens again.
Awaab’s law is a crucial piece of legislation that will empower residents to hold registered providers of social housing to account by law if they fail to act on hazards in social homes and make them safe within set timescales. This law will ensure that the relationship between landlord and tenant is strengthened, that social landlords take tenants’ concerns seriously, treat all residents with empathy and dignity and that tenants feel respected and heard.
The first phase of Awaab’s law will come into effect in October this year, covering damp and mould and all types of emergency hazards. Social landlords will have to respond to emergency hazards within 24 hours and there will be no excuse for delays. We are clear that protections must be in place to ensure we never see a repeat of this tragic case. Two further phases, which will extend the law to additional and then remaining hazards, will come into effect in 2026 and 2027 with corresponding regulation to be laid in due course.
I am determined to ensure this policy works effectively, creating a positive impact for all tenants and leaving a lasting legacy. As such, Government will take a “test and learn” approach to implementing the policy. Over the coming months, we will closely monitor and evaluate the impact Awaab’s law is having; the effectiveness of the processes put in place to implement it and, will clarify or adapt our approach to deliver the best outcomes if we need to.
The requirements set by Awaab’s law are as follows:
If a social landlord becomes aware of a matter or circumstance in a social home that may be a hazard within scope, they must investigate within 10 working days to ascertain if there is such a hazard.
The social landlord must produce a written summary of the findings of the investigation (in most cases) and provide this to residents within three working days of the investigation concluding.
If the investigation finds that a hazard presents a significant risk of harm to the health or safety of a resident, the social landlord must, in most circumstances, within five working days of the investigation concluding, make the property safe (using temporary measures if necessary) and begin any further required works. The social landlord must satisfactorily complete repair works within a reasonable time period.
In an emergency situation, the social landlord must investigate and action any emergency repairs as soon as reasonably practicable and, in any event, within 24 hours.
If the property cannot be made safe within the specified timescales for Awaab’s law, then the social landlord must offer to arrange for the residents to stay in suitable alternative accommodation, at the social landlord’s expense, until required repairs are completed.
Social landlords should begin preparing for phase 1 of Awaab’s law now and be thinking about steps needed to get ready for phases 2 and 3. Tenant safety must remain paramount and landlords must continue to ensure that duties to keep homes fit for human habitation and free of category 1 hazards and to remedy disrepair continue to be met as Awaab’s law is phased in.
I am immensely grateful to all those across the sector who have engaged— through the public consultation, via membership organisations or otherwise—to help make Awaab’s law as robust as possible. Many of you will see your feedback reflected in the final policy. It is my profound hope Awaab’s law provokes a cultural shift in the way social homes are managed by landlords and experienced by tenants, and that all social landlords will place the safety of residents as their priority.
Under Awaab’s law, where landlords do not meet their obligations by failing to comply with the new strict timelines for remedying hazards, tenants will be able to challenge them. They can seek to have poor housing conditions put right through their landlord’s complaints process, the Housing Ombudsman, and through the courts by bringing a housing disrepair claim. To ensure that the system of redress remains fair, that vulnerable tenants are not exploited and that both tenants and landlords are not unfairly targeted by unscrupulous claims farming activity—the Minister for Housing and Planning and the Minister for Courts and Legal Services are today also announcing their intention to launch a call for evidence this year. Through this we will gather evidence on claims management company referrals to solicitors on a no win no fee basis to seek views on current practices and consider how to reduce unscrupulous “claims farming” activity in housing disrepair cases.
We will continue to protect consumers’ interests by sharing insight on poor practices with the SRA and FCA to inform their work in regulating inappropriate behaviours and practices in the sector.
Our Make Things Right campaign already informs tenants how they can use social housing complaints procedures and access the Housing Ombudsman Service. To ensure tenants continue to know their rights and are fully informed about the introduction of Awaab’s law, later this year the Make Things Right campaign will also include information on the new requirements, and we will publish guidance for tenants on Awaab’s law, when it comes into force in October 2025.
Alongside Awaab’s law the Government are driving transformational and lasting change in the safety and quality of social housing by improving electrical safety so that tenants can feel safe in their homes.
We know that poor electrical safety can have devastating effects and can cost lives. The Grenfell Tower fire, which claimed the lives of 72 men, women and children, was started by an electrical fault in a fridge-freezer. It is vital that we act to keep social housing residents safe from electrical harm.
In 2022, the previous Government carried out a consultation inviting views on proposals to introduce mandatory checks on electrical installations at least every five years; ensure parity between the rented sectors in respect of safety standards; and requiring mandatory portable appliance testing on all electrical appliances provided by social landlords.
This Government are now acting to bring this crucial safety measure into force and to protect social housing residents from harm. That is why we are laying regulations in Parliament today that will require social landlords to carry out:
Checks on electrical installations for social housing at least every five years; and
In-service inspection and testing of electrical equipment (ISIT) on all electrical appliances they provide as part of a tenancy (sometimes known as “PAT testing”).
The statutory instruments and consultation responses for both policies will be published on gov.uk and copies will be deposited in the Library of both Houses.
[HCWS739]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
My Lords, good afternoon. Welcome to the sixth and final day on the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill. If there is a Division in the Chamber, which there will not be, we will adjourn for 10 minutes and return here. It is another warm day, so the doors are open at both ends of the Room and fans are going. Those who are able to take their jackets off may do so—I am envious. If Members of the Committee see me looking at my phone during proceedings, it is not because I am not interested in the subject under discussion; it is because I am being kept in close touch with developments relating to the birth of my first granddaughter on Monday.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I have not yet had a chance to see her, but I very much hope to do so soon. I may get messages and, if my expression changes, it is nothing to do with any of the speeches being made.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Wednesday 25th June 2025
(1 day, 19 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 Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-I(a) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (3 Jun 2025)
Baroness Finn
Member’s explanatory statement
This would permit costs incurred by banks, as they are defined in the Bill, to be recovered.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, many congratulations to the noble Viscount on the birth of his granddaughter.
Amendment 122D, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger, touches on a principle that we have returned to time and again during Committee: that those institutions asked to play a role in the delivery of public policy must be treated not as passive instruments but as valued and active partners.
Clause 95, as currently drafted, enables the Secretary of State to recover costs from those individuals committing wrongdoing or fraud that the Secretary of State “reasonably incurs” in the exercise of the powers set out in this legislation. That is both logical and fair. However, what it does not do, and what our amendment seeks to rectify, is recognise that banks, too, will incur costs in the process of complying with the obligations imposed by this Bill. Those obligations are not trivial. Banks will be expected to carry out eligibility checks, respond to requests for information and facilitate direct deduction orders. These are significant operational functions, requiring staff time, system changes and compliance resources. The financial and logistical burden on institutions, particularly smaller and mid-tier banks, should not be underestimated.
We have heard repeatedly throughout Committee that the effective functioning of this legislation depends on strong co-operation between government and the financial sector. If that is true—we believe that it is, notably from what we have heard from the Government so far on the test and learn exercises—we must be honest about the responsibilities that we are placing on banks and we must be clear that those responsibilities come with real-world costs.
We understand that this arrangement between the DWP and the banks is new and, as such, it is unclear how many cases there may be to deal with. It may be a huge number, or it may end up being fairly minimal. Of course, we hope for the latter. More likely, this is an exercise of checking and counter-checking between the banks and the DWP in order to ascertain clarity of wrongdoing or not. It therefore begs the question of resources and costs. Can the Minister give us some estimates of the likely number of cases involved? Who will pay for the costs of managing these cases? If it is the banks, what discussions, if any, have taken place on the amounts? Is there an understanding of what happens if the costs become too great a burden on the banking sector? Is there some agreement that, if costs exceed a certain amount, the DWP—ie the taxpayer—will pay the excess?
We do not think that it is good enough to say that banks must comply. We must also ask how they can comply and what support or protections the Government are willing to offer them in return. Amendment 122D would provide a simple but important clarification: that banks, as defined in this Bill, are entitled to recover the costs that they incur as part of fulfilling their legal obligations. This is not about profit; it is about fairness, sustainability, and operational feasibility.
Let us not forget that we are asking private institutions to assist in the delivery of public sector enforcement mechanisms. That is a departure from many traditional roles and it is only right that we recognise the cost implications of that shift. We would not expect public bodies to take on additional responsibilities without due consideration of the costs involved, nor should we expect that of banks. They are not merely pipelines through which government powers are to be channelled. They are regulated institutions, fundamental to our economy, whose engagement in this regime must be underpinned by a mutual understanding of expectations, limits and recompense.
We have rightly asked for high standards of data protection, compliance and verification. We have spoken about building confidence in the system and ensuring proportionality in the exercise of power. That confidence must also apply to those partners on whom the success of the Bill relies. If we expect efficiency, we must also provide clarity, including clarity about the financial impact of compliance.
The other significant and important point to raise here is the impact of opportunity costs. We know that the banks will dedicate staff, time and resources to undertake these tasks, which will prevent them from undertaking core duties that would otherwise make them money. We cannot just focus on operational costs; we need to focus on the benefits that banks will miss out on as a result of complying with the Bill. Can the Minister therefore set out to the Committee how the Government will calculate the opportunity cost? Can she confirm that these costs will be determined in partnership with banks and where the money for the reimbursement of these opportunity costs will come from?
In the spirit of pragmatism and partnership, I urge the Minister to consider how the principles of our amendment could be taken forward. It seeks a small change to the text but would be an important signal to those we rely on to help deliver the objectives of the Bill that they will be supported, not simply directed. We all want to see this legislation succeed; we have made that point many times. For that to happen, those on whom it places demands must have confidence that they are part of a fair, transparent and properly resourced framework. Amendment 122D would help us move one step closer to that goal. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 122D, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, and moved and spoken to so fully by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, would permit banks to recover the costs that they incur, as defined in the Bill. The principle behind the amendment is to recognise that, while banks play an essential role in supporting public authorities to identify and recover funds lost through fraud or error, the operational and administrative demands placed on them can be significant. Allowing banks to recover reasonable costs would ensure that the burden of implementing these public service functions does not fall unfairly on private institutions and would support a collaborative approach between the Government and the financial sector.
However, it is important to ensure that any cost-recovery mechanism is transparent, proportionate—how often we keep using that word—and subject to appropriate oversight. Questions remain about how the “reasonable costs” mentioned in the Explanatory Notes for Clause 95 will be defined, who will determine the quantum that can be recovered and what safeguards will be in place to protect individuals from excessive fees. There must be a clear framework to prevent costs from undermining the overall financial benefit to the taxpayer or placing undue hardship on those subject to deduction orders.
As the Bill progresses, it will be vital to clarify these details—I hope the Minister will help do that—ideally through the code of practice and ongoing consultations with stakeholders to maintain fairness, accountability and public confidence in the system. I await the Minister’s response, to fill the gaps that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and I have outlined, particularly what “reasonable costs” is meant to mean.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for introducing Amendment 122D and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for his contribution. It is worth saying at the outset that the noble Baroness’s comments ran quite wide, encompassing some of the broader issues that we discussed in previous debates on the Bill.
New Section 80F, inserted by Clause 95, allows any reasonable costs incurred by DWP in recovering debt to be added to the total debt owed, and therefore for them to be collected through any means of recovery available to DWP. As drafted, the amendment would permit the Secretary of State, but not the bank, to recover any costs incurred by the bank as though it were part of the debt owed to DWP through methods of recovery such as deductions from benefit, et cetera, but without any requirement to pass any money recovered to the bank. I realise how hard it is to draft amendments in opposition—I have been there—so I believe it is possible that the intention of the amendment was to allow a bank only to recover any cost it had incurred when complying with its obligation under Schedule 5, so I shall address the amendment on the assumption that was the intention.
Officials have engaged extensively with key representatives from the finance sector, including UK Finance, and we are seeking to work collaboratively to ensure that the legislation enables banks reasonably to meet their legislative obligations without causing problematic burdens for them or unintended consequences for individuals. Indeed, changes have already been made to the Bill based on that engagement and feedback.
I agree that banks should be able to recover administrative costs associated with implementing a direct deduction order on behalf of DWP. These costs should be reasonable, providing some protection to debtors and consistent with existing legislation. In line with existing Child Maintenance Service recovery regulations, therefore, DWP will set the maximum limits for costs associated with implementing regular and lump sum deduction orders that banks can recover. Paragraph 24 of Schedule 5 further requires DWP to consult persons who represent the interests of the bank and any other appropriate persons in making the regulations.
On safeguards, banks are able to deduct any reasonable costs they incur when complying with a direct deduction order. In practice, that prevents a bank charging the debtor more than its costs. Paragraph 24 of Schedule 5 allows us to make provision about the administrative charges that can be imposed by banks. That power will be used to introduce a cap on the charges that can be imposed under this clause that can be adjusted in line with inflation to ensure that the charges remain reasonable at all times. I think we made that clear.
The code of practice spells out specifically what we will do in this area. I assure the noble Lord that we are discussing with the banks what is reasonable. This works in other areas. The code of practice says that banks may deduct any reasonable costs and that the costs that they can deduct will be limited by legislation and taken into consideration when the terms of the deduction order are done, to ensure that it remains affordable. I hope that, with those reassurances, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Finn (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. In closing, I want to reiterate that the Bill asks a great deal of banks, in terms not just of compliance, but of active participation in delivering government policy. That comes with real operational and financial demands, especially for smaller institutions, plus the opportunity cost for the time and resources that banks might be required to dedicate to these non-profit-making activities. I hear what the Minister says about the code of practice, but there is a difference between the code of practice and having something in the Bill. It makes an important change to ensure that banks, like public authorities, can recover the costs they incur when carrying out duties placed on them by legislation. We believe that it reflects a basic principle of fairness and partnership, which is a principle that we have returned to throughout this Committee.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for his support. He made the important point that oversight must be proportionate and transparent.
If we want this framework to work effectively and sustainably, we must ensure that those we rely on to implement it are not left bearing disproportionate costs. That should be absolutely clear. This is not about profit but about ensuring that compliance is feasible, resourced and built on mutual trust. I hope that the Minister will recognise the value of the amendment and the principle behind it. Those helping to enforce the law must be supported, not just expected to comply, and that should be in the legislation rather than the code of practice.
I appreciate the Minister’s remarks that discussions are ongoing with banks about how the demands will be incorporated and developed operationally. Can she confirm to the Committee whether this matter has been raised in the discussions and what assurances the Government have to date been able to give banks on this important question?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I have been talking to the banks about everything but this is one of the less complicated parts. We are simply talking about the cost of making a deduction order. Banks are used to making deduction orders in relation to the Child Maintenance Service. On that, we agreed a fee and the banks can deduct reasonable amounts. We simply put a cap in. If anything has come out of the conversations that is relevant, I am happy to add it to a letter I give the noble Baroness. I should expect the matter we are discussing to work in a way analogous to how it has worked for the CMS, without difficulty.
“Overpayments made as a result of official error(1) Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (recovery of benefit payments) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1), for “The” substitute “Subject to subsection (1A), the”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The amount referred to in subsection (1) must not include any overpayment that arose in consequence of an official error where the claimant or a person acting on the claimant’s behalf or any other person to whom the payment is made could not, at the time of receipt of the payment or of any notice relating to that payment, reasonably have been expected to realise that it was an overpayment.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would bring the test for recovery of Universal Credit overpayments caused by official error into line with Regulation 100(2) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 by providing that they can only be recovered where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 123 is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who is in the Chamber, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, who regrets that he cannot be in his place. He was going to be replaced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester but he is also in the Chamber. I thank them anyway for their moral support, even if it cannot be practical. I also thank the Public Law Project for all its help with the amendment. I apologise that I was unable to attend Second Reading, but my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton kindly gave notice of this amendment.
The amendment brings the test of recovery of universal credit overpayments caused by official error into line with the housing benefit provisions by ensuring that recovery can be made only where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise there was an overpayment. There is surely no better time to address official error overpayments in a Bill so appropriately named the “Fraud, Error and Recovery” Bill. However, it is currently one sided. Although it recognises the harms that both fraud and error cause in the social security system, it focuses only on the behaviour of claimants. It does not address the harms that result from the recovery of so-called official error overpayments. These are debts created because of mistakes made by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Unlike many other benefits, DWP can recover official error UC overpayments from claimants. This power was introduced in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and represented a significant change to the position previously applied to most legacy benefits—that is, those that preceded UC. According to DWP data, in 2023-2024, 686,756 new UC official error overpayment debts were entered on DWP’s debt manager system. Is my noble friend the Minister able to give us any data on the circumstances in which official error overpayments occur and the average length of time before they are identified?
We are not just talking about numbers on a debt manager system. These DWP mistakes are having a serious impact on the lives of individuals such as D, who got in touch with me after hearing my noble friend Lord Davies raise the issue at Second Reading. D emailed me and we had a phone conversation. She told me that after her son was born, she was incorrectly told by DWP that she would be able to claim UC while her partner was studying for a master’s degree. Two years later, the DWP then told her that she was not eligible and that she now owed them £12,000—a “life-changing amount”, in her words. She has tried to dispute this through the tribunal system and the DWP complaints process. But even though the judge in the tribunal was sympathetic, the response has been that the DWP has the power to recover all overpayments, regardless of how they are caused. D now has £20 deducted from each UC payment she receives but no record from the DWP of how much she still owes.
It simply should not be the case that claimants such as D are paying the price for DWP mistakes. Public Law Project research demonstrates that the financial and psychological impact of overpayment debt recovery on individual claimants can be severe and is often associated with a particular sense of injustice. Understandably so, with individuals finding themselves unexpectedly in debt through no fault of their own.
The DWP’s default approach is to recover all overpayments regardless of how they are caused. The onus is on claimants to request discretionary measures, such as a waiver, but the DWP does not automatically tell them this. In 2023-24, only 75 waiver requests were granted; this equates to only 0.01% of overpayment debts registered that year. Could my noble friend tell the Committee what steps, if any, the DWP is taking to make waivers more accessible? In particular, would it consider following the example of the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland and automatically including reference to waivers in communications with claimants? Will it consider lowering the thresholds and evidential requirements to grant waivers?
In the Commons, the Minister referred to measures that were in place to mitigate the risk of harm associated with overpayment recovery. I welcome the introduction of the fair repayment rate, which I am sure my noble friend will mention. However, access to some of these safeguards is not an easy process for claimants to navigate. Moreover, as evidenced by research from the Public Law Project, Citizens Advice, the Trussell Trust and StepChange, and acknowledged by the DWP’s own guidance, those safeguards are not sufficient to prevent harm and hardship.
This was illustrated by a recent report from Policy in Practice about deductions from UC in general. It observed that many low-income households are already in crisis and at risk of deep poverty, prior to the application of deductions. I know that I do not have to explain to my noble friend the difficulties of trying to survive on universal credit and how low it is. That will still be the case despite the welcome, real-terms increase being proposed in the legislation currently before the Commons. Policy in Practice found that deductions risk placing households further from being able to afford the essential items of daily life. This is particularly the case for lone parents and carers.
Citizens Advice reports that fewer than 40% of its clients who contacted the DWP were successful in getting an affordability measure put in place, yet the DWP’s own guidance recognises that any recovery of an overpayment from any person in receipt of benefit is almost certain to cause some hardship and upset for them and their family. What criteria does the DWP use to decide what is an affordable deduction? Would the DWP consider agreeing an affordable and sustainable repayment plan with claimants before initiating recovery by way of deductions?
As I said, overpayment recovery is taking the individual below the amount that the DWP has assessed them to need, in a context where UC rates have already been shown to be insufficient to meet essential needs—a point emphasised by Policy in Practice. This is why I have tabled an amendment to bring the test for recovery of UC overpayments into line with the current test for housing benefit. It would ensure that UC overpayments caused by official error could be recovered only when individuals could reasonably have been expected to have realised that they had been overpaid. It places the onus on DWP officials to consider the fairness of recovery before initiating it. When UC was introduced, the then Labour shadow Minister for Employment considered this a just and fair test, which has been tested in case law.
This amendment would also create a clear incentive for the DWP to prevent these mistakes in the first place, which is a step towards a better-functioning social security system that gets things right first time. We ought to pay attention to the more than 30 charities that have written to the Secretary of State urging the Government to grasp this opportunity.
In introducing the Bill’s Second Reading, my noble friend stated:
“Our approach is tough but fair … fair on claimants, by spotting and stopping errors earlier and helping people to avoid getting into debt. It is fair on those who play by the rules”.—[Official Report, 15/5/25; col. 2346.]
But the current system is patently unfair to those who have been affected by an official error that they could not be expected to spot, and who have played by the rules as they understood them.
This is a fundamental question of fairness and of rights and responsibilities. If a government system makes mistakes, who should bear the consequences? Is it the system that caused the error and has the power to avoid it, or the service user who has no control over, or responsibility for, that mistake and, worse, is detrimentally affected by it? If we are serious about addressing fraud, error and the recovery of debt in the Bill, it would—for want of a better word—be an error on our part not to take action to end this unfair practice and source of economic instability for hundreds of thousands of families and individuals whom our social security system is there to serve. I beg to move.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak in support of the amendment because it raises, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, pointed out, a question of principle. Should a person who received payments in error always be required to make restitution in full?
We are dealing with the application of this principle in the context of welfare payments, but it may be useful to keep in mind how this principle would apply in other contexts under our law. The default position is, as one would expect, that a party that has received money in error is obliged to return that money. However, it is also the case that our law has developed an important exception to this general position. This is known as the change of position defence, which was first recognised by Lord Goff in the case Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd 1991, where he said that
“the defence is available to a person whose position is so changed that it would be inequitable in all the circumstances to require him to make restitution, or alternatively, to make restitution in full”.
In essence, where the person has changed their position, in good faith, in reliance on that payment—for example, by spending it—restitution in a non-welfare context may be denied in whole or in part.
As I said, it is an equitable exception that our law has developed over a number of decades and on the basis of various decisions. It is a complex area of law known as unjust enrichment, on which many doctoral theses have been written. The reason it has attracted so much attention is that there is a conflict of fairness. On the one hand, it seems right that the payer who paid in error should, in principle, receive the money back and that people should not derive benefit from someone else’s innocent error. On the other, it also seems wrong that someone who made no error and relied, in good faith, on that payment should be unduly penalised. The common law and equity seek to strike a balance between these two concerns with the change of position exception that I have outlined.
For welfare payments, we are dealing with a context where statute rather than common law applies; however, it seems that the concerns that the common law has sought to address in other contexts arise even more acutely. The people who received the payments are socioeconomically disadvantaged and very likely to have spent that money, as the case mentioned by the noble Baroness illustrates. Thus, they are very likely to have changed, in good faith, their position by relying on those payments. To ask them to return that money is particularly burdensome on individuals who are on benefits and without a safety net.
Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act, which the amendment proposes to change, seems a very blunt instrument. It responds to that first concern—to ensure that the payer, in this case the taxpayer, should have their money back—but it does nothing to protect the bona fide recipient of that payment from being penalised unduly. For that reason, it seems a fundamentally unfair provision. It seems wrong that the protection that a bona fide recipient of a payment in error would enjoy in other contexts, including a commercial context, should not apply to the bona fide recipient of a welfare payment made in error. This amendment seeks to remedy that unfairness, and it has my support for that reason.
It is true that Section 71ZB gives the Government a discretion and I suppose it will be said that there is guidance that tells the Government to exercise that discretion, taking into account certain circumstances. But the good will of the payer is not sufficient and that certainly is not the position under the general common law on restitution. It is not just a matter of the payer having the good will not to pursue the recovery of the payment; there has to be more to recognise that the innocent beneficiary, too, has an entitlement to protection. It seems to me that this amendment seeks to provide that correction to Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
I will, of course, be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the various mitigations that might exist, but at the moment I agree that, unless the mitigation is in statute, whatever guidance might be in place will not be sufficient. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister and her officials for the very informative briefing last week.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and others, which would bring the test for recovery of universal credit overpayments caused by official error into line with Regulation 100(2) of the Housing Benefit Regulations 2006.
At present, the Department for Work and Pensions is empowered to recover universal credit overpayments even when they result from its own mistakes—a policy introduced with the Welfare Reform Act 2012. This approach marks a significant departure from the previous position on legacy benefits, where overpayments arising from official error could be recovered only if the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment. The current system places an unfair burden on claimants, many of whom have no way of knowing that an error has occurred yet are still liable for repayment. I am grateful for the legal expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, on this, showing that it is a complicated matter, with many legal precedents that I trust the Minister will take into account.
The evidence we have shows that the recovery of official-error overpayments can have severe financial and psychological impacts, with some individuals facing destitution as a result of sudden deductions from their benefits. The amendment would restore a vital safeguard by ensuring that only those overpayments that a claimant could reasonably have been expected to notice are recoverable, aligning universal credit with the principles of fairness and justice that underlie our social security system. This change would not prevent the recovery of overpayments where there has been claimant error or fraud but would, I hope, protect honest claimants from being penalised for mistakes entirely out of their control.
Many people do not look too closely at the moneys that come into their bank or Post Office account. They receive it and they think it is what they should receive. Sometimes it is not enough and sometimes, as we are discussing here, it might be too much. But most people take it and use it. We used to have this problem with council house rents, where the benefits were paid to the householder and they sometimes had to make a choice: did they buy bread and food or pay the rent? They used it for bread and food and did not have the money for rent. The rents started to be paid direct to the local authority or housing association, in order to mitigate that. It tends to prove the fact that people do not notice: they take what is needed and receive it. I urge noble Lords to support this amendment, to ensure that the system is both compassionate and just. I commend it to the Committee.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, in speaking for the first time today, I take this opportunity to offer my congratulations to the Deputy Chairman of Committees, the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, on the arrival of his grandchild; I think he had indicated that he or she had arrived. It is interesting to reflect that when we started off on day one of Committee there was either a wedding or a honeymoon or both— I forget—and this allows me to declare a small interest of my own, which is that my daughter is due to give birth in two weeks.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Right now, however, I want to speak with a degree of sympathy for the principle underlying Amendment 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and supported, as she said, by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. I realise that the latter two are not in their place, but I understand that there is a good bit of interest in matters being debated in the Chamber at present and it may be that that is the reason.
The amendment raises a fair and important point of principle—namely, that there must be a clear distinction between those who have wilfully defrauded the state and those who have received overpayments through no fault of their own and could not reasonably have known that those payments were made in error. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, eloquently laid out the arguments. We do not dispute that it is right for the state to recover money where fraud or deception has occurred, nor do we oppose the robust recovery of public funds where a claimant has knowingly continued to receive payments to which they were not entitled.
However, the amendment speaks to the cases where, due to administrative error or system failure, a claimant has been paid more than they were due and where they had no reasonable means of knowing that an error had occurred. In those cases, I believe that we must proceed with care. It is not fair to treat an individual as if they had committed wrongdoing if they were in effect passive recipients of a departmental error.
While we support the spirit of the amendment, though, it is important also to assert that public money, even when paid out in error, does not cease to be public money. It does not become the property of the claimant simply by virtue of its mistaken disbursement. When the state overpays, be that through a clerical oversight, a system issue or human error, we believe that that money is still owed to the public purse. That point is crucial because these funds are not abstract; they are the same funds from which other benefits are paid. They are resources that should be available to support others in need, those who are waiting on payments or who rely on the timely and correct functioning of our welfare system. Every unrecovered overpayment is, in a sense, money that could otherwise have gone to another person in genuine need. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would agree with that.
While I share the concern that individuals should not be penalised for departmental mistakes, I would be cautious about supporting a provision that could be interpreted as writing off the recovery of all such payments. There must be safeguards to ensure that claimants are treated fairly, yes, but also a means to ensure that taxpayers’ money is recovered, albeit in a sensitive and proportionate way. This is where I listened intently and with interest to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, and the precedent that he said was set by law. I am the first to say that where there is law that has been laid down, it should of course apply.
This is where proportionality becomes key. The Department for Work and Pensions must take steps to distinguish genuine error from deception and it must act reasonably in recovery, offering a choice of, for example, repayment plans or hardship considerations and, where appropriate, writing off small sums, however that is defined, that would cost more to recover than they were worth. However, it is not unreasonable to expect that, where a person receives a payment to which they were not entitled, even by mistake, and is later made aware of that error, the money should be returned.
For fear of being described as naive, I would say that the vast majority of people are honest and fair and would, as I would put it, fess up to receiving money that they were not due or were not expecting and would take steps to return the money in full. It is those very people who should be supported for their citizenship and honesty, rather than turning a blind eye to those who would not have owned up and would definitely have kept the moneys erroneously paid out. It does not matter whether you are poor or not so poor; the moneys are still wrongly paid out. It is fundamentally a matter of honesty. The example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is a case in point and I listened carefully to what she said. Of course, it has to be handled extremely carefully and sensitively and I am sure that the department is well up to dealing with that. However, we should support those who do the right thing by making sure that those who do the wrong thing do not benefit. That is a strong message.
I suggest that, rather than inserting a hard and fast rule in primary legislation, there may be room for improved guidance and safeguards in the code of practice, or through the incorporation of more effective, independent oversight, to ensure that these cases are dealt with proportionately and fairly. This chimes with questions that have been raised in this very short debate, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
Can the Minister state what continuing steps the DWP is taking to ensure that moneys are paid out to the correct people at the correct time? If she has the figures to hand, can she enlighten us on the reasons for error? For example, how much error is due to human error and how much to systems breakdowns?
In summary, we support the intent of the amendment—to ensure that the system is not punitive where there has been no wrongdoing—but we hesitate to go so far as to say that such funds should not be recovered at all. So I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to outline, in her response, how the department will make these distinctions. As she knows, we have also raised this matter on previous days in Committee, so I hope that she will use this chance to speak about what internal corrections or changes have been made—or will need to be made—when payments are made in error. I imagine that this could include a four-eyes principle of oversight of systems; one may already be in place, but I wonder how effective it is.
To conclude, we are faced with two distinct problems: first, how we treat those who have received payments in genuine error, so that they are protected from undue negative effects; and, secondly, how the department will address the mistakes that were made internally.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate.
As my noble friend Lady Lister explained, her Amendment 123 seeks to prevent the recovery of overpayments in universal credit and new-style benefits in instances where the claimant or their representative could not reasonably have been expected to realise that they had been overpaid. This would apply to the recovery of existing and future official-error overpayments. Although I understand my noble friend’s arguments, I regret that I am not able to accept her amendment. However, I will set out how this issue came about, what the department is doing about it and the way that we address it when it arises.
I will first take on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, which was referenced by the noble Viscount. We all of course obey the law, but, as I think the noble Lord said, common law is displaced by Section 71ZB of the 1992 Act, and, therefore, this is the law that we are currently applying. He suggested that it was a “very blunt instrument”, but it is not intended to be so. He may or may not find the way that I will describe how we deal with problems, when they come up, satisfactory, but I shall attempt to do that.
It is worth saying at the start that, as my noble friend indicated, the background to this is the Welfare Reform Act 2012, which was introduced under the coalition Government. That Act allowed all overpayments of universal credit, new-style JSA and new-style ESA to be recovered, regardless of the cause of the overpayment. The policy was introduced on the basis that money overpaid from the public purse should be recovered, with appropriate support—which I will come back to later—for anyone struggling with repayments.
Universal credit is what I gather is technically called a “dynamic benefit”: it supports people as they move in and out of work, or as their earnings change as they go up and down. I am told that part of the design consideration was therefore to operate in a similar way to the employer/employee relationship, which includes the recovery of overpayments. Having looked in Hansard at the Public Bill Committee debates at the time this was introduced, I saw that it was argued that, in practice, most overpayments of UC and new-style ESA and JSA would be recoverable to protect the public purse, but a decision could be made that part or all of the overpayment did not have to be repaid. It was argued that preventing DWP recovering official-error over- payments, as with old-style benefits, was not appropriate and that the system should allow a common-sense approach to the recoverability of overpayments.
That flexibility to recover overpayments of universal credit is, to some degree, crucial to allow the department to make corrections to an individual’s entitlement between assessment periods, because of the way that universal credit works. For example, if someone has a change of circumstances late in their payment period, they may be overpaid universal credit in that period, and that overpayment would need to be recovered from their payment in the next period. That flexibility clearly has to be retained.
I cannot comment on individual cases, as my noble friend will understand. However, we understand that overpayments, however they arise, can cause anxiety to those faced with repayments. In answer to the noble Viscount, the Government are very focused on improving payment accuracy in the first place and on preventing overpayments occurring through better use of data and continuous improvement activity. We are acting now and using learning from existing programmes; for example, insight from the DWP’s targeted case review of universal credit is already helping to shape continuous improvement and will support future preventive measures. The noble Viscount may recall that from his time in government.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am afraid it was remiss of me not to congratulate the Chair on the recent addition to his family and to send best wishes to his daughter—fingers crossed, and I hope it all goes well.
I thank all noble Lords who spoke, including the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame—he sounded so learned that I want to call him noble and learned—for his helpful contribution. There is something very comforting about having someone who knows the law coming in behind you and saying that this is a point of principle. I very much appreciated that, as well as the support of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.
I appreciated the sympathy expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, but it felt a bit like doing contortions so as not to have to criticise what his Government introduced. I do not accept the argument about public money. It is not like there is little pot and that if some of that pot goes to someone who has been overpaid because of the department’s error, that money will not be there for other claimants. The talk about public money felt a bit like some of the arguments around taxation being theft and so forth because it is public, the “It’s our money, not their money” sort of thing. Anyway, I appreciate the sympathy with which he approached the question, and I appreciate my noble friend, as always, engaging fully with what was said. I am disappointed that the department is not willing at all to budge on this.
We have to remember that universal credit is complicated. It may have been sold to us by the previous Government as a simplification but, in fact, it is complicated and, therefore, not surprising if people do not understand the payment that goes into their bank account. Who understands how universal credit is worked out? The answer is not many people. That has to be borne in mind when we are talking about what it is reasonable to expect people to know and respond to. The noble Lord opposite talked about fessing up and realising they have got it wrong, but people may not realise they have got it wrong until it is brought to their attention by the department because, tardily—we will hear more about that when it comes to carer’s allowance—it is brought to their attention that the payment is wrong. It is a question not of hiding but of simply not knowing.
I understand that universal credit is a dynamic benefit and that the payments are different from what went before—it is different from housing benefit—but surely there could be a provision that allowed for repayment not to be made in certain circumstances. My noble friend talked about a right of appeal, but that is pointless in this situation. The person who contacted me, D, went to appeal. She had a lovely judge at the appeal who looked at what the DWP said and said, “I’d really like to be able to give you this, but I can’t because the law does not allow me to.” Everybody’s time was wasted. She was given undue expectations. My noble friend said that people are encouraged to contact the recovery team and work out a decent repayment rate. I am not involved in the day-to-day business of universal credit, but the organisations that have helped with this and asked me to put this forward know the situation, and that is not how they see it. What should happen in theory does not always happen in practice on the ground.
If nothing else, perhaps this amendment will encourage the DWP to look again at its procedures and the guidance to make sure that things are happening as they are supposed to happen so that the picture that my noble friend painted is an accurate picture of what happens on the ground. I will obviously want to read in more detail to see whether we want to bring this back. I very much appreciate my noble friend answering my rather nerdy questions. It is not the first time that we have exchanged nerdiness in this Room. With that, I will withdraw the amendment but will want to consider what we do on Report.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I shall just pick up on what the noble Baroness said about universal credit and the fact that it is quite complicated. I hope she will agree that the old system, where there were six benefits, was particularly overcomplicated and that one of the successes of the past 14 years of government was that the six benefits became one. I hope she might accept that it is not quite so complicated and that, secondly, as I have been told and believe, if we had not done that then the system of paying out benefits would have been in severe trouble during the Covid period.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I do not want to have a long debate with the noble Viscount about the pros and cons of universal credit because we would be here all night. I just point out that it may be simpler overall to have it all in one, but that does not make the one in itself any simpler. Some of the rules around universal credit are very complicated to understand because they do not always make sense. That was the point I meant to make. I am not saying that it was nirvana beforehand, but at least then an overpayment error made without the claimant knowing was not repaid, so in that sense it was better, but I will not go into any more detail about that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Stansgate) (Lab)
I hope the Committee will allow me to express my thanks for the kind words expressed on the birth of my first granddaughter. I wish other grandchildren a successful arrival in the world.
Amendment 124
“Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s AllowanceThe Secretary of State may not exercise any of the powers of recovery under this Act in relation to a person who has received an overpayment of Carer’s Allowance until such time as—(a) the Secretary of State has commissioned an independent review of the overpayment of Carer's Allowance;(b) the review has concluded its inquiry and submitted a report containing recommendations to the Secretary of State;(c) the Secretary of State has laid the report of the independent review before Parliament;(d) the Secretary of State has implemented the recommendations of the independent review.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would delay any payments being taken from people who the Government may think owe repayments on Carer’s Allowance until the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My congratulations to everybody. I shall speak also to Amendment 127 in my name. These amendments seek to delay any payments being taken from carers whom the Government believe owe repayments on carer’s allowance, something I have spoken about a lot during this Committee, until the independent review into carer’s allowance overpayments has been published and, crucially, fully implemented. It is a matter of justice and basic fairness that we do not penalise carers, who are the unsung heroes who support our most vulnerable, while the very system that created those overpayments is under independent scrutiny.
We know from recent figures that at least £357 million has been overpaid since 2019, with many carers accruing large debts that they were not aware of through no fault of their own, often because the Department for Work and Pensions failed to act swiftly on overpayment alerts or to communicate effectively with carers about their obligations. The independent review, commissioned by the Secretary of State and led by Liz Sayce, is tasked with uncovering how those overpayments occurred, how to support those affected and how to prevent such distressing situations in the future. Until we have the benefit of its findings and recommendations, it would be unconscionable to proceed with debt recovery that would push already struggling carers into future hardship.
Furthermore, Amendment 127 proposes that the implementation of what will then be the Act be delayed until the review’s findings are published and acted upon. This is a call not for indefinite inaction but for responsible and evidence-based law-making. The Government’s decision to commission this review is a recognition of the serious flaws in the current system, whether it is just one payment or a mass of payments, as we discussed on the previous amendment, and the real harm caused to carers, many of whom breached the earnings limit by only a small amount yet face life-changing debts. To proceed with the Act before we have learned the lessons from this debacle risks repeating the same mistakes and undermining public trust. We owe it to carers and to the integrity of our social security system to ensure that legislative changes are informed by a full understanding of the problem and a clear plan for preventing its recurrence. Let us show carers the respect they deserve by pausing, listening and acting on the independent review before we ask them to pay a penny more. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise extremely briefly and apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that I could not be in the previous group as I was in the Chamber. I will take seconds to intervene in the interesting debate between the noble Baroness and the noble Viscount to say that, of course, if you have a universal basic income, that is an extremely simple system to administer that would not create any of these kinds of problems.
Anyway, I rise with great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and to back in particular Amendment 124, although I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to Amendment 127. I felt I had to speak because I raised at some length in earlier discussions the case of Nicola Green. That is one case, but overall the Government have been clawing back £357 million. Hundreds of people have acquired criminal records in what I think most people would agree are entirely unjust circumstances, whatever the detail of the law. Some people now face debts of up to £20,000 or more.
This amendment—waiting until we have the review and not doing more damage to individuals’ lives and to the reputations of the Government and the Department for Work and Pensions—is a really simple, practical measure, and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for doing this and for powerfully presenting his case. I also align myself very much with his tributes to unpaid family carers, who are doing so much in our society for what are, on a week-to-week basis, derisory sums of money for an incredible amount of labour.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I rise very briefly. My noble friend said that the department tries to move as quickly as possible when there is an error in payment, but, patently, that did not happen with carer’s allowance. Therefore, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for raising the issue. Part of the problem was that the DWP allowed the overpayments to accumulate until they were really significant and, given the way the cliff edge works, you could be a tiny amount over and end up having to repay the whole of your carer’s allowance. So it is a really important issue.
I want to ask my noble friend a question. Do we know when the review will be published? How quickly does the department hope to be able to move once it has been published? In a sense, that affects the practical impact of the noble Lord’s amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too rise very briefly. A number of us have raised this scandal throughout Committee and the Minister has rightly said, “Well, there’s an independent review, I really can’t comment until we get the findings”. I say, “If we can’t comment until we get the findings of the independent review, the Government shouldn’t be taking money from the carers. That would seem obvious to me. Let’s wait until we’ve got the findings of the independent review”.
However, this speaks to the moral dilemma that was very well articulated by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. It is something that has been troubling many of us throughout Committee: the Bill fails to distinguish between the ways people are treated for error and for fraud. Through no fault of their own, they end up in some instances being criminalised and certainly subject to some quite severe powers. That has always felt morally unjustifiable.
Another point this raises is that, although we constantly say that the moral case for this is that the money must be reclaimed, many instances of error seem to be due to errors made by the DWP, yet there is never any clarity about how, morally, it might be asked to pay. I am not suggesting that it pays financially, but if we are saying that those who make an error must pay, I do not understand why the DWP has not, as part of the Bill, made it clear which errors made by the department or state bodies the public will be able to hold them to account for when they are made. The scandal of the carers has cut through with the public: people know about it and are discussing it, and they in no way think that these people are welfare scroungers, frauds or doing anything wrong. So I urge the Government in this instance to be very clear that they will not act, as this amendment rightly argues, at least until the inquiry has brought its conclusions into the public arena.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I hope to be even more brief. I have sympathy for this amendment, but it is backward-looking, as it relates to situations that have already happened. We also need to stop them happening in the future. These problems have arisen because of a very badly designed benefit. It has a cliff-edge threshold. Cliff-edge thresholds will always be the ones that cause problems, so I really hope that we learn the lessons from this situation and stop applying cliff-edge thresholds to benefits. It does not work and is almost guaranteed to create problems of this nature.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, these amendments are well intentioned—an expression I believe I used in the last group, but I mean it. I want to acknowledge from the outset that they speak to a principle that I believe we can all support: the importance of integrating independent expert advice into the policy and operational decisions that we take, especially in areas where there have been clear signs that something has gone wrong.
The ongoing concerns around carer’s allowance overpayments are a case in point. The issue has rightly attracted attention, both inside and outside the House, in particular last year, and I believe that the decision to commission an independent review is right. Where there are systemic weaknesses, whether in communication, process or oversight, they must be identified and addressed, and we should absolutely be willing to listen to expert recommendations to improve how the DWP operates in the future.
I want to recognise the principle behind these amendments: it would be wrong to ignore serious and credible concerns raised by carers, campaigners and the public. They deserve answers and a process that ensures that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. That is why the review matters, and I hope we will all welcome it when it reports. I add to the questions raised earlier about the timing and when it will come.
However, that brings me to the core of my hesitation with these amendments. Although they stem from an entirely legitimate concern, I fear that they may go too far in how they propose to respond to it. Amendment 124, as laid out eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would delay all recovery of carer’s allowance overpayments until the independent review had concluded and, crucially, all its recommendations had been implemented. Amendment 127 goes even further, effectively delaying the entire Act until those recommendations have been acted on.
I am not sure that this is a workable or proportionate course of action. We must remember that the review currently under way is, as I understand it, largely focused—this is an important point—on prevention. It asks how overpayments were allowed to happen in the first place, what lessons can be drawn and how the department can ensure that this does not recur. That is vital, but it is a forward-looking exercise: it is about improving systems going forward, not about deciding whether an overpayment that has already been identified should be recovered. The Minister might want to comment on my assessment of the review.
To put it plainly, if an overpayment has been made and the department has established this through due process, that money is owed to the public purse. The review likely will not and should not change that fundamental fact. We should not conflate the need to prevent future errors with the obligation to recover public funds that have already been incorrectly distributed. We are talking about money that could and should be supporting others in genuine need—to further a theme I made in the last group. While it is essential that recovery processes are fair and humane, it is also important that the recovery duty is not unduly delayed.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. Before I get stuck in, I say two things. First, I cannot believe that I failed to congratulate both the grandparents of old and the soon-to-be grandparents. I share in the joy that has arrived and is coming. I also take a moment to pay tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across the country—grandparents and many other kinds. This Government value carers very highly and we recognise the vital and valuable contribution that they make every day.
I turn to the carer’s allowance. When we came into government, it became clear that there were far too many cases where hard-working carers, on carer’s allowance, had been left with large overpayments to be repaid—sometimes worth thousands of pounds. As a result, the Secretary of State acted to commission an independent review of earnings-related overpayments of carer’s allowance to understand exactly what had gone wrong and to make the necessary improvements for the future. The review is well under way; in answer to my noble friend, we expect to receive the report from the independent review in the near future, possibly late summer—that is one of those nice, flexible, government seasons. I hope that it will be before we are all shivering in this Room rather than sweltering. We will publish the report and our initial response as soon as is practicable thereafter.
The Government set up the review because we are determined to deal with the problems that the system has created for carers. The Secretary of State is eagerly awaiting the report, and she will give the closest consideration to every recommendation. However, as the noble Viscount pointed out, no Government could commit in advance to implementing every recommendation of an independent review sight unseen. I suspect that, if I had announced today that I would be very happy to commit to every recommendation, the Committee might raise a sceptical eyebrow about the genuine independence of the review. In fact, I do not know what the review will say and therefore I am in no position to say what is going to happen or what the Government will do about it. Having gone to the trouble of commissioning it and picking somebody independent to do it—Liz Sayce—the Secretary of State will manifestly look carefully at what comes out.
To stop the use of the new debt recovery powers on any overpayments of carer’s allowance—as Amendment 124 would do—until each and every recommendation had been accepted and implemented would not be proportionate. Maybe I could reassure the Committee that the Government have not been treading water while waiting for the review; we have already taken steps to address the problems that carers have been experiencing. In response to the noble Viscount, letters are sent out with prominent statements about the need to let the DWP know about changes in circumstances, and we send texts to people following alerts about earnings payments from HMRC, again to encourage them to do that.
We have basically been reviewing all our communications to make it as easy as possible for carers to tell the DWP when there has been a change in their circumstances that might affect their carer’s allowance. Crucially, we introduced the largest increase in the earnings limit since carer’s allowance was introduced in 1976. The earnings limit is now 16 hours’ work at the national living wage, and over 60,000 more people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between 2025-26 and 2029-30.
There are safeguards and protections for those with overpayments, both in existing law and in the Bill, including review and appeal rights, affordable repayment plans and, in exceptional cases, waivers of the debt. Those safeguards ensure that all debtors, not just those with debts from claiming carer’s allowance, are protected.
I remind noble Lords that we are talking specifically about these debt recovery powers. As I have gone on about extensively, these are powers of last resort to be used only with debtors who are not on benefit, including carer’s allowance, and not on PAYE employment. They are to be used only with those who receive income via other means and who can afford to repay, but choose not to do so. This amendment would put people in that category in a better position than those who are on benefits or on PAYE.
Amendment 127, again because I cannot commit in advance to implementing the recommendations of the review, would be even more disproportionate, because it would delay the entire Bill from coming into force until that had happened. Given the benefits that the Bill is expected to deliver, not just in the social security system but in the public sector more widely, that cannot be proportionate. We know that billions of pounds are being lost to public sector fraud; delaying this Act coming into force would put at risk an estimated £1.5 billion of benefits over the next five years, as scored by the OBR. This would place pressure on the Government’s fiscal position and on taxpayers, who deserve to have the confidence that money is being spent by the Government reaching out to those who are entitled to it. The Bill introduces new and important safeguards, including independent oversight and new rights of review and appeal to ensure the proportionate and effective use of the powers. I believe that these protections are sufficient and that we do not need to wait for the outcome of the review simply to proceed with the rest of the Bill.
I also make the point that some of the measures in the Bill are crucial for preventing the types of errors that we found in relation to carer’s allowance. For example, the eligibility verification measure, although we are not proposing to use it in relation to carer’s allowance, will improve DWP’s access to important data to help verify entitlement, ensure that payments of the benefits it covers are correct, and prevent the build-up of large overpayments in those three key benefits. It is important that the DWP is equipped with the right tools.
I will comment on a few questions that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, as so often, made an absolutely crucial point: this is a very unusual benefit. It is a cliff-edge benefit and, therefore, if somebody goes over it even slightly, for example on earnings, it can make a very significant overpayment appear. As the Chancellor said at the Budget, we do need to look at the current cliff-edge earnings rules. It might be that a taper, for example, could incentivise unpaid carers to do some work, and reduce the risk of significant overpayments. However, I need to manage expectations. Introducing a taper into carer’s allowance is not without its challenges and could complicate quite a straightforward benefit significantly. It would need a significant technical rebuild. The DWP has begun to do some scoping work to see whether an earnings taper in carer’s allowance might be a feasible option in the longer term. But that could take some years to come through: I ought to be clear about that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, made some important points about understanding that there is a range of types of error that have arisen in relation to carer’s allowance. I remind the Committee that there is no recovery from carer’s allowance of official error: we are not talking about what is classed as official error. These are errors. I will have to look at the record, but it is possible that the figure that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned related not just to overpayments about earnings but to all the overpayments in carer’s allowance. Perhaps he could clarify that at the end and, if I am wrong, I apologise and I will clarify that to him.
The reason that is important to clarify is that, looking back, from 2018-19 to 2023-24, there was a fluctuation in the number of overpayments. The values varied. The main cause of carer’s allowance overpayments is a claimant having earnings that exceed the permitted limit. In 2023-24, the causes of new overpayment cases referred to our debt management were as follows: 57% of cases related to earnings, which was a lower proportion than previously, when it was nearly 60%; 23.5% of cases were caused by a claimant who was not providing care any more; 3.1% were caused by breaks in care; 15.8% were for other reasons, which could be that the claimant was in prison, was in full-time education, was getting another benefit or had moved abroad, or the person being cared for had died. There was a range of reasons. So there is a range of reasons why somebody may be overpaid, not all of which are related to earnings.
The job of the Government is to use the benefits of the independent review and the insights it will give us to try to make sure that we make it as easy as possible for claimants to tell us when changes happen, so they do not make those mistakes. Also, we will look carefully at what other recommendations are made and we will do whatever we can that seems reasonable within the powers and resources we have to see how we can make this better. We have also made a number of steps already to try to improve things, including by sending out messages, communicating and raising that ceiling for earnings in the first place. Given all that, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, that was a very detailed debate, and a challenging one in some ways. I say to the Minister, from my time in local government, going round to people who were in council or housing association properties, that I often saw behind the clock the unopened envelopes from HMRC or the DWP. There is no excuse for people just ignoring it, but that is the real world. People do not always open envelopes that might have unfortunate things in them. As a chartered accountant, this is anathema to me, but the fact is that that was the reality of my 28 years on a local council. It was the case: people were not getting and opening the communication, even though it was properly given.
The Minister spoke about the taper. I can probably count on one hand how many recipients understand the taper. They know that they have received or not received a certain amount. The idea that everyone understands the taper is ridiculous.
What these amendments seek to do is purely to ensure that the completion of the review is done as soon as possible. I really do mean as soon as possible. If there is a delay in doing the review, I ask for that delay to be given to the claimants as well. Why should they not have a delay in dealing with it, if the Government cannot get their review together? Delays work both ways.
The Minister spoke about the review in the near future. The near future is so nebulous when people are being bullied on overpayments. The Minister asks about the £357 million. I honestly cannot give you the proper answer other than that I was given that figure as the overpayments since 2019. It is not immediate but it builds up like interest on a loan builds up.
“Fair process and human interventionWhen any automated system has been involved in decision making which will affect will affect overpayments recovered from an individual, no final decision shall be considered valid or acted upon unless—(a) the outcome of any process involving an automated system has been subject to meaningful and documented human oversight, such that a human decision-maker has reviewed, understood, and taken responsibility for the final determination, (b) the recipient has been provided with an individual explanation of the relevant decision in their case, including a clear explanation of how an automated system has impacted the decision,(c) the recipient has had the opportunity to make representations, and(d) the recipient is been given information about how they can challenge the decision.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to secure fair administrative processes and meaningful human oversight for benefits recipients when they are subject to decision-making processes which include automated systems.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will put this amendment in the context of the discussion on the previous group. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the Minister have been telling us regularly that this is all about people who do not engage. As the noble Lord said, he has seen people with a stack of envelopes behind the cheese board or whatever, but I have met many disabled people, particularly because of the demonstrations I have been on, for whom the arrival of the postman every day is a point of fear. People are absolutely terrified and are used to never receiving good news from the DWP. We have to acknowledge the context in which people are not engaging; it may be more than their mental health can take. We have to look at all these amendments in that context.
I warn noble Lords with subsequent amendments that I do not expect this group to take long, because we have already canvassed these issues extensively in terms of the use of algorithms and whether there is a human in the loop—to borrow terminology from another area of technology. Amendment 124A moves towards overpayments recovered from an individual. No final decision shall be considered valid or acted upon unless there is—the terminology here is important—
“meaningful and documented human oversight”,
and a human decision-maker has reviewed, understood and taken responsibility for the final determination. In some ways, this picks up the points made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about there having to be a responsible person in the DWP who can be held to account.
Under proposed new subsection (b), the recipient must have been
“provided with an individual explanation of the relevant decision in their case, including a clear explanation of how an automated system has impacted the decision”.
People need to know that there is this machine in the loop, so they at least understand what is happening to them, have a chance to make representations and are told how they can appeal if they want to appeal. We have canvassed these issues extensively. The amendment particularly addresses the situation that we saw in Australia with the enormous Robodebt scandal, with money being taken off people by a totally automated system. Many people knew that there were issues at the time and the Government in Australia kept being warned that this was going to be a problem. It was an unmitigated disaster, for which apologies had to be made, heads rolled and so on. This amendment is a sensible way in which to protect benefit recipients, as well as the Government from getting themselves tangled into things that they really do not want to get tangled in.
Finally, I suspect the Minister may say, “Well, this is going to happen anyway” but, if that is the case, why not put it into the Bill? I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly address Amendment 124A, which seeks
“to secure fair administrative processes and meaningful human oversight”—
that is the point—
“for benefits recipients when … automated systems”
are used for decision-making. We have seen those problems with the Post Office and it happens all over.
The increasing adoption of algorithmic and automated decision-making within the public sector offers clear benefits in efficiency and consistency, but it also introduces significant risks, particularly around transparency, bias and the potential for unfair outcomes.
The Public Authority Algorithmic and Automated Decision-Making Systems Bill—that is a mouthful, is not it?—aims to regulate the use of these technologies, requiring impact assessments and transparency standards to ensure that decisions affecting individuals are accountable and subject to appropriate scrutiny. Amendment 124A aligns with those objectives by emphasising the need, as the noble Baroness said, for “human oversight”, especially where decisions have substantial effects on people’s lives.
It is essential that, when we embrace innovative technologies, we do not lose sight of the fundamental principles of fairness and accountability in public administration. Automated systems may be deployed in a way that mitigates risks to individuals and society and provides clear avenues for challenge and redress when errors occur. This amendment reinforces the importance of maintaining human involvement in critical decision-making processes, and ensuring that the rights of benefit recipients are protected and that public confidence in these systems is upheld. By supporting such measures, we can harness the advantages of automation while safeguarding against unintended consequences. I support this amendment.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, there is a rather gloomy atmosphere here, but I am not quite sure why. My remarks will be relatively short. I find myself in a very unusual position—namely, I offer strong support for Amendment 124A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I do so not only because it incorporates vital safeguards but because it speaks to a principle that these Benches have highlighted and pressed for throughout Committee: that powerful tools must be matched by proper protections. I think we all agree with that.
This amendment could not be timelier. The use of artificial intelligence and automated systems is rapidly expanding across Whitehall, with departments increasingly deploying these tools to assist them in undertaking administrative tasks. There are clear benefits to this: efficiency, consistency and the ability to process large volumes of data quickly. AI can be a force multiplier. It can relieve overstretched teams and streamline basic tasks—I saw that when I was in post in the department—but it can never be a substitute for fair and human decision-making where individuals’ rights, entitlements and welfare are concerned.
The temptation to lean too heavily on automation is very real, particularly in areas such as social security where volumes are high and budgets are stretched. We have sought to highlight several times to the Government the additional workload and expense that we believe the provisions in this Bill will introduce for the department. Once we incorporate the need to consider additional needs, disabilities and those at risk of coercion—important safeguards that noble Lords across the Committee have supported—we start to face a massive workload. It is feasible, in light of this, that AI will increasingly be incorporated as part of this process, but we must ensure that this temptation is tempered by caution, principle and foresight. This amendment does just that; it makes clear that automation can assist, but not replace, the human judgment at the heart of a fair welfare system. Let there be light.
We are not legislating simply for this year, or even this Parliament. We are legislating for a system that must hold up under future Governments, under future pressures and in a future where Al capabilities are likely to expand even further. In just the past couple of years, we have all seen how dramatically these technologies have entered into our lives, often with little warning and even less scrutiny. The safeguards that we write into this Bill now are therefore not merely reactive, they are pre-emptive, and they are essential, a fact that groups such as JUSTICE have recognised and highlighted to us. That is why we have tabled our amendment with the same intent and near-identical wording. It is a proposal that we support wholeheartedly, and I commend the noble Baroness for bringing it forward at this stage.
The amendment would require four simple, yet fundamental things: first, that there is meaningful human involvement in any decision-making process that includes an automated element; secondly, that the individual affected receives an individual explanation, including how automation impacted their case; thirdly, that they are given a clear opportunity to make representations; and, fourthly, that they are provided with accessible information on how to challenge the decision. These are not high bars; they are the basic hallmarks of a just and humane administrative process.
There are also some important questions around accountability here. If there are no controls in the Bill on how AI is used, there is nothing, it seems to me, that would stop the department introducing this further as a matter of operational efficiency. However, this would have massive implications for the review process, which we have rightly discussed at length during Committee. If a decision is even partially informed by AI, who is held accountable? Could the civil servant in question blame AI instead of taking responsibility?
These are serious questions, and without proper safeguards in the Bill, we have no assurance from the Government that we could not, in the very near future, have a situation in which a person is attempting to review a case in which a mistake was made where the fault lies at the feet of a computer program, to put it bluntly. If we have clear human involvement in this process—guaranteed, not just promised—at least there is a person included in determining the final decision who can be held to account. This is a vital safeguard upon which the entire review mechanism would rest.
I can anticipate the response from the Minister: she will say that a human will always be at the end of a decision. However, it is not future-proofed, and I urge her to reflect on the long-term value of this amendment and to recognise that it would strengthen the Bill not only for today, but for the years to come. If the Minister can demonstrate to the Committee that these concerns will be protected against not only now, but in perpetuity—which is, of course, the effect of legislation when passed—I would be most grateful. However, from my perspective, I fear the Minister would struggle to meet this challenge because of how the Bill is drafted. I therefore believe there would be real value in the Government adopting this amendment to make sure that they, and the people they serve, are protected not only now, but into the future.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I regard that as a challenge. I am confident that I can assure the noble Viscount in the way that he wants to be. As I have said repeatedly—ad nauseum, to be fair—throughout Committee, the Government have a responsibility to tackle fraud and error and ensure that they are minimised. Fraud and error in the social security system were responsible for the overpayment of almost £10 billion in 2023-24. We recognise that there are opportunities for technology and data to help to identify potential fraud and error risks while also understanding the need to ensure their safe and effective use. I remind the Committee that, while the DWP is improving its access to relevant data through this Bill, we are not introducing any new automated decision-making measures in the Bill.
I will explain why this amendment is unnecessary, but I will pause briefly and digress. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was commendably brief in her digression, and I will be commendably brief in mine. The Committee has at different points queried the role of automated decision-making, so I will put this point on the record. I start with the eligibility verification measure, a data-requiring measure to help the DWP identify where claimants do not meet the eligibility criteria for the benefit they are receiving. The DWP will review all information received, and DWP staff will make any decisions about entitlement where potential fraud or error is identified. No decisions will be taken using EVM data alone. Decisions about entitlement will be made only once the DWP has made further inquiries. Similarly, as previously debated, there will be no automated decision-making from the information obtained under the PSFA’s or the DWP’s information-gathering powers when we are investigating specific cases of suspected fraud. Again, decisions on the use of the new debt recovery powers will always be made by a trained member of staff.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Am I not right in thinking that that is about to change under the new Data (Use and Access) Act?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I was just about to get to that point, if the noble Lord will bear with me. Further safeguards, which apply after a relevant decision is taken, are set out in data protection law, to be amended by Section 80 of the Data (Use and Access) Act. These include providing individuals with information about significant decisions made about them and the opportunity to make representations and obtain human intervention on the decision.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised international comparisons and Australia. To be clear, the use of machine learning has led to legal action internationally, primarily because there were concerns about automated decision-making. That is not the case here, so I hope that reassures her.
This is not for this Bill and not for now, but the Committee has raised the fact that as, over time, AI will clearly be used a lot across government and the private sector, it is important that the Government make sure that all the right safeguards are in place. The DWP is leading the way on this, and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is leading several programmes of work to utilise the opportunities of AI and ensure that it is used safely. For example, the algorithmic transparency recording standard is a standardised way for public sector organisations to publish information about how and why they are using algorithmic tools. It is mandatory across central government for algorithmic tools that have a significant influence on a decision-making process with public effect or directly interact with the general public. The Government Digital Service is currently implementing the mandatory rollout of the ATRS in government departments and arm’s-length bodies.
Work is going on in this broad space, but I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that the current law and the provisions in this Bill give the noble Baroness reason to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
We have had this discussion a few times, but does the Minister accept that most if not all of the safeguards she has talked about exist not in law but in the codes, guidance and internal rules of the DWP? They could be changed at will by a future Government less robust in looking after people’s safeguards. Would it not be sensible to put something into the Bill to future-proof these safeguards? My concern is not what is happening now but what could happen in future.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I hope I have made the case, in speaking to the amendment that we have been discussing, that the law already provides those protections—or it will do so when the provisions of the data Act are implemented, if those changes have not already been made. For my money, we could not have been clearer that the Bill creates no new automated decision-making powers. DWP and fraud and error decisions are always made by humans. There is a debate to be had, broadly for the future, which is where the work being done by DSIT is really important. That is where protections across government to future-proof things need to be brought in—not in this Bill, which does not introduce any new automated decision-making powers.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, for his strong support, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for his expert contribution, which essentially said what I was about to say in my summing up: we are not necessarily talking about what this Government are doing; we are talking about ensuring that the legislation is there to put controls on what future Governments do.
This is the second time in a week that I have basked in the warm glow of support from everyone except the Government; I could get used to it. It is as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said. If the Minister is saying that this will happen, why not put it in the Bill? I will go and have a look at what she said about the data Bill. I suspect that I am probably involved in that one, too—I have so many Bills at the moment that I slightly lose track. We will look at this carefully before Report.
This will be my final contribution in this Committee because I will shortly have to run to the Chamber. We have had very fruitful debates. It is a pity that such an important Bill was not discussed in the Chamber; it will impact on many of the most vulnerable people in our communities. It is crucial that we get the Bill right and that it is seen to have had the full and proper scrutiny it deserves, but I think everyone in this Committee has done their best and we have made a good foundation to take forward to Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
“(i) the period mentioned in section 71ZK(6)(a) for P to appeal against the outcome of the review has passed without P bringing an appeal, or”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 89, page 56, line 31.
“Offence of facilitating fraud through dissemination of information(1) It shall be an offence for any person, by any means including electronic communication or publication on the internet, to intentionally publish, communicate, or otherwise make available information, advice, or instructions that are reasonably likely to be used by another person to—(a) mislead or deceive public authorities for the purpose of obtaining welfare or social security benefits to which they are not lawfully entitled;(b) circumvent eligibility checks, income or capital assessments, or other lawful mechanisms designed to verify entitlement under any enactment relating to the provision of social security or welfare benefits in the United Kingdom.(2) A person commits an offence under this section if they know, or ought reasonably to know, that the information or guidance provided—(a) is intended to facilitate dishonest conduct under the Social Security Administration Act 1992, the Welfare Reform Act 2012, or any associated regulations, or(b) will likely be used to enable or encourage another person to obtain, or attempt to obtain, benefits through deception or misrepresentation.(3) It shall be a defence for a person charged under this section to show that—(a) the information was provided for a legitimate public interest purpose, such as journalistic reporting or academic research, and not with the intention of facilitating unlawful conduct;(b) they took reasonable steps to prevent the information from being used for unlawful purposes.(4) A person found guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—(a) on summary conviction, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;(b) On conviction on indictment, to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or an unlimited fine, or both.(5) For the purposes of this section “information” includes written, audio, visual, or digital content, including content distributed via social media platforms, websites and forums.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new amendment would make it an explicit offence to facilitate fraud through the dissemination of relevant information online.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we have come to what I regard as one of the most important groups in this Committee. Amendment 125A addresses a growing and deeply troubling problem: the deliberate dissemination of information designed to assist others in committing fraud against the welfare system. It seeks, quite simply, a necessary and overdue safeguard to combat the rise of so-called “sickfluencers”.
I am sure that noble Lords across the Committee will be well aware that we are not the only ones discussing welfare today. Indeed, the Government face a serious challenge—a vote of confidence, perhaps—from their own Back-Benchers in the other place. This is a live subject and an important matter. We support the Government in their ambition to cut down the cost of welfare. It is clear from my perspective that some people need our help and are absolutely entitled to welfare payments, but we need to make sure that we draw the line in a place that makes sure that those who can work do so. I hope that chimes with the thinking of the Government as well. I take this moment to highlight that we are willing to support the Government in their ambition on this point specifically, subject to the three conditions that are: cutting the welfare budget, increasing the number of people in work and ruling out tax rises in the autumn.
When I raised the issue at Second Reading, the Minister said she would welcome proof with some examples, so I shall share some with the Committee to demonstrate the problem that we are talking about. On a YouTube channel called Mike Bolton Benefits Training, there is a series of videos in which Mr Bolton takes the viewer through the various stages of the PIP assessment process and provides scripts that can be used to score the maximum number of points. Mr Bolton bases these scripts on work that he has done with previous clients. In one video, he shares a script which he encourages viewers to recite when they are undergoing their PIP assessment, in answers to questions about accessibility. One answer that he recommends is the following:
“I always need a magnifying glass to read things like this form”.
That is simple and straightforward, and it leads to two points on the assessment. In another video, he outlines what someone would have to say in order to demonstrate that they had trouble reading and retaining information. Mr Bolton recalls the successful response that he and a previous client provided in answer to this section of the PIP assessment. The answer that he encourages the viewer to copy is:
“Even with my mum helping me, it takes a long time for me to read anything. She will sometimes read through something in just a minute, but it takes me five minutes or more before I am confident that I have understood what I am going through”.
In summing up, Mr Bolton says, and I quote him:
“What we have explained there is that, even with prompting, encouraging and explaining, she cannot read within a reasonable period of time, which would, of course, score a maximum eight points”.
There are even more egregious examples that I could draw on. A lady called Charlie Anderson with a YouTube channel in her name has a video called “Unlock the Secret Steps for WINNING Your PIP Claims—Step by Step Guide”, which runs to nearly two hours. Can your Lordships believe it? Ms Anderson goes further than providing a script to recite; she actually appears to encourage her viewers to live in a way that would score them a high number of points under the PIP assessment. For example, Ms Anderson encourages her viewers to stop washing themselves. She says in defence of this advice:
“We can maintain our personal hygiene without having a bath or shower. We do not have to feel guilty about this”.
Under the PIP assessment, you can score the full eight points if you cannot wash yourself at all—or, in this case, if you appear not to be able to wash yourself at all. If the person undergoing the assessment attends their appointment having not washed for several weeks because they have chosen not to, rather than because they are unable to, that is surely a form of fraud. The medical risks associated with not washing regularly are substantial, and providing this advice seems to be not only to encourage fraud but also to harm the viewer in the first place. If someone cannot wash because of their medical condition, that is something which should rightly be regarded and considered under the PIP assessment, but if someone is having to be convinced into not washing, that is clearly a decision that they are being asked to make in order to appear as if they have a serious medical condition—an important distinction that seems to me, again, tantamount to fraud.
Ms Anderson then seemingly encourages viewers to pretend that they suffer from medical conditions that they do not actually have. When discussing the washing and bathing element of the PIP assessment, Ms Anderson says, in advice to those giving an answer:
“This is your example: ‘My partner washes my hair for me because of my right shoulder’, and then say whatever the medical condition is that affects the right shoulder. That’s it. Keep it to being that simple”.
She then appears to encourage the viewer to pretend that they have arthritis, sharing tips on how they can convincingly claim that they have this condition. She says:
“This is really important. I’m right handed, so it would be my right side that’s more affected”—
that is, by arthritis—
“so you should giving advice always be clear on which side is worse”.
The example that Ms Anderson encourages the viewer to give to justify this claim is:
“When I get into the bath, my friend lifts my right leg into the bath for me in and out of the bath. Don’t forget the getting out bit as well”.
I turn to independence and questions in the assessment about going to the shops alone. Ms Anderson instructs the viewer to lie to their assessor about whether they can attend the shops and interact with the shopkeepers independently. She advises that the DWP assessor will ask whether the person under assessment goes to the shops alone and says that the viewer would likely say yes. Then she warns that the person will be asked if they speak to staff in the shop. She anticipates that the viewer is likely to say, “Yeah, I would say ‘hi’ to the shopkeeper”.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, as we approach the end of Committee, it has been refreshing, even though we are not in the main Chamber, that there has been so much general consensual, constructive discussion. We have had a lot of interesting, erudite, probing amendments—erudite inasmuch as they have been thoughtful and have tried to get to the heart of what we think is happening with this Bill and what we need to see changed. It has been enjoyable working across parties, including the Front Bench, the Opposition, Back-Benchers, Cross-Benchers, non-affiliated Peers and so on.
I have got that out of the way so that I can say that I do not know why on earth the main Opposition are obsessed with sickfluencers and have tabled this amendment, and I therefore want to speak to it. One of the reasons is because I think the amendment misses the target completely and draws together some of the issues around why I have had some worries about the Bill in general. Let me explain. I am speaking against Amendments 125A and 129A, which focus on the problem of sickfluencers and those using electronic communications and the internet to help people “circumvent eligibility checks”.
This should not be made into any kind of criminal offence—with, according to the amendment, a threat of up to one year in prison—but we do have a cultural problem of encouraging and inciting increasing numbers to identify themselves as sick and in need of state support. I think that is where the focus should be, not on these malevolent so-called sickfluencers corrupting the nation. I am worried that these amendments miss the target and potentially distract our gaze from where we should be targeting.
For example, in relation to circumventing eligibility checks, I am sure noble Lords are aware of a recent story from Oxford University, which has admitted that, because of a long waiting list and a logjam for diagnosis in relation to ADHD, it has decided that it will use as supporting documentation a referral to a GP or to an NHS assessment service as sufficient for students to get special concessions in exams and assessments. This is one of our top academic institutions allowing young people to circumvent the eligibility checks that were there until recently. They can gain benefits from this much lower eligibility check, which is inevitably likely to incentivise self-diagnosis among those students. It is in that context that we have seen the growth of sickfluencers.
Videos with the hashtag “#mentalhealth” have amassed something like 17 billion views on TikTok over recent years, according to an academic study. But they have been about self-diagnosis, not about how we can rip off PIPs. They are, broadly, a cultural problem. My worry is that we are seeing the growth of what one psychiatrist has labelled the “mental health industrial complex”: increasing numbers of people prepared to enter into this discussion about what mental health is beyond the medical profession. That often comprises a plethora of therapists, who are unregulated, well-being experts and even mental health charities with huge budgets—some from government contracts—that have got us into a situation where increasing numbers of people are culturally incentivised to view the trials and tribulations of life and feelings of unhappiness and depression through the pathologised prism of medical labels. This is something that Tony Blair talked about last year, on which I uncharacteristically agreed with him.
These sickfluencers are leading to a huge spike in numbers adopting an identity of mental fragility and illness and creating an increasing cohort of citizens demanding official diagnosis statements, NHS interventions, pharmacological and therapeutic treatment and, of course, welfare support. That is fuelling and feeding into some of the controversies around personal independent payments, increasing the numbers on disability living allowance and so on.
I am trying to avoid that particular row about cuts in welfare, which are causing such consternation for the Government at the moment. My point is that it is not online sickfluencers—it is such a stupid word—who have created this culture of encouraging people to view themselves as in need of support. I have a lot of sympathy with the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, who conceded that mental health conditions are being overdiagnosed, meaning that the number of working-age adults who we officially designate as incapacitated and in need of various forms of state support are being effectively written off as young people. It is to do with overdiagnosis. That is where all our energy should be. One of the reasons why I have kicked back against a lot of Part 2 of this Bill, some parts of which are draconian overreach, as a sledgehammer to crack a nut is that there is a much deeper problem in why the welfare bill is so huge that goes beyond people acting fraudulently in relation to benefits.
I would be more sympathetic if the Opposition had taken on the real problems here. Governments of all parties, the previous one and this, have pushed official awareness campaigns, which encourage ever greater numbers of people to see themselves as in need of welfare and provide a script for people to follow. I have written extensively about this in a different context. Children in playgrounds use the therapeutic language of mental ill health. They got that from adults. We have to ask what is going on.
Dr Alastair Santhouse, a neuropsychiatrist at Maudsley and author of a new book called No More Normal: Mental Health in an Age of Over-Diagnosis, notes that
“the more people are aware of a particular illness, the more people start to identify with the symptoms”.
Officially backed awareness campaigns are really problematic. I have just written the foreword to a new pamphlet entitled Suffer the Children: Why Having a ‘Mental Health Professional’ in Every School is not the Answer, brilliantly written by Lucy Beney. She notes that schools now have a veritable army of educational mental health practitioners, emotional literacy support assistants, mental health first-aiders and so on, and the outcome of this is more and more pupils describing themselves as suffering from mental ill health.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 125A and 129A relate to the prevention of fraud against public authorities, specifically by seeking to make it an explicit offence to facilitate fraud through the dissemination of relevant information online. I welcome these amendments because they deal with deliberate fraud, rather than chasing carers for errors. That is a difference that I would like to accentuate.
The Bill is designed to safeguard public money by reducing public sector fraud, error and debt, introducing new powers for the Public Sector Fraud Authority and enhancing the DWP’s ability to tackle fraud in the social security system. Amendment 125A seeks to strengthen this framework by targeting those who enable fraud through online channels, reflecting the reality that much fraudulent activity today is co-ordinated or facilitated via the internet. By explicitly criminalising the dissemination of information intended to assist fraud, the amendment aims to deter would-be facilitators and close a loophole that modern fraudsters increasingly exploit.
It is important, however, that such measures are balanced with appropriate safeguards to ensure that legitimate online activity is not inadvertently criminalised and that enforcement is both proportionate and effective. The Bill already provides for oversight, reporting mechanisms and independent review to ensure that the new powers are used appropriately. As we consider these amendments, we must ensure that our legislative response to online facilitation of fraud is robust enough to protect public funds while also safeguarding civil liberties and maintaining public confidence in the fairness of our legal system. In this way, I hope that the Bill and its amendments can deliver the Government’s commitment, which I believe they have, to tackle fraud without overreaching or undermining the rights of individuals and organisations operating lawfully online.
This is an important part of our discussions today because we are talking about deliberate fraud in the modern world, including online fraud, and we have had indications of personal situations from other speakers. This is about how things are moving in the digital age. These amendments are an important part of trying to tackle that, and I support them.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I was not planning to speak, but I thought I would say a couple of words. This is an important amendment and I support the objective that it is pursuing, although I also agree with the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, on being careful about using criminal law to deal with much bigger cultural and social problems.
However, the amendment needs some tightening in the subjective element, because at the moment it punishes a wide range of conduct. At one end of the spectrum, a person would commit an offence if they ought reasonably to know that
“the information or guidance provided … will likely be used to enable or encourage another person to obtain, or attempt to obtain, benefits through deception”.
There seems to me a rather loose connection between the person who would be committing the offence and the actual fraud; it is a bit too remote. At the other end of the spectrum, a person would commit an offence
“if they know … that the information or guidance provided … is intended to facilitate dishonest conduct under the Social Security Administration Act 1992”.
That does not strike me as a remote connection between the person whose conduct we would be criminalising and the actual dishonest conduct, so there needs to be a bit of tightening of the subjective element, making sure that it is more narrowly focused than it currently is.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Again, I thank noble Lords for an interesting discussion—some of it even on the amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is right that sickfluencers are the Opposition’s favourite topic, but it gives us an opportunity to look at this element of fraud and how the Government deal with it. I will try to take us through it. This also gives me a chance to show the way in which our legislative framework provides a comprehensive basis to enable the DWP and the PSFA to address fraudulent activity against the public sector or the social security system.
In responding to the amendments, there is something that we need to acknowledge. The noble Viscount mentioned a broad spectrum and clearly this is, particularly online. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made this point on a previous day in Committee: there is a lot of advice online in all kinds of settings on how to claim disability benefits, and it can range from genuine advocates for disabled people to people in similar circumstances trying to tell other people what their experience has been to friends’ or family’s online content through social media. There is all manner of guidance out there, and we need to be very careful not to drag people who are not doing anything wrong into the debate.
While many people provide advice with good intentions, irrespective of how useful the advice is or how effective it will be, there are clearly some unscrupulous people who actively try to encourage or assist others in committing fraud against the social security system. Where activity can reasonably be countered, such as taking down websites or seeking the removal of posts that are unlawful, the DWP takes relevant action. We already collaborate with a range of government partners, including Action Fraud, the City of London Police and the National Cyber Security Centre to prevent fraudulent activity online.
There are legislative duties under the Online Safety Act for social media companies to remove harmful and illegal content, including content that encourages or assists others to commit offences. The Online Safety Act also allows us to work with Ofcom and its new trusted flagger process, and we have trusted escalation routes to report social media content on certain platforms.
We are committed to demonstrating that such behaviour should not be tolerated, and we encourage anyone who identifies material online—I include the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, in this—to report it through the available channels. These people should face consequences, but there is an existing legal framework to do so. Section 7 of the Fraud Act 2006 and Section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007 already make it a criminal offence for individuals to provide information on how to commit fraud. That includes influencers sharing and selling information online, such as fraud instruction manuals.
In addition, we are concerned that Amendment 125A could potentially complicate the legislative landscape. Adding a new offence would create overlap with existing legislation that could lead to confusion in prosecution or sentencing, and that is entirely avoidable. It also happens that, ironically, the amendment would actually shorten the maximum sentence for those convicted of the new offence; it would carry a maximum period of five years in custody but, if the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, does not like that, the current maximum is potentially 10 years under existing legislation.
I know that the noble Viscount acknowledged previously that public sector fraud hurts everyone and that he wants to tackle it and support us in doing that. I was surprised, therefore, to read Amendment 129A, which he tabled. The amendment would prevent the use of the powers in the Bill until we publish a review assessing the impacts of people who enable others to deceive a public authority to obtain social security or welfare benefits that they are not entitled to, or to circumvent eligibility checks. I clearly cannot agree that we should prevent the PSFA or the DWP using these important new powers to tackle fraud and error until we have published such a review. During that time, we could be out there investigating fraud, tackling error and recovering public money.
I encourage the noble Viscount to reflect on what he and his Government focused on when they were in power. This focus on people who share information online or through other means may not be the “silver bullet” as he hopes. We will continue to see determined and hostile actors trying to defraud the system. It is absolutely right that the department takes action to tackle fraudulent online content and has a deterrent, but the crucial thing to remember is that fraud itself cannot take place unless those seeking to defraud the welfare system manage to interact with it. That is why we have put so much effort into protecting the social security system directly. This provides the strongest chance of success, evidenced by looking at the significant value of such activity.
I really enjoyed the contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. There is so much that I would like to push back on but I do not think that I can keep the Committee here for long enough to get into some of the issues. To take a small one, however, she thinks that this Bill is a sledgehammer to crack a nut—I think it is a pretty big nut, and we want to tackle it. We will just have to agree to disagree on that. On her broader points, this Government recognise that there are too many young people who are genuinely struggling with their mental health and who need support. We want to make sure that they get the help that they need. We also recognise that, for many people, good work is good for good health, both physical and mental. We are now in a situation where one in eight of our young people are not in education, employment or training, and we cannot allow that to carry on.
We want to get out there and support people to get into the kind of work that will be good for them, but we want to make sure that those who genuinely cannot work are able to get support. That is the direction of travel for the Government and what our reforms are meant to be about.
The noble Viscount keep asking how many people the DWP prosecutes. As he will remember, the DWP is not a prosecutor itself. The department’s role is to refer cases to the appropriate prosecuting body, the Crown Prosecution Service, which selects the most appropriate offences to prosecute under. In 2023-24, fraud investigation teams in the DWP referred around 700 prosecution cases to the CPS and Crown Procurator Fiscal in Scotland. The department does not use the term “sickfluencer” and we do not have categories for that, so I cannot tell him how many cases fall under that description. We obviously do not comment on individual cases that we refer to the relevant prosecting body.
However, I understand the points that the noble Viscount is making. We are happy to continue to work in this space but, in terms of these amendments, just proposing what is in effect a complication of the landscape and a shorter prison sentence, while preventing the DWP and PSFA from using powers in this Bill to tackle fraud and error, will not deter those criminals; it will simply enable them to keep on going. I therefore urge him to withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this short debate. As I said in my opening speech, this amendment reflects the reality that the vector of fraud is increasingly digital, but it also reflects something more fundamental: that our law must evolve to meet emerging threats, especially when those threats strike at the heart of public trust. We know that public confidence in welfare systems hinges on fairness, integrity and robust enforcement. We cannot let that confidence be eroded by silence in the face of digital abuse.
I say again—though I will not go into too much detail as I gave a long speech in opening this group—that we believe that this amendment is modest, measured and necessary. If the Government feel that the drafting can be improved, we stand ready to work with them. Judging from the Minister’s comments, that may not be the case. The principle must be accepted, however, because the damage being done is real—to public funds, to vulnerable claimants and to the credibility of the benefit system itself. As the Minister herself said, it is a nut; it is in fact quite a big nut. I believe it needs a sledgehammer or at least a reasonably big hammer.
On that note, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her comments. I listened carefully to her rather unexpected views on my amendments and, as she will guess, I did not agree with much of what she said. She came from an unusual and different angle. I will read Hansard to try to understand where she was coming from, but I agree with her and the noble Baroness that there are many other measures that must be taken to ensure that benefits, that is, universal credit or health top-up benefits, are given to the right people. The right amounts should be given to the right people. That is at the crux of the huge debate that is going on nationally at the moment and in the other place as we speak.
“Impact of Act on people facing financial exclusion(1) The independent person appointed under section 64(1) of this Act (independent review) must carry out an assessment of the impact of this Act on the number of people facing financial exclusion.(2) The independent person must, 12 months after the passing of the Act—(a) prepare a report on the review, and(b) submit the report to the Minister.(3) On receiving a report the Minister must—(a) publish it, and(b) lay a copy before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would look into the impact of the Act on people facing financial exclusion.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 126 would require a thorough assessment of the impact of the Bill on people facing financial exclusion. While the Bill’s intent to safeguard public money and tackle fraud is clear and necessary, we must not overlook the reality that those who are financially excluded are often among the most vulnerable in our society.
Financial exclusion can mean lacking access to basic banking services, credit or affordable financial products, which in turn imposes additional costs and barriers on those least able to bear them. Without a clear understanding of how the Bill’s provisions, such as new powers to access bank account information or recover debts, affect this group, we risk compounding their disadvantage and inadvertently causing hardship to those the social security system is meant to support. An independent assessment as proposed in this amendment would ensure that the implementation of the Bill does not create unintended consequences, and they would indeed be unintended for individuals already struggling to access financial services. It will provide Parliament with vital evidence of whether the Bill’s measures are proportionate and fair and whether additional safeguards or support are required for those at risk of exclusion.
This is about not weakening our response to fraud but ensuring that our actions are just and do not undermine the financial resilience of those who are most at risk of falling through the cracks. I know that the Minister and others mean well, but I urge the Committee to support this amendment, which guarantees that our efforts to protect public funds do not come at the expense of the most financially vulnerable in our communities. It is a balance. We need to be very careful that in stopping fraud we do not push people in vulnerable communities further down into debt and disappointment. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I add my support at least to the intentions behind this amendment. We have had a number of discussions in Committee on the potential impact of layering costs and bureaucracy on financial services providers that relate to a particular class of people. In doing that, we risk incentivising those providers to stop providing services to that class of people—in this case, benefit recipients—and thereby potentially increasing financial exclusion.
The intention behind this amendment is right and I support adding it to the scope of the independent reviewer. However, I was not totally clear whether this applies to the whole Bill or just to Part 1, because it refers to the independent reviewer under Clause 64(1), which relates only to Part 1. This should relate to the whole Bill on a cumulative basis, because the cumulative impact of all the elements of this Bill may lead to greater changes in the behaviour of financial services companies than the sum of the individual changes themselves. We need to find a way of making sure that this covers the whole Bill and the cumulative impact.
Secondly, the amendment would require only a one-off report after 12 months. I am not sure that that would be sufficient. If there are impacts, as I fear there could be, they are likely to accumulate over time as banks decide that this is more difficult and therefore stop providing services. As we have talked about before, this is a question not of active debanking but more likely of stopping providing services over time. If we are to review this, we need to look at the impact more periodically—not necessarily annually, but over a longer period. I support the intention, but the amendment may need tweaking as it stands.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 126, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, which would require an independent assessment of the impact of this Bill on those at risk of financial exclusion and, crucially, ensure that the findings of that assessment are made public and laid before Parliament.
The principle behind this amendment is very important. We have heard throughout the Committee’s deliberations from me, my noble friend Lady Finn and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, about the real and pressing risk that some of the measures in this Bill could unintentionally deepen financial exclusion. As we have said several times, there is a risk that banks are made to feel concerned about their customers if they are subject to an EVN, or, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has powerfully expressed previously and now, that banks could be deterred from taking on customers who are in receipt of benefits in the first place as a pre-emptive measure against the additional workload that this could demand.
As we do not yet have clarity from the Government about when and how often notices and demands will be made of banks, everyone is currently in the dark about how much of an additional workload this will mean for financial institutions. It is therefore entirely feasible that these institutions, which are, as we always need to remember, designed and operated to make money, could simply choose not to take the risks, impacting people who have not necessarily done anything wrong in the process. If we empower government to work more closely with banks to verify eligibility, recover funds and issue deductions, we must be equally mindful of the unintended consequences for those who sit at the margins of our financial system.
We appreciate that this amendment does not seek to obstruct or weaken the Bill. Quite the opposite—it offers the Government a constructive, concrete mechanism for assessing whether our enforcement framework is functioning in a way that is fair, proportionate and inclusive. This is an important measure, and I am sure that noble Lords across the Committee who have raised concerns about this issue will be somewhat reassured if the Government commit to undertaking a review as set out in this amendment.
We have heard Ministers reassure us that these powers will be used carefully and that the risk of harm is low. This amendment provides an opportunity to put those assurances to the test—not through speculation, but through evidence. Twelve months after this Bill is enacted, the independent reviewer would be tasked with producing a report examining the extent to which the measures we have passed are having an adverse impact on those already struggling to access or maintain financial stability.
In conclusion, this is not a burdensome ask; it is a safeguard. It would ensure that, as we work to strengthen our systems against fraud, we do not inadvertently erect new barriers for those who are financially vulnerable already. It would give the House and the other place the opportunity to revisit and respond to those findings, if and when action is needed. I therefore urge the Minister to consider this proposal seriously and to work with colleagues to ensure that the fight against fraud does not come at the cost of fairness or financial exclusion.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 126 would require the independent person, who will be appointed by the Minister for the Cabinet Office to review the PSFA powers under Part 1 of the Act, to carry out an additional assessment of the impact of the whole Act on the number of people facing financial exclusion. I hope that that clears up the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. The reviewer is the one for the PSFA bit, and the impact would be for the whole Act, as the amendment is currently drafted.
I recognise the intent behind the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I assure stakeholders in the financial sector—should they be watching—that we have heard the concerns that they have raised with us on these matters. I am confident, however, that this reporting on potential financial exclusion will not be necessary.
First, I want to talk a little wider and acknowledge that the Government recognise the place of financial services in the lives of millions of people and businesses across the UK. That is why we have already taken steps to give people greater protection against their bank accounts being closed, as part of our plan for change. To do so, the Government introduced rules under the Payment Services and Payment Accounts (Contract Termination) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 that require banks to give customers at least 90 days’ notice before closing accounts. The rules stipulate that, when doing so, the bank must provide a clear explanation in writing as to why they intend to close someone’s account. That gives people clarity on why the decision has been taken and, crucially, more time to challenge such decisions through bodies such as the Financial Ombudsman Service. These changes have been made off the back of consultation with industry and will take effect from April 2026.
Moreover, there are statutory protections to protect individuals most in need. The nine largest UK providers of personal current accounts are required by law to offer basic bank accounts to individual customers legally resident in the UK who do not have a bank account or who are not eligible for banks’ other accounts. Banks are prohibited by law from discriminating against UK consumers by reason of a range of protected characteristics, such as sex, ethnicity, disability and belief, when individuals apply for access to an account. So, while firms rightly have strict obligations to ensure the legitimacy of a business and to protect against financial crime, the Government have focused on account closures as a priority, given the material impact that a loss of banking services has on a business already in operation. That is the broader context.
Secondly, our approach on this Bill fits with that wider Government agenda on tackling financial exclusion. The DWP and the PSFA are working closely with stakeholders from the finance industry, including UK Finance and the Financial Conduct Authority, to ensure that no one is inadvertently or unintentionally excluded from access to financial services. As such, we have made provision in the legislation, where appropriate, to try to ensure that this is the case. For example, the DWP’s eligibility verification measure amends the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to make clear to financial institutions that they are exempt from returning a suspicious activity report in certain circumstances, if the information they have is only as a result of a data match from EVM. UK Finance agrees that this is an important exemption.
Thirdly, where appropriate, the codes of practice seek to provide further detail about banks’ duties in this space. For example, the code of practice for the EVN also clarifies that eligibility verification notices and the data returned in compliance with them are not intended to indicate that the DWP has any suspicion of fraud or financial wrongdoing, or that an error has occurred. The determination of any subsequent wrongdoing will be made following a further review of this evidence alongside other evidence, and is for DWP to determine, not the banks. We continue to engage with the financial industry and across government on drafting this to ensure that we get the wording right in our codes of practice.
For the PSFA, while the code of practice for Part 1 of the Bill is focused more on the new civil penalties, the PSFA will, in due course, publish guidance on the other powers in Part 1. This will consider these issues from the PSFA’s perspective and in more detail. For respective debt recovery measures, the PSFA and the DWP will align with the government debt policy, as well as abide by the standards set out by the government debt management function and the debt management vulnerability toolkit to handle those at potential risk of financial exclusion.
The Government acknowledge that financial exclusion is a serious problem, which is why we are taking steps to provide people with additional protections and to clarify duties in the Bill. I am confident that we have the necessary protections for individuals from financial exclusion in the Bill and therefore do not think that the amendment is needed. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
As the Minister said, financial exclusion—people not having access to financial matters—can be dreadful, and that is what the amendment is meant to deal with. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I had sought for it to apply to the whole Bill and not just part of it. We have had a lot of debate, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(3A) Sections 72, 73 and 74 may not come into force until the Secretary of State has published, and laid before Parliament, a report outlining the specific process through which information will be collected in order to fulfil the obligations made out in Chapter 1, Part 2, and in Schedule 3, and their anticipated costs.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that, before coming into force, Parliament had sight of the mechanisms through which information would be gathered and shared, and the projected costs associated with this.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, for this group—the penultimate one in Committee—I thought that it would be helpful to noble Lords if I briefly read out what this amendment aims to do. It seeks to insert a new subsection to Clause 105, which states:
“Sections 72, 73 and 74 may not come into force until the Secretary of State has published, and laid before Parliament, a report outlining the specific process through which information will be collected in order to fulfil the obligations made out in Chapter 1, Part 2, and in Schedule 3, and their anticipated costs”.
Reading that aloud will allow me to explain the breadth of the amendment and what I am trying to do.
In essence, the amendment is an opportunity for us to question the Government on the mechanisms that they will use to recover funds, verify eligibility and work alongside the banks, to apply the provisions that have been set out in the Bill. I suspect that I am joined by several noble Lords across the Room when I say that, while the Bill—and the Minister’s remarks throughout these days in Committee—have helped to highlight the scale and purpose of the powers, we are still somewhat in the dark as to how these will really work in practice. We do not have clarity on how this will work operationally for banks and in the DWP, which is important for us to try to understand how this will work in practice. I accept what the Minister has said on certain occasions—namely, that a test and learn process is ongoing—and I suspect that she will probably say that in response.
Many of the concerns that I, my noble friend Lady Finn and many other noble Lords have raised over the past few weeks come out in how these systems are set up. Our discussion can only go so far when speaking about this in abstract; therefore, this amendment invites the Government, both now and ahead of Report, to set out how these provisions will work in practice and how the concerns that we have raised with the Government will be addressed. It may well be that my remarks will spur on a detailed letter from the Minister, to help us all in Committee in this respect.
We are still very unclear on how banks will be asked to comply with the provisions set out in the Bill. We have pressed the point numerous times that banks need to be involved in the discussions on costs and the recouping of costs, not only operationally but in relation to opportunity. Many questions remain about how this will work. First, how many notices will banks likely encounter per week, and how often will they be required to provide information to the DWP? Do the Government have an idea of how much the cost will be to banks per person in undertaking this process on behalf of the DWP? What will the EVN actually look like, and in what form will that be communicated? In what format will the banks be required to respond to this. I understand that, on a previous group today, the Minister attempted to answer some of these questions.
Anecdotally, I am aware that bank employees tasked with responding to HMRC are faced with millions of lines of data, which they stress is often of very poor quality. No account is taken for those who have died, address lines are often formatted in the wrong fields and personal information is incorrectly entered. Employees at the bank—not those in HMRC—have to trawl through all this information to check whether the person has died, or whether their surname is entered into a box meant for their postcode. This is an arduous task that takes hours to complete and diverts clever and capable employees from furthering the bank’s main objective of making money and contributing to our economy.
How these notices are made out, what they demand of banks and how the information is to be communicated in practice are important questions. We need to make sure that we are not imposing further undue costs on to banks. They are, as we have said many times, partners and not tools—they should not be asked to incur an undue cost in the fulfilment of public sector duties. Having a clear breakdown on how this system will work in practical terms, as agreed with the banks, is something that Parliament needs sight of before this Bill becomes law, because only then will we have some clarity on our questions in this matter.
Furthermore, we still need clarification about how a consideration for vulnerable people, with disabilities or who are at risk of coercion, will be adequately protected through the process of the exercise of the provisions in the Bill. We have been assured verbally by the Minister that these people will be considered—I accept that—but we have not really been told how. Further reassurances are required.
We have proposed—through amendments in my name and in those of my noble friend Lady Finn and other noble Lords, such as those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer—several practical models for how the Government would take adequate account of these factors when making a decision about pursuing the recovery of funds. Practically, this would require a lot more information to be accessed and reviewed about a person before the decision can be taken.
This is an important matter to consider in operational terms, as it would doubtless substantially increase the workload of the DWP in exercising these powers, requiring it to look at a good deal more than just numbers. However, making sure that we incorporate these additional needs and vulnerabilities into the process is vital, as we have said in the past. It is the only way in which we can make sure that we are not doing more harm than good, and that we do not cause further distress to those who should receive our help. On that basis, I hope that the Minister can set out how these considerations will be taken into account in practical terms, and how much additional expense and workloads she considers this would contribute to the DWP.
Finally, this is also an appropriate time for me to press the Government again on how the system will work across the banks. It is my understanding that the DWP can access information about the bank account into which the benefit payment is made, but no other. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case or whether the DWP will also be able to access other accounts held in the same bank in the name of the person in question? As we have stated before, this legal limitation seems to be a serious issue, presenting a potential loophole that could be easily exploited by fraudsters, who could simply move money from one account to another, safe in the knowledge that the Government cannot legally pursue them any further based on legislation that they themselves introduced. Can the Minister also take this opportunity to outline operationally how this issue would be addressed, and whether she is considering changing this part of the Bill to shut down this loophole? Again, she may well prefer to write a letter.
The amendment serves as a timely and essential reminder that while the principles behind the Bill may be broadly accepted, its practical application still raises a host of unresolved questions, and we are being asked to sign off on a framework that will place significant new responsibilities on both the department and the UK’s banking sector, without having seen a clear operational blueprint. If the Government are to ask banks to take on a new role in data provision and verification, the Government must also be prepared to offer banks clarity, support and safeguards to prevent undue burden and to ensure accuracy in implementation. Equally, the processes by which vulnerable individuals will be identified and protected must be defined and made transparent.
I have given fair warning of some further questions about the letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, which sets out some of the figures on fraud that we asked for. I thank her for the letter and appreciate her sending it before the end of Committee. However, it raises further questions. I do not necessarily expect answers now, but I see that the Minister has a bit of paper in her hand.
First, the letter said of the figures:
“This estimate was calculated from taking total government spend and income for 2023/24 and deducting spend and income associated with known estimates and out-of-scope items. This revealed that around £560 billion of public spend and income was not subject to any fraud and error measurement in 2023/24”.
I raise this because I am confused about why we have £560 billion of public spend and income that is not subject to any fraud and error measurement. Can the Minister please clarify why this is the case? I suspect there is a simple answer. What steps are the Government taking to try to rectify this as soon as possible? It is a very big figure. Does the Minister anticipate that, within that £560 billion figure, there is some fraud or overpayment that we should be aware of?
Secondly, I was a little confused about the language used in the letter, which refers to and segregates “capital” and “abroad” overpayments. Can the Minister please clarify what these terms mean? I should probably know, but I do not. Furthermore, can she update the Committee on why “abroad” overpayments for pension credit are so high?
To conclude, can the Minister commit to making these operational details clear to the House ahead of Report, so that we can frame our important discussions at that stage on the basis of greater information than we currently have? Of course, that will impact and inform the amendments that we might bring back on Report. Setting out how this will work and how our concerns will be addressed might make life a bit easier for the Minister when she has to join us all again in a few weeks or so—I do not believe we have any dates yet—on Report. It would certainly give us clarity on what the Government envisage in practice for the provisions in this important Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing Amendment 130. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the mechanism used to request and return information under the information-gathering powers and the eligibility verification measure contained in the Bill.
The Bill and the codes of practice clearly lay out the type of information that will be requested under these powers and the expectations on financial institutions required to respond. It provides an appropriate level of detail for Parliament to scrutinise the proposed process while the technical details are under development in close partnership with industry. I should add that I will not be in a position to provide a level of technical detail that could enable those intent on committing fraud to circumvent the system or that could put the DWP’s systems at risk.
The DWP has already published an impact assessment that considers both these measures. It sets out the department’s latest estimates of the regulatory burdens they might place on businesses in Great Britain. The additional annual costs to new businesses compelled to respond to information notices issued under the information-gathering power in the Bill have been estimated to be less than £100,000 per year in total across all information holders. For the eligibility verification measure, initial estimates are that the set-up costs are anticipated to be around £40 million across the sector. We also expect that there will be some limited ongoing compliance costs for data holders. Further information on these estimates can be found in the published impact assessments.
We know there is more work to do with industry to consider these costs further. That is why the DWP has also committed to publishing a further updated impact assessment for EVM within 12 months of Royal Assent, to provide a more robust and detailed estimate of the impact on industry, which will take into account the ongoing work with industry. This will ensure that there is transparency on the costs as we move forward.
I reassure the Committee that burdens on businesses resulting from the measures in this Bill are a matter that this Government take seriously. We are committed to keeping requirements and costs proportionate and to a minimum. That key aim has been at the forefront of our close and regular engagement with the finance sector. We continue to work closely with UK Finance, the finance sector and other relevant stakeholders, including business representative organisations, on the delivery of these measures, to ensure that any digital solutions are workable and to minimise costs where possible.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving some answers to my questions, particularly those that I raised about the letter—there is greater clarity now. Some of the answers I probably should have known.
I appreciate her comments regarding the plethora of questions that I have raised. I am choosing my words quite carefully, and I totally understand that I was on the other side of the fence on this, but I hope that I might speak on behalf of others who have spoken in this Committee and say that it is quite a challenge for us, when we are challenging the Government, when we cannot get answers. I understand why the Minister cannot give us the answers, and I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Finn from the Public Sector Fraud Authority angle and the DWP angle. This goes back to June and July 2024 when, clearly, we were not able to give too much information out because there was test and learn. I of course understand that we cannot put too much into the public domain for fear of aiding those who might be keen to perpetrate fraud.
What I am really trying to say is that this amendment was deliberate in trying to draw out some further answers. I understand where the Minister is coming from in saying that she cannot give precise answers to many of the questions that we have put. Perhaps we should leave it, on this last day in Committee, with a request to the Minister to look again at the questions that I have raised on this group to see what further answers might be possible before Report. At the end of the day, we have to be sure that the Bill is workable and can be understood by all, and that any loopholes are filled. That is probably my only wish.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his understanding. Just to be clear, the questions that we are not able to answer are primarily operational ones. What I am therefore trying to do is to make it possible for Parliament to scrutinise the legislation and to answer everything that seems to be legitimate and appropriate, which Parliament can look at, at this stage. Perhaps it would be useful if we were to organise another session for Peers between now and Report, so that the questions can be put to us and we can go through them. That might allow me to answer questions in a less constrained manner than I can at the Dispatch Box. I will commit to looking through all the questions that have been raised by noble Lords in Committee to see what we have and have not been able to answer. We can try to regroup before Report and see where we get to, if that would be acceptable.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I thank the Minister for those comments. Others who have taken part in Committee may also be able to add value—I am sure that they would.
I have a final comment before I sit down and indeed withdraw my amendment. I know that the department set out to produce a code of practice at least a year ago, and I am pleased to know that the code is being built up and improved upon as part of test and learn—so I just clarify that I am aware of that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Repeal of this Act(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, this Act is repealed five years after the day on which it is passed.(2) The provisions of this Act are not repealed in accordance with this section but shall continue in force if in each of those five years the total amount recovered through the provisions in this Act exceeds the amount expended in exercising these powers by a margin of £500 million per annum.”Member's explanatory statement
This is a sunset clause requiring that the net benefit of provisions in the Act must exceed £500 million per annum at the end of a period of five years, else the Act will cease to be in force.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we come to the final group, which I am pleased to open. I thank noble Lords who have participated in this Committee, particularly the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Anderson, on behalf of my friend Lady Finn, and all the officials for their answers to remarks and questions. I know that spending hours in Grand Committee is not a massively appealing prospect, particularly on these rather hot and stuffy days. We probably all deserve a drink after this.
Over the course of these days, we have raised some important questions and concerns that we have for the Government on a Bill that, despite its technical title, is quite important. I feel that the Committee has come together on several key issues around safeguarding, proper independent oversight of these powers and the costs, as I said a moment ago, that we will impose on banks.
We have outlined areas of the Bill that could threaten the well-being of and access to services for benefits claimants, we have raised concerns over the powers granted to the PSFA and we have brought our remarks not only on these Benches but across the Committee back to the principle of that important word “proportionality”. While we need to tackle the issue of public sector fraud robustly, we must do so in a way that is nuanced, safe and effective. This is a significant Bill in respect of the problem that it is trying to tackle and the powers that it is seeking to grant. It deserves our full attention and scrutiny for that reason, and I feel that much of the debate that we have had reflects that point.
Amendment 131 is a sunset clause, requiring that the net benefit of provisions in the Act must exceed £500 million per annum at the end of a period of five years. Its basic purpose is to set a standard for the performance and return on investment made as a result of the provisions in the Bill. We have heard many times about the scale and scope of the challenge that we are facing with respect to public sector fraud. Amendment 131 seeks to bring us back to the fundamental principle that our purpose should be the recovery of public money in a way that genuinely benefits the taxpayer.
We have spoken a lot about costs over the past few weeks and today. It is important that we pursue this policy in a way that is cost effective and recovers money in a meaningful and tangible way. This is about being responsible with taxpayers’ money, and we must ensure that we get a return on investment to approach this issue sensibly and pragmatically.
We have agreed pretty unanimously on the principle of returning to the taxpayer money that has been gained fraudulently, but there is no point in pursuing the policy if it does not give us a sufficient return on that investment. In other words, this would set a benchmark for efficacy and cost-effectiveness. If these powers are delivering real value for money, then they would remain. If they are not, then Parliament must revisit them—hence the amendment.
The public rightly expect that the powers we grant to Ministers and departments are not only proportionate but demonstrably effective. They do not want systems that are costly to administer and burdensome to operate and yield little in return, nor should they be expected to accept them. This amendment would simply create a clear feedback mechanism. It asks that the Government show their working and provide an evidence-based justification for retaining powers that intrude on privacy, create obligations for banks and place additional burdens on both government departments and third parties. If the system is working and recovering public money effectively and efficiently, then, as I said earlier, there is no difficulty in meeting that threshold, but if it is not then we should have the courage and accountability to stand back and reassess.
Let us also be clear: the amendment would not automatically repeal the Act in five years’ time. It would allow for its continuation if and only if the system works. It would not constrain the Government’s ambition but demand proof of delivery—and what is wrong with that? At a time of tightening public finances and growing digital scrutiny, it is more important than ever that new powers are not just well intentioned but demonstrably worth while, and this sunset clause would help to ensure that. It would build a clear and measurable standard, and it would respect Parliament’s duty to monitor the impact of the legislation that it enacts. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I shall say a few words despite my earlier promise and add to this moment of harmony. This is an interesting amendment to finish off Committee. I talked earlier about sledgehammers and nuts. I am concerned about civil liberties being constrained by the Bill. There are huge invasions of privacy and things that I worry about in terms of overreach of state power, but we can be assured all the time that this is about protecting public money.
When we describe everything from organised crime to fake charities getting money from the state and so on, understandably, we then think, “Are we trying to balance this out? Is it proportional? Do we have to make compromises on freedoms in order to crack down on it?” I am not yet convinced that that proportionality exists, and I know that we will pursue some of that on Report. What will remain of this Bill are those powers, but I am not convinced that the money accrued back will justify the kind of powers that the Government are giving themselves.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing his amendment and welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, back to the debate.
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. I hope that those who were not here will read it on the record. Notwithstanding the comments about our being in Grand Committee rather than in the Chamber, this has been a very good and interesting Committee. It has been the House of Lords doing its job: testing through the details, sifting through things and being able to make sure that I have answers to questions. I am very grateful for the way in which noble Lords have engaged, and I also speak for my noble friend Lady Anderson. I thank everyone for that and all those involved in supporting it.
While I understand that the noble Viscount rightly wants to hold the Government to account, I am afraid that this, in practice, is a wrecking amendment, and I will explain why for two clear reasons. Therefore, I obviously must oppose it. We have said repeatedly—although I recognise that we have not yet convinced the noble Baroness, Lady Fox—that the measures in the Bill are strong and proportionate. We have made clear that, to ensure that they are implemented safely, they will be rolled out gradually through a test-and-learn approach.
When we are scaling up these powers, there will be a period when the powers will not be fully rolled out and delivering the level of savings that they are expected to in the future. That means that we will not deliver the same savings profile at the start, compared to when the measures are fully rolled out. Setting an arbitrary requirement that we must see net recoveries of £500 million a year—or any other rigid financial threshold—undermines that approach and risks either our prematurely withdrawing measures before they are fully rolled out, or requiring the Government to roll out the Bill more quickly, which would give industry less time to adjust and risk the powers being implemented less effectively and less safely.
As noble Lords know, the Bill is estimated to deliver benefits of £1.5 billion by 2029-30, as certified by the Office for Budget Responsibility. That is made up of £940 million in savings related to fraud and error overpayments through the eligibility verification measure, and £565 million in additional debt recoveries from the debt measure. Our impact assessment clearly outlines how we will scale up our rollout to deliver these savings.
I highlight to the noble Viscount that that delivery profile has been certified by the OBR. Looking at that delivery profile, he will clearly see that we would not meet the £500 million in net recoveries benefits in 2026-27, and, under his amendment, the powers would cease to be available in five years’ time because of the failure to meet that threshold. That would simply undermine the Government’s efforts after year one and remove any incentive to invest in the delivery of these measures, knowing they would be gone in five years. Given those figures, it is not clear how the noble Viscount can have anticipated the Bill achieving net recoveries of £500 million each year, as is set out in his amendment, without also wrecking the Bill.
Secondly, by extension, this amendment overlooks the wider benefits the Bill could bring. For example, the Bill contains preventive aspects, and some measures may change attitudes towards fraud, error and debt by providing an important deterrent effect. I believe this amendment would remove the potential for positive prevention and deterrent effects.
I know that the noble Viscount thinks this matters. When we discussed our debt recovery measures in this Room last week, he said that it was
“about ensuring that there is an effective deterrent against repeated and deliberate non-compliance with efforts to recover public money”.—[Official Report, 18/6/25; col. GC 482.]
I agree with him; we need these powers to remain for exactly that reason. But, if the noble Viscount believes this, he must also accept that, by their very nature, where overpayments are prevented or deterred, they will, by definition, reduce the size of the pool and the amount of money we can recover over time. While I accept that we are a way off that reality, this may mean there will come a time when we cannot recover a net of £500 million a year thanks to the success of our detection and prevention efforts. But that does not mean that our counter fraud and error activity—or the Bill, for that matter—should just cease. Indeed, it would mean that the activity is working and should continue, to keep levels of fraud and error down.
Unfortunately, we cannot easily quantify all these effects, as they are complex, so although savings from measures such as EVM account for detecting the overpayment and preventing it continuing into the future, this would not contribute towards a recovery figure, as the amendment specifies. It is instead taken account of by the OBR in the AME savings for the Bill.
I know the noble Viscount does not want fraudsters to be able to get away with attacking our public services or the state to be unable to properly verify benefit eligibility, or to let it continue to be the case that debtors will be able to refuse to repay money belonging to the taxpayer. So I ask him to consider a different approach to hold the Government’s delivery to account.
To close, I assure the Committee that we are not complacent; we are committed to delivering the Bill and its savings. Moreover, we want to scale measures where they prove successful to, I hope, save more in the future. But, given that we are introducing new powers and requirements, we must also deliver safely, as I know we all want to. If noble Lords want to see more detail about when we expect to make the savings or to see the anticipated costs of the measure, these can be found in the published impact assessment, in which we have committed to monitoring and evaluation in the Bill to ensure that the new powers are delivering as intended. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Viscount to withdraw his final amendment.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, in winding up on Amendment 131, I say that, as I laid out in my opening remarks, we believe that the amendment would introduce a clear, common-sense standard: that the powers in the Bill should continue only if they deliver real, measurable value—a net benefit of at least £500 million per year. I appreciate the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, in this respect.
Although we do not see this as a wrecking amendment, I listened carefully to the arguments put by the Minister, which I will read in Hansard, and I have to say that I see some merit in her responses. However, it is still the case—she alluded to this—that there needs to be accountability. Our aim is not to obstruct the Bill—we do not see the amendment as being wrecking—but the message has been put across that there needs to be a form of accountability. We have heard often during our deliberations that the Bill is part of a test-and-learn approach. If that is the case, there must be a test and a measure of success. Without them, we risk creating a framework that operates indefinitely without delivering the intended returns.
In closing, I leave a question—perhaps hanging in the air—for the Minister to answer. Will she consider bringing forward some further ideas for how success can be measured? That is what we are all about and I think we are probably on the same side of the argument as to how we can measure success. Whether it is £500 million or a sunset clause is not for me to say—it is part of the amendment that I have put forward—but there needs to be something. To that extent, I suspect that we will press this aspect on Report. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Independent Schools: Tax Changes
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the removal of the VAT exemption and other recent tax changes on independent schools.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lexden and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper. I declare my own interest as chairman of governors of Brentwood School and president of the Boarding Schools’ Association.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government published impact notes on the anticipated impact of the VAT and business rates changes affecting private schools. We monitor the impact on the sector and published details of pupil numbers in June 2025. A drop in numbers was expected following these changes and due to other factors, such as demographic decline. The full impact is expected to be realised over several years. Overall, private school pupil numbers remain higher than in 2020, then a record high.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, documents released during legal action against the Government over the imposition of VAT midway through the academic year revealed that Ministers were warned by officials that theirs would be the most disruptive option for the implementation of this vindictive policy. Why did they callously ignore that advice? Ministers were also consistently warned by the sector that their assessment that there would be hardly any impact on independent schools was ludicrously optimistic. Now, the DfE’s own statistics show a drop of 11,000 in independent school numbers, four times that predicted by the Government, with boarding schools hit twice as hard. Is the Minister not ashamed of the Government’s appalling failure to listen to advice? Will she say sorry to the schools that have inevitably closed, to the people who have lost their jobs and, above all, to those students whose lives have been so cruelly disrupted?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, because I am proud that this Government are prioritising investment in the 93% of our children who attend state schools. On the point about the legal action that the noble Lord started his question with, that was a legal case won by the Government. It was found that the Government had not, as was asserted during the debates on this, acted in contradiction to human rights legislation.
On the final point about the numbers, the Government always said that they thought there would be an increase in the numbers of children potentially coming into state schools. That has been around 3,000, which is exactly in keeping with what the Government said at the time of introducing this legislation.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the last Tory Government cut school budgets for 93% of pupils, let our schools run down and end up in a bad state of repair and refused to pay our teachers a proper wage to work in our schools, and yet they have the cheek to worry about a few people in private schools. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this Government worry about people in all schools. My noble friend is right that as a Government we have a job to put right some of the underinvestment of the last Conservative Government and to deliver our pledge to ensure that there are 6,500 new specialist teachers in secondary and special schools. That is what we are focused on, and that is what we will be investing in.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, one of the welcome moves from private schools over recent years has been the extension of their facilities, cultural and sporting, to state schools. Have the Government made any assessment of the outcome for the state sector if they feel financially unable to continue with that?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Of course, it is a good thing if private schools ensure that their facilities are on some occasions open to other people, not least because quite often—and certainly in the case of the town I live in—they occupy an enormously large part of the town. For schools with charitable status, it is in line with that that they demonstrate public benefit to retain it, and engaging in partnership activities with state-funded schools is one way in which they can do that. I hope that will continue for private schools.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, if we look at certain specialist sectors—that is, those which provide support for those with special educational needs—where the private sector has picked up a lot of the slack, and indeed the Government have paid for those places, are we finding out that people are now going and taking up the education, health and care plans, because you have to have money and understanding to get them quickly, as opposed to paying the fees directly themselves?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Where a pupil is eligible to have an education, health and care plan and that has allocated them a place in a private school, of course the impact of VAT on those schools will not be felt by those particular students. I think the noble Lord is also making a wider point about the need to ensure that we reform the special educational needs and disabilities system, which has forced too many parents to try to seek support elsewhere when that high-quality education and support for their children should have been available in our state schools. That is what the Government are determined to deliver.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, yesterday the oldest independent prep school in my home city of Leeds, Moorlands, announced its closure after 127 years. Twelve days ago, the renowned Queen Margaret’s School in York, which has been educating girls for 125 years, said that it will close on 5 July, three days before another Yorkshire landmark, Fulneck in Pudsey, which opened in 1753. All three cited increased running costs, with both Moorlands and Queen Margaret’s specifically referring to VAT, increased national insurance and the removal of business rates relief as reasons for closure. Like me, the Minister was educated in the state sector, but will she now apologise to governors, staff, parents and, above all, students in many fine schools across the country facing closure for the damage, disruption and distress being caused by this Government’s cruel policies?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, I will not, because once again I emphasise that this was a decision made by the Government in order to be able to invest in the over 93% of our children who are educated in state schools. On the point about school closures, yes, every closure of a school is sad; I can understand why people will be distressed if their school closes. I note, however, that it has always been the case that approximately 50 mainstream private schools close each year and that in fact 79 private schools opened in the last year, whereas on average that has been 75 per year in the last 10 years.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, will my noble friend say a little more about what is happening to school rolls? Is it not a fact that, because of the declining birth rate, rolls are falling generally and there are state schools closing because of falling rolls, as well as private schools?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right about that. In fact, as of May 2024, 84% of primary schools and 76% of secondary schools had one unfilled place or more. I know that people have been concerned about whether there would be an impact on state schools and the ability of parents to gain their first choice. I am pleased, therefore, that the latest data shows that there has been no change in the percentage of children getting their first choice of school. The rate of children getting a place at one of their preferred primary schools is the second highest on record, and it is the highest since 2016 for those going into secondary school. At the same time, we have seen primary class sizes falling.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has twice said that the Government are focused on investing in the 93% of children who go to state schools, but on 11 June the Prime Minister wrote on X:
“In the budget last year, my government made the tough but fair decision to apply VAT to private schools … Today, because of that choice, we have announced the largest investment in affordable housing in a generation”.
So is it housing or is it teachers? Maybe the Minister can clarify.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We have also, of course, announced in the most recent spending review a considerable increase in the funding available to our schools, a real-terms increase over the period of that spending review. On the point about delivering the 6,500 new teachers, we are already making progress on that, because we were willing to agree the 5.5% pay award for last year and the 4% pay award for this year, and because we were willing to drive forward teacher recruitment and retention, backed by an investment of around £700 million across schools and further education, including additional money for the initial teacher training financial incentives package and to streamline routes into teaching, such as the postgraduate apprenticeship route. That is why we have already seen 2,346 more full-time equivalent teachers in secondary and special schools. That is the difference that Labour decisions and Labour investment make.
Palace of Westminster: Restoration and Renewal
Lord Hain
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what is the timeframe for making and implementing a decision on decanting the Palace of Westminster to enable its Restoration and Renewal.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the expectation is that the R&R client board, which is the commissions of both Houses, will publish costed proposals on three options—full decant, continued presence, and enhanced maintenance and improvement—by the end of the year, to enable both Houses to decide the way forward. Subject to those decisions, any significant decant would not begin in this Parliament, as the programme would commence with procurement, planning applications and enabling works.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, can the Senior Deputy Speaker confirm that a Joint Committee concluded in 2016 that the Palace of Westminster
“faces an impending crisis which we cannot responsibly ignore”
and that through the 2019 Act both Houses agreed that the only option was a full decant? The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, christened the basement a “cathedral of horror”. Fires break out all the time, and hazardous asbestos is everywhere. Will the noble Lord confirm that there is a real danger of a Notre Dame-type inferno or something worse unless something is done soon and both Houses of Parliament decant as soon as possible to allow a full restoration and renewal of the whole Palace; and will he confirm that the Joint Committee stated this would be the cheaper option, offering the best value for taxpayers’ money?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the Joint Committee at the time stated that full decant was the cheapest option and in 2018 both Houses endorsed this approach. Since then, in 2022, both Houses endorsed a new mandate for the R&R works to explore a wider range of options, as I mentioned. Fire safety is of critical importance, and there has been significant work to the Palace. A major programme of fire safety works was concluded in 2021 which amounted to approximately £130 million of investment. Parliament actively manages the risks of asbestos. This does not negate the imperative of making progress to safeguard this unique building for future generations.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the cost of delay in taking a decision on getting started is running at £700 million a year, and that we really need to get a definitive decision now? Given that, under any sensible option, the House of Lords will have to decant to the QEII Centre for a period, can the Minister explain where we have got to in making preparations for such a move?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the backdrop is that the ongoing maintenance and repair costs are £1.45 million a week; that sets the context. The House has been very clear that the QEII Centre is the preferred decant location across the three options. Work has already been undertaken by the R&R delivery authority to survey, develop, design and assess the QEII Centre. Any future approach will, of course, depend partly on how the use of the QEII Centre varies across the three options. I should also say, with the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, beside me, that the freehold of the building is currently owned by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, has my noble friend seen the very interesting proposal to build a barge in the Thames right next to the Palace of Westminster? The man behind it came on my yet-to-be-award-winning Times Radio show just the other week to talk about it, and he completely won me over. The QEII Centre is such a boring option; we know that my noble friend Lord Gove was very opposed to it. Could we not consider this rather brilliant barge, which would give a modern, 21st-century feel to the decant rather than a look-back-to-the-1980s feel?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, that was a very good plug for the noble Lord’s activities. However, let me be serious: a lot of work was undertaken as to the most sensible, practical and cost-effective places to go. I know that a number of options and buildings were looked at, and I know about the river proposal as well, but the QEII Centre always and consistently came out as the preferred location.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, an awful lot of work by a large number of experts has been carried out over the past few years to learn more about the state of the Palace and to work out options for the best way to restore this building. The knowledge base has moved on considerably since the Act was passed in 2019, and there is more than one way to carry out this project. Does the Senior Deputy Speaker agree with me in encouraging noble Lords—and, indeed, Members of the other place—not to prejudge the outcome of all that work but to wait until they have been able both to see the proposals and to review the up-to-date evidence before deciding on the best solution to restore the Palace?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lords, Lord Vaux, Lord Collins and Lord Mackinlay, for being our members on the programme board. I endorse the noble Lord’s words about the work that is being done. All of us should take the opportunity, if we have not already done so, to look at this and to go on a tour of the Palace to see the work that we would need to do. In all the options that the programme board has been working on for the client board to review, we should consider costings, timing, risk and impact; it is important that we all study that report.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Senior Deputy Speaker for those answers. I suspect that there is a consensus in this Chamber that we should be getting on with this, rather than having constant delay, but I understand why there will perhaps be some MPs who are concerned about what will be the huge costs involved even if we go for the cheapest of the options, which is a full decant. Is a case that will demonstrate how that expenditure will benefit the rest of the country being prepared—for example, a procurement policy on where we will purchase various items and where the workforce will come from—and to demonstrate that this is part of delivering growth for the nation, rather than simply some frivolous expenditure on parliamentarians?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, interestingly, when the public were surveyed in March, 74% of them supported the preserving of the building for future generations. We should have confidence that this building represents across the world a very important feature—democracy—and how that should function and flourish. Clearly, it is important that we work with large companies and SMEs, encourage apprentices and create a range of employment opportunities and careers in what will be one of the most dramatic restoration projects across the world. We should be confident. They are all very good reasons for working with business to ensure that we get the best result for the nation. We should get on with it as soon as possible.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the emphasis on cost-effectiveness and timeliness, and welcome the mention by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, of frivolousness. Are there any lessons on restoration and renewal that we can take from the saga of our front door and the fence outside? Why is it that every policeman and custodian that one asks says that the fence which has just been erected is dangerous, as it cuts off sightlines for those who might be wishing harm on this place? How have we spent more on this front door and this fence than on the Grenfell Tower disaster?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, they are both very serious matters which go back to the independent report on security and the need to enhance the security of the West Front following the death of PC Palmer. The backdrop is a security imperative. I will say next Wednesday that what has happened to our front door is entirely unacceptable. This has not been a project that anyone should be proud of, but we need to enhance our security, for reasons that many of us regret but which are necessary in the world in which we live.
It is important that we learn lessons from what other Parliaments are doing. That is why we are in dialogue with the Austrians, the Dutch and the Canadians, where they have had experience of renovation of Parliaments, and, in our own country, with Buckingham Palace and Manchester Town Hall.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, what assessment has been made of the required skills and crafts training associated with the refurbishment and renewal of the Palace of Westminster? What steps are being taken to ensure that the project supports a long-term legacy for traditional heritage crafts, apprenticeships—which the noble Lord mentioned—and sustainable construction?
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, that is very important. The delivery authority is aware of the need to target the recruitment of apprentices, particularly into roles where there are known skills shortages. The delivery authority is currently exploring and implementing a shared apprenticeship scheme across heritage client organisations. This project and this great enterprise will enable us to involve a lot of experience which we desperately need in terms of masonry, joinery, glazing, and all sorts of heritage skills which were in short supply. Restoring this Palace will be a great opportunity for that.
Perinatal Mental Health
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berger
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the spending on perinatal mental health services in England in the financial year 2024-25.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government recognise the importance of perinatal mental health services. Spending on specialist community perinatal mental health services continued to increase in 2024-25. The latest NHS figures show that integrated care boards spent £212 million that year, which is an increase of £18 million from 2023 to 2024. This does not include spending on mother and baby units. The final spend for those in 2024-25 is not yet available, but £58 million was spent in 2023-24.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply and declare my interest as chair of the Maternal Mental Health Alliance. It is heartening to hear the Government’s assessment that there have not been any real terms cuts to perinatal mental health services this year. That is in spite of evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. I listened very closely to what my noble friend said. She will know that maternal suicide remains the leading cause of maternal death in this country six weeks to a year after birth. Will the Government look to reintroduce the target to increase access to perinatal mental health care, which was dropped from the 2025-26 NHS planning guidance, to ensure that commissioners do not divert funds elsewhere?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I pay tribute to my noble friend for her work as the chair of the Maternal Mental Health Alliance. I share her great concerns about the rate of suicide among new mothers in particular. The NHS planning guidance is not an exhaustive list of everything the NHS does. I am sure my noble friend will remember that the Darzi review highlighted that one of the problems in the NHS was too many targets. We have reduced the number of national priorities by focusing on what matters most to patients but, as my noble friend acknowledged, maternity funding has not been cut. Indeed, healthcare systems leaders now have more autonomy to meet the demands of their local populations.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as CEO of Muslim Women’s Network UK. We conducted maternity research in 2022 and found that there is a lack of awareness in some minority ethnic communities that women can suffer from poor mental health during and after pregnancy, which results in the situation that, when women ask for help, they are not believed by their families and are accused of being a bad mother or even possessed by evil spirits. Will the Government look at doing some awareness raising of perinatal mental health in minority ethnic communities and make those services more accessible to those women?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises a very important point, particularly on voices not being heard. I am sure she heard the announcement on maternity safety made by the Secretary of State on Monday. He highlighted the issue of women’s voices and that women are so often not listened to. That is particularly the case among the minority ethnic groups the noble Baroness referred to. I assure her that that is taken into account. I am glad to say that there are record numbers of women accessing community perinatal mental health services. On the point raised, that is why it is for local areas to serve their local communities in the way she describes.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, given the £8.1 billion annual cost of untreated perinatal mental illness, will the Government mandate a ring-fenced, inflation-proof budget for perinatal mental health services within ICBs to ensure sustainable long-term investment, rather than relying purely on discretionary funding?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I do not share the view that it is discretionary funding, not least because what matters are the outputs, which are, as I described, that a record nearly 65,000 women accessed a specialist community perinatal mental health service or maternal mental health service in the 12 months to April 2025. That gives some idea of the scale—that is a 95% increase compared with four years earlier. So the output is absolutely there. Was it ever the case that all needs were met? No, it was not, even before the change to the planning guidance and the ring-fencing. I emphasise again that this Government’s whole approach is to ensure that local communities are properly served. That is why ICBs can make decisions about how they provide what I regard as first-rate services.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I support much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, said, particularly about the leading cause of maternal deaths—39% of them—being suicide. Not only that: 37% of those mothers who took their own lives had a known history of mental health issues, yet they were not properly looked after. That is the main problem. Although guidelines exist for screening mothers during pregnancy and after the birth of a baby, they are not universally followed. There is a great variation in the adoption of these guidelines and using the screening tools that are available to identify mothers at risk during pregnancy. We need to put much more effort into that. On the cost, there is only one small model that describes the benefits of identifying mothers at risk during pregnancy and after delivery. We need a detailed study to show the cost-benefit analysis of doing that.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord, building on my noble friend’s point, makes a very important point. I will add to what he said. The impact on affected families is absolutely devastating and has very long-lasting effects, particularly on children. As the noble Lord said, the suicide prevention strategy outlines what clinicians should do, which is complete screening of women’s mental health during pregnancy and the first year after pregnancy. I hear the points that the noble Lord made and will put them into my discussions about suicide prevention, because I am also concerned about the number of people who take their own lives who are in no contact with the health services; we have to find a way of making contact with them. This is less the case in this circumstance, but that theme is still there. I thank the noble Lord for that contribution.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, following an Answer to a Written Question from my noble friend Lord Kamall, data shows that last year only one post was available in the north-east and one in the south-west for obstetrics and gynaecology specialist training stage 3, and only four posts were available in London. How will the Government rectify the dearth of provision?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
As the noble Baroness is aware, the long-awaited 10-year plan will be with us shortly. That will set out the parameters for change and the services that we need. Following that, there will a long-term workforce plan, which will deal with the kind of matters the noble Baroness referred to.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, I had not intended to ask a question but, following on from the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, impacts other than the most undesirable one of suicide come from postnatal depression. Among those are an inability of new mothers to cope well with the demands on them and therefore provide the care that very young children need. Is the Minister confident that the way that the NHS now—I am struggling not to say “gets rid of”—moves mothers out of hospital very soon after birth provides the right start to the sort of care that particularly vulnerable women need immediately after giving birth?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend raises a very useful consideration. Decisions about how long a new mother stays in hospital are a local matter and specific to that woman. The other point I want to raise is that the services we are talking about have actually been expanded to provide care to women for up to two years after birth. That is incredibly important, as is providing a mental health assessment and signposting support for partners, who we should also remember in all of this. The services we are talking about cross the entire span and go on for two years beyond it. That certainly underpins the kind of services we want to see, but I certainly agree with my noble friend that individual cases must be seen as individual cases.
NHS: Private Equity
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Altmann
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential risks to GP services and NHS costs presented by the takeover of Assura’s surgeries by private equity providers; and whether they plan to intervene to retain domestic control of such services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, Assura’s portfolio of over 500 properties is leased to GPs and other NHS and private healthcare providers. Arrangements for leased properties and their ongoing healthcare are secured through lease arrangements. A change in ownership does not affect their legal status; leases will continue to be set out and protect the terms of occupation for GP surgeries and other NHS service providers. Officials are in dialogue with Assura and prospective purchasers—and will keep monitoring proceedings.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Following Care REIT falling into foreign hands, the board of Assura was happy to sell out to KKR, risking an uncertain future for GP surgeries serving millions of people, rather than ensuring continued UK ownership to support NHS current and future infrastructure.
The dangers of allowing overseas takeovers and private equity buyouts are written in the wreckage of our care home sector. I have two questions. First, what power do the Government have to prevent further erosion of UK critical infrastructure? Secondly, do His Majesty’s Government recognise the damage caused by the FCA to so many such real estate investment trusts, and other investment trusts, which own and manage critical UK infrastructure? The exaggerated so-called investor costs have led to unwarranted under- valuation. Therefore, foreign bidders come in and take the opportunity to snap up our future infrastructure for short-term gain, denying those opportunities to pension funds, which are the ideal long-term investors for such companies.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I understand the noble Baroness’s concern, but perhaps I could assure her and your Lordships’ House that it was decided this week by the board of Assura to recommend to shareholders an offer from Primary Health Properties, which is another UK real estate investment trust, similar to Assura, which is focused on primary healthcare premises. It is the case—or was the case, depending on how you look at it—that there was another bidder for Assura: KKR. As the noble Baroness said, KKR is an American private equity and investment company, but it seems very unlikely to be successful at this stage. The assurance I can give the noble Baroness is that a change in ownership does not affect the legal status of existing lease arrangements. I would also say that the ownership of the general practice estate is very much a mixed model in which GP practice buildings can be leased from a variety of landlords, including companies such as Assura, which actually constitute quite a small proportion of the overall estate.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, given that there are a vast number of overseas investments in different areas of private medicine in London—for example, in vitro fertilisation, much surgery, and so on—can the Minister tell us whether there is any fundamental difference between this and Assura healthcare? Providing it is under the proper regulation of the NHS—which I believe it is—there is no particular harm that we can identify.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My noble friend is quite right. What matters is the assurances that are in place to enable provision to be made, whether that is on the estate or on services, as my noble friend refers to. I can certainly assure your Lordships’ House that in preparation for this discussion of course I asked the question: are there risks? I am assured there are no risks about which we need to be concerned.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Will the Minister look at the National Security and Investment Act 2021? This gives the Government the power to designate a sector as having particular importance for the future of our country. It might be appropriate, when we are dealing with healthcare, which is obviously a key part of our infrastructure, for this to play a role in the sorts of issues she is tackling when responding to this Question today.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion. This was another area I raised with officials who have been in contact with Assura and the proposed new company, Primary Health Properties plc. The implication, I believe—I am sure the noble Lord will happily correct me outside the Chamber if this is not the case—is that somehow the Government should take on this responsibility. This would be a significant cost because the Government would have to offer in excess of the £1.79 billion currently offered by PHP and, in addition, take over £2 billion of debt raised against the properties which is secured against future rental income streams. I hope that gives some idea of the scale. There is also no strategic imperative. I understand the concerns, but the market is currently delivering, and it is expected to continue to do so.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, this raises a wider question regarding the NHS primary care estate. Will the Government look seriously at implementing new controls and transparent pricing benchmarks to prevent overseas investors not just imposing exploitative rents but producing punitive dilapidations, which is where they will make their money when they return the estate to the public sector?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point. I assure him that rent and service charges continue to be set in line with the original terms if there is a change of owner. Whatever the ownership, properties occupied by GPs are required to be professionally valued by the district valuer. The service advises commissioners on whether levels of rent are value for money and align with market rents in a particular area. The other thing I might add, which I mentioned in answer to an earlier question about the mixed model of the general practice estate, is that nearly half of them are in any case GP-owned and 26% are GP leasehold. We do not currently see a problem in the way the noble Lord describes, but if there are particular examples to follow up, I am very happy to do so.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the private sector has a significant role to play in alleviating the pressures faced by the NHS. Please allow me to quote the Secretary of State for Health. He said the independent sector can “help us out” and:
“We would be mad not to”.
Can the Minister help us understand why a number of experts in your Lordships’ House are saying outside the Chamber that there is currently excess capacity in the private sector at benchmark NHS prices? There would be no extra cost to the taxpayer but huge incremental benefits to people on NHS waiting lists. However, the spare capacity is not being used.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Again, if there is particular information I should have, I would be delighted to receive that. I can only wholeheartedly agree with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State about the need to use capacity in the private sector. It is one of the ways we are driving down waiting lists and offering more appointments. As I am sure the noble Lord knows, we committed to 2 million extra appointments in our first year of government; we have far exceeded that already with 3.6 million.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I accept what the Minister said about how the leasing arrangements will remain the same. But can we be assured that both KKR and PHP—whichever wins the bidding war—will follow the same procedures; that is, they will be responsible for providing the equipment and the rents will not increase based on what equipment they provide, and that, therefore, patient care will remain of the highest quality?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for seeking that reassurance, which I can indeed give.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I beg noble Lords’ indulgence. Will the Minister answer the second question I asked about how our infrastructure, such as these properties, is selling at hugely undervalued levels on the market because of a technical issue relating to regulations imposed by the Financial Conduct Authority?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I fear I am not able to answer in the detail that the noble Baroness would like, but I would be delighted to write to her.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 3, Schedule 1, Clauses 4 to 30, Schedule 2, Clauses 31 to 74, Schedule 3, Clauses 75 to 101, Schedule 4, Clause 102, Schedule 5, Clauses 103 to 146, Schedule 6, Clauses 147 to 149, Title.
Planning and Infrastructure Bill
Wednesday 25th June 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberPlanning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 View all Planning and Infrastructure Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 10 June 2025 - (10 Jun 2025)
Lord Khan of Burnley
That the Bill be now read a second time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, I would first like to extend my thanks to the many noble Lords with whom my noble friend Lady Taylor and I have already spoken about the Bill. I know that there is consensus in this House that the country could and should be better served: better served by more decent housing, with a better, faster process for agreeing what infrastructure is needed to support the communities we build; better, greener infrastructure to help the country meet its climate targets; a better deal for nature, which we know the public deeply cares about. Britain deserves better than the status quo, and it is for that reason that we have brought forward this Bill.
We have already delivered significant changes to our planning system in a revised, pro-growth National Planning Policy Framework. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that these changes will increase our real GDP level by 0.2% by 2029-30—the equivalent of £6.8 billion in today’s prices. We are creating a system that is not only fit to address our present challenges but agile enough to respond to our future needs.
For too long, the approach was a mismatched tapestry of ill-fitting, short-termist reforms that tinkered around the edges rather than resolving our problems. In the process, layers of bureaucracy and gold-plating have been created rather than genuine improvements. This House should not mistake the Government’s ambitions or the speed at which the Bill has been taken forward for a lack of careful consideration. The situation is stark, and these issues merit prioritising.
The time it takes to secure planning permission for major infrastructure projects has almost doubled in the last decade to more than four years. Home building has also fallen from already insufficient levels. There are simply not enough homes. The number of new homes built is estimated to drop to around 200,000 this year, which would be the lowest year for net additional dwellings in England since 2015-16. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill will help turn this around, sending us on our way to building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England and reaching planning decisions on 150 major economic infrastructure projects in this Parliament.
The Bill will further support the Government’s clean power 2030 target, enabling essential clean energy projects to be built as quickly as possible. As a key component of our Plan for Change, this ambitious package of reforms will unblock the planning system to secure the infrastructure this country needs. Upgrading the country’s critical infrastructure is essential to boosting economic growth and improving the quality of life that Britain has to offer. That is why the Bill introduces a range of reforms to the consenting process for nationally significant infrastructure projects to create a faster and more certain system. These changes have been informed by feedback from developers, planning and technical experts, ENGOs and local authorities.
Reforms brought forward by the Bill include ensuring that national policy statements, which are the cornerstone of the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, are kept up to date. New powers will allow for projects to be directed out of the NSIP system where they can be better served by another consenting route. We are replacing overly prescriptive statutory consultation requirements, which encourage risk aversion and gold-plating, with guidance that will encourage the development of high-quality applications through meaningful engagement.
The Government still expect that development proposals are fully scoped before submission to the Planning Inspectorate. These measures will tackle the huge volume of inaccessible paperwork that slows the process without adding value to communities. This could reduce consenting times by up to 12 months and pave the way for new roads, railways and wind farms to bolster the country’s connectivity and energy security.
Building on recommendations proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Banner, KC, the paper permission stage for judicial reviews of national policy statements and development consent orders has been removed, as has the right of appeal when cases are deemed totally without merit. Taken together, these changes will address the biggest barriers to delivery. They are targeted specifically at fixing elements of the system that slow down applications, decisions and, ultimately, development.
On top of these overall changes to the NSIP regime, the Bill will also deliver a faster and more certain consenting process for transport infrastructure projects. Boosting transport connectivity will support economic growth across the country, tackle congestion and keep Britain moving. Measures brought forward in the Bill will streamline the Highways Act and the Transport and Works Act process to ensure that it is proportionate, is fit for purpose and supports the effective and timely delivery of transport projects.
Additionally, the Bill will introduce a number of changes to speed up the delivery of our energy infrastructure. It supports vital reforms to the electricity network’s grid connection process. The current first come, first served connections queue prevents viable projects from being able to connect to the grid ahead of slower-moving ones. The Bill will ensure that projects that align with the Government’s Clean Power 2030 Action Plan are prioritised. This move to a first ready, first connected approach will avoid delays in connecting viable and needed projects to the power grid. These reforms enable strategically important energy projects needed for clean power to be prioritised for grid connection.
Reforms to the consenting process for electricity infrastructure in Scotland will also make the system more efficient and look to reduce overall consenting timescales. These have been developed jointly with the Scottish Government.
The Bill enables the launch of a discount scheme for certain communities that live nearby new or significantly upgraded electricity transmission infrastructure. The introduction of a cap and floor scheme for long-duration energy storage will support investment in this area and help to decarbonise the electricity system. A cheaper and more efficient energy system is a key driver of growth.
I turn to Part 2. The Bill will make further changes to streamline decision-making in the planning system to ensure that the system operates as effectively and efficiently as possible. A national scheme of delegation will be introduced to set out which types of applications should be determined by officers and which by planning committees. The Government have published a technical 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. This change will not undermine the important role that planning committees play in providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. Instead, it will ensure that planning committees play their proper role in scrutinising development to the best standard possible and without delay. In fact, 96% of planning decisions are already made by officers. Introducing a national scheme of delegation will simply create greater consistency of decision-making, ensuring that planning committees have the time to deal with the most significant or contentious applications.
Some in the other place have argued that this measure represents an attack on local democracy, framing the Bill as an attempt to diminish community voices. I disagree. This reform will improve the effectiveness of local democratic oversight. There will be no more grandstanding debates about the merits of a fence or extension; instead, the committee’s focus will be on those development proposals that matter most to local communities.
Our changes, combined with further reforms in the Bill to allow the local determination of planning fees, will help to ensure that local planning authorities and wider organisations have the resources they need to deliver change for communities across the country.
We cannot meet this country’s needs without planning for growth on a larger than local scale. The Bill will enable the Government to introduce a system of strategic planning across England. Areas will be required to produce spatial development strategies, closely modelling the system which has been in place in London for over 20 years. This will help to address key spatial issues such as meeting housing needs, delivering strategic infrastructure, growing the economy and improving climate resilience and nature recovery by taking a subregional view of how growth needs can be sustainably met. It will also enable more efficient and timely production of local plans, which will provide the detail and site allocations to support the special strategy set out in the SDS.
On Part 3, I think we can all agree on the important role that sustained economic growth plays in ensuring the prosperity of our country. However, we are clear that nature cannot be an afterthought and must be placed at the heart of our reforms. The nature restoration fund will accelerate the building of homes and infrastructure, while unlocking the positive impact that development can have in driving the recovery of protected sites and species. This will move us from a system that simply offsets impacts to one that actively supports the recovery of protected sites and species. The more strategic approach to nature recovery brought forward by the Bill will be delivered through the creation of environmental delivery plans. EDPs, made by the Secretary of State and delivered by Natural England, will set out a package of conservation measures sufficient to address the environmental impacts of development and, crucially, secure an environmental uplift. Rather than being limited to addressing the impact of a single development, an EDP will pool resources and deliver conservation measures at scale to maximise the positive outcome for the environment. At the same time, developers will benefit from a streamlined process and simple user experience for development in England and up to 12 nautical miles into its territorial waters.
The Government have constructed the legislation to include a range of safeguards to ensure that the new system delivers on the ambition to go further for nature. An EDP can be put in place only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the conservation measures are likely to outweigh the negative effects of development. This will ensure that our reforms will not reduce existing levels of environmental protection, with this new approach delivering more for nature, not less. It is for this reason that the Government are confident that the nature restoration fund is a progressive intervention, as supported in the Section 20 statement that accompanies the Bill. That is not to say that the Government are not listening to the views of stakeholders who have indicated areas where they may wish to strengthen the Bill. My noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage and I take the views of the Office for Environmental Protection seriously and continue to engage with it and environmental NGOs. We look forward to hearing and engaging with the views of noble Lords today and throughout the Bill’s passage.
Of course, the NRF is not the only measure in the Bill that will make a meaningful difference in our ongoing battle to support nature and address climate change. Measures in the Bill to prioritise network connections are a prime example—we cannot afford to delay the benefit the Bill will have on the environment as a whole.
The Bill will also strengthen development corporations to make it easier for central and local government to deliver large-scale new communities. It creates a clearer, more flexible and robust legislative framework for the operation of development corporations. These are important vehicles for delivering large-scale and complex regeneration and development projects. Ensuring that we have up-to-date and clear legislation on their remit, duties and powers will allow development corporations to unlock more housing across the country, co-ordinating that with infrastructure and transport for sustained economic growth.
The Government are keen for authorities to make greater use of their compulsory purchase powers to support the delivery of housing, growth and the regeneration of their areas. Measures introduced in the Bill will enable more effective land assembly, which will speed up and lower the cost of housing and infrastructure delivery. The Bill will ensure that the process for acquiring land with a hope value direction is more efficient. It will reduce the administrative cost of making a CPO and streamline the CPO process, including by allowing notices to be served electronically.
The legislation will also expand the power to remove hope value where land is acquired by a parish or town council when the relevant project facilitates the provision of affordable housing This will reinforce the principle that landowners should not receive excessive compensation where compulsory purchase powers are used to deliver schemes in the public interest. These changes have been brought forward to make the system more efficient and fairer. The Government are clear that there must always be a compelling case in the public interest for the use of a CPO.
It is in our national interest to make the planning system better, because sustained economic growth is the only route to improving the prosperity of our country and the living standards of working people. In making these changes, we can tackle some of the biggest issues facing the country today. I believe the measures in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill are sufficiently comprehensive, robust and, crucially, balanced to meet these challenges head-on. I know that the subjects to be debated today are matters dear to many across the House. I have no doubt that, in the weeks and months ahead, Members will approach this Bill with the rigour and scrutiny that embodies the very best that this House offers. I beg to move.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as vice-president of the Local Government Association.
We on these Benches support many of the Bill’s principles and ambitions, several of which build on work that we led in government during a period of record housebuilding. While not perfect, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act is a step forward, streamlining the planning system and focusing on local priorities. As a Minister, I recognised the urgent need for more homes, and I remain just as committed today to driving practical action to meet that need.
In 2019, the Conservative Party committed to delivering 1 million additional homes over the course of that Parliament. In 2024, before the general election, we delivered on that commitment. The Labour Party has now committed to delivering 1.5 million homes over this Parliament, and it is essential that it delivers on that manifesto commitment.
As the Bill progresses through this House, we will raise serious concerns: the removal of councillors’ voting rights on individual applications; sharply increased housing targets in rural areas, without sufficient protection for villages; the shift to strategic plans; and the questions over the deliverability of the 1.5 million homes target. That figure appears to be little more than the Deputy Prime Minister’s arbitrary aspiration. Announced in the other place without a road map, without detailed plans and, ultimately, without a credible delivery mechanism, the target lacks the very foundations required to make it achievable.
There are, quite rightly, widespread questions about the target’s deliverability, particularly in light of the February S&P Global UK Construction Purchasing Managers’ Index, which reports one of the sharpest monthly declines in housebuilding and construction on record. Furthermore, the joint report from Savills, the Home Builders Federation and the National Housing Federation estimated that the Secretary of State is likely to fall short of her target by as many as 500,000 homes.
Doubts about deliverability were only compounded by the recent spending review. The Chancellor’s announcement was heavily backloaded, with limited short-term impact; most of the uplift comes after 2030, with meaningful increases not projected until 2035-36. The headline figure, spread over a decade, goes beyond this Parliament and will have to withstand numerous fiscal events from a Government so often keen to change their mind.
There is, as yet, no formal multiyear budget commitment. It is a pledge, not a statutory allocation. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies put it, the £39 billion figure is meaningful only if future spending reviews confirm it. Even if the workable aspects of the Bill are able to deliver more homes, the Government must indicate how this funding will deliver their pledge in this Parliament.
The Bill also impacts our natural environment and rural communities. Later in this debate, my noble friend Lord Roborough will outline why, from these Benches, we view Part 3 of the Bill as a particular cause for concern. The proposed nature restoration levy may, to some sitting in an office in Whitehall, seem like a welcome simplification of the environmental conditions attached to the planning system. But in reality it appears to water down existing protections, and that is not a solution. The Official Opposition want to see the right homes in the right place, without weakening our position on nature restoration and appropriate environmental protections.
There are important questions that the Government must answer. What safeguards will ensure that the levy is proportionate to the environmental impact and does not simply become another tax or barrier to development? What is the expected timeline for implementing the environmental delivery plans, and have the Government factored in potential delays, including the possibility of judicial reviews? We look forward to the Minister’s reflections on these points. Our assessment is that it could take some years from Royal Assent before the environmental delivery plans begin to make a real-world impact. If the Government believe otherwise, we would welcome reassurances on this.
On outcomes, concerns persist. The Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management has warned that this system risks the immediate loss of natural capital, with any benefits only realised decades later. We hope the Government can provide greater confidence that this approach will deliver meaningful and timely results for the environment.
If the Government are now concerned with the issue of nutrient neutrality, perhaps I might draw their attention to the amendments we tabled during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. Regrettably, the Government—then in opposition—chose to vote them down, thereby defeating the proposition. I would, of course, be more than happy to assist the Ministers by returning these amendments to the attention of the House, in the hope that even at this stage the Government might now reconsider their position.
Additionally, this Bill touches on the crucial area of energy. My noble friend Lord Offord will speak with authority on this subject later in the debate. However, I will briefly set out why we see it as so vital. The UK continues to face some of the highest electricity costs in the world, an issue that poses a serious barrier to growth. We therefore welcome commitments to energy infrastructure and support any measures that aim to reduce energy costs. This must go hand in hand with proper community consultation, particularly regarding the installation of overhead cables and new pylons. Finally, we must ensure that we are developing a diverse and resilient energy mix, one that provides stability and equips us to meet the challenges of an increasingly uncertain world.
On planning, the Minister is correct that we are deeply concerned about the proposed national scheme of delegation, which would remove councillors’ ability to vote on individual planning applications. Is the Minister not concerned about the systematic removal of layer upon layer of democratic oversight? Democratic accountability matters, especially when it comes to housebuilding. Local consent, legitimacy and trust are essential to deliver not just more houses but the right houses.
When local communities and their elected representatives have a meaningful role in the planning process, housebuilding is seen as something done with people, not done to them. Strip that away and you risk generating opposition, misdirecting development and ultimately building fewer homes. We want the right homes in the right places, and the Government need to bring communities with them if they are to deliver that. When communities are engaged and can see the shape and benefit of new housing, whether through affordable homes, infrastructure improvements or environmental safeguards, public support increases and delivery becomes more achievable.
We are particularly concerned at the proposed model of strategic planning. It could be—and is being—used to shift urban housing need into our rural areas. This is especially troubling in light of the disproportionately high increases in housing targets assigned to those rural authorities. The Secretary of State has raised the national housing target by 50%. Residents might reasonably expect that their local targets have increased by a similar amount, but that is far from the case. According to the House of Commons Library, in major urban conurbations, housing targets have risen by an average of 17%. In predominantly rural areas, they have increased by 115%.
To illustrate, London’s target is down 12%, Newcastle down 15%, Birmingham down 38% and Coventry down 55%. Meanwhile, Wyre Forest and New Forest have seen their targets doubled. Westmorland’s target has increased by almost 500%. This is neither fair nor sustainable. It erodes local trust and places significant pressures on our rural services, infrastructure and landscapes.
Worse still, it undermines the very reason we need more homes in the first place. High housing costs in major towns and cities act as a major barrier to interregional mobility. For low-income houses, households and renters, housing affordability creates a form of price lock-in, preventing them accessing areas with greater employment opportunities. If we are serious about boosting growth and supporting opportunity, we need the right homes in the right places. We need homes where opportunities are, and we need local representation to be involved in the process of building those homes. We therefore urge the Government to rethink this approach and to restore a meaningful role for democratic decision-making in the planning system.
From these Benches, we warmly welcome the Government’s greater emphasis on the local plans. A plan-led system is the right approach, and we recognise the effort to ensure that communities have a stronger voice in shaping development. However, we see opportunities to build on this. In particular, we would like to explore more ambitious support for small builders and self-builders, an important part of a diverse and resilient housing sector. The current 10% site allocation for such developments is a positive step, but we support the Federation of Master Builders’ suggestion that this could be increased to 20%. We also welcome consideration of an expanded role for Homes England in supporting microbuilders, who often face particular barriers to entry.
I turn briefly to the issue of grey belt. While we appreciate the intention to make better use of underused land, concerns remain about how these changes may impact the wider countryside, particularly village identity. Although this is not directly part of the Bill, it clearly interacts with the Bill, and we hope Ministers will continue to reflect on the balance between flexibility and long-standing protection of rural communities. There is also a risk of unintended urban sprawl. This would place significant pressure on our local infrastructure and services. We should prioritise the proper use of our existing urban centres, bringing empty properties back into use and supporting densification where appropriate to make the most of the space we already have.
Our aim in engaging with the Bill is not to obstruct its objectives but to contribute constructively to its success. We will bring forward amendments that are designed to strengthen the Bill’s ability to deliver well-designed, affordable homes, particularly for those on lower incomes and first-time buyers, while ensuring that local voices, rural character and environmental safeguards remain respected.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we welcome the stated aim of getting Britain building and kick-starting our economic growth, delivering much-needed housing and critical infrastructure. We also recognise the urgent need to fundamentally reform and improve our planning systems. We must build more homes—more affordable homes—and infrastructure to meet the challenges of our time, from improving transport systems to addressing climate change.
The current systems are clearly not working. Getting to clean power alone by 2030 will require huge investment in renewable energy and the grid. Our electricity consumption is due to more than double by 2050, and we welcome the reforms to the grid connection system.
We are at the stage of the energy transition where we need to build a lot of stuff, and we need to be able to take our communities with us to get that done. Although the intention to improve the systems and processes is welcome, some of the solutions proposed are misguided and concerning. The Government have chosen neither bats nor crested newts, because the Government want growth. These plans are much more “done to” than “done with” when it comes to our local communities. The Government suggest that existing environmental protections are a significant barrier to development and that these plans will provide a win-win for both nature and the economy, and a more strategic approach.
Nature appears to have little voice and little value within these proposals. Our planning systems need to be aligned with and support our climate and nature goals. If enacted, the Bill will degrade our nature and biodiversity, and the real reforms and funding that our planning system desperately needs will be missed. My arguments are based on the Government’s own evidence; the impact assessment admits:
“There is very limited data on how environmental obligations affect development”.
Official analysis provides no data to support the argument that environmental legislation holds up building.
Removing these protections will not help. Delays are more often rooted in lengthy pre-planning application stages, poor processes, lack of data and of data sharing, outdated national policy statements and, in some cases, yet to be delivered policies such as land use frameworks and various spatial plans. In addition, our local authorities are permanently understaffed, underfunded and unable to cope. We can add to this list skills shortages, supply chain issues and market confidence.
As we have heard, more than 1.5 million homes in England have planning permission; 95% of local planning applications are approved. All too often, developers do not build, and the systems simply fail to ensure delivery. The Bill misses an important opportunity to better hold large housebuilders to account and continues a developer-led approach.
The environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration levy proposals are an alarming step backwards for nature protection. The Bill proposes that developers can pay into a nature restoration fund instead of fulfilling existing legal obligations to protect wildlife and habitats. This bypasses the fundamental mitigation hierarchy: the principle that impacts should first be avoided, then mitigated and compensated for only as a last resort. There is no requirement for developers to even attempt to avoid harm before resorting to paying the off-set fee. This is a profound weakening of our environmental law.
I do not much like the idea that nature can be transplanted in this way for a fee. It treats nature as akin to a problem as simple as house removals. Nature cannot simply be moved around to suit developers’ needs. This model is entirely unsuitable for irreplaceable habitats. All sites with nature protections should be removed from these provisions. Many of these habitats are simply impossible to recreate and move elsewhere.
The abundance of 753 terrestrial and freshwater species has, on average, fallen by 19% across the UK since 1970. How do we expect to meet our biodiversity targets with these proposals? Proposals to give these unique ecosystems stronger protections were rejected in the other place and government amendments never arrived. The Government even rejected a cross-party amendment to allow swift bricks in new homes. What hope is there for nature if adding a £36 swift brick is so easily rejected? We must work with nature, bring it into our developments and promote access. Doing so provides rewards for our quality of life and improves our health. We must restore and work with nature to help mitigate the impact of climate change.
Instead, the Bill’s overall improvement test states that the conservation measures must only be
“likely to be sufficient to outweigh”
negative impacts. This introduces uncertainty, unpredictability and subjectivity, falling far short of the rigorous scientific certainty required by our existing environmental laws. We believe this must be strengthened and that the benefits must significantly outweigh any harm. The Office for Environmental Protection has also expressed significant concerns about the Bill as drafted, saying that it reduces the level of environmental protection. It describes the provisions as a “regression”, particularly for habitats and species.
Concerns also persist regarding adequate resourcing and capacity for Natural England to administer the substantial new responsibilities. These will be in a complex system that the Government are putting in place. We are calling for independent oversight of the NRF to ensure that funds are spent effectively and transparently.
To conclude, we must properly resource our planning authorities. Some 25% of all planners have been lost in the past seven years. The Government will allow local authorities to set their own fees but these must be ring-fenced to ensure that the money and skills are available to ensure a sufficient local planning system. We must strengthen our local democratic accountability and public trust. The Bill’s approach risks alienating communities and diminishing the crucial role of our elected councils. I worry this could have a negative impact as we roll out all the stuff we need to build to get to net zero. We must ensure meaningful engagement and good communications, and that communities have a voice in and benefit from the energy transition itself.
We will work with the Government to improve the Bill, but they may well be surprised by the level of cross-party consensus that has already established itself on all sides of your Lordships’ House on these matters.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Town and Country Planning Association and of the Local Government Association, an honorary member of the Royal Town Planning Institute, and an honorary fellow of the Royal Institute of British Architects.
My interest is in the Bill’s vital mission to get the homes and infrastructure built that this country needs so badly. We have a very real housing crisis, with increasing numbers of families placed in temporary accommodation at huge public expense, simply because there are not enough homes to go around. This objective will require proper resourcing of planning departments, and Part 2 of the Bill recognises this necessity.
A key question hanging over the ambition to build 1.5 million more and better homes is: who will the nation entrust to get this job done? For many years, the answer for most housebuilding has been, “We will let the volume housebuilders acquire the sites, come up with the plans, design and build the homes, and make their profits while we try to require them to allocate a modest proportion of their output for affordable housing”.
This reliance on the large housebuilders has not produced the quantity or quality of homes we need. It has seen development of expanses of greenfield land in preference to small sites and brownfield schemes that can regenerate whole neighbourhoods. It has put SME builders out of business—down from building 40% of new homes to just 10% since 2000. It has not created apprenticeships and a trained workforce, and there has been little innovation or use of modern methods of construction. It has led to so-called “fleecehold” sales to home buyers and to uniform, soulless design, and there has been little attempt to provide the green spaces and community facilities that are the making of any place. The housebuilders have worked at a pace that suits themselves—a build-out rate that ensures no reduction in house prices.
The housebuilders can reply that they are profit-making businesses with shareholders to satisfy and they cannot be expected to work for public benefit—for the common good. But surely, now is the time for a model that is driven by what is best for the place in question. This leads us to the really positive Part 4 of the Bill, which promotes new development corporations. This is the model that will be used for the eagerly awaited new generation of new towns, but which can operate everywhere else: arms-length to local authorities, but publicly accountable; and sometimes created by mayoral and other combined county authorities. Development corporations acquire sites ahead of planning consent and capture the increase in land value, if necessary using the CPO powers much improved by Part 5. Development corporations commission the necessary master plans and parcel out sites to a range of providers—to housebuilders, large and small, but also to housing associations for social housing; to providers of homes for later living; for student accommodation; for self-build and custom housebuilding; and for all the vital social infrastructure.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill enables the use of this development corporation model for any major development, introducing an alternative to the failed business model of the oligopoly of volume housebuilders. Here is the breakthrough the Bill could achieve.
So, in commending Part 4, I ask the Minister whether the necessary backup—guidance, governance, finance—is being prepared by the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government for the creation of many new development corporations for urban extensions, major regeneration projects and desirable new developments that will contrast with the arrangements that have let us down for the last 30 years or more.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, it is always a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Best, whose wisdom on housing is quite unparalleled. I draw attention to my own interests in social housing, as set out in the register, and to the fact that a number of provisions in the Bill might impact on the interests of the Church Commissioners for England, who pay my stipend and own the house I live in.
I welcome the Bill. We desperately need a rapid expansion in the building of social homes, ideally at social rents. Enactment of the measures here included can be part of the architecture—please excuse the pun—we need if we are going to underpin the ambition for a mixed economy for housing, one which will live up to the Archbishops’ Commission on Housing’s values of homes that are safe and sustainable.
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Best, and others, I welcome efforts to tackle the long-standing issue of hope value. The rapid, inflation-busting rise in the value of land with planning permission, compounded now over several decades, convinces me that while the position we have inherited may have been suitable half a century ago, it is now frankly untenable and immoral. However, we need to tackle this carefully; I and my colleagues will listen closely to debate on this matter in your Lordships’ House.
In Greater Manchester, attempting to achieve a spatial plan across 10 local authorities has proved taxing—that is a euphemism for impossible. I hope that, through the Bill, we will be able to break some of those log-jams. In practice, these are often due less to party-political differences than to councillors needing to attend to very localised lobby groups. Combined authorities and mayoralties have now more than proved their worth, especially when we need to take a strategic view, so I hope we can give them the powers they need. Indeed, I suspect that many local councillors, who understand the need for housing and infrastructure, may be deeply relieved not always to be blamed for agreeing to major new developments in their wards.
Turning to other aspects of the Bill, several of my noble and right reverend friends will be following with interest the rural provisions. For example, we believe that the Bill provides an important opportunity to protect chalk streams, which are both globally rare and ecologically very significant.
My noble and right reverend friend the Bishop of Hereford has drawn to my attention how multi-generational farming families struggle under current legislation to build agricultural tied accommodation so that the next generation can remain on the farm. We need to keep family farms running, not least so that very elderly farmers can retire—I know far too many who are continuing when they really should not—and we do not lose the skills and commitment to farming that have often been passed down many generations. I know he will be looking to table an amendment in Committee and, no doubt, supporting other amendments.
The notion of offsetting the impact of development on a particular site by other environmental measures elsewhere is already established in other legislation, so extending it has my support. But the case made by the Wildlife and Countryside Link—that measures to offset environmental harm should be delivered as close as possible to the site of the impact—needs to be taken seriously. Wherever possible, there should be a direct link between new infrastructure and the development of new ecosystems. That way, the public see the benefits in their own communities. I accept that that will not always be possible, and it must not become a means of blocking or delaying every major development, but offsetting at a considerable distance should be rare and exceptional.
Finally, I have long championed the needs of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. They have been part of the backbone of rural Britain for many generations, but they are increasingly pushed to the margins. I urge that we take the opportunity of this Bill to ensure that Gypsy and Traveller accommodation figures are included and explicitly referenced in the requirements of spatial development strategies. Moreover, the definition of social housing could also helpfully be amended to include local authority Gypsy and Traveller sites, along with broadening the definition of a “dwelling” in Section 1 of the Housing Act 2004 to include all those essential parts of the home on a Gypsy/Traveller site.
It may not be obvious, given the lack of any of my right reverend friends in their places, but there is considerable interest in this Bill on our Benches. This just also happens to be one of the busiest weeks of our year. Several hundred new priests and deacons will be ordained in our cathedrals across England this coming weekend. Lucie, my assistant, has worked wonders with the diary just to get me here.
I look forward to continuing to engage with the Bill at its later stages, but in the meantime, I am glad to welcome it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Bill, which I see as an essential foundation to building new homes and critical infra- structure. We simply cannot afford the current planning and regulatory system, which seems almost designed to stop growth and make it so expensive and damaging to our economy and basic living standards.
My main interest in the Bill is in Part 1, which will help speed up the building of new energy infrastructure, which I see as vital to achieving clean power by 2030. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said that she supports much of the Bill, including the measures on energy. I noticed that she made no mention of clean power and net zero. Of course, the party opposite is in full retreat on this, despite the fact that it was Mrs Thatcher who said at the UN in November 1989:
“It is mankind and his activities which are changing the environment of our planet in damaging and dangerous ways”.
It was the noble Baroness, Lady May, moreover, who, as Prime Minister, legislated for net zero by 2050. But the party opposite is now in full retreat. It has turned its back on climate change and net zero and developed an unfathomable passion for fossil fuels, despite the volatile fossil fuel market being one of the major causes of our high energy prices.
Clean power by 2030 requires a huge upgrading of the country’s major energy infrastructure; on that, I think we are agreed. The Commons Environmental Audit Committee concluded in 2024 that many planned renewable energy projects were hampered by persistent problems accessing the electricity grid, including slow connections, limited capacity of local planning authorities and inappropriate planning regulations. Currently, companies are waiting up to 15 years to be connected to the grid. This is leaving very promising developments absolutely gridlocked.
The advice to government from NESO—the National Energy System Operator—was to increase new transition network infrastructure by 2030 at over twice the pace it was being delivered in the previous decade. That is why the Bill’s provisions are so welcome, in particular: the removal of the burdensome statutory requirement to consult as part of the pre-application stage for nationally significant infrastructure project applications; the grid’s connection queue reforms to move from “first come, first served” to a “first ready and needed, first connected” approach; the new funding mechanism for statutory consultees, which will, I hope, address the lack of capacity and resources; and the proposed bill discount scheme for people living closest to new electricity transmission infrastructure.
Part 3 is also relevant to infrastructure growth. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell: I fully accept that it would be perverse if net zero were achieved at the expense of our nature, farmland and general environment, but, as it currently stands, the Bill gives a huge amount of responsibility to Natural England and the other statutory bodies, which have shown no interest in considering the benefits of delivering development, have seen a hollowing out of scientific expertise over the years of austerity, and have no experience in delivering complex infrastructure strategies.
I can see our environmental development delivery plans—to deliver strategic compensation in relation to the habitats regime—working for a given area where you might have multiple housing developers, but I am worried about the extent to which they will work for major infrastructure developments. As Catherine Howard, the head of planning at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, wrote, there is a risk that developers would
“need to twin-track the EDP process with going through the traditional Habitats assessment”
regime because an EDP was not in place in time for the consent application. This is going to be hopeless for developers. I believe that the Secretary of State needs to have a call-in power in the event of this being stuck in this way.
With that important caveat, I welcome the Bill; I see it as a great foundation for growth. However, I hope that the Government will be willing to listen to some of the issues for major developers around infrastructure in relation to Part 3.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, may I say how much the whole House will miss the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, from the Dispatch Box? We welcomed the clarity of his contributions, and the Back Benches will be reinforced by his presence now that he is free to say what he actually thinks.
Here we go with another planning Bill. I start with a quote:
“Conflict is not uncommon between those in both the public and private sectors who wish to change the use of land … The planning system provides the framework for resolving these inevitable conflicts. The Bill brings the system up to date, and enhances its credibility”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/3/1991; col. 816.]
That was me, as Planning Minister in the other place, introducing the then Planning and Compensation Bill in 1991. My imprint on the planning system did not last long. We then had the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004; the Planning Act 2008; the Localism Act 2011; the Housing and Planning Act 2016; the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which was another planning Bill—and now this. The 1947 planning Act lasted until the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Since then, we have kept on digging up the foundations without, apparently, making the structure any more durable, so I wish the Ministers well.
In the time available, I want to make just one point: the success of the Bill will depend on the efficiency of local government departments in responding to the challenge in the Bill. On 5 February, the Government told all councils in two-tier areas and small neighbouring unitaries to produce, by March, plans to go unitary. Professionals in planning departments are probably more affected than anyone else because all the plans will have to change. They will, understandably, be worried about their own future and the turbulence of reorganisation as they apply for jobs in the new structures or accept redundancy.
The Bill’s success depends on up-to-date plans to deliver certainty and avoid appeals. The Government state:
“Succinct and up-to-date plans should provide a positive vision for the future of each area; a framework for meeting housing needs and addressing other economic, social and environmental priorities”.
However, as of March 2024, only a third of local authorities had adopted a plan in the last five years and 291 had plans which were more than five years old. As they attempt to address the backlog—which will still be necessary until the Bill becomes an Act—they will also have to start all over again producing a plan for the new unitary authority. The Government have stated:
“Where reorganisation occurs, new unitary authorities are expected to promptly prepare a local plan covering the whole of their area”.
This all came on top of the December 2024 devolution White Paper. In another reorganisation, all of England is to be part of one of three new categories of local authority: foundation strategic authorities, mayoral strategic authorities and established mayoral strategic authorities. Under the Bill, the planners in these new strategic authorities must produce spatial development strategies, providing strategic policies for the use of land in their area. At the moment there are only three of these. In a masterly understatement, the Government said:
“We are aware that areas undergoing local government reorganisation and devolution will experience a transition period where responsibility for spatial development strategy might transfer between authorities”.
At the same time, the Government want to reduce all the current delays in processing planning applications so that we can get on with the infrastructure and with building the 1.5 million homes that we need.
If planning departments were fully staffed with the necessary skills, they might rise to this challenge, but they are not. The Local Government Association workforce survey found that 62% of councils have difficulties recruiting planning officers and 45% have difficulties retaining planning officers, many being tempted by higher salaries elsewhere. Two-thirds of councils rely on agency staff to address capacity issues. The RTPI says:
“We continue to have concerns about the chronic under-resourcing of our planning system and therefore … a long-term resourcing and capacity strategy should be published alongside the Bill”,
but it has not been. The new town development corporations will also require planners. The Government have recognised the problem, but the steps that they have taken to address it fall way short of what is needed and risk undermining the purpose of the Bill.
I remember a discussion, when I was a Treasury Minister, with a senior economist in the Treasury. When I suggested a new policy that had been tried in New Zealand, he said, “It may work in practice, but it doesn’t work in theory”. The risk with the Bill is exactly the opposite: it may work in theory, but it will not work in practice—unless planning departments are resourced.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, while planning and infrastructure may not get everyone in this House excited, they are fundamental to everything that we do in this country, and we need to get this right—for our communities and to start delivering across the country. Chapter 3 of Part 1 of the Bill, regarding transport infrastructure, has not had the focus that it deserves.
We recognise the urgent need to modernise and expand our networks, from rail upgrades to new bus corridors and active travel routes. Major projects must be delivered efficiently. However, we must not move to a position where we bulldoze through projects with no consideration for local communities and their needs or environmental concerns. It is getting that balance right.
If we travel to the continent, we experience the fantastic high-speed rail networks that have grown at pace. In 1981, France became the first nation in Europe to implement a high-speed rail link, from Paris to Lyon, which was 450 kilometres long. Since then, the network has grown, with over 2,800 kilometres. Spain started constructing its high-speed rail network in 1992. Thirty years later, it has roughly 4,000 kilometres of high-speed rail. Then we look at the UK. High Speed 1 opened in 2007, from London to the Channel Tunnel, a mere 108 kilometres. High Speed 2 we discussed last week.
Although I welcome and understand the Government’s ambition to streamline infrastructure delivery, we must ensure that the Bill does not sacrifice local accountability, local engagement, local heritage or environmental integrity in the name of speed or, indeed, progress. We can learn from our European neighbours about how best to deliver such projects at pace but bringing communities with us.
I welcome some of the progress in the Bill on EV charging. It is a huge issue as we clean up our transport network, and for too long there have been barriers. Clause 47 relates to public charge points. It is crucial that the legislation effectively addresses this issue and is future-proofed to support the continued growth of electric vehicle adoption.
My colleague, Helen Maguire MP, championed amendments to the Bill in the other House that would have enabled cross-pavement charging solutions, such as covered cable gullies, by extending the permitted development rights for on-street charging set-ups. The amendments would have broadened and clarified permitted development rights to facilitate the installation of EV charging infrastructure. Such changes are essential if we are to support the 40% of households without off-street parking and ensure that the benefits of EV adoption are shared fairly. The current bureaucratic process, which includes a street works licence and planning permission, feels too much. I hope the Minister will look favourably at similar amendments when they are tabled in this House. We also need to look at how we can establish charging infrastructure for HGVs and other supply vehicles, which will be vital for net zero. Too often companies find it difficult to secure the necessary permission, let alone the grid access, for such important infrastructure.
We must think creatively about how we power this transition. One of the most underutilised opportunities lies in our existing transport infrastructure. Across the country, vast expanses of roof space exposed to sunlight sit idle. Installing solar panels on car parks, bus garages and railway stations could generate clean energy, reduce grid pressure and power local EV chargers directly. France has already mandated solar panels on large car parks. We are playing catch-up with the recent government announcement. I hope the Government will consider provisions in the Bill to require solar installations on all suitable transport infrastructure. It is a simple, visible step towards a greener future. We have some good examples of it here in the capital, such as the stations at Blackfriars and Denmark Hill.
Let us use the Bill not just to build faster but to build better, smarter and fairer, to achieve a transport network that is clean, connected and accessible for all.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum and the Oxfordshire Development Forum. I emphasise that my views on these issues are entirely my own.
A number of us are taking forward many of the issues that we discussed during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, including my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. His point about the resourcing of planning authorities is really important. Something that the Government could do straight away, outside of the Bill, is enable the retention of level 7 apprenticeships for new planning officers, because the lack of those will make things difficult for local planning authorities.
In the time available, I will focus on one thing. As we discuss many issues in the Bill, I hope we can understand more about what the Government propose to use from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, how they are going to use it, and what they propose not to use. For example, the national development management policies are potentially extremely important in enabling local authorities to produce plans more quickly and efficiently. I hope that those local authorities going into the new plan-making process have early access to NDMPs, so that they are able to limit the extent to which they have to undertake unnecessary consultation.
This links to the debate we will have about a national scheme of delegation. On the face of it, the Government’s technical proposal, in so far as it substantially deviated from the original consultation with three options, went in the wrong direction. The national scheme of delegation should be, first, that planning officers should make decisions where applications are in line with an existing up-to-date local plan. That should be very straightforward. Secondly, they should make the decisions where the decision is, in effect, directly mandated by the national development management policies. We need to look at some of these additional planning issues before we get to the debates in Committee and on Report on the content of the Bill.
I hope that the provisions in the levelling-up Act in relation to neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood policy statements might be brought into force. In the absence of that, I hope that the Bill will use that. If the Government want more homes built in the places where people want them to be built, neighbourhood planning has shown itself to be an effective mechanism.
There are provisions relating to locally led urban development areas and locally led urban development corporations in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, and my noble friend on the Front Bench referred to them. The noble Lord, Lord Best, advocated very forcibly the use of development corporations, but did not say which kind. I think we need to know from the Government whether they will make locally led urban development areas and development corporations available for this purpose, whether they plan to use government-controlled development corporations, or whether they plan, in line with the provisions of the devolution White Paper, to focus on mayoral development corporations. It is not just whether we have development corporations and what powers they have; it is what kind of development corporations. This will make a big difference when we hear from the New Towns Taskforce, which I hope we will do before the Summer Recess.
The final thing I want to say is that we all agree. I share many of the objectives of this Bill and look forward to debating it, with a view to strengthening the achievement of those objectives. We want to be able to deliver effectively on development plans, but we need up-to-date local plans to make that happen. At the moment, 70 local authorities are going to go under the old NPPF rather than the new one, and that will lose us the potential and requirement for something like 15,000 homes being built a year.
It is important that, with all these changes, we know how the Government are going to give us more pace in putting all the planning reforms in place, alongside this Bill.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, first, I declare my involvement in a family farming and land management business. Secondly, I record my thanks to the Bill team for their courtesy in coming together to answer my series of very naive questions.
I believe this Bill is essential to get our country moving again and I support what it is trying to achieve. Coming from the south-west, my favourite eternally delayed project is the road vital for bringing our tourists in and taking our manufactured goods out—namely, the A303 and its dualling. The first time I saw a planning application for the Stonehenge bypass, which is the key to unlocking it all, was in 1985—40 years ago. It still has not been built and hour-long traffic jams still happen there. That is not good.
However, the issue that desperately needs dealing with is housing. We have a major housing crisis in rural England, far worse than in the towns. We lack affordable homes, not executive houses—note the use of “homes” and “houses”. As I have said in this House many times, council houses or their equivalent would be good—affordable homes to rent in proper interactive communities, built to standards we can all be proud of. I hope this Bill will enable that to happen. Building standards need to be checked, perhaps by the development corporations that the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I are both very keen on. We also need to amend the right to buy, which I hope is just around the corner.
I am all in favour of councils charging their own ring-fenced planning fees, providing that gives speed and certainty to applications. I am in favour of delegated planning decisions, training for planning committees, limiting the use of judicial reviews, encouraging faster access to electricity supplies and so on. The Government’s biggest problem is going to be the availability of skills. Where are they going to find the hundreds of new planners needed, the thousands of new builders, plumbers and electricians, and, above all, the hundreds of new skilled ecologists that Natural England and others will need to make this Bill work successfully?
As I understand it, EDPs are only about protected sites and protected species, and developers’ current obligations to promote BNG—biodiversity net gain—will continue to run in parallel. There will be huge competition for the small supply of ecologists between developers, local authorities and Natural England. I am not sure there is the capacity out there.
Part 3 of the Bill is its biggest weakness. I hope that the promised Pennycook amendments to satisfy the OEP will be announced soon. The biggest shortfall is the lack of a mitigation hierarchy. The Bill also needs to provide for subsequent management of the land involved in an EDP. It is all very well having achieved overall improvement by 10 years, but what is to prevent that overall improvement disappearing on the land in question in future years?
In Part 4, I am pleased to see that heat networks are included in the list of necessary infrastructure—something I have promoted in this House for some time, particularly where geothermal heat is involved. I am not keen on Natural England having compulsory purchase powers. It is better and cheaper if it contracts with landowners to get the land management it wants, but I suppose, if you are trying to assemble land or a land management programme, it is probably best if, as President Roosevelt said, you talk softly but carry a big stick. I hope that the powers will not be used too often.
There is an issue with compulsory purchase generally that needs fixing—namely, the way that an acquiring authority, or more often a private sector company acting in their name, when implementing a CPO seem to think they can ride roughshod over the normal rules governing the conveyance of property. With CPO powers in their armoury, they seem to turn into badly behaved bully boys. There are stories of people whose land and businesses have been confiscated and two years later they are still waiting for payment. That is outrageous. I will propose the introduction of an enforceable code of practice to ensure that the confiscation of property by the state, which can be devastating for an individual or a business, is accomplished in as fair and civilised a manner as possible.
Lord Patten (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my long-standing interest in Persimmon plc, a middle-market mass housebuilder. This position has given me a ringside seat to observe the vicissitudes that have beset house building and planning over decades, with their cycles of ups and downs which no one has ever managed to defeat. Secondly, whatever the Bill before us sets out to do, in no way can it suddenly abolish the cycles in favour of a smooth, ever-upward movement of growth just by virtue of the men and women in Whitehall knowing best. I do not believe that is possible. This unfortunate Bill cannot by some fiat just fix those cyclical ups and downs—which rather depend on the safety of the economy, levels of taxation and availability of capital and of skilled labour—simply by grabbing more power from the centre. Indeed, the record sadly shows that no Conservative or Labour Government since 1945 have ever met their stated aspirations or hopes or pledges to build this or that particular number of homes in any one year or in any one decade.
It is amusing, but sad, to see that 300,000 per annum still is the hot-favourite target. The Prime Minister and his Ministers have since 2024 said much about their target intent. I would like to ask the Minister for a bit more clarity. He has an enviable reputation for being straightforward, saying it as it is and absolutely giving it between the eyes. I hope that he is not going to let me down—I seek not to damage him in any way by what I say in his important role. I want to ask him, therefore, what number of homes he expects to see built per year until August 2029, when his lot will come to the end of their present term. Is the number by then really still to be 1.5 million? I look forward to his answer. If his colleague who will be winding up tonight cannot give me that answer, I will be very happy to have—as drafted by the noble Lord—an answer in writing placed in the Library of the House so we can all see exactly what it is. That is because four years is a decent enough length of time over which to succeed or perhaps to be called out and be shown to have been pledging the unattainable. I do not think the massive shift of planning power away from local communities and councils will be any guarantee of success.
Thirdly, although HMG can recycle or manufacture new pledges—I think we have seen a bit of this in the last year—unfortunately we cannot manufacture new supplies of land. I have said in your Lordships’ House before that it is a scarce resource. All new housing cannot be built on reused brown, grey or green-tinged land, or built in areas once occupied by military bases—they are probably going to be reopened as military bases quite shortly. Much green or green-tinged land, alas, will need to be built on to provide new homes for young people. I accept that sometimes this will be necessary, and it is the only way that young people will get their homes. I doubt it will be easily accepted if it is from distant London SW1 and all to be decided centrally. Local involvement will always be needed to generate acceptability, for planners do not create communities; only people create communities. To make this happen, houses must look good. It is very possible to build well and build beautifully and to a human scale, as the late Sir Roger Scruton said—that very rare bird, a university moral philosopher and urban thinker. We should heed the advice that he gave.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis, a vice-chair of Peers for the Planet and co-chair of Legislators for Nuclear.
As an engineer, of course, I very keen to see Britain get building. This Bill is the single most important piece of legislation in the Government’s agenda to unlock growth and deliver for the many strategic targets the Minister outlined, including housing, clean power 2030 and defence. It is vital, therefore, that Parliament gets this right. I welcome the direction of travel in the Bill and that the Government are coming up with a number of very positive, radical ideas for the planning system.
However, the biggest problem for the Bill being able to deliver against its objectives is that Part 3, which has been presented as a solution to speed buildings and infrastructure through the system, may be a solution for housing, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, set out, there are broadly held concerns that it will not deliver for infrastructure. That is because, by the time a developer comes along and identifies a habitat’s problem, there is unlikely to be time for Natural England to put in place an EDP to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. That means there will be a twin-track approach, which could have the unfortunate side-effect of adding to the bureaucratic burden within the planning system for large infrastructure. I would be grateful if, in her summing up, the Minister could expand on how she sees EDPs delivering for large infrastructure.
At the core of many of the issues that have added billions in cost and years in delay to our large infrastructure is the habitat regulations. They are, of course, very necessary, but there have been increasing issues with how they are interpreted. As mentioned previously, Catherine Howard, partner at HSF Kramer, has been doing some sterling work with ecologists and others on straightforward, common-sense clarifications to the habitat regulations that would bring more scientific rigor to the whole process. This has been set out in her Project Nutcracker series of articles, which I hope officials have seen.
For example, the habitat regulations are worded to require the proving of a negative: in other words, proof is required that a proposed project will not have an effect on a particular habitat. This is not the way science works; instead, we come up with theories and design experiments to try to falsify them. But proving that something does not exist is not falsifiable. That means that Natural England is currently not only overburdened but wastes precious time exploring hypothetical risks that are not adequately underpinned by scientific evidence. This is the fault of a system that asks it to prove that developments will have no impact, meaning that it must investigate and account for possibilities that there is no ecological evidence for.
The fundamental change that needs to be made is the introduction of a positive duty not to grant consent where there is scientific evidence of an adverse effect. This small amendment would have an immediate effect, freeing up scarce resource at Natural England to deliver on those goals, while streamlining the planning process for all the projects going through the system.
So there is a potential common-sense reform here that many ecologists are supportive of. It would bolster the measures in the Bill to speed up delivery of infra- structure projects in this Parliament, including the much-needed projects at the centre of the Government’s spending review and infrastructure strategy, as well as delivering more effectively for nature.
I am grateful to the Minister for her engagement in this Session on embodied carbon emissions. When she sums up, could she outline what plans the Government have to introduce common guidance, or perhaps to make a Ministerial Statement clarifying the approach local authorities should take?
In conclusion, there is a significant risk here. If Part 3 does not deliver for infrastructure, all the Government’s great aspirations for infrastructure build and development will not be realised. I look forward to further engagement with the Government on our pragmatic solutions to mitigate this risk, help get Britain building in the near term and deliver for nature.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. I hope he will not mind me saying that, through the expertise he has brought to this debate, he has illustrated how the hereditary system brings a comparatively youthful expertise of a non-partisan nature into our midst—one which will never come in once the constitutional vandalism this Government are planning has removed such people from this House.
I wholeheartedly support the Bill’s overall objectives of speeding up and streamlining the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure. The current delays and costs are intolerable. The Lower Thames Crossing has cost £1.2 billion just for the planning process, before a single sod has been cut—if that is what you do to sod. That is more than what it cost Norway to build the longest under-river tunnel in Europe. A 25-mile bypass cost £250 million just for the planning process, and virtually every housing project in my old constituency —and in most other parts of the country—faces objections locally.
In effect, we have created a “vetocracy” in this country. Objectors can impose such costs and delays on project developers that they can effectively veto those projects going ahead. We must find ways of reducing the power of that vetocracy, and I welcome steps in the Bill to do that. We have got to stop local vetoes preventing, delaying and raising the costs of building homes, transport and energy infrastructure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, lauded the French success in building large infrastructure projects. I recall my old and much-lamented friend Nigel, the late Lord Lawson, telling me how, when he was Energy Secretary, he had asked his French counterpart how they were able to build nuclear power stations across France with so little objection. The French Minister, without realising the double entendre, replied, “When you are draining the swamp, you do not consult ze frogs”. But we do have to consult ze Brits in this country.
One less draconian way of undermining democracy is to enable developers to buy off or compensate objectors. This is most relevant in the energy sector, which is my principal concern. We need to access lower-cost and most-reliable energy sources and enable energy to reach the users without imposing extra costs. So I welcome the measures in the Bill which will enable the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to compensate people living in properties near to new transmission network structures by crediting their energy bills. But I cannot see why it should be delimited to those living near transmission networks and certain major upgrades of existing projects—that is what the Bill says at present. Why not extend the scheme so that compensation may be offered to those living near, say, proposed onshore windmills, which are the cheapest form of renewable energy? Better still, why not give companies proposing to drill for shale gas or oil onshore the right to offer compensation? I have heard of one company that would be prepared to offer £1,000 per household to those living within, say, a mile of a proposed well if a majority votes to allow such drilling to take place. It would subsequently offer a reduction in their gas bills, if the well proves successful, for the life of that well. I shall put down amendments to that effect.
Another aspect of the Bill that relates to the energy sector is the section enabling the Government to introduce a cap and floor scheme to finance long-duration energy schemes. The Explanatory Notes make it clear that that is expected to relate to new reservoirs—I mention the Dinorwig existing reservoir—but there are very few potential sites. The notes also refer to your Lordships’ House’s Select Committee report Long-Duration Energy Storage: Get on With It, which was mostly about the development of hydrogen as a form of storage. I again alert the House and the Government to the dangers of pressing ahead and investing in immature technologies prematurely. That technology has not been developed and is hugely costly at the moment, and we should not empower the Government to go ahead with it before it has proved its worth.
I add that, if we are going to build 1.5 million homes—I hope we will, and I will help the Government in their measures to make that easier to get planning permission for—we have to recognise that, at present, 40% of those will be taken up, in effect, by the rate of immigration foreseen by the Office for National Statistics over the next five years. We have to remember that it is about not just supply but demand—but no one will ever mention that.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I am the chair of Annington, a housing company that specialises in affordable homes, but I will not talk about that because, for many years now, I have been the honorary president of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association, which also includes utilisation. Frankly, I never thought the day would come when a Government would put CCUS at the heart of such a significant piece of legislation, so I want to say thank you.
The Bill has the potential to turn our net-zero ambitions into real-world jobs, investment and long-term economic renewal. The Climate Change Committee has acknowledged that there is no credible path to net zero without carbon capture and storage. The confirmation of funding for HyNet and the East Coast Cluster build-out, alongside the support for Acorn and Viking to reach final investment decisions in this Parliament, has put a spring in my step—noble Lords can probably tell from my accent which one gives me the biggest spring in my step. The recent financial close for net-zero Teesside and Liverpool Bay CCS further highlights the momentum, but risk still remains: inconsistent planning frameworks that are crying out for updating could threaten delay or even derail progress, right at the time when we need to accelerate.
For those of us, like me, brought up in the heartlands of coal, iron and steel, and shipbuilding, this is not just a climate solution. The opportunity analysis by the CCSA points to 50,000 skilled jobs and almost £90 billion in economic value by 2050. That should not be sneezed at. Add to that the potential for large-scale CO2 storage and industrial decarbonisation.
Traditional industries, such as coal, iron and steel, and shipbuilding, can reform into clean energy industries. That means a lot to the kind of communities that I used to represent in the other place. The same skill sets are required for carbon capture and storage, but the planning must reflect the national role of CCUS infrastructure, even if it is only for short distances.
I know that there is a possibility of some pretty minor amendments that can have a great impact on the future of carbon capture, utilisation and storage. Reforming current guidelines, such as those in the Pipe-Lines Act 1962, can streamline the consenting process for CO2 pipelines, and that kind of modernisation will allow us to keep with partners such as Norway, which is already planning cross-border CO2 transport. Norway has been very much in the lead with a lot of this technology, and it is worth looking at.
This is all about boosting investor confidence. It will take investment from outside government to make this work, and work in the long term. In Committee, we will need those amendments to designate CO2 spur pipelines and carbon capture equipment as nationally significant infrastructure projects under the Planning Act 2008, and to remove the requirement for special parliamentary procedures in the Pipe-Lines Act 1962 for pipeline compulsory purchase orders. That will help unlock the £9.4 billion already committed by the Government to CCUS delivery, and enable clusters such as Scotland, Teesside, the north-west and Humberside to move forward.
We have the potential to be a global leader in the development and export of carbon management technologies. Let us seize the moment—let us go for it, because there are great reserves of energy out there that can help us.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, it takes a lot to shock me, but this Bill did, and still does. It will take a lot of amendments to get it right. I was particularly distraught at Part 3. I am conscious that in the previous Parliament, as my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook mentioned, some of the amendments to LURB that were rejected by this House were much smaller in scale than in Part 3, which can only be considered a complete and utter assault on our natural environment.
In thinking about aspects to be addressed, there are plenty of briefings that I am sure we will all share. However, we need to go through the Bill very carefully and properly understand it, instead of listening to mantras designed to push the Bill forward. There is no doubt that we want more homes built. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, mentioned, it is finances that are stopping a lot of houses being built.
There are 700,000 empty homes in this country—not second homes or holiday homes but empty homes. A million planning consents are still available for homes to be built, over 250,000 of which are in London. What is stopping them? It is about financing and continuing to make the most money. I am not criticising that, but simply trashing lots of the countryside and trashing nature will not necessarily deliver the infra- structure and the homes that people in this country need.
I say this, because I looked at the human rights memorandum carefully and there is a lot in it that talks about compulsory purchase “in the public interest”. I shall declare one interest: I still live in Suffolk, and I still live pretty close to some proposed energy infrastructure. I am not a nimby; I was actually very active in supporting Sizewell C, as long as it dealt with aspects of environmental regulation, which it did satisfactorily. But I am not clear how the Bill will address one of the two projects there that come to mind.
People are concerned that it has taken so long to get a variety of projects going. I understand why, but one of the key issues for Sizewell C was that, all of a sudden, due to a High Court ruling, the local water company said that it could not guarantee that it could supply the water. That was one of the things that massively derailed the construction of Sizewell C at that point, even when it started to come up with creative solutions. For example, we have a water shortage in East Anglia, and a lot of farmers and food security would be affected by the fact that they would not be able to get the water that they were used to—and they are pretty good with their water in East Anglia; they have high productivity. So it was suggested that a reservoir should be built, because Sizewell C needed it and farmers could use it as well, but Ofgem said no. I hope that we get to a situation whereby the Bill starts to allow those sorts of creative solutions instead of some of the challenges that it will bring, as we struggle to reach the targets already set in primary legislation.
Part 2 is an affront to democracy, and I shall give another local example. There is no doubt that building housing on any greenfield—not necessarily green belt, but greenfield—often tends to be controversial locally, but I give credit to the councils that try to get this balance right. What worries me about removing decisions from local councillors and giving it to planning officers is that we now have even more housing targets going into the countryside. There are situations where, for example, plans set a density for a 2,000-house development, and then officers recommend outline planning where the density is only one-third of what it should have been in the plan. It does not take too much of a brain to work out that, to meet the rest of the housing, they will have to use three times the amount of land.
There are many clauses that I shall examine very carefully—not only Clause 89, with its extensive Henry VIII powers, Schedule 5 on compulsory purchase, or Clause 91. By the way, we can all be happy: that provision does not apply to Crown land. Why not? It should be the first considered for compulsory purchase for any nature development.
It is also wrong that Natural England gets so many powers. This is not about Natural England itself, but it should be in the hands of the Secretary of State who should devise these. If they choose to delegate to Natural England then that is a different matter, but the Secretary of State and Ministers are accountable to Parliament while Natural England is not directly accountable. That is what we need to fix.
There are a variety of issues to do with water, but I hope that the Government will be open to a variety of permitted development rights, particularly with ponds and helping our farmers, and where they are about sustainable drainage. However, we should bear in mind that a brand new reservoir has not been built in this country in a long time—and I do not really understand why Thames Water is dragging its feet over in Abingdon. Let us take Abberton, over in Essex: 10 years ago, its capacity went up by 60%. So stuff is happening in this country, and we should not just try to use every bit of nature as an excuse for why certain things are not happening. The A14 was built ahead of time and below budget.
I am very sorry, I shall press the case for a lot more social housing, but not at the expense of trashing what we hold precious in this country.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the number of speakers in this debate reflects just how seriously this Chamber is taking the issue of housebuilding and infrastructure. To start with, I will refer to Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Bill on spatial development strategies. For those of us who have been involved in local government for a while, this is reminiscent of the RDA era. New Part 1A of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, introduced in Chapter 2 of the Bill, lists what a strategic planning authority means, but there is no mention of the national parks. That seems extraordinary, as they are vital to ensuring that strategic planning in their areas is done with empathy and sensitivity to individual environments.
The contribution that access to the countryside makes to health and well-being is well documented; this is a vital role for the national parks. They assist in the provision of affordable homes and have many permissions for housing granted. Currently, in the South Downs National Park, there are over 2,000 homes with permitted permission, of which 500 are affordable homes, but all are unbuilt.
In addition, national park authorities are not mentioned as being part of strategic planning boards. Given their role in mineral extraction and waste disposal, they should surely be present round the table and fully involved. Can the Minister say whether this omission is an oversight or deliberate; and, if so, why?
On the role of the community land trust organisations, there are currently 290 CLTs in England which own 2,100 assets, including 1,953 affordable homes. Many CLTs provide housing in AONBs and national parks, where smaller-scale affordable housing development is essential. Almost half the rural affordable housing projects in the pipeline in Devon involve CLTs. This was a result of the community housing federation’s work and shows the potential and appetite among communities to increase housing supply, if they are confident that it will result in homes that meet local needs. It is not helpful that the Government have recently ended funding for neighbourhood planning support. The Government have also not reinstated any grant funding for community-led housing. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, has been very positive in writing about CLH but the Government have actually made it harder for communities to play this role.
The pipeline of new projects in the south-west has almost completely dried up, which is very disappointing indeed. Projects that were led by communities are set to be replaced by imposed government diktat. Is this really what the Minister wants?
I turn now to the lack of stopping places and permanent sites for Gypsies and Travellers, which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester raised. Every local authority should provide transit and permanent sites, alongside other traditional stopping places, thus dramatically reducing the number forced to stop on what the law now classes as illegal encampments. Since the statutory duty to provide sites was repealed in 1994, barely any local authority sites have been built. Private provision has increased and, while this is welcome, it is not accessible for many. In planning for homes, it is crucial to acknowledge and include provision for all our communities. Local authority-managed sites remain vital for a culturally pertinent way of living.
Long-standing planning failures have created a severe shortage of safe and suitable sites. Children need to be considered, and their access to education and health services is almost non-existent if they are continually moved on. Treating them as an underclass reinforces their marginalisation from the rest of society.
Lastly, my first Bill, which has already been referred to, was the Housing and Planning Bill 2016—there were lots of warm words about delivery. I urge the Government not to follow the example of the previous Administration. Housing is not an also-ran. It is key to economic and personal well-being. The Housing Minister must be totally committed to delivering the government goals and stay in post for at least the length of the parliamentary Session; churn will not deliver. Being the Housing Minister should not be a stepping stone to another role. It is an essential part of delivery and needs consistency, not a yearly change of personnel.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. The Bill is trying to do what is needed to boost housebuilding. I do not think there is anyone who disputes the simple fact that the gap between demand and supply continues to widen. We know, as many noble Lords have said, that this is at least in part the consequence of a planning system that is unbelievably complex and cumbersome, and often just flies against common sense, and we have heard lots of examples today.
I will focus on one aspect of the Bill. I start by saying that I appreciated the Minister’s opening remarks in relation to nature. I know from my own experience of dealing with the Minister that he believes very much what he said, but I have concerns about the Bill.
The Bill, like others before it on this issue, seems to pitch nature as a kind of blocker to development. In addition to there not being any new measures that I can see to ensure that new developments are built in a more nature-friendly way, some valuable protections are being removed, even if by default.
Clause 67, for example, says that nature improvement needs to be
“funded … by developers in a way that does not make development economically unviable”.
But in a country such as ours, which is so nature-denuded, and where our biodiversity continues to plummet, surely some development in some genuinely sensitive and important areas should be economically unviable. In the proposed equation that we are seeing here, it is hard to see how nature can ever win that contest.
In addition, it is not clear what the Bill means for the future biodiversity net gain obligations. I remind noble Lords that this is a new market, created more or less by consensus between the two Houses, that has generated myriad businesses and schemes, exactly as intended. Students, businesses—anyone who has moved into this new space—will undoubtedly be feeling unsettled about their own future, so I hope we will have clarity from the Minister on that point.
There are lots of ways in which the Bill can be strengthened. I hope, for example, that we will see significant, stronger protections for irreplaceable habitats such as chalk streams, ancient woodlands, peatlands and so on as an insurance against the risks that have been highlighted in the Bill. We have 85% of the world’s chalk streams but only 11 out of 220 are currently protected. Given the huge cost of flooding to communities, it just makes no sense that the National Planning Policy Framework still permits development on some functional flood plains. We have an opportunity here to change that, as well as pursuing opportunities to simplify regulations and give nature a boost at the same time.
There will be plenty of opportunities to outline those examples in due course, but I want to focus on one particularly important measure, which is among the easiest, most cost-effective—and effective—steps that we can take. It is one that I previously championed in this House, with tremendous support from the then Opposition, now Government. At the time of tabling my amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said —I love these words:
“We were delighted to see Amendment 221A … relating to the provision of swift bricks … We believe that specifically including swift bricks as a measure in the Bill, to be incorporated in planning law, is justified because of the unique nature of these precious birds’ nesting habitats … There is definitely a clear and present threat to these species. We hope the Government will accept this relatively a small step, which could make a world of difference to protecting our swift population, and that it will not be necessary for the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, to divide the House—but I hope he knows he has our full support in this amendment”.—[Official Report, 6/9/23; cols. 540-541.]
So noble Lords can imagine my delight when that amendment was resuscitated in previous debates in the other House. It reappeared as Barry Gardiner’s new Clause 73, which would require the installation of swift bricks in any development higher than five metres.
Noble Lords will know, because we have debated this already, that the breeding population of swifts collapsed by a staggering 60% between 1995 and 2020. We have known since 2002 that this rapid decline in swifts—and, it has to be said, other cavity nesting birds—is primarily the consequence of a lack of cavity nesting sites. The way we build new homes and renovate older homes today just does not accommodate nature in any way.
This month, we heard a welcome—in my view—announcement from the Government: confirmation that the national insulation budget of £13.2 billion will be spent in full, mostly on wall insulations. That is good news, but there is no mitigation or protective legislation for cavity nesting habitats. The birds do not stand a chance.
We know swift boxes work; there is a reported 96% occupancy in boxes on the Duchy estates; there is unanimous support from ornithologists and zero real opposition from the developers. The parliamentary petition that was started by the author and campaigner Hannah Bourne-Taylor was, at the time that it was launched, the fastest to reach 100,000 signatures. So, there is popular support for this, and it is so easy to do. It is cheap and requires zero maintenance and expertise.
I strongly encourage the Government to look again at some of the great things that were said by the then Opposition when I was trying to get my amendment through—I failed, as noble Lords will know—and ensure that, when the times come, it will not be necessary to divide the House.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, it is very difficult to talk about anything of substance in five minutes on a subject so central to this Government. But having talked with colleagues in the industry, I would like to make the following brief points. I declare my interests.
First, my colleagues are reassured by the sense of purpose and drive that the Government are demonstrating in this policy area. We need to help the Bill get on to the statute book soon, so that we can get building.
Secondly, the Bill needs to think more about building communities and place-making, not just about building more soulless housing estates. The Government are rightly committed to addressing a range of different problems: housing, health, crime, education and net zero. The lesson from the history of failed housing estates built in the 1960s and 1970s by the public sector, and the worrying signs from too much of what is being built today, is that if we build homes in the wrong way, we will not only fail to help solve these problems but make them worse.
We need to build places and strong, humane cultures and communities, not just homes. If noble Lords are in any doubt what this means for local residents, they should take five minutes and listen to Billy Connolly’s description on YouTube of what happened to him and his family when they were moved out of their home and community in the Gorbals in Glasgow and placed in a soulless housing estate on the edge of town. No one can describe the experience more clearly than Billy.
My colleagues and I are working on addressing precisely these issues in projects across the country with some of our major developers, and we are happy to share with the Minister and her colleagues our 360-degree approach to place-making, which is focused on buildings and culture—maybe she can let me know if there is interest.
We are all very concerned about what happens to bats and newts, but how concerned are we about the young mother I was with a few months ago on a multimillion-pound new housing estate in east London whose two year-old was already picking up needles in the play area? We all need to think very carefully together about how we do not repeat those mistakes in this next phase of development.
Thirdly, it is good news that planning officers will be given greater responsibility to determine smaller applications, reserved matter submissions and schemes on allocated sites through a new proposed national scheme of delegation. This should lead to greater consistency of approach across local planning authorities, plus certainty and timeliness of decisions. The mandatory training of planning committee members should, in theory, also lead to greater consistency and certainty for applications that do not fit into the above national scheme of delegation.
Having sat on a planning committee for many years, I know how flawed these present processes are, and I have watched too many local councillors play political games with these local processes. I think His Majesty’s Opposition need to think more clearly about the connections between democracy and delivery. There needs to be more clarity in their thinking about this matter.
Fourthly, the nature restoration fund, hopefully, will remove the restriction on 160,000 homes stalled by nutrient neutrality restrictions by allowing developers to pay into a nature restoration fund that delivers habitat improvements at a regional scale, rather than requiring site-specific ecological mitigation for every scheme. This should speed up the delivery of sites. There are, however, concerns about Natural England’s ability to deliver a robust scheme on a timely basis.
Fifthly, the proposal in the Bill to speed up the delivery of nationally significant infrastructure projects is also much welcomed and should provide greater clarity and certainty over the delivery of these projects.
Having said all this positive news, I think there remain some challenges for business colleagues in the industry. The introduction of new cross-boundary regional strategic planning could be positive, driving a more joined-up approach towards housing, economic and infrastructure growth across LPAs. However, there are significant concerns about the potential delays to new local plans and housing schemes because of this structural change. LPAs, which remain critically underresourced are undergoing significant change through forthcoming devolution and the abolition of the two-tier authority system, which, when tied in with the need to deliver these regional strategies soon, mean there may be an awful lot of resource tied up in delivering restructuring and not delivering local plans and housing schemes, which are needed in the short term.
I finish with a reality check: the current length of timeframes for securing planning permission will likely not shrink by a significant amount. Bidding on a site now does not realistically generate volume for the large housing businesses until 2028, given the timescales associated with securing planning permission, selling consented land, securing reserve matters, signing Section 106 agreements, site preparation and the build and sale of homes. By and large, the Bill is seen by many in the housing industry as very positive, with several of the changes proposed leading to quicker, more consistent and more certain outcomes. However, this has to be set against the wider context and systematic issues present, which may limit the positive impact these reforms will have.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my environmental interests in the register.
I think we all recognise the need for changes in the planning system to deliver really important infrastructure and housing, but we need to recall that the planning system is there to do more than “Dig, baby, dig”. It is a system whereby a balance is struck between economic, social and environmental outcomes for the good of citizens and communities.
The narrative in this country on this has become too polarised over recent months: you are either a builder or a blocker. It is either development or the environment. We are smarter than that; we can deliver both. Part 3 will need considerable change if we are going to do that. That view is shared by the Office for Environmental Protection, which regards this part of the Bill as regressing from our environmental standards.
The provisions in Part 3 on environmental delivery plans and the nature restoration fund are fine to deal with the delays in the planning system caused by environmental issues best solved on a wider-than-site basis—on a catchment basis. There are issues such as nutrient neutrality, which has already been mentioned, recreational pressures and other water quality and quantity issues. But the proposed system is not right for resolving many protected species issues or for dealing with irreplaceable habitats. For the latter, the clue is on the tin: these habitats cannot be replaced, and indeed both the revised NPPF and the biodiversity net gain guidelines make provision for their protection. I ask the Minister to tell the House how irreplaceable habitats will be protected under Part 3.
Part 3 also removes the snappily named mitigation hierarchy, which encourages developers and planners, as a first step, to think hard about avoiding protected sites—first do no harm. If the Government are going to meet their statutory nature conservation targets, they must both protect what is already there by way of important nature and create more strategic habitat.
The delivery of Part 3 relies on Natural England, which is already creaking for a lack of resources and staff. I ask my noble friend the Minister what assessment has been made of the capacity of Natural England. How many environment delivery plans do the Government expect Natural England to prepare, and how long will that take?
There are other issues in Part 3, which, in the interests of time, I will pass over. I could go on, but I would begin to sound like the polarised narrative I said we should avoid. I do not believe that is where I stand, because we are smarter and there is a win-win solution. Many of the elements of that system are already in place or are being put in place by the Government: the land use framework approach, regional spatial strategies and revised local plans linked with local nature recovery strategies, all of which can enable developers to steer their applications to places where they can be sure of an easy run through the planning system.
The ecological surveys and environmental impact assessments will have been done in advance at strategy and plan level, and not be a delay factor at planning application stage. There are other simple changes that will streamline the system, and I look forward to working with the Minister on alternative proposals. In the meantime, can the Minister advise us when we will see the government amendments, signalled by Minister Pennycook in the other place, to address these concerns?
One last point is that several of the larger developers, both in infrastructure and in housing, are increasingly anxious about Part 3. Sweeping away important nature protections is not a good look for a housebuilder or an infrastructure developer that has pledged to deliver a national or international environmental accreditation. They are concerned that this will be done in their name. There are also concerns that they will incur costs and complications from having one system inside EDP areas and another outside, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, highlighted. Are the Government listening to those concerns from developers? I look forward to the Minister’s responses.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is something like that popular old spaghetti Western, “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly”.
Let us begin with the good. Chief among these aspects is the strong recognition that the status quo is no longer working. Infrastructure delivery has been sluggish, housing needs remain unmet, and many local authorities are still grappling with outdated planning frameworks and, as has been said, many do not have an up-to-date local plan.
The icing on the cake for me is the welcome return of strategic planning, and with it, empowered development corporations. These aspects were missing previously, and both are welcome and overdue. The emphasis on streamlining nationally significant infrastructure is in principle sensible if we want to tackle the climate crisis, deliver on net zero and provide energy security. We simply cannot have vital infrastructure mired in red tape for years on end.
Similarly, the focus on digitisation and data-led planning is very much a step in the right direction. If digital tools mean that more people can engage meaningfully with the process, that is a win for both democracy and delivery.
I also acknowledge the proposed reforms to compulsory purchase powers. If handled fairly and transparently, that could enable more strategic regeneration in brownfield development, which has to be preferable to the continued encroachment on our green belt.
But then we come to the bad. The Bill talks a good game about speeding up delivery but, first, we must not conflate delivery with planning permissions. As has been said, there are hundreds of thousands of units already with permission that are simply not being built. Let us have some courage and address the broken land market and the incentives that currently reward land banking. That is not about red tape but about political will.
Throughout the Bill, as has been mentioned by many noble Lords, there is a concern about capacity to deliver. Our local authorities are expected to implement much of the Bill and, as we have heard, they are already overstretched, underfunded and struggling to recruit and retain skilled planning officers. I know the Minister will tell us of the Government’s plans and funding to remedy this long-standing problem, but the gap between these plans and their achieving fruit—that is, people in post, doing the job—is one of many years. How will the Government fill that gap? There certainly is not time here to comment on the capacity within the construction industry, which is also demonstrably lacking, but the Minister may well have an update for us on that.
The Bill treads worryingly into overcentralisation. I understand the driver for that after decades of failure, but we must not fall into the trap of sidelining local voices in the name of speeding up the process. From experience, I know that the best planning outcomes emerge when communities, councillors and developers collaborate within a coherent framework, which I hope the spatial development strategies will provide. The Bill needs to be clear about the value of the public’s voice and the appropriate place for it to be heard.
It is clear, even from our debate, that Part 3 has attracted the most concern: measures which replace robust environmental safeguards with a financial levy. There are concerns that changes to the environmental assessment may risk weakening vital safeguards. We need to be certain that the new processes will uphold our biodiversity, our heritage and climate commitments. We must insist that any levy achieves significant improvement, not mere compensation.
On the ugly, as we have observed in other Bills, and increasingly so, there is a tendency to present undeveloped legislation that lacks detailed policy and grants Ministers broad delegated powers to fill in the gaps later. Most notable in this Bill is the proposed national scheme of delegation. That is a significant shift, with substantial powers given to the Secretary of State and where we are yet again asked to give the Government a blank cheque on matters of national significance and some controversy.
Disappointingly absent are provisions to strengthen community engagement, empower neighbourhood planning and bolster community land trusts—measures that empower citizens to shape their places rather than merely react to what developers propose. Indeed, I urge the Government to consider that a vision for high-quality design is a core component of the spatial development strategies, created with communities rather than handed down to them. We will support the good, amend the bad, and call out the ugly.
Baroness Willis of Summertown (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as noted in the register as chair of Peers for the Planet.
When looking at this Bill, the one thing I think we can all agree on is that our planning system needs to be reformed, and in that sense, I welcome the Bill. But if we are to ensure a healthy and resilient future for people and the planet, we also need to ensure that our planning system, at the same time as delivering 1.5 million houses and major infrastructure, also delivers towards our environmental and climate targets.
We need a climate and nature duty which will run through the planning system and ensure consistency in decision-making by treating nature and climate targets as material considerations and giving them proper planning weight. Yet what we have in our current system is already too piecemeal, and now this Bill brings in yet another set of reforms which, if we are not really careful, will result in conflicting legislation and strategies all pulling against one another.
I know that other Lords have commented on this, but in this respect, it is Part 3 which is of most concern. If it is left as it is, it will lead to regression in the legal certainty for nature, a removal of the mitigation hierarchy, and conservation measures that can be delayed by a decade after the damage has been done. Associated with this, I have three specific concerns that will be very helpful to hear the Minister’s opinion on.
The first, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is that the Bill fails to include any mention of protection of irreplaceable habitats such as protected blanket peatlands, ancient woodlands, chalk streams and species-rich grasslands. Currently, these habitats are given strict protection under the habitats directive and the Wildlife and Countryside Act, as well as protection under the mitigation hierarchy. In the Bill, the EDP proposal turns this process on its head. It would allow developers to pay a levy and skip straight to compensation. But how can you compensate or restore elsewhere when habitats can take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to restore? For example, let us take the SSI blanket peat bog on Walshaw Moor in Yorkshire. It has taken 6,000 years to grow to where it is now. At its current growth rate, if we destroy it, it will take 240 human generations later to see the peatland restored. This is clearly ridiculous, and allowing harm to those irreplaceable habitats in exchange for future compensation would be a grave misstep.
Secondly, the Bill views nature as important to protect only for its inherent value, yet we now have huge amounts of evidence, including from the UK Government, that the ecosystem services provided by nature are incredibly important for their role in climate mitigation, flood risk protection, pollination, clean water, clean air and good-quality soils. It is also now widely acknowledged, including by the Treasury, that if these natural capital assets are allowed to degrade any further or be destroyed, there could be a significant financial impact. For example, the Green Finance Institute in its 2025 report on nature-related financial risk—I recommend that your Lordships read it if you do not know this data—estimated that further deterioration of our natural capital assets could lead to an estimated 6% to 12% loss of GDP by 2030. So how will this Bill protect important natural capital assets?
Thirdly, and finally, there is no mention in the Bill of the need to preserve green spaces and nature in cities. This is a major omission, in my view, given the abundance of data and population-level evidence, including papers published, most recently in the Lancet and the British Medical Journal, demonstrating that green space in cities is critically important for the health and well-being of us humans. Provision of accessible green space within 15-minutes walking distance has been agreed in international legislation, so where is it in this Bill? Alongside any new housing development, there should be provision for green space within 15-minutes walking distance.
I firmly believe that it is possible to achieve nature-positive and climate-positive urban development, but we need to be clear about how it should be prioritised within the system and ensure that decision-making is more balanced and consistent.
Baroness Moyo (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the cost of energy has been hinted at this afternoon. However, it is one of the most important infrastructure issues that we must address. As disclosed in the register of interests, I serve on the board of directors of a global energy company, Chevron.
Today, the United Kingdom has the most expensive industrial energy electricity costs among developed nations, with British industry paying four times as much as in the United States, according to the IEA. Meanwhile, British households are paying on average 40 cents per kilowatt hour, compared to 18 cents in the United States and just 8 cents in China, according to Statista. This situation could get worse as AI data centres raise demand, constrain electricity grids and put further pressure on energy costs. It seems to me that an ideal planning and infrastructure Bill should invest in fresh capital and critical infrastructure, including transport and housing. This is much in the vein of the Government’s 10-year, £725 billion funding commitment. But Britain must also invest in bringing down its punitive energy costs.
Reducing the cost of energy is the ultimate non-inflationary economic stimulus that this country urgently needs, especially given that this month, the OECD cut the forecast for the UK’s growth from 1.4% to 1.3% for this year, and down to just 1% for 2026. Reducing the cost of energy increases both the profit margin for businesses and disposable income for households, both net goods for the economy. Moreover, lower energy costs ease the financial pressure on public goods such as the National Health Service and local authorities. I welcome the Government’s plans to reduce electricity costs by 20% to 25% from 2027 for electricity-intensive manufacturers. However, this still leaves higher energy costs for the rest of the private sector, the public sector and households.
It is my contention that an effective infrastructure policy should reflect at least three points as it pertains to reducing energy costs. First, for the foreseeable future, the United Kingdom should maximise all sources of energy, including both renewables and conventional energy, in order to bring down energy costs and secure a stronger economic future. This stance would ensure that Britain could regain a key global competitive advantage: energy production. I am pleased to see that, as a small step, the Government are looking to allow new applications in licensed oil and gas fields in the North Sea this autumn.
Secondly, AI, and agentic AI in particular, offers real, tangible promise to bring down the cost of elements of energy production such as exploration, drilling and transmission. Therefore, AI adoption should be the centrepiece of energy policy and infrastructure planning for the 21st century.
Thirdly, there is an opportunity for dematerialisation. Simply put, this is the ability to get more power out of the same unit of energy. For example, in vehicle manufacturing, this would mean using lighter materials in car bodies to reduce fuel consumption and emissions. Currently, businesses and academia are leading innovation in dematerialisation, but it is vital that Governments support science and research in this area. By taking these three steps, we achieve the two goals of lowering energy costs, which catalyses economic growth, and reducing emissions, a key piece of our energy transition ambitions.
Many aspects of the path to energy transition are rooted in assumptions from three or four years ago, yet so much has changed since 2022—our energy security, our economic outlook, and our understanding of what technology can do to reduce energy costs. Britain’s natural resource wealth and the emerging era of technology thankfully allow us to pursue both economic growth and an effective energy transition. I support the direction of this Bill, but there remains considerable scope for the Government to reduce energy costs both through the Bill and through broader policy.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, who raises such an important dimension affecting this Bill. As I listened earlier this afternoon to the Minister, I was pleased at the way he delivered the Bill before us. I think he will have sensed a wish across the House for us to move forward and to help the Government succeed in the objectives they have set. I know that that sense is shared by his noble friend who will be winding up, whom I have talked to about new towns.
I would like to cover just three aspects. First, there is my own experience. I had the privilege to be elected leader and chairman of housing for the London Borough of Islington in 1968, the only Conservative leader of the London Borough of Islington so far. I am the son of an architect, and when we took power, we did a complete review with the borough architect, a man called Mr Alf Head. We looked at a place called The Crumbles, which was run by the GLC—an early Victorian building where the residents had to have the toilets on alternate floors. I said to Mr Head, “Do we really have to continue with buildings of this sort? “No”, he says, “Sir, if you’ve got some vision”—you as councillors— “I have been working on low-level intensive housing.” I invite the Minister to go to Essex Road some time and see the results of his vision and our ability as local councillors to get it built. That was an exciting exercise.
Secondly—and I think this is still relevant today—my wife and I bought a small terraced house in Gerrard Road that had a “sort of” bathroom and, maybe, a kitchen. But there was a process for young couples with a baby, which we had, to get a grant, which we had to match. We did that, and that restored that property for, to the best of my knowledge, a long, long time. That time has come again. I have visited one or two properties which are in a terrible state, and young couples have the energy and desire to bring such properties up to modernity. I actually wrote a pamphlet called The Disaster of Direct Labour, but I do not think the present Government are proposing direct labour in local government—I hope not. Anyway, those are my experiences.
I want to say a few words about new housing, which is vital, of course. One of the biggest problems today is building, or potentially building, on the flood plain. That will get worse, because we know from all the evidence that the level of rainfall is going up by approximately 10% a year, and that the intensity of the rainfall is greater now than 10 years ago. Against that background, frankly, we should not allow any building on the flood plain. That is an important element.
Conversely, I think that we should work with the major housebuilders. I am not one who is critical of the work of the major housebuilders. They have to have planning permission covering at least three years if they are to run a viable business. Although it is quite right to say to new housebuilders, “You’ve got to put on roofing material that will help get solar energy”, I do not think that you can tell them to put heat pumps in every property. That is not feasible. In my early stages with Reckitt & Colman, I worked in Hull, which had row after row of terraced housing. Those properties cannot have heat pumps.
It is against that background that I would like to see us look again at gas being used as a vehicle, with hydrogen, to provide energy for heating and cooking, particularly in areas of major terraced housing. I have done some work with the gas industry and on what goes with it. Basically, it is safe and it works. I should like to see it go forward.
I come, finally, to new towns. I represented Northampton South for 23 years. As a new town, it was not initially welcomed by the local council. I thought a lot about it and said, “No, we need to welcome it. We need more housing in this area. We need proper housing and a mix of housing”. We were getting it from the Commission for New Towns, but in the new towns of the future we must make sure that there are sufficient facilities for sport, libraries, education and all those things. The inquiry recently proposed that the Government should do 12 new towns; in my judgment, at a cost of more than £3 billion each, three or four is more than enough. There are opportunities there, and speaking purely for myself, I would certainly be delighted to work with them on any project they may have and to take it forward.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I want to say a few words about something that has not been talked about very much. Let me turn this damn phone off first—this happened in my Select Committee yesterday and it was not very good.
I want to talk about planning, because planning comes up a great deal in this Bill—quite rightly, and it is a great Bill. There is a lot about the different ways of obtaining planning, such as through the Transport and Works Act or through the Planning Inspectorate. What I cannot find is anything about planning when it comes to railways or canals. Historically, planning permission for them has been obtained through a hybrid Bill. I have been involved in a number of hybrid Bill projects: the Channel Tunnel was the first one; then there was HS1; and, more recently, HS2. I also chaired a Select Committee on a river project in east London—no, in the north-east somewhere.
There is one common thing that worries me; with greater pressure on people’s time, I have a serious worry. Who you would call a judge in any court, or an inspector in planning, becomes a group of a dozen or half a dozen Members of Parliament or Members of your Lordships’ House. They are expected to act as a judge with full transparency and full fairness; to listen to all the evidence, both from the promoter and from the people who are petitioning; and then to make a decision.
This all sounds very easy until you look at things and ask, “First of all, how is the Select Committee selected?” It is not like a Select Committee that we have here. It is a special Select Committee to act as judge and jury, so to speak, for the particular project—usually one promoted by the Government. I have to say, when you start looking at who is selected, a lot of the time the selection is based on: “Have you behaved in the House? Have you voted with your party, or have you not been there?” If you are speaking against the party too often, you are going on that committee. I could give several examples, which I will not do now, but it has got to a stage where you can look at the committee and say, “Well, I’ve got to open my correspondence in the morning meeting. Maybe I’ll be asleep after lunch, but nobody will notice”. That happens quite often.
The poor petitioners, who are not helped by the very expensive lawyers whom the promoter is employing, often have to speak on their own. They are told throughout the process, “It’s all very difficult. You’re probably not going to win, but I suppose you could try”. They then have to accept, more or less, the decision of this so-called court, which is under a lot of pressure from Ministers and everyone else to come out in favour of the promoter. I would like to ask my noble friend the Minister—I do not necessarily need an answer tonight, but I think that this deserves a petition when we get to Committee stage—do we need to use the hybrid Bill process for railways and canals anymore? The planning process that we have through the Planning Inspectorate and the Transport and Works Act seems to work very well and people have confidence in it. Certainly on the basis of HS1, I could go on to compensation and things like that, but I will not do so; I shall just say that people are very upset about it. They think that they have been treated badly, and then they do not get paid their compensation—whether or not that is related, I do not know.
We ought to have a debate about this because I suspect the reason for not having a change is because Parliament sees itself as supreme. We are very good at being supreme here, and they are very good at being even more supreme down at the other end of the Corridor. However, I think that, for something like this, which is basically a court, we should give it to the professionals. So I shall try to come up with a petition, which may at least enable some debate to take place; I may be told why that will not work, but let us hope that it will.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s ambition to build more homes and infrastructure for our country is welcome. It is indeed time to get Britain building again. However, there is a danger in this Bill of council blaming and nature blaming, which ignores recent history.
According to the CPRE, a staggering 1.2 million homes given planning permission since 2015 have not been built. This highlights that the problem is not always the blockers in communities but is often the developers, who are banking land and failing to build. Although we strongly support the aspiration of 1.5 million new homes in this Bill, regrettably, it does not include any explicit target for the building of 150,000 social homes per year—a vital commitment in our own manifesto. How can we truly tackle the housing emergency and get families out of the insecurity of temporary accommodation without addressing the dire lack of genuinely affordable homes that are tied to local incomes?
We are deeply concerned that this Bill continues with the overcentralised, developer-led approach that has demonstrably failed to deliver. It undermines the independence of local government and deprives communities of their stake in development. Local councils, as the backbone of our planning system, are not the blockers: they approve the vast majority—86%—of applications that come their way. Sweeping powers for the Secretary of State, such as on determining which planning functions are delegated and on reducing the objection period for transport projects, will shut communities out of decisions that have a profound impact on their lives. We must ensure that local councils, not Whitehall, decide which applications go to committee, maintaining the democratic right for communities to be heard and represented.
On Part 3 of the Bill, although the concepts of environmental development plans and a nature restoration levy are noted, their success is highly dependent on substantial up-front funding. We have very serious concerns, for Committee stage, about Natural England’s capacity and resources to monitor and enforce this fund effectively.
This is a missed opportunity for mandating nature-friendly development in all new housing, including minimum biodiversity measures such as swift boxes, bat boxes and green roofs, including solar. It also fails to adequately strengthen protection for irreplaceable habitats such as our precious chalk streams. We will seek to amend to improve farming business viability through better use of environmental land management. We owe it to future generations to ensure that our planning system is sustainable, genuinely affordable and democratically accountable, enabling our communities to thrive and to enjoy nature, not diminish it.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I declare that I am on the boards of Peers for the Planet and the Conservative Environment Network. I also chair the Built Environment Select Committee—although the members who are here will be pleased to hear that I speak today purely as a Back-Bencher. I thank the Minister who will be responding, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for the time that she has given me, not just on this Bill but on the wider issues of housing and planning. It is both generous and genuinely appreciated.
This Bill is the most exciting legislation in this Session, as someone else has said, not because it is perfect—far from it—but because it opens a vital and long-overdue national debate. It is about not just housing but life, communities, connectivity; places to raise families, work, grieve and make friends. It is a chance to nationally plan land use more strategically, aligning homes with infrastructure, jobs and nature. I wish to raise three things.
The first, as has been discussed already, is planning committees. A poll found that 53% of people do not trust councils to act in their best interests and that 59% want more information on, or a greater say in, local decisions. I acknowledge that, as the Minister has said, a consultation is under way. But if the Government plan to remove a democratic element from planning, whatever the threshold, they must ensure that people still know who makes decisions, on what basis, and how they can make their voices heard. Democracy works only if people are involved. If you remove that local input or accountability, you damage that democratic link entirely.
I would like us to explore how we can front-load the planning process, using better data, earlier engagement and stronger design codes that secure local support from the outset. If you combine that with the brownfield passports that the Government are looking at, you reduce the need for repeat committee debate, you save time and you provide long-term clarity. All of this is already possible in current legislation.
The second area is Natural England. If it is to take on a stronger regulatory role, we must ensure that it is transparent and accountable. Who scrutinises its daily decisions? Who steps in when something goes wrong? Does it have the right skills and resources? Should it be the sole delivery body?
The third area is Part 3. When I looked at it the other day, it reminded me of when I put questions into AI when I am bored and out pops something which is very clever but sometimes lacks human intuition. This section of the Bill may have started with nutrient neutrality in mind. Perhaps it should have stayed there, as has been said. If it is put alongside the broader noise on biodiversity net gain and nature-friendly farming, I cannot help but feel a growing apprehension. This section risks undermining protections and creating new problems when first we should be fixing what is not working.
The fund must be for nature, not “administrative expenses”, as in in the Bill. As it stands, it risks becoming a bureaucratic cash cow, with too few guarantees of results. There is nothing about mitigation hierarchy, no requirement to embed green infrastructure and no assurance that the funds stay local. Maintaining and improving nature is not addressed. You pay the levy and the problem is offshored. Added to this, EDPs last only 10 years. What happens then? Some habitats and species cannot just be cut and pasted elsewhere.
I hope that the Bill sparks a deeper national conversation about the kinds of places we want to build and the kind of country we want to be. Growth does not have to make things worse. On the contrary, it is essential, but people must see and feel the benefits. We need to better deliver the infrastructure and services that people expect and fix this crazy situation of billions sat there in Section 106 waiting to be spent. Scrutiny and criticism of the Bill must not be mistaken for nimbyism. You can care deeply and passionately about nature but still want more homes and businesses. That is not cakeism. It is smart planning.
Recently I went to Aylesbury, where Barratt and the RSPB have partnered on 2,500 homes. Since then, the number of sparrows has risen by 4,000%, goldfinches by 200% and bumblebees by 50%. This is despite not just Brexit but the presence of roads, homes, shops and schools, and all because nature was put in at the outset. They are not alone; others are doing it. Nature is not a blocker to growth but a part of growth. It creates jobs, as my noble friend on the Front Bench knows all too well. It revives places and helps to make healthier and happier communities.
I welcome the Government’s aims, but the rhetoric must change. We must stop framing housing and nature as adversaries, where one must lose for the other to win. I have spoken to campaigners and young people who care about the environment yet want more homes. Many developers building at scale are putting nature in because it works. It is this energy that I want us all to channel, not to kill the Bill but to improve it, not to throw the baby out with the bathwater but to push for a more measured, more national and more ambitious plan that delivers for both people and nature.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, the Planning and Infrastructure Bill marks a turning point. An intention has been declared by the Government to pursue a major reconstruction of the UK economy. This intention is conveyed by the Bill.
Many years ago, a Labour Government were faced with a similar task of post-war reconstruction. An austere and purposive Government, under the unassuming leadership of Clement Attlee, faced a task of which the difficulties were widely acknowledged. The Government were supported by an able Civil Service. Its skills had been honed by the wartime exigencies. The Ministry of Supply, which had overseen the procurement of wartime matériel, was replete with technicians and staff who had managed a complex supply chain. The ministry oversaw some leading post-war technological projects, including those of the newly established nuclear industry. It also oversaw the nationalisation of the iron and steel industry.
Equal competence was demonstrated by the Ministry of Transport, which oversaw the nationalisation of the rail network, albeit that little credit was given on this account. Thereafter, the Civil Service was rapidly de-skilled. Its traditional amateurism was reasserted by means of its selection board. By the mid-1960s, critics were complaining of the lack of scientific, commercial and manufacturing skills in the Civil Service.
Current circumstances are very different from those of the early post-war years. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, which is charged with overseeing our energy policy, has a dearth of technical expertise. One might expect the department to be dominated by scientists and engineers, but there are few of these. Those in charge of the nuclear policy are graduates with degrees in archaeology, history and the social sciences. Although they can be credited with supporting a nuclear renaissance, there is little understanding of the technological imperatives.
In pursuit of net-zero emissions, it will be necessary for small nuclear plants to become close-up and personal to industrial applications and to clusters of population. Reactors are required that embody fourth-generation nuclear technologies that possess inherent safety. Instead, we are developing pressurised water reactors, both on a massive scale and as small modular reactors. Both pose stringent safety requirements, which must keep them at a distance from the consumers of heat and electricity. We have allowed projects that have been pursuing fourth-generation nuclear technologies in the UK to close or to expatriate themselves to more welcoming countries. A ministry staffed by technical enthusiasts would never have allowed this to happen.
The dearth of commercial experience in the Civil Service is as striking as its technological limitations. This deficiency has been gruesomely illustrated by the experience of the HS2 rail project. It seems that successive Governments who were willing to support the project were content to issue vague outline plans and to rely on the contractors to determine the detailed specifications. Governments were inclined to make changes to the plans without regard to the costs of the resulting disorganisation. The HS2 project has been affected by a planning system that is beset by local objections and demands for judicial review. This has severely impeded its progress. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill proposes to reform a sclerotic system.
There is a tendency to envy nations that have a more forceful regime that can override local objections. If we are not prepared to act likewise, then we must resolve to adequately compensate the affected parties. However, in pursuing the construction of new towns, if that is what we intend, we must make provision for the compulsory purchase of land in a way that will allow its enhanced value to accrue largely to the public authorities or to the development corporations. Otherwise, it will accrue to lucky but undeserving landowners.
I will make one final comparison between the past and present. After the war, the nation was fully aware of the parlous state of the economy and the physical environment. Nowadays, the electorate are less aware of the hazards we face. Our leaders should have alerted them to the realities sooner. The consequence is that we will be blamed for each emerging problem. We will be blamed for the failures in the provision of healthcare and social care, for the bankruptcies of local authorities, universities and institutions of higher education, and for much else besides.
We have been willing to listen to the nostrums of pollsters, spin doctors and political strategists, who were responsible for convincing our leadership that it was dangerous, at an election time, to admit that taxes needed to be raised to finance the reconstruction. That was surely a misreading of popular opinion that made no allowance for the possibilities of political persuasion. The consequence is that we have lost time before embarking on the project, and we have lost some credibility.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to Part 1 of the Bill and specifically to Chapter 2, which relates to electricity infrastructure. The Bill introduces many critical reforms to our planning and grid connection systems, and, if implemented effectively, could help restore a degree of realism and responsiveness to our infrastructure development.
I welcome the shift from a first come, first served model to a first ready, first connected model for grid connections. To quote my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, this should “in theory” allow viable shovel-ready projects to proceed without unnecessary delays. However, if we are to prioritise projects, we must be strategic. Not all megawatts are equal. A kilowatt hour from a nuclear plant delivered consistently is not the same as one from a wind turbine that might not be turning tomorrow. Immediately dispatchable, energy-dense sources such as nuclear and gas must be prioritised for grid access. Those technologies provide essential baseload power and enhanced grid stability. Crucially, they offer inertia—that is, resistance to frequency fluctuations—which is something that renewables such as wind and solar cannot provide. Frequency fluctuations can cause blackouts, as we saw first-hand only too recently in Spain.
We must be cautious about fast-tracking a growing queue of small-scale, intermittent renewable projects that offer low-capacity factors and often require costly network upgrades. My argument is not against renewables but against imbalance. Yes, a truly resilient grid must be cleaner, but also smarter, stronger and more stable. We should connect the right projects in the right order, in the national interest, not just to tick boxes for arbitrary 2030 targets.
Broadly, we will support efforts to streamline the planning process for nationally significant infrastructure projects. They are critical for our energy security and economic competitiveness. Although I welcome the Bill’s legal framework for a cap and floor scheme to support long-duration energy storage, I also share my noble friend Lord Lilley’s caution about pre-empting new technologies before they are fully proven. That said, it is vital that we enable the deployment of technologies that balance supply and demand, reinforce resilience and help us move towards a cleaner energy system.
However, I must express concerns about the underlying motivation driving those projects, namely the Government’s so-called clean power by 2030 target. Although I have done so in this House many times before, I hope noble Lords will indulge me once again: it is important to lay bare the reality of the associated cost of this target. Aurora Energy Research has priced the cost of grid upgrades at £116 billion over the next 10 years. That amounts to an additional £400 per annum per household. That is before factoring in the OBR’s estimate of £96 billion more in green levies and subsidies over the next five years—an additional £600 per annum per household.
Let us be clear: the 2030 target is not just unrealistic, it is ideological. It is being pursued not with a careful eye on affordability, nor with a clear plan for technology neutrality or energy resilience, but rather to satisfy a political agenda, not a national one.
We must prioritise a balanced energy mix that combines innovation with reliability, clean energy with cost effectiveness, and growth with environmental stewardship. Ideology must not override practicality. The Government owe the British people a secure, affordable and sustainable energy future, delivered fairly and in a realistic timeframe.
I trust that the Minister has heard these concerns. I look forward to engaging further in later stages of the Bill and I hope for constructive dialogue in Committee.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I understand the ambition of the Bill to speed up infrastructure delivery. Planning frameworks are complex and can be slow. But I remind Ministers that when the Audit Commission existed, it audited planning performance, publicised poorly performing councils and required improvements from them. I accept the need to enforce shorter timescales on decision-making.
It is wrong to suggest that the planning system is responsible for not building enough homes. As we have heard, there are well over a million homes with planning permission that are not built and councils approve nine out of 10 planning applications for housing. It is not the planning system that causes low house completions but the lack of money—now partially addressed in the spending review, although not entirely—together with the lack of construction workers and materials, added to land banking by major builders that sit on planning permissions while land values rise.
The Government still want to build 1.5 million homes by 2029. That means they must build 374,000 a year from 2027. If that were to be done, at what quality might it be done? I ask that because the Bill could be the means of future-proofing our housing stock, given our ageing population and that we have more people who live with a disability. Many new homes lack quality, and some very poor housing is being produced through permitted development conversions where profits are the driving force. We need to build more healthy homes that last.
My noble friend Lord Russell and others have talked about Part 3. I agree with his conclusions, and I wish that Ministers would stop talking about this being about newts—not in this Chamber, but more generally. It is actually about 5,251 rare and protected habitats that must not lose their current legal safeguards.
Planning reform will help to deliver infrastructure, but many large infrastructure projects in this country have suffered from bad project management and huge cost overruns. It is not just about planning. The Bill includes several positive measures, such as making it easier for councils to purchase vacant land for housebuilding, localising planning fees, and increasing planning capacity. Those measures should be supported, but the national scheme of delegation will centralise decision-making when there is no evidence that decision-making will be improved. The democratic role of councillors in decision-making, which has been central to the English planning system, is at risk. Any reforms must safeguard local oversight and transparency, otherwise there is a risk that the public will not be supportive.
Planning reform will succeed only if there are qualified planning staff to do the work. To build capacity, the number of level 7 chartered town planner apprenticeships must be increased—this at a time when spending on planning has been reducing. According to the excellent brief from the Royal Town Planning Institute, we have a shortage of over 2,000 planners in local authorities and not enough chief planning officers, because that role has been downgraded over the years.
The real reason why planning has been in difficulty is that there have not been enough staff to do the work necessary, and too few chief planning officers with the necessary clout to drive progress and outcomes. Chief planning officers should be statutory, as I have said during the passage of previous planning Bills. The RTPI is right to urge the inclusion of a clause defining the purpose of planning, alongside an audit of the whole planning system and how it interlocks. Its proposed national spatial framework would be a positive improvement.
At this stage of our debate on the Bill, we have to put competency and accountability at the heart of decision-making, but Clause 51 gives too much power to Whitehall. If, under Clause 50, you train councillors to be better, why do you need to take the power away from them and give it to Whitehall? Whitehall does not need to be involved in the size of planning committees or the powers of officers and councillors. Finally, as the RTPI has said, planning is not a blocker; it is an under-resourced enabler, and this Bill could put that problem right.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and to pick up a couple of the points he made so eloquently. I am going to talk about two things: the relationship between health and planning, and between health and housing.
Second Reading is about underlying principles, and I want to start with: what is planning for? It is too often cast, and is cast at the moment, as an obstacle. I understand why, and we have heard already about the frustrations with major infrastructure projects—how does one explain to a foreigner why we cannot manage those projects in this country?—and with the costs and delays involved, and about the need to speed up decision-making more generally. It has not always been like that, and it need not be like that.
Planning can be a positive force for transformation, for creating places and communities that support health and well-being, prosperity and the environment. These three have been linked, for example, in Ebenezer Howard’s original concept of garden cities, and today we must all recognise those links between health, prosperity and the environment. For example, the creation of healthy environments and a healthy, stable workforce is vital to a thriving economy, and the opposite is damaging to growth, as we have already seen from the chronic levels of sickness around the country at the moment. My noble friend Lady Willis of Summertown pointed out how the natural environment enhances our health and is vital in cities as well as in the countryside.
There is almost nothing in all the various aspects of planning today that addresses health, and where there is it relates almost exclusively to healthcare facilities. There is some increasing emphasis on prevention, but nothing yet on creating health, by which I mean creating the conditions for people to be healthy and helping them to be so, which is a pretty good starting point, it seems to me, for planning for community and places. We need to recreate the link that people have understood in the past.
Turning to housing, many noble Lords will know that Nye Bevan and other previous Health Ministers were also Housing Ministers. Perhaps it is not surprising, though I am not about to make an amendment suggesting a change in the responsibilities of government at the moment. But there is no need, I suspect, to tell noble Lords about the links between health and homes. Mould, damp, cold, heat, unsafe construction, fires, falls, accessibility, extraordinary mental stress from the worries about repairs and risks, and other mental health aspects are an important part of this. But there is also a positive side: if we get our housing right, it provides great stability, a great foundation for life. It allows children to do their homework, if the rooms are big enough. It allows us all to live through life’s changes without having necessarily to move.
We need new homes which promote health and well-being and provide a foundation for a healthy and productive life, rather than, as so many do, damage health and add to the feelings of insecurity and helplessness that are sadly so prevalent today. The TCPA has published a booklet entitled A Home to Die For?, which has pictures of some of the worst homes being created today, particularly through permitted development rights. I see nothing in this Bill that will address those issues.
Some noble Lords will recall that I introduced the Healthy Homes Bill in the last Parliament and attempted to get a set of healthy homes standards in the levelling-up Bill, with excellent support from His Majesty’s then Opposition, and the Liberal Democrats and many others. Indeed, we won a vote on it in this House and lost the ping-pong by only one vote. I hope there may still be some warm feelings towards these ideas on the now government side, and that we may still make some progress on them. I will of course be looking for support elsewhere.
I know the Minister will point me towards policies—and there are some very positive policies, although even there, without enough reference to health and well-being—but they are too easily ignored or overruled in the name, ultimately, of viability. People start the planning with all good intentions, but in the end, we lose those vital aspects. The evidence is all around us, as shown in the booklet I referred to. My noble friend Lord Best described very well the mechanics of this. But he also pointed to the very positive role that development corporations could have in the future, and we have many good examples of that, including the Olympic legacy. I hope this is something we will explore.
In conclusion, I want to quote from my great friend Professor Omaswa, who used to run the Ugandan Health Service:
“Health is made at home, hospitals are for repairs”.
Planning can do a great deal to create health, support the new localised NHS agenda that I believe we will be having, and help create sustained growth—and I mean sustained growth, not just a short dash of growth—by providing the support people need to lead fulfilling and economically productive lives.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and I am very glad that he mentioned healthy homes. It is just one of the many issues missing from the Bill.
I like this Bill. I like the ideas and principles behind it, and I thank the Minister for the way he introduced it, but I take issue with him on one point in particular. When he was talking about the current problems the planning system faces, he did not mention the lack of planning officers, which was raised by a number of noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham mentioned it, and the lack of skilled workers was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. Is the Minister concerned about the lack of planning officers? There has been a huge decline in the last 10 years, and these are going to be key people in the transformation the Government wish to see happen. I think I was not the only noble Lord to be very struck by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Best, and I hope the Government pay attention to it and take action on it. It is far too easy for the Government to say they listen, but it is time they acted on the listening.
My Lords, I welcome Clause 32 and the ring-fencing of planning fees. Of course we all need some new development, but we also need nature with the new development. I was very saddened by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, who went to nutrient neutrality as an excuse for not building new houses. That is a housebuilder’s old chestnut and a nonsense. I give the example of the Hampshire Avon, where so much has been done on nutrient neutrality. There is enough land now for 10 years of housebuilding, and that is a very precious area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grender, was absolutely right about the missed opportunity of this Bill to make all development more nature friendly. There is a huge opportunity here for the Government to turn the dial to a really beneficial position: healthy homes and good, natural development that new housing can take advantage of. We get better design and a better quality of house as a result.
Let me turn to my main concern, which is Part 3 of the Bill. The more I have learned about the Bill and the more people I have talked to, the more I have decided that Part 3 has been made up on the hoof. It is a good idea but it has been totally overshadowed and destroyed by the Civil Service.
The Government, not surprisingly, are taking a very statist approach to nature and are giving more powers to Natural England. I would advise against that. Natural England has a poor record on protecting nature. It lacks effectiveness and efficiency. A lot of people have said that. I have been waiting—I am still waiting—for over two months for a reply from the chief executive of Natural England. In recent evidence reviews, it has ignored up-to-date scientific evidence which is contrary to its own thoughts.
The funding of Natural England is a concern, but there is even more of a concern when it comes to EDPs and the nature restoration levy. As Tony Juniper, the chair of Natural England, has told us, that is an unpredictable pipeline of money. How will Natural England do a job when it has an unpredictable supply of money?
I hope the Minister will confirm that the private sector is still going to be involved. The private sector has done a huge amount that can help in the development of nature; in particular, with chalk streams. I am glad the right reverend Prelate is back in his place. He mentioned chalk streams and I will support him all the way on that. My final plea to the Minister is: please can we clarify all these overlapping policies—spatial policies, biodiversity net gain requirements, new grey-belt plans, environment outcome regulations, the 25-year farming road map, the environmental improvement plan, and local nature recovery strategies—and how we are going to link those in with EDPs?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I have a sense of déjà vu, thinking back to when the noble Earl and I were working to get a focus on soil health in the Environment Bill, now Act, when the noble Earl was acting to push his own Government in the right direction.
I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I am the first member of the Green group in your Lordships’ House to speak, so I note that in the other place the Green MPs voted against the Bill at Third Reading. That was not because they did not think there were good elements in it, but there is so much damage being done to nature—and hence, as many noble Lords have said, to human health and well-being and to the state of the nation—that they could not support the progress of the Bill. I thought it was important to set out the position that we start from.
In the Minister’s introductory speech, we heard a couple of the central misconceptions that underpin the reasons why the Government’s approach more generally in the Bill will simply not work. It will be counterproductive. The noble Lord spoke with some glee about new roads. Well, we know that new roads simply create new traffic. You cannot build your way out of a traffic jam; all you do is create more traffic jams. The noble Lord spoke about the safe and decent homes the Bill is supposed to deliver. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, just said—and many others have said—what our large handful of mass housebuilders are building is anything but that. If people have not seen it, I point them to the article in the New Statesman this month about some of the absolutely awful and incredibly expensive homes that have been built in the Prime Minister’s own constituency that the owners are not able to get sorted out.
To pick up the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, and many others, the health of nature is the health of human beings—we human animals living on this fragile planet in this terribly nature-depleted country. Speaking up for nature is speaking up for humans. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, just said, if we are going to have a healthy economy, we need healthy humans. We are speaking up for the economy, ultimately.
The Bill is disastrous for nature. I go to the briefing of the Wildlife and Countryside Link, but there are many briefings pointing out how the Bill undermines vital legal protections for nature. It is environmentally regressive and reduces the level of environmental protection provided by existing law.
I could take the rest of my time going through a very long list of the issues I want to address, but that would be a little dull. I will focus on a couple of points that help illustrate my general point that nature and human well-being are tied together.
We need to take a One Health approach to the Bill. I point to a briefing from the Sustainable Nitrogen Alliance, which says that the proposed environmental delivery plans will be insufficient to tackle nitrogen overloading. We need an integrated approach to nitrogen pollution that addresses, in addition to development, the impacts of intensive agriculture and wastewater and the risk of pollution swapping.
Coming back to my point about health, I go to UNEP, which notes that ammonia emissions, as well as contributing to climate change, are an important driver of fine particulate matter pollution, which reduces air quality and has increasing adverse effects on human health. I spent last weekend, in my leisure time, on a two-day course: the Field Studies Council’s introduction to lichens. I can highly recommend that to noble Lords. Any noble Lords who stand still too long in the Dining Room may find themselves bailed up by me to talk about that more. It was striking how much the tutor kept saying, “Well, you won’t find this or that wonderful species here. Everything is covered in nitrogen”. That is what our country is like. It is a human health issue as well as an issue for lichens.
In the other place, Sarah Champion MP talked about the right to grow. That is really crucial for human health; allotments and similar spaces are great for nature as well. I will mention the issue of landfill—historic and current—and the human health impacts of that; and Zane’s law is something noble Lords will be hearing more from me on. But I want to mention something that might be able to be cleaned up now before we get to that point. The Badger Trust points out that in Schedule 6, there are amendments that significantly undermine protections for badgers without improving the situation in any way for housebuilders. I hope we might be able to clean that up before Committee, so we will not have to dig through that detail.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, this is a Bill I strongly support, I want it to work, but I think it will be a waste of time. That sounds harsh, but it need not be. As I said in the King’s Speech debate last year, on 18 July, I have been involved in planning reform before as a Minister, more than once. My radical suggestion of a 30-month period of no regulation other than building control has clearly not been taken up—far too bold. But unless Ministers can remove the walls around departmental silos, the Bill will be waste of time.
New Labour was not perfect. But I was involved under new Labour, more than once, in clear major work across departments, outside the silos. It can be made to happen. Currently it is not happening. I have been at meetings with developers, industrial builders, and energy providers in the last months. The issue was getting action across departments: no give and take, examples of “all or nothing” from departments, and in some cases it has been nothing; jobs lost and companies lost—no one seems in overall control. No. 10 is the issue. We have a good Government, but they are a clumsy Government.
The Bill will not work if at the top it is awkward, all thumbs, butter-fingered, lumbering and stiff. Believe it or not, I think the Prime Minister should take a leaf out of the Arnold Weinstock management playbook, when he took GEC from a tiny company of £100 million to a manufacturing company of £11 billion, selling power plants to China and locomotives to the USA. He did not allow silos to exist in the subsidiaries. He cut out the chaff. He did not get sidetracked by consultants or third parties. It can work.
I support the Bill. I have read the briefs from at least 10 organisations: the National Trust, the Royal Town Planning Institute, Association of British Insurers, the Town and Country Planning Association, the National Association of Local Councils, the LGA, the County Councils Network, CPRE, the CLA and the NFU. All claim to support the Bill, “but”—there is always a “but”. Some of them contain good people I am happy to work with—tomorrow morning will be a good example—but, collectively, as third parties, aided by the two regulators, Natural England and the Environment Agency, they are the reason so little progress has been made over the years. That sums it up. Collectively, they have been the problem. They sidetrack the clumsy Government we have.
The Government need to embrace boldness as their friend, not their enemy. Once No. 10 is clearly in charge with a plan to stop and get rid of the silos, Ministers should be made to work across departments and just get on with it.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, as they say, follow that. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. He is always trenchant and always given with verve and determination. I will pick up on the issue he raised of departmental silos in a minute.
I want to make two points, one strategic and the other tactical. I will deal with the strategic one first. This is an ambitious plan for 1.5 million homes while meeting clean power targets and, at the same time, making sure we have an adequate degree of nature recovery, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Goldsmith. However, it does not deal with the point made by my noble friend Lord Lilley: that, over the next 10 years, we will have an additional 6.6 million people in this country. That is a huge number; it is about two cities the size of Manchester. Manchester covers an area roughly the size of Berkshire. Together, all these issues will have some substantial consequences. For my part, I am concerned that some of them may be unintended. In the short time I have available, I want to draw the House’s attention to one: the growing danger and risk to our food and water security.
When this Bill comes into effect, a lot of agricultural land will be taken out of food production. Partially, obviously, that will be because we are going to have to build houses and the ancillary facilities that go with them. Also, less obviously but still very important, there will be massive amounts of agricultural land lost to solar farms—not just to solar farms but to the production of maize for feeding biodigesters to generate electricity. It is all part of the push for green energy targets.
It is obvious that you cannot eat solar panels. When the Minister comes to wind up—perhaps I could ask the noble Lord on the Front Bench to pass this on to her—could she tell the House how many acres of agricultural land are expected to be taken out of production as a result of this Bill? How will the Government square this with the conclusion of their own national security review, published today, which concludes, as headlined in the Times, that the risk of war on home soil is now the greatest in years?
People tend to forget that we grow just over half our food, about 55%, and we must go on to the world market to buy the balance. It is a question not just of buying the food but of shipping it here. The Russian invasion of Ukraine and the impact of four or five pinch points, such as the Strait of Hormuz, show how vulnerable we are to world events. As an island—an already relatively crowded island—we are particularly vulnerable to these shifts. In the early 1940s, this country was within a few months of starvation until the Royal Navy was able to crack the U-boat threats to our convoys. Today, the threats are much shorter. As mentioned in the national security review, supply chains now run very thin. It is estimated that there are three days of supply for this country in the food chain at any one time. As someone put it, rather overdramatically, we are nine meals away from anarchy. The situation regarding water, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Coffey, is no better.
If the prime task of the Government is to protect citizens and keep them safe, that must include providing adequate supplies of food and water, but that does not come into this debate because—this was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—it falls into another silo. It is important that, somehow, those silos interconnect, communicate and make sure that the implications of one are read into the conclusions and policies of the other.
In my last 30 seconds, I turn to my tactical point. I want to interrogate the Minister about footpaths— I declare an interest as a member of the Ramblers. The UK’s network of footpaths plays an important role in giving people a chance to exercise and to improve their physical and mental well-being, but there are 40,000 miles of footpath which are currently unrecorded and which, under the drop-dead date of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, will disappear on 31 December this year—gone for ever.
The previous Conservative Government gave an extension. Instead of 31 December this year, they would disappear on 31 December 2030. However, the incoming Labour Government bravely said that we should remove all the drop-dead dates and they should be left to be sorted out over time, but—in the hallowed phrase—when parliamentary time permits. Now, we have parliamentary time, so I hope the Minister will welcome some amendments to give effect to this very important commitment that this Government have given us.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thought I would be the only person to mention recreation and sport in this Bill, but the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has stepped timidly on to the territory with footpaths.
The removal of consultees is something I have found rather worrying, and Sport England disappearing as a consultee is something I find very worrying. We are going to do away with the system and remove the roadblock by making sure that we do not have a body that defends playing fields. Now, I would say this, wouldn’t I? I cover sport; I play sport. If I have to declare an interest about my career as a rugby union player, it is a financially very strongly negative one. It is positive for physiotherapists and manufacturers of rugby boots, but the rest of it is distinctly negative.
Playing fields allow that sport to happen. The little club I started with is now known as Lakenham Union but was originally Lakenham Hewett. For the first 10 to 15 years of its career, it played its home games totally on school playing fields. It has gone on to be something bigger and has developed. But we do not have that statutory defence any more. The Bill before me says that the ultimate plan is—I give up; dyslexia comes into it, and I probably should have declared that in Questions earlier—to look at this. However, the Bill is removing the people who look at playing fields; you do not have that defence in place any more.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, spoke about government being a little bit cleverer. Did we not hear yesterday the Minister determinedly saying, “Yes, we need more sport; we need a better choice for school education; we need people to get out there to try the whole thing”? You cannot do that if you do not have playing fields. You just cannot. It is a benefit for health, communities and everything else. I hope that at the end of this process—how much I bother the Committee and Report stage depends on how soon I get the answer; you can save some parliamentary time by giving me a nice answer —we get some consideration and something solid to defend community assets.
One of the briefings I had referred to things being superfluous and no longer needed. But if you have a bit of green open space to play sport on, how can that possibly not be needed? It is ultimately reusable many times over. The way you do that is by making sure you do not have any changing rooms, but it takes a bit of investment. There is enough local government experience in this room to know that I am telling the truth. If we are not going to look after these things to make sure that the communities we are building around have some assets to make them communities, we are ultimately going to fail.
A reference was made to Billy Connolly’s description of being moved out of Glasgow. I have heard it; it is very funny, and it makes a political point. You move somebody out of somewhere and say, “You’re out of a slum now—but you’re living in a desert”. School playing fields, parks and so on are key components that allow these things to happen. I say to the Government: please make sure they are protected, and protected properly, and if you are going to get rid of them, make sure you put something much better in their place. It is these little details that turn successes into failures, and I hope the Government are listening.
Lord Banner (Con)
My Lords, I declare three interests: first, as a practising planning silk with a range of clients affected by planning and infrastructure law in different ways; secondly, as chair of the advisory committee of SAV, a developer, and director of Crossman Special Projects, a land promotion company; thirdly, Clause 12 of the Bill proposes to give legal effect to the recommendations of my independent review of legal challenges to nationally significant infrastructure projects that require primary legislation.
There is much to be welcomed in the Bill, particularly in Parts 1 and 2, and on the whole it is a step in the right direction. However, there are some missed opportunities. I hope the Government will listen to constructive proposals to improve it, and thereby further help its purpose of making the planning regime more efficient to deliver the housing and growth this country desperately needs.
I endorse the streamlining of the NSIP regime, in particular, unsurprisingly, Clause 12’s streamlining of the procedure for judicial review of NSIPs to cut down on delays caused by legal challenges. That is the only recommendation of my independent review that requires primary legislation to implement. The other recommendations require changes to the civil procedure rules, which are governed by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. I would welcome clarification from the Minister of the anticipated timescale for implementing those other changes. My recommendations were put forward as one overall package, and it would be helpful to know when the rest of that package will be delivered. I would also welcome clarification of whether the changes to the CPR will be made in relation only to infrastructure judicial reviews or to judicial and statutory reviews in planning generally. My report looked only at infrastructure, but I do see merit—as do many others—in rolling out the reforms to cover planning reviews generally.
The reintroduction of strategic planning is a positive step. Previous experiments with extreme localism failed to appreciate that, at least in the world of planning, reliance on carrots alone without any stick is and always will be ineffective. Strategic direction is essential to make a dent in the massive nationwide shortfall in both market and affordable housing. I do not share the view of some on this side of the House that rural areas should be exempt from their fair share of delivering growth. In fact, my experience of planning inquiries promoting and indeed opposing housing in rural areas is that, when done well, it can provide a necessary and welcome boost to the local economy—the pubs, post offices, schools and so on. Without that boost, they wither away and die.
In the limited time I have, I turn to the improvements to the Bill that I would most like to see. First, an express general principle of proportionality in planning would give decision-makers, applicants, consultants and the courts reassurance that less can be more. It would also put an end to the days of environmental statements being delivered in lorries and DCO-examining inspectors asking over 2,000 written questions about a single project, both of which are real examples of the current default to prolixity that only clogs up the system and causes delay and additional cost.
The second improvement concerns the basic conditions for neighbourhood plans. Currently, neighbourhood plans do not have to conform with national policy: they must have regard to it, but, having done that, they do not need to conform with it. This presents a significant loophole in the drive for greater strategic direction. Well-resourced parish councils in the areas of greatest unaffordability can, contrary to national policy, unilaterally pull up the ladder by, for example, deeming there to be no grey belt in their area or restricting development in their area to less than is required by national policy. Mark my words, this is what will happen if the basic conditions stay as they are. A single-sentence amendment to the basic conditions would put paid to this by requiring neighbourhood plans to conform to the framework, thus putting them in their proper place within the hierarchy of plan-making.
The third improvement concerns providing a legislative solution to the difficulties presented by the Hillside judgment on the relationship between overlapping planning permissions on the same site, where later permissions are sought to modify a large multi-phase development. This is a technical point, and I cannot possibly do it justice in a short speech. I know the Minister is aware of this issue, because we have discussed it. It is a huge issue for multi-phase projects; it adds massively to their risk profile, their finance costs and their attractiveness to inward investment.
I echo the comments of noble Lord, Lord Lansley: there are a number of tools in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that have not yet been exercised. LURA inserted new Section 73B into the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which went a modest way to addressing this issue by allowing for limited material amendments to planning permissions. Section 73B does not go far enough, but even that has not been commenced. I do not understand why, or why the Bill before the House could not go further and deal completely with the Hillside problems. It would make a real difference.
Fourthly, we have heard a lot about local authority resources but not very much about the Planning Inspectorate. The Planning Inspectorate is the keeper of the keys in relation to DCOs, local plans, spatial development strategies—when they come forward—and planning appeals. It is currently massively under-resourced. The inspectors are not paid enough, which is an issue in attracting the widest possible pool of people to that role. I have raised the issue of charging for planning appeals to raise money for PINS before, and I understand the block to it. There is a power to charge for appeals, but the block is that there is no ring-fencing, so if appeal fees were charged, they would go into the blob. The Bill includes ring-fencing for local authority fees, so why not put ring-fencing for the Planning Inspectorate in the Bill?
Lastly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, that the RTPI’s ask of statutory chief planning officers and a statutory purpose of planning would help buttress the national scheme of delegation by ensuring that officers are not unduly lent on. I support the scheme of delegation, provided that it is done properly. I appreciate that the consultation is live, but I suggest that we should see the detail before the Bill goes through. I urge the Government to consider these proposals with an open mind in Committee.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is very interesting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Banner, but I shall take a different perspective.
The Bill’s commitment to practical measures, to get the houses we need built and long-neglected infrastructure developed, is going to change millions of lives for the better. I am also reassured by its pathways to clean and reliable energy in the context of nature restoration, and to bringing down the cost of living.
I declare an interest as an honorary fellow of the RIBA. It is, of course, essential that the reforms create well-designed places where healthy, prosperous and enjoyable lives can flourish, and which cover all of our diverse population, of all ages and abilities. My noble friend the Minister will not be surprised that I am in particular concerned about our long-established Gypsy and Traveller communities, who for so long have been left out of our concepts of homes, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, who is not in her place, said so powerfully earlier.
I declare that I am co-chair of the All-Party Group for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, and president of Friends, Families and Travellers and of the Advisory Council for the Education of Romany and other Travellers. Despite their centuries of contribution to our cultural fabric, our policies and legislation have consistently failed to protect the nomadic way of life of these communities, which is defined in law and has been central to their identities, even when many have been forced into bricks and mortar, to the detriment of their well-being and often their mental health.
I am proud that our Government have begun to make the planning system fairer to Gypsies and Travellers in their revision of planning policy last December. I know my noble friend will understand that there is still quite a way to go, not least in the training of local authority planners. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill provides this opportunity.
We must clarify the definition of “social housing”. The founding definition in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 has, by omission, made a loophole for ignoring the accommodation needs of Gypsies and Travellers, and that has been the pattern. The 6,441 caravans recorded in the July 2024 caravan count, on 267 socially rented sites owned by local authorities and registered providers, are clearly low-cost rental accommodation, as defined under Sections 68 and 69 of the Housing and Regeneration Act, yet they are not explicitly recognised as social housing. The duty on the strategic planning authorities’ spatial development strategy—most interesting provisions—and the obligations on landlords need to have a basis for including them.
The Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessments system—GTANA—is also not working. There is now no duty to conduct GTANAs and guidance on how they must be conducted was withdrawn in 2016, causing distressing disparities across the country. In fact, there has been a dramatic decline in the provision of local authority sites since the repeal of the statutory duty to provide them in 1994, resulting in neighbourhood friction over unauthorised sites, with no local authority rubbish collection or mains drainage, constant eviction and starkly inferior living standards.
I hope my noble friend has a copy of the Kicking the Can Down the Road report by Dr Simon Ruston and Friends, Families and Travellers, which reveals that, among the 100 local authorities that informed the research, 119 of the 149 socially provided Gypsy and Travellers sites were built before 1994, with only 30 more developed in the three decades since, across all local authorities in England. That is paralysis. Planning legislation must address that chronic damaging shortage of lawful stopping places and end legislative ambiguity to ensure that Gypsy and Traveller communities are no longer left in the margins of our planning system.
Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)
My Lords, the fact that we are facing increasing demands on our infrastructure and living in one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world shows that we need to plan our new and retrofitted homes carefully. They need to be as light touch on the environment and national infrastructure as possible and, wherever feasible, they need to have a positive impact to meet our aspirations and our legal targets. This is, I am sure, the aim of all of us, but the Bill needs amendment to achieve it.
Every building that we construct or renovate should be designed to use and waste as little energy as possible and to generate as much of its own as possible. It should be designed to provide habitats for wildlife, such as through cavity nest boxes, which in effect cost nothing, and it should be designed to minimise harm to wildlife. The British Trust for Ornithology estimates that, in the UK, around 30 million birds a year die by flying into windows—yet bird-safe designs and glass cost little more and are legislated for in other jurisdictions. I shall be pressing for bird safety in planning and design, as this is such a simple measure.
At the next level up, every new housing development should be planned under the same principles. How can we help ensure that community-level energy, water or sewerage systems are designed and built to make communities more resilient and put less pressure on the national infrastructure? How can we integrate these developments properly with existing houses and communities, helping preserve their character and independence, and with their natural environment? Places where people live and thrive need to be places where other species live and thrive too. The proposed spatial development strategies and environmental development plans need to be hard-wired to the long-awaited land use framework and to local nature recovery strategies, and they also really need to reflect communities’ priorities.
The UK is committed to legal biodiversity restoration targets, and we need to legislate that all planning and development, including that by development corporations, is done with a view to biodiversity enhancement. With that in mind, I hope the Government will agree to tightening up aspects of Part 3 to ensure that it is in line with their aims. As other noble Lords have mentioned —and I think everyone will agree—there are some habitats and landscapes where no amount of money will compensate for their loss, and they cannot be moved to some other location. Ministers have previously said that they think that irreplaceable places implicitly fall outside the scope of the proposed environmental development plans, in which case I urge the Government to make it explicit in the Bill.
Then there are some habitats that have been so degraded already that they can be considered suitable for development, but here we must see this as a double opportunity to provide homes for people and, in doing so, to enhance the biodiversity opportunities on that land. It could be a triple win. Enhancement can go beyond designing buildings to provide natural habitats and bird safety; it can extend to giving people access to green spaces and increasing flood resilience and local water storage—nature-based solutions that benefit people and biodiversity and relieve our national infrastructure all at the same time, on that very piece of land. Amendments to the Bill are necessary but could achieve that.
Finally, land that is currently a green space but not designated irreplaceable will be damaged by development, despite all the considerations of green planning, which need to be legislated for as the first approach. This is where the Government, through the Bill, rightly see that environmental development plans can help by taking a more strategic and holistic approach to the whole area and bringing another piece of land into the equation—a piece of degraded and endangered land that can be protected and have its biodiversity enhanced to make up for the loss on the developed land.
Again, at the moment the wording needs to be amended to ensure a win-win. It is not currently stated in the Bill that the biodiversity benefits on this land need to overcompensate for the losses by the 10% or more required under the current biodiversity net gain system. If we sited that greened-up land as close as possible to the sacrificed development land, we would help wildlife displaced from one area to colonise another, and it would act as a green space for the people who move into that development. That is a win-win and can fit perfectly with existing local nature recovery strategies, but they need to be added into the Bill.
Alongside these big, broad principles, the Bill needs amending to ensure that environmental development is in place and under way before building development starts; to ensure that biodiversity benefits are carefully and scientifically measured and monitored, with further enhancements to the plan being made, if necessary, if the hoped-for outcomes are not at first forthcoming; and to ensure that the greened-up land, once allocated, is given a high and permanent level of protection so that it cannot just be built on itself in a few years’ time, negating its purpose.
I very much hope that the Government will consider putting forward their own amendments to deal with each of these. I look forward to working with other noble Lords on them.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I will focus my remarks on Part 1, Chapter 3 of the Bill, which addresses transport infrastructure—a vital sector for our country’s connectivity, economy and environmental ambitions. I welcome His Majesty’s Government’s overarching goal to modernise and streamline the planning framework for transport. It is clear that the existing system struggles to keep pace with the scale and urgency of the infrastructure demands that we face, from improving regional connectivity to meeting the needs of a growing and modern economy.
Among the key reforms proposed are amendments to the Highways Act 1980, which will grant local highway authorities powers to charge fees for administrative processes, such as stopping up, diverting highways or permitting structures on or over public roads. Although this approach is pragmatic in theory and may help authorities recover costs and enhance service delivery, I share the concern of many noble Lords that greater clarity is needed about how these fees will be set and regulated. Will there be robust national guidance to ensure consistency across local authorities? Crucially, how will the Government protect smaller developers, community organisations and voluntary groups from disproportionate financial burdens that could impede vital local projects?
The Bill seeks to simplify procedures under the Transport and Works Act 1992 for authorising transport schemes. Streamlining is undoubtedly required to cut delays and bureaucracy, but it is essential that this does not come at the expense of thorough scrutiny. It is crucial that affected communities will retain meaningful rights to consultation and that environmental and social impacts will continue to be rigorously assessed and mitigated.
I welcome the provisions empowering local authorities to mandate electric vehicle charging infrastructure in new developments, but we should be cognisant that a uniform approach may exacerbate existing regional disparities. Rural and less commercially viable areas face significant challenges, from limited grid capacity to a lack of private sector incentives. What measures will the Government put in place to ensure an equitable rollout of EV infrastructure across all parts of the United Kingdom to guarantee that those rural communities are not left behind?
Throughout the Bill, we see the Government’s continuing preference for centralisation in planning decisions. Although efficiency and timelines are obviously important, we must guard against the drift towards sidelining locally elected representatives and communities in favour of top-down control. Genuine local engagement and accountability are the cornerstones of planning that respect community needs and environmental stewardship. The Deputy Prime Minister’s remarks in the other place emphasised streamlining, but that must not come at the expense of constructive input at the local level.
Finally, I raise concerns about the introduction of fees related to harbour orders. Coastal and port communities are economic lifelines for many regions, and smaller ports in particular operate on tight margins. Although recovering administrative costs is reasonable, the Government must ensure that these fees do not deter necessary investment or stifle growth in these vital areas.
The Bill presents a valuable opportunity to lay the foundation for a more efficient, responsive and future-facing transport infrastructure system capable of supporting economic growth. But, as always, the details will determine the success of these reforms.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Effingham—I almost agreed with some of the things he said. It was quite charming.
For a passionate Green like me, who spent the first 18 years of her life living in a council house, this planning Bill does nothing to make me happy. It trashes the environment, squashes newts and builds houses for the well-off. I want the Government to focus on social housing, and I want a country where people can live in those secure, warm and cheap to rent properties, paddle on clean beaches and swim in clean rivers, and explore water meadows and ancient woodland. Instead, the Government are determined to put a smile on the face of the big developers who funded the Conservatives for decades and are probably lining up to pay for Labour’s next election campaign.
The “trash for cash” approach outlined in Part 3 will be a disaster for nature and for human health, and has to be thrown out. Developers must not be allowed to pay money to destroy natural wealth to boost their private profits. Green councillors up and down the country argue that we want the right house in the right place at the right price, but the Government are giving us the wrong type of house in any old place that the developers want at whatever price the developers feel they can charge to boost their private profits.
I find Part 3 absolutely shocking. The Chancellor has declared that developers will not have to worry about bats, newts and frogs anymore. That is a straightforward betrayal of all the promises made about the target of protecting 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030. Those improvements to habitats and biodiversity simply will not happen under this Government if they pass these measures. I do not understand why they object to good ideas and reject good amendments. Swift bricks, for example, are a brilliantly simple idea, adding only a few pennies on to any new build, so why do the Government object? Why do they not stop objecting to any amendment that is not theirs, make it theirs and just do it?
The Prime Minister has declared war on the blockers and zealots. Who are these people? There are tree-huggers like me, but I am one voice in my local planning system. I do not live in Devon, Shropshire, Northumberland or Norfolk, or the thousands of local areas around the country which are full of these apparent zealots who the Prime Minister does not like. They truth is that they are just ordinary local people who stand up and object when a local woodland is threatened or a river is polluted by an intensive chicken farm. Those ordinary local people use the existing planning system to fight big developers. They try to compete with the builders, who have expensive lawyers and political access.
The Government promise us affordable housing, but that is a very misleading term. I remember the very long debates we had for 16 years in the London Assembly about what it meant—how affordable was “affordable” for a house. When the Government talk about millions for affordable housing, it is mostly a subsidy for developers to build the same houses but sell them at a reduced rate. It gives a lucky few the chance to get on the housing ladder, but it is often at the expense of the taxpayer.
We need to enable councils to build social housing again. Safe, secure, well-insulated housing would solve a lot of social and economic problems. For example, we would have schools where the parents could afford to feed pupils because their energy bills were low. The NHS would have fewer patients sick from malnutrition or from freezing in badly insulated flats, and the jobs market would have well-educated, healthy people to employ.
This is the bit where I try to be nice, so listen carefully: if the Government want Greens and the majority of noble Lords to support the Bill, they should give us guarantees that the current projections for irreplaceable habitats will not be up for negotiation, and that the environmental development plans will include an implementation schedule, enforced by Natural England—if we have to have it as a player—that is subject to judicial review. They should give us a Bill that makes social housing a priority, and give us affordable rents. They should give us a Bill that reduces pollution by removing the automatic right of developers to connect new housing with the sewerage system. Now that really would be worth voting for.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my register of interests: I am the chairman of Faraday Ventures, which was set up to provide social and key worker housing. Therefore, I am understandably keen to support any measures that will encourage the construction of a large quantity of high-quality housing, particularly if a large proportion is made up of social housing.
I welcome the spirit in which the Bill has been launched as it seeks to build on the progress made by the previous Government in delivering 2.5 million homes since 2010. However, there are some serious concerns, which I shall highlight. I question whether it is possible for the present Government to build 1.5 million homes by the end of this Parliament, as they have promised.
The Bill is designed to streamline planning and infrastructure delivery for homes, but in doing so it takes away powers from local councillors by reducing the strength of the planning committees through the national scheme of delegation to be introduced by Clause 51. This specifies at a national level which planning decisions would be decided on by officers and which by planning committees.
As the shadow Secretary of State responsible for housing said in the other place, if the Bill passes in its present form, residents will feel disappointed and disenfranchised when they raise concerns to their elected councillors about proposed developments. I believe that this will break the social contract if local people feel helpless around development; it will lead to less acceptance of new housing. Does the Minister agree? London Councils shares this concern, stating that councillors must retain the ability to scrutinise and influence certain developments, especially where there is significant local concern.
The role of councillors is further diminished through Clause 93, which would amend existing legislation to increase the flexibility and use of development corporations. To be clear, development corporations are, or can be, a very good thing, particularly in the provision of new towns. I believe that they will be necessary to deliver new towns, but here in London we have seen the best and the worst of development corporations. One delivered the Olympics, which was largely considered to be a good thing, and to this day housing is still coming forward. But in the West End, many local people feel that the Mayor of London is using the mayoral development corporation to ride roughshod over their plans, under a Labour-led council, to deliver the pedestrianisation of Oxford Street. If we have to vote on corporations, we need to know what type of corporation and what flexibility they will be given above beyond the ones we already recognise.
London Councils is also right to note that the planning system is not the main barrier to delivering new homes and infrastructure here in London, where there is a healthy pipeline of nearly 300,000 homes that have been approved by council planning departments. That is enough to meet future housing targets more than three times over, but those schemes are not coming forward for development, due to viability issues. Viability in a place like London with high land values is a real problem.
Some of the measures in the Bill will help planning reform, and I sincerely wish the Government all the success in the world with delivering their 1.5 million homes—and I personally, through my role here and on the GLA, will do my level best to help. This planning Bill could be a boon to that, or it could be a missed opportunity; it is about the detail, particularly around things such as the levels of social housing that we can expect to get and what we are going to do about development corporations, which will be vital.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register—in particular, that I am a farmer and landowner in Cumbria, president of Historic Buildings and Places, and until last autumn was for six years chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership. I have also been involved in rural, environmental and heritage organisations and matters for much of my life.
Forty years ago, to my own surprise—both then and in retrospect now—I chaired the Lake District planning board’s development control committee. At that time, I began to wonder whether local authority membership of itself was the right basis for the quasi-judicial function of determining planning applications, and I came to the conclusion that boards analogous to JPs might be better; hence, I welcome the idea of mandatory education for planning committees. Of course, local knowledge and views matter, but they are not the only consideration in determining applications, and planning officers on their own in the real world cannot always deflect the tsunami of local populism that sometimes accompanies controversial applications.
Part of the point of the planning system is to get it right without resorting to appeals. That is somewhat analogous to the belief that I have that perhaps the most important thing that I learned from reading for the Bar was to avoid litigation if you possibly can. Given the overriding requirements behind the Bill and the points made in this debate, there is a very good case for accountable development corporations and special regimes for national infrastructure. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has said, the devil lies in the detail, and they must be transparent and accountable. In such cases, deliberations on all planning matters must be taken into account. Listed buildings remain listed, even if specific listed building consents may not be required. Changing the planning process should not affect the planning and evidential significance of heritage, nature or environmental considerations. Those matters are, in their own way, very important to our national economy and the character of the country in which we live, and are at the heart of contemporary ideas about “Place” and its generally recognised importance to the wider economy.
It is important that land use policy and its implementation is not hijacked by the public sector to promote its aspirations at the expense of the small man and local concerns and other considerations not directly measurable in economic terms. There is a temptation, which sometimes cannot be resisted, for the public sector to see the process of authorisation as a kind of bulldozer to get its own way and take forward its own agenda. I am sure that we can all think of instances where that may be happening.
While charging for planning applications may seem a bit out of kilter, in that the basis of land law and the planning system is the presumption that one can do what one wants with one’s own land, unless there is a good reason not to, which is defined inter alia by planning policies, in reality this purist approach hardly seems realistic in the world in which we live. But these charges should not be greater pro rata if the authority concerned is ineffective. Indeed, I had wondered whether perhaps, if you won a planning appeal, you should get the money back.
We have heard this evening very considerable scepticism expressed about the mechanisms of Part 3 of the Bill. I simply say that I echo them. Speaking from the perspective of a Cumbria farmer and landowner, I can say that the current arrangements are all over the place. As someone wanting to take forward these things, it is simply impossible to know what on earth you have to do. The parallel public and private regimes taken as a whole make no real sense, and much of the money talked about in this context does not seem to exist. Unless matters are sharpened up, much of this will be shown to be whatever is the proper collective word for paper tigers.
Planning is crucial. We need it in this country, because it is a form of estate management for the nation as a whole, based on the country’s disparate needs being balanced out between them. In that way, you avoid physical anarchy. Like all estate management, its implementation on the ground depends on money, which is why the implementation of much of what we are talking about this evening depends more or less entirely on the Government’s economic policy.
Clearly, the country is in a mess; if good policies prevail, that will be for the good, but the impact of some current policies will, I believe, inhibit growth, and they will have a damaging impact on what we are discussing. The state of the economy is crucial. How planning policies work out depends on landowners, developers and those running and carrying out the planning function working together. Levelling up was a response to a failure in this regard, in the north of England. There is still much more to be done. I say, “Good luck to them”, but I sense that they may need it.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of the Fonthill Estate in Wiltshire, and I thank the Minister for introducing this Bill today.
Everybody recognises that we have to get more new houses built, although the failure of all Governments in recent years to control both legal and illegal migration has clearly exacerbated the shortage. However, in my view, the Bill goes too far in removing councillors’ powers to vote on local planning applications. Does the Minister really think that central government knows better than local councils when it comes to decisions on which proposed developments will improve their communities and which will be harmful and ought to be refused? This will be damaging to local democracy and will discourage talented people from seeking election as councillors, because they will be allowed to do less than they are at present.
Can the Minister tell the House how the proposed scheme of delegation is going to work, and how the Government are going to demarcate those decisions which are to be taken by civil servants from those which will be left to local planning committees? Surely, such important details as these should be in the Bill. On the other hand, there are areas where the Government could provide much more encouragement to house- builders, by removing legacy EU habitat regulations, which offer a ridiculous amount of protection to bats, for example, and other EU legacy red tape, which both the last Government and this one have been too slow to abolish.
Noble Lords may remember that, during the passage of the Levelling-Up and Regeneration Bill, some of us worked hard across the House to obtain a consensus for providing a separate and recognised status and level of protection for Britain’s wonderful chalk streams. My noble friend Lord Benyon at that time introduced a government amendment that achieved that, and it is deeply disappointing that, in Committee in another place, Labour MPs voted against Amendment 148 to this Bill, which would have mirrored the levelling-up Act by providing equivalent and necessary protection for chalk streams in this Bill. Would the Minister commit to introducing a government amendment to replicate the protection afforded to chalk streams in that Act?
I also question why the Government are prioritising building in rural areas rather than urban ones, nearer most of the jobs, where new houses are most needed. I would also ask the Minister to explain why the Government have decided to remove hope value from the value that they place on land being compulsorily purchased from farmers and landowners. It seems particularly unfair to farmers, who have already suffered enough from cuts to agricultural subsidies and changes to NICs, especially when the purpose of compulsory purchase in such cases is obviously to develop the land for housing or energy infrastructure.
Currently, local authorities can purchase land compulsorily and then pass it to parish councils for some purposes, including building affordable homes. The Bill, as drafted, stops hope value applying to this power if it is used to deliver affordable homes. The removal of hope value would also apply to the loss payments, which are additional payments based on the property’s value, designed to cover the cost and emotional burden of having to move out of and replace the property. In general, I accept that measures in the Bill are in line with the Labour Party’s pledges for planning reform, but they miss the opportunity for an enhanced recognition of rural areas within national planning policy, particularly regarding the rural economy and rural housing.
As the CLA has pointed out, the National Planning Policy Framework does not acknowledge the differences between the sustainability credentials of a rural area versus an urban area. This negatively impacts decision-making for proposals in rural areas. The Bill introduces new environmental delivery plans—EDPs. They will set out how damage to protected species, or features of protected sites which are likely to be negatively affected by development, may be mitigated. I worry about the extensive powers being extended to Natural England, including whether it is appropriately skilled or resourced to handle this extra responsibility. What does the Minister think about this? In particular, does she really think it is proportionate to provide Natural England with compulsory purchase powers to deliver the EDPs?
Lastly, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s winding-up speech and, in particular, I hope she will answer my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s question about the number of acres being taken out of agricultural production for solar energy schemes.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to start with my interests because they are to do with energy, specifically battery storage—I will talk about long-term storage in a minute, but I will leave that for now. I am also chair and director of a number of smaller land developers, and chair of the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. So I stand on both sides of the conflicts that the Bill looks at. In wearing those two hats, I have never had a conflict of interest. There has never been a situation in all the developments that we have been involved in—medium-sized, often mixed, not always with a lot of housing and admittedly not infrastructure—where nature has got in the way of development. It is primarily about planning resources at local authorities.
I welcome many parts of the Bill, particularly everything that will enable us to achieve net zero; it is really important that we manage that in terms of energy infrastructure. I also welcome this Government’s housing objectives. However, as many people have said, my noble friend Lord Shipley in particular, the problem is not primarily planning. My eyes were opened on housing some time ago when I looked at the time series of housing starts since the Second World War. There is a complete break around the beginning of the 1980s. Up to that point, the number of private starts was pretty equal to the number of public starts: roughly about 150,000 each through that period. When the Thatcher Government came in and, in effect, banned local authority housing, that fell off to more or less zero—social housing now is some 40,000 units—but the private sector just carried on along at the same level. Whatever the stimulus was, the volume stayed the same. Behind that, there is a message about the difficulty of stimulating private housing finishes, and it is not necessarily down to the planning system.
I welcome the measures in the Bill on long-term storage, which I am not involved in commercially, and the cap and floor mechanism—let us get on with that because it is important for grid stability. I welcome the EV changes, but let us enhance them further, exactly as my noble friend Lady Pidgeon said. I also welcome the financial compensation being by grid lines, or trying to get people involved in that energy transition.
No one has mentioned Clause 28, which concerns the Forestry Commission. It is allowed to indulge in renewable energy itself, which sounds great, but it does not mention biomass in relation to energy production. I would be concerned if the pass that allows the commission to work in that area enables it to use its own logs commercially, to make up for any government funding reductions—they would be cannibalising their own crops. I am interested in what the Minister says on that.
I am particularly concerned about the environmental delivery plans. This is not something that we are imagining; sure, we are in nature depletion and the restrictions that we have had on nature have not been good enough so far, but to me, this makes them worse. The OEP’s letter to the Secretary of State makes it very clear this is a regression. What worries me is not only the fact that the Bill is a regression but if the Government do not take notice of the OEP, in terms of their reputation and core function in Parliament, it is a real problem. It is important, as Minister Pennycook has said, that we find a way that the OEP and the matters that it has brought up are solved in the Bill as it goes through. That is crucial; otherwise, we have an important government agency that loses respect.
Lastly, local nature recovery strategies are mentioned twice in the Bill, once very positively in relation to spatial development strategies. However, when it comes to EDPs, they have very weak enforcement in how they are taken into account, and that must be changed. It has to be compulsory that local nature recovery strategies are fully taken into account in relation to any environmental development plan.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a director of a family company that holds a little farmland and has occasionally done small-scale development. I am also the recipient of three party wall notices in the past three years.
We all recognise the need for more homes. While the Bill aims to speed up the process for building houses, like other noble Lords, I am concerned about the damage that it may do. The Bill flouts Labour’s manifesto promises to uphold local communities’ ability to shape housebuilding in their area and its pledge to preserve environmental protection, as well as being an attack on human rights. There are other ways to do this.
As other noble Lords have said, there are some half a million land-bank plots currently being held by the big house developers, with eight of the major companies holding land of a value in excess of £198 billion. The Government state that they want to build 1.5 million homes, so will they please refuse to give the big companies more planning permission until they develop what they already have?
The Government’s steps to weaken the green belt are very concerning; surely we must use brownfield sites first. The CPRE briefing said that existing brownfield sites can deliver 1.2 million houses, but allowances need to be given for cleaning up these sites over building on the green belt.
Once our lovely countryside has been concreted over, we will never get it back. Green spaces are so important for good mental health. We are the custodians of a beautiful country, and we must preserve it. Demolishing buildings leads to further climate insult, so can we give tax breaks for repurposing buildings for housing and stop councils allowing so many buildings to be torn down?
As we have already heard, this is not just about quantity but quality. I welcome the good intentions to build better, smarter and in a more environmentally friendly way, but I worry that the Bill will, in reality, help build the slums of the future. I agree with the discussions in the other place that sought to ensure we preserve the setting and special character of historical villages, rather than losing them in an unchecked sprawl. We need smaller developments with local designs using local fabrics that are in keeping with their areas. This would help boost local business by allowing small developments with local builders.
One of the advantages of living in a democracy is that we have property rights, and we must resist at all costs authoritarian tendencies to wish to remove them. In the Bill are provisions to make compulsory purchase easier and for local authorities to be able to seize land more cheaply where it is “required” for new development. Compulsory purchase—seizing someone’s property—is against human rights and should be used in only the most extreme circumstances. Also, in building and developing, no one should be allowed to interfere with existing housing or to undermine the foundations of a private property without the owner’s permission. People need to be reassured that their home is safe in line with the ECHR.
Government needs to be joined up, so I turn to wider issues around infrastructure. In the current climate of growing uncertainty, we see our defence policy pivoting to deterrence against possible war. Although defence is the first priority of a Government, surely our second, as an island nation, should be food security. I know my husband, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has already made this point, but plastering our countryside—and, more importantly, our productive agricultural land—with plastic solar panels is a terrible mistake. As he said, the national security strategy tells us that we must actively prepare for war, and our land is needed for food production. We currently import more than 40% of our food; we need to be more self-sufficient and resilient. Instead, let us insist that all new houses should have electricity-generating panels and roll them out on commercial and industrial buildings. Will the Government commit to put solar panels on all their buildings?
I will share one example of land under threat from such a solar farm development: Lime Down, a massive project in beautiful Wiltshire countryside, mostly on good agricultural land. Lime Down threatens 2,200 acres with solar panels, 45 acres of batteries, three new electricity substations, approximately 1 million panels and a two-year construction period involving thousands of lorries thundering up tiny lanes. It takes in six villages and stretches eight by three miles, with compulsory purchase being threatened to access the site at East Pye. The proposed installation will be in place for 60 years.
I would be interested if the Minister could clarify if and why a non-UK firm can have the right to compulsorily purchase UK land. Projects such as this not only cause misery to those affected but erode our food security. In war, they will make easy targets in this era of cyber conflict and drones. We have seen what can happen with the recent electricity outage in Spain and Portugal.
To conclude, we need to use existing buildings, brownfield sites and existing planning permissions before we start eating into our beautiful countryside. Solar panels should be on roofs not agricultural land, and, most of all, as a democracy, we need to preserve our property rights.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Baroness. I agreed with the first third of her speech. The latter part, however, I disagreed with. Less than 1% of agricultural land will be taken over by solar farms and similar sites. We need compulsory purchase to deliver some of our energy system. I therefore disagree with the latter part of her speech, but I agree with her on local control of housing developments and of other aspects of planning.
I will scrap the bulk of my speech. I will say what I agree with in the Bill, but I first appeal to my noble friends on the Front Bench, and to their colleagues, not to repeat all this stuff about blockers and builders, and not to give credence to saloon bar chat about frogs and newts preventing useful development. It was not frogs and newts that made a complete mess of a national infrastructure project such as HS2; nor is it frogs and newts—or even spiders—that are preventing us achieving our housebuilding targets.
I approve of the provisions in the Bill on providing easier access for national infrastructure, on energy and grid connections, on EV chargers and on electricity storage. However, I am dubious about much of the rest of it. Let me say something in defence of planners. The planning system is often too slow, and it is underresourced. There are bits of the Bill that attempt to address the underresourcing with the recruitment of better planners and better training for them.
Much of the countryside has been protected by the planning system. Had we not had a planning system since Lord Silkin in the 1940s we would have had urban sprawl, new modern slums, and much less protection of our natural resources and natural features. The planning system has its inadequacies, which we now have to address, but that does not mean we ought to dismantle it or make it more susceptible to the pressures.
As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, the failure to meet housebuilding targets under successive Governments has nothing to do with the planning system itself. Indeed, the planning system has approved well over 80% of plans for housing. When there is an appeal, less than 3% of them are upheld by the appeals system. It is not the planning system that is preventing housebuilding but, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said, the oligopolistic nature of the large housebuilders and the way they have squeezed out the competition there used to be with family building firms, and the lack of purchasing power from national and local public bodies. That is what needs to be addressed if we are to stand any chance of meeting our targets on housebuilding; it should not be an attack on planners.
The Government have written the net-zero strategy into their recent national industrial strategy and energy strategy. It is not written in to this Bill, nor are the contributions to tackling, slowing down and off-setting climate change. The protection of the countryside and of biodiversity, and reversing the biodiversity loss we have so tragically experienced in this country over recent decades, contribute to our tackling climate change. That needs to be put more explicitly in the Bill, as do the effects of climate change and our need to adapt to it. For example, why is there not a provision on not building in areas that are susceptible to flood or any pre-empting of much of the improvement in the water supply that we need to make?
I am sorry this has been slightly rambling. It is different from what I intended to say, but most of what I intended to say has been said. The most important message I give to my noble friends is: stop regarding those in the planning system as blockers; they are enablers of a better life.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, whose wisdom and company I enjoyed during my time on the environment committee. I am a supporter of the Bill, by and large. I am delighted to see that the policy is shifting towards “We want more bats” and away from “No bat must be inconvenienced”, but as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, bats are not the problem when it comes to planning. As Members of an organisation that can spend enough money to build 50 houses on a pair of front doors that do not work, we should realise that.
I hope to use Committee to encourage the Government to take some of their ideas further. There is obvious scope for allowing trusted partners to work alongside the Government to achieve what they are hoping to do with environmental delivery plans. Many farmers’ groups are in a position to work on that sort of initiative. To rule them out, as the Bill does currently, is missing an opportunity.
What the Government are doing in throwing into doubt the whole structure of biodiversity net gain is a mistake. In biodiversity net gain, people are asked to commit for 30 years. It was a policy which evolved with support across the House, and now this Government, after merely 30 months of the policy, are throwing everything into doubt. Those people who had got themselves organised to be part of that system are wondering whether they made a huge mistake, and by the time the Government get around to sorting their ideas out, those people will have lost confidence. The Government really need to understand that having trusted partners in the private sector to deliver what they want is a plus, and they need to put themselves into a position where those partners can believe that the Government—and any Government that follow—will support them through the long-term commitments which this Government and the previous Government were expecting to be made.
I hope to persuade the Government to accelerate their work on biodiversity data. We have a very rich and capable set of players in this country, with the local environment record centres and a lot of amateur effort. But a lot of biodiversity data that is created through the planning system is not captured. A lot of planning applications go through without using the data we have. We need a better structure that is better thought through. I know the Government are working on those things internally. I hope to see that brought forward into this Bill, rather than left for some future occasion.
I really hope I will be able to persuade the Government to take an interest in those measures which would allow more use to be made of the settlements we already have. I had a Private Member’s Bill on permitted development rights, but we should also look at measures like land readjustment schemes, the London system of public transport accessibility zones, and the use of design codes to make it easy for developers to know what will be permitted, rather than leaving the whole question of design to be an uncertainty and a rather individual and personal decision at the end of things.
We should pick up on an aspect of the Government’s industrial strategy, where in various areas they are supporting the use of digital twins. There is a great deal that could be done in planning, which does not appear to be specifically part of the industrial strategy, to reduce costs, enable collaboration and enable imagination when it comes to what the layout of a new town should be and look like. The AI-assisted capability that is embedded in some of the British products that underlie this are tools that the Government should be seeking to support.
I will try to persuade them to make livestock markets and abattoirs critical national infrastructure. We need to sort things out: we are causing a great deal of cruelty to animals by not renewing our structure. Animals are having to travel very long distances to their deaths, and we can do better than that.
I will recommend a duty of candour for planning officers to go with Clause 50, so that they feel absolutely confident in telling members exactly what is, rather than feeling that they can in some way be criticised, and therefore giving them a duty to support their views.
I will urge the Government to redefine what a newspaper is. It was set out in 1881. Things have moved on, and if we are to have Clause 98 with duties to put notices in newspapers, it ought to recognise the modern world.
Echoing the national security strategy and our need to fight on home soil, I will draw the Government’s attention to the fact that we may not have termites here now but look at what is happening in France.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, before this debate started, I was confident that we would hear repeatedly the word “architect”, but in fact we have hardly heard it at all in a debate about housing. I want to talk about design and the role of architects and in doing so, I say that the speech I agreed with most was that of my noble friend Lord Best.
I should confess that for a time I was the unpaid chair of Design for Homes, the organisation that runs the Housing Design Awards, and therefore was exposed to the work of architects in great measure. I want to argue that building well-designed homes is a key aspiration to be realised through the Bill. I would like to congratulate the Government on their ambition to build so many dwellings, including, as I understand it, so many much-needed social housing units to enable young families, above all, to be able to remain in their own communities. That applies nowhere more than in rural areas, including the sort of community I once represented in another place.
I have been troubled by some of the grudging comments from parts of the Conservative Party. I can just about recall, having done a bit of research, what the Conservatives achieved in 1953 when Harold Macmillan was the Minister for Housing. In 1953-54, the Conservative Government built 301,000 new homes in one year, and most of those were council houses—something they trashed following the 1979 election, and I very much regret that.
In speaking about architects and design, I urge the Government to do a number of what I regard as very important things. First, have proper space standards within homes. The Parker Morris standards, now out of use for many years, served their purpose. Look at some of the best council houses—for example, in the Minister’s and my hometown of Burnley, where many council houses on the Brunshaw estate were built to Parker Morris standards, and good houses they were.
Then I would invite the Government to ensure—this is going back to my noble friend Lord Best’s speech again—that architects are not sidelined. Often in big housing developments, the architects are asked to do a design and then they are forgotten about until something goes wrong, and then if there is litigation, they may be the ones who are sued. But, actually, the truth is that architects should be there throughout, because it is only with good design that the Government will be able to build neighbourhoods predicated on creating places that people of all ages will want to remain in permanently and not leave because they cannot afford to live there or because there are only old people or young people there or other social mismatches.
I agree with the Government that compulsory purchase orders have an important role to play. If this ambition of the Government’s is to be achieved, then land should be made available, not at ridiculous prices, but certainly at fair prices. In order to achieve what the Bill is designed for, it will, frankly, be necessary to use compulsory purchase orders.
I agree too with the proposal to use development corporations, and I urge the Government to look at the equivalent of development corporations in areas where there are not per se development corporations to ensure that standards are kept up.
I would encourage the speeding up of the planning process by providing template standards and accelerated processes. I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, when he advised that there should be far more people trained to do the work in planning authorities so that it can be done thoroughly, quickly and decently.
Above all, I would encourage the Government to ensure that communities are involved in the design of their own neighbourhoods so that those neighbourhoods can stretch forward into the lives of the new generations who will be living there.
The Bill is about building to scale. Building to scale gives an immense opportunity to build good, because if you are spending a lot of money on a large scale, you can demand of those who do the work—the architects and developers—that they do it well. We should build with pride and give to the generations that follow us estates and areas to live in which will stand for them and their future generations for long to come.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and I agreed with every word he said.
Planning is part of the social contract. For the Government to deliver that social contract, the people for whom the planning is developed need to be part of it. If the Bill is to deliver the homes and communities that people are glad to live in, we must amend parts of it so that people are guaranteed a decent input at an early stage.
During this debate, we have heard of some of the things the public will be faced with: master plans, strategic development plans, local plans and neighbourhood plans. They have local authorities; they will have mayors and development corporations. It is jaw dropping. For a normal member of the public who is not immersed in the sort of world we have been immersed in this afternoon, they are going to really struggle to have their input, unless there is something in the Bill that makes it much easier for them. Certainly, diminishing the role of the elected councillor is a very regressive step. In fact, the Government should really be encouraging local authorities to have a bigger role.
To look back to some years ago, Planning for Real exercises really invigorated people in my local authority. The community could come out to wherever it was—the town hall, the village hall or the pub—and get truly involved. If we look at the tools that are available now—I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, mentioned digital twinning—we see that they have massively taken on the ability for people to get truly involved, because they will be able to overlay all those plans that I mentioned and the nature recovery areas so that people can see in real time what the developments being proposed will mean to them. The Bill needs to include some of that far more imaginatively, so that people are not disempowered by it, which is what I fear.
Of course, local government has not been perfect: only about one-third of local authorities have up-to-date adopted local plans. That is why it is crucial that the Bill takes forward public input much more positively. If none of those things happen, people will find it find it even harder to have a say in shaping their community’s future.
In my remaining time, I want to mention Part 3 of the Bill. Surely, we are clever enough to design legislation that allows for growing communities and for nature to be healthy. A number of noble Lords have mentioned mitigation hierarchies to avoid harm and mitigating unavoidable impacts. A very last resort is providing compensation measures, and the Bill goes straight to that last resort. We must insert a mitigation hierarchy clause.
Finally, from everything I have heard this afternoon—it will not be dying in a ditch; it will be dying in a chalk stream—we will fight to the last to have these irreplaceable habitats recognised in the Bill as such. The name is on the tin: if the Government cannot see that, that is exactly why this House should make a stand.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in central Bedfordshire.
It is widely recognised that we need a simpler, more consistent and faster planning system that delivers higher-quality outcomes at lower costs. As others have raised, there has been a failure to deliver infrastructure, housing and commercial premises, particularly in London, Oxford and Cambridge, as well as a failure to deliver good environmental outcomes. The last Government made some good progress, with over 1 million new homes in five years and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act—I ask whether this Government will seek to build on that rather than replace it.
Developers are equally frustrated, particularly with their inability to plan and invest for the long term due to the uncertainty of their most critical raw material: building land. We support many of the Government’s ambitions and there are some positive measures in the Bill, such as taking on board the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Banner on judicial review and reviewing the consultation process. However, it falls well short in many other areas, as many other noble Lords have pointed out earlier in this debate: the Bill takes a rather simplistic, overly centralised and blunt government-knows-best approach, rather than seeking to address the details, complexity and overlapping issues needed to improve the system, one that I believe the public would be more supportive of.
I have some questions. Strategic and local plans should be the fundamental base upon which to build development. However, the Government’s proposals are top-down. They are telling authorities what they need to achieve, with the threat of government intervention if they do not do it. Where are the tools to support authorities to achieve great outcomes for their areas and to make it easier to deliver these plans? If you give someone an impossible task, do not be surprised if they fail. Who determines the balance of achieving things such as environmental, infrastructure, affordable, commercial and housing numbers while seeking to meet the requirements of all those statutory bodies? How will these proposals make it easier to deliver a plan?
Local democratic accountability is crucial. Local residents should have a voice, as many have pointed out. There may be times when local councillors, under pressure from their electorate, are too willing to call something in, but there are far more times when it is important to have this option, particularly where developers seek to push the envelope. There are already measures in place to address this, and these need to be bolstered, not completely removed.
Environmental delivery plans are an interesting concept, but are the Government seriously giving this responsibility to an unaccountable quango that has no responsibility to deliver within a wider context, with tax-raising and CPO powers, and one that marks its own homework? Why not, for instance, through the strategic or local plans, work with a variety of providers? Why have the sensible proposals from the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act on CPO and development corporations not already been taken forward?
While there are some positives on delivering infrastructure, will these really move the dial? Will they stop the delays and costs that we have seen for critical infrastructure, such as the Lower Thames Crossing? Will they improve biodiversity? Will they create a better environment? Why does the Bill encourage more development on greenfield and green belts? Why have this Government not continued with a strong material presumption in favour of brownfield development? What is the Bill doing to make processes simpler and provide consistency; for instance, setting national policy frameworks and standardising templates and processes?
While I can agree with many of the aims of the Bill, and there are some positive measures, overall, it is a missed opportunity. It could have built on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act. It could have supported councils and planning to move faster and be more consistent. It could have addressed many of the unintended consequences of the habitats directive and other nature and environmental legislation that is overlapping and in conflict. It could have done more to address the consequences of JRs. It could have turbocharged brownfield and urban generation. It could have addressed the roles of the many other public and quasi-public bodies needed to deliver. It could have a standardised process and paperwork, driving consistency. It could have set clearer priorities and ranking against which development is judged. As I said, it is a lost opportunity.
I hope the Government will engage positively on the Bill as it makes its way through the House of Lords, working with Peers across the House and the many good suggestions I have heard to address the issues in it and make it something that will deliver for our country and our communities.
Baroness Levitt (Lab)
My Lords, some may wonder why I, a criminal barrister, have chosen to speak in a debate on planning and infrastructure. The reason is that I have a lifelong interest in housing, which derives at least in part from my observation of hundreds of criminal cases, including those I saw during the time I spent as a judge presiding over jury trials. In so many of those cases, one of the problems of defendants is that they have never enjoyed the advantage of a decent home, which should be a place of personal safety and stability. Unfortunately, it is a depressing truth that the most comfortable and secure place in which some people spend a significant proportion of their lives is a custodial institution, and the shortage of decent homes for poorer families has contributed to this.
Against this background, I want to congratulate the Government on this Bill. It is the most ambitious programme for housing since 1953. As a member of your Lordships’ House, I wish to contribute in an effort to help the Government achieve their objectives by ensuring that what is built will be remembered for its good qualities. The best of the great Victorian architects and builders produced houses that we still want to live in nearly 200 years later. I know that the Government are fully conscious that they should be building new homes for many generations of our citizens. We should be ambitious that, in 200 years, people will talk of this project as one of the finest in housing development in our history.
I do not think it is controversial to say that good housing is about far more than providing four walls and a ceiling. It includes what architects refer to as place- making; in other words, providing the qualities that turn a house into a home, a tenement into a community, and a community into a place which you can say that you are proud to come from. When this Labour Government build a new neighbourhood, we want people in 50 and 100 years to say that they are proud to come from, and want to live in, that neighbourhood.
This means building durable spaces and places—places where people remain in their old age, alongside the new generations growing up behind them. Providing these and other requirements in the same place is how strong communities are created. In addition—reverting to my criminal law theme—another benefit is that strong communities self-regulate. It is axiomatic that there is far less anti-social behaviour—far less graffiti, for example—in places in which people are proud to live.
Since large-scale council house building effectively ended in 1979, although architects have been involved in many projects and some have produced wonderful designs, the housebuilders have been the dominant partners. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, said in his powerful speech, this has led, certainly on occasion, to profit being a more important concept than community. But good design—the creation of the good place—should be at the beating heart of every development.
One of the first actions undertaken by a certain Director of Public Prosecutions—who may or may not now be the Prime Minister—was to publish a document on core quality standards, by which every prosecution could be judged and, most importantly, measured. Along with some noble friends and colleagues in your Lordships’ House, I am currently working with a group of architects and planners to draw up a list of just such core quality standards for new housing, which we will ask the Government to enshrine in policy and, if necessary, in the legislation.
We want to be sure that everyone involved in planning homes is expected to reach high standards of place-making and that these are integral to every scheme put forward. By way of example, one of the things that I think we would all like to ensure is that when housebuilders put together their applications, the word “child” appears more often than the word “car”. The Bill provides an opportunity to strengthen and clarify design requirements.
In the view of these professionals, it is not necessary to make radical changes to the current planning system in order to achieve improved quality outcomes. Rather, what is needed is to ensure that quality is embedded in all applications for new development. What is needed are clear, predictable and measurable design requirements; if these are met, this would enable planning officers to sign off significant components of planning applications. A consequence of that would be to reduce the number of areas which will then be subject to democratic debate and decision-making. Applications which demonstrate compliance with the standards could be processed speedily within the current system, and thus the promise of speedy approvals will provide an incentive for the housebuilders to incorporate these measurable standards in their applications.
In other words, if there are core quality standards in place, this should speed up delivery of the new homes which the Government have promised and are determined to deliver. The aim is to provide homes at scale and at pace which will give people better lives throughout their lives.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I declare my interest as honorary president of National Energy Action, vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, and as an officer of the water and flooding all-party parliamentary groups.
I have to ask where the interests of rural England lie in this Bill. The Bill envisages virtually no benefits for rural areas—quite the reverse. Rural communities are seen as the vehicle through which to deliver the Government’s infrastructure and energy policies. Combined with the fact that compulsory purchase compensation is dramatically reduced and curtailed, and that the power to object to a planning application is severely limited, it represents a full assault on rural communities.
The Government’s clean energy policies specifically disadvantage rural dwellers. The standing charge on energy bills is used to pay for future energy structures in a way not allowed by other utilities. The standing charge is the part of the energy bill that the householder cannot control. It is already high, and no doubt it will go higher.
The Government’s clean energy policy will also take 10% of farmland and 10% of fisheries out of production, which will inevitably have an impact on food security. The compulsory compensation provisions in the Bill need to be revisited. I urge the Government to proceed wherever possible by agreement with the landowner, and not to remove the requirement to carry out pre-application consultation on a proposed project with landowners and occupiers of the land, and not to remove the hope value. Villages and rural communities are in need of small, affordable one or two-bedroomed homes, not the three, four or five-bedroomed homes currently being offered. New build is attractive to developers as it is free of VAT. One possibility is for the Government to consider switching how VAT is charged: to put 20% VAT on new build and take the VAT off renovations and repairs of older buildings. That alone would revolutionise communities, with housing stock being refurbished, with better insulation and energy provision.
The issue of building on functional flood plains must be addressed, along with the end to the automatic right to connect, so easily achieved with the implementation of Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. When we considered the levelling-up Bill, we were told that that was not the appropriate Bill for the measure. When we considered the Water (Special Measures) Bill, we were told that that was not appropriate, and that the Bill before us was the appropriate home for it. So I hope that the Government will consider supporting that.
On improvements to the Bill, I seek government support in a number of areas: implementing, as mentioned, Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010; ending the automatic right to connect to inadequate pipes; ending building on functional flood plains, particularly in zone 3b areas; implementing property flood resilience measures where buildings are built on functional flood plains; creating transparent conditions for planning approvals and consents; and envisaging a role for internal drainage boards in the planning process and in the prevention of floods. I will also seek to amend the Reservoirs Act, particularly the de minimis rules in that Act permitting the building of small reservoirs on farms and golf courses.
The Government have not published statistics on the number of houses built on functional flood plains since 2022. The statistics for 2021-22 show that in England, 7% of new residential addresses were in flood zone b, described by the Environment Agency as its best estimate of areas of land at risk of flooding. I put it to Ministers that any development in zone 3b should be resisted. When in opposition, they supported an amendment to the levelling-up Bill on not building on flood plains. I am hoping that that support will be repeated in this Bill, or perhaps the Government might even bring forward their own amendment to achieve the same end.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I must remind your Lordships of my professional involvement in aspects of this sector as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, an honorary fellow of the Chartered Association of Building Engineers, a vice-president of the National Association of Local Councils and joint president of the East Sussex Association of Local Councils. I am also a CLA member and a small-scale landowner.
There is much to welcome in this Bill, especially on the need to speed up the pace of delivery. Inordinate delays involve substantial cost and risk. However—and I apologise for concentrating on some of the bits that concern me—cutting out consultees and some local deliberations, which seems to be part of the proposal, strikes me as an unlikely saving. I feel that a more systematic approach to a rather labyrinthine planning system is in fact needed. The main focus of the Bill is infrastructure rollout, but delivery seems to remain via a rather poorly regulated private sector and still risks putting commercial imperatives in front of national policy and public interest, both as to rollout and cost to the taxpayer. Look where we are with utilities and telecoms right now.
As to electrical power, for instance, the rate of transfer of carbon-based road fuel and heating loads on to a greener electricity grid remains fettered by excessive cost per unit, while generation capacity and distribution lag years behind need, arguably requiring significant redesign beyond ever more pylons—which, of course, is a challenge in itself.
Water quality and quantity affect several key regions. Limiting consumption of a finite resource by the rest of us is a necessary offset as part of new housing and water neutrality, but that is happening only at the margins. Simply adopting an aspirational cut of 40% in per capita consumption is nonsense, if my information is correct; there is a good trade in removing water flow restrictors and upgrading showers. Nobody seems to have any incentive to monitor or enforce neutrality offsets effectively.
The same could easily happen with environment and nature. Will there be eco-deserts of some sort where development takes place, but for commercial convenience ecology has been traded away to another location? Or will the immediate locality have priority, as it rightly should? Will nature offsets still be adequately managed in 100 years’ time—as mentioned by other noble Lords—and will Natural England remain the objective government conservation adviser, or become the agent for a developer-led offsetting activity based on viability? Will it continue to command respect, especially if environmental NGOs start being excluded as consultees—they are, after all, the source of one’s information.
We have a system that involves democracy and rights of public audience; that has been mentioned by other noble Lords, and needs to be fostered. Councillor training has been referred to more than adequately by others.
I am unclear what Part 3 means for urban density or long-promised reforms to tenure, for individual autonomy and exclusivity—the sort of things that go into building a concept of one’s home, whether it be by ownership or otherwise—for communities that are stable, engaged and self-sustaining, and for making the best use of urban infrastructure as a means of preventing endless development on the fringes and urban sprawl.
I am concerned about the commercial risks to urban redevelopment, in particular those caused by the expanded compulsory purchase powers in the Bill. All of these issues are interlinked and need to be dealt with together, unless coherence is to be lost.
I turn specifically to the compulsory purchase step-in powers under Part 5 of the Bill and the removal of hope value from compensation. The Bill does not actually say that it will use existing use value as the basis for land value, but the Explanatory Notes do say that. However, there is no national or international definition of this term, without which the measures are flawed, uncertain of outcomes and, arguably, expropriatory and open to challenge. Many desirable sites are under option, so I simply ask: whose existing use are we addressing? Others, including society at large, make large profits from developers on greenfield sites, whereas the landowner often gets quite a small proportion of the overall profit after it has been totted up.
I will make one point that I was not going to make. For too long, emphasis on housing development has been a proxy for growth in the economy. There is evidence that this is reaching an endpoint. Whether we are going to continue to have year-on-year increases in values, including in the value of the housing inventory, is in doubt; if that is correct, it will have profound implications, socially and economically. I therefore agree with the noble Lord, Lord Best—but for other reasons—that a different delivery model is in fact needed.
Unless these critical factors are addressed, many of the measures in this Bill risk substantial failure. I look forward to pursuing these as the Bill moves forward.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I will contain my remarks to Part 3 of this Bill, which rips up the current planning rules that have, for decades, ensured that the environmental outcomes of developments have been taken into account. In their place, the Government are saying great things about their proposals: that they will speed up the planning process; that they will deliver the homes we need; and that they will restore nature through this overall improvement test. To my mind, however, the proposals in Part 3 will allow developers to buy out of their obligations and will dismantle the environmental protections that we have had in favour of some vague promise that Natural England will somehow make the situation better in the long term.
Worryingly, as it stands, the Bill will get rid of three fundamental environmental governance structures. It will get rid of the precautionary principle that we do not allow environmental destruction until we know exactly what is going to be lost; with the proposals, we will move straight to buying offsets elsewhere. It will lose the mitigation hierarchy, which many other noble Lords have raised as being of great concern—not just because we need first to move to ensure that we avoid harm but because the mitigation hierarchy has been the means for, when you cannot always avoid harm, improving the area around. As the noble Baroness, Lady Willis of Summertown, said, we need planning to help build green spaces into communities.
With the new proposals, under which you can go straight ahead without worrying about mitigation moving to support an EDP, these EDPs could be anywhere in the country. As it stands, the Bill does not say that they have to be in the same locality, and Natural England confirmed today that it does not know how many EDPs there will be or where they are going to be. For example, we could have planning applications in Burnley but the EDPs could be down in heathlands in Dorset. The Minister is looking at me—I hope that she will be able to clarify in her final remarks that there is no guarantee in this Bill about how many EDPs there are going to be or when they will come forward in the next timeframe. This is an extremely worrying point that I do not think has been picked up fully yet this evening; I am glad to have had the opportunity to make it. We need to look at this issue seriously.
The third main environmental governance tool that is disappearing is the “polluter pays” principle. In the past, people paid up front for the amount of pollution and destruction that they were responsible for. Now, there will be a fixed fee, paid at some point in the future. As the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, said, there is even an economic viability opt-out in the Bill. Those of us who have sat on planning committees for a long time know just how much the economic viability clause has in the past prevented social housing being built in developments. We are facing the same prospect happening here with environmental projects.
I am not opposed to strategic landscape-scale nature recovery—we all know that it can have benefits—but not for irreplaceable habitats and species. I am not going to revisit that point, because others have made it so well.
What particularly worries me about these proposals is that it is the Secretary of State at DCLG who is going to determine whether these EDPs are strong enough to outweigh the harm undertaken by the developments. In the Bill, it is not that they have to; it just says that they will determine whether it is “likely” that they will outweigh the harm. That is not strong enough. Nor does the Bill say anything about the Secretary of State having to look at scientific evidence—to make sure that the decisions are robust—that can give us any form of confidence or certainty that the environmental losses we are having to take up front will be mitigated for in the future.
This Government are saying that the environmental regulations need to be changed because planning needs to be speeded up. Other Members have said why environmental regulations have not been the cause of those delays. In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, made the very important point that this new system will create uncertainty, which will be legally tested. Part 3 will deliver more uncertainty, while stopping the Government delivering on their legally binding environmental targets. We need more quality affordable homes, but we also need homes for nature.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I speak today as someone who has led a council for 20 years. I have sat on more planning committees than I care to remember. I have been accountable for three local plans, and I sat on the CIL review for the Minister in 2016-17—I have even built a few homes on my own account. I chaired a district council for four years, and established a public sector environmental credits company. I am well qualified to participate in this Bill.
The Bill is defective because it does not remind us that the purpose of planning is to arbitrate between the private and the public interest. Our work is important here. We need to optimise housing and economic growth within the context of optimising the burden of well-meaning regulations. We need to get the public-private balance right.
Let us not be churlish: there are several welcome moves in this Bill. It should not take 10 years to produce a local plan, which is how long the last local plan I was involved with took. However, superficial headlines fail to finger the felons who hold up progress and, most perversely, potentially reward the biggest blockers. This Bill perpetrates the myth that councils and councillors are a block on progress. That is wrong. Local councillors should not be the scapegoats for wider failures in the rest of the regulatory public sector—those who the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned. It is a pity that he is not in his place because I agreed with every word that he said about silos. Training councillors and emasculating planning committees alone will not deliver millions of homes; that is just wishful thinking.
The Bill has a touching faith that officials can clear away the debris—as if they do not have any prejudices of their own—and get Britain building all by themselves. In my experience, too often officialdom, in its widest sense, is inflexible. It interprets the local plan grounded in data which might be several years old and stuck in the past, rather than addressing the needs of tomorrow. I have sat on enough planning committees to know that, too often, officials and other parts of the state put the black spot on proper proposals.
Too often statutory bodies claim a veto to advance their own narrow interest, and on their own timescales. The Minister will remember when we both worked together to get the Planning Inspectorate to do its job in Stevenage, when it thought that 1,000 days to start an inspection was an appropriate lead time.
If you give someone a veto, do not be surprised if they use it—Natural England, the Environment Agency, the MMO, the Highways Agency and whatever National Rail calls itself nowadays. I want to be charitable here, but often they use overly precious objections, advancing specious science or contested legal opinion, to make their “wait” points. That is before we deal with a whole new set of other regulators—for example, the building fire safety regulator, which acts as if, Canute-like, it can somehow abolish fire. This Bill does nothing to address all those other blockers.
Councillors are not the problem here. In fact, we need elected officials at all levels to arbitrate positively in the public interest, to get through these vetoes and to ensure that those bodies do not use them capriciously.
Turning to Part 3, there has been a lot of NGO shroud-waving, telling us how a cottage industry of well-meaning ecologists has turned into a drag anchor on our economy. We should not ignore them, but we must roll back their veto on environmental protections, because their demands have become disproportionate and detached from reality.
Only this afternoon, I received an email as part of my casework as a councillor. A development in Norfolk has been told, on the basis of Natural England’s calculation, that the cost of installing a loo in a proposed single dwelling in a village not far from where I live will be £32,450. We have to stop this. It is on different continents with regard to value from what is reasonable or achievable.
I am concerned that proposals to give Natural England judge-and-jury powers will effectively nationalise nature. To set mitigation measures at state-run prices is dangerous. To set the price too low would kill the incentive to innovate in an area where the UK has developed some world-leading market leadership. I am anxious that we will undermine innovative local schemes where nutrient neutrality, biodiversity net gain, GIRAMS and SANGS, whatever they are, have been contracted and executed with 80-year tail liabilities. That is completely inconsistent with the 10-year life of an EDP.
On a much more positive note, I broadly welcome the proposals for development corporations in Part 4. But I have concerns over the financial models for the organisations, and it will be important to clarify the relationship between compulsory purchase and the cat’s cradle of responsibilities between the mayor, development corporation boards, planning authorities and the interactions with the money and finance that deliver the infrastructure.
There is much more that I want to say and will later on in the process. For the moment, I welcome the Bill and will do much to improve it, as there is more polishing to be done.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, this is a crucial Bill. It is a key enabler of this Government’s programme to get Britain building again, tackle the housing crisis, and build the infrastructure that levels up the country and enables it to grow while at the same time achieving our net-zero commitments.
Strangely, I rather liked what the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said when he said that the “vetocracy” has to be overcome. As someone who, like the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, served for 20 years in local government, I strongly agree with him that the problem is not local councillors, who in my experience are quite keen on development, but rather the special interests, the inquiry system and the judicial review system that give far too much weight to delay and to the people who want to obstruct. It is the nonsense of the bat tunnel and the fact that we spent £1.X billion on the Lower Thames Crossing without achieving a single thing. Those are the things the Bill intends to overcome.
I have two particular points. I am a strong believer in the need for us to accept climate transition and move to net zero. I reinforce the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, about the need to do more to facilitate electric cars in cities and towns. The Bill contains some useful measures on public charging points, but it neglects the key problem for the take-up of electric cars, which is the need to simplify the system whereby you can charge your car on the street from your own home if you do not have off-street parking. Something has to be put right there, and I have some ideas that we can discuss in Committee.
The other thing that I think is very important is the role of development corporations, and I back what the noble Lord, Lord Best, said at the start of this debate. When people think of development corporations, of course there is the wonderful brilliance of the then Michael Heseltine’s Docklands Development Corporation, and the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, is one of the great sort of enablers of modern Britain. But I also think of the post-war generation of new towns. I have a special affection for Stevenage, because I knew Shirley Williams very well and she was devoted to Stevenage as a new town, and it would not have happened without the setting up of a development corporation. Milton Keynes is one of the most successful places in modern Britain, again because of a development corporation. I think the model worked because the development corporation had the ability to borrow, to buy land at existing use value, by compulsory purchase if necessary, to prepare that land for development and then to get the money back from the developers. That then allowed it to reinvest in further schemes.
The Bill contains some progress towards this model, but I think there is a significant problem in that the borrowing of the development corporations counts against the department’s expenditure limit, even though the money will be got back as a result of the land being developed and the developers paying for it. We have to overcome what I think is this significant block on reinvestment. It is a typical Treasury thing, frankly. It wants to keep control of borrowing, but in fact you could do it in other ways by having regular audits of how the development corporations are working. I hope that our Front Bench might look at this, and I particularly hope that my noble friend Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for whom I have great admiration, will look favourably on enabling development corporations to do the best job they can.
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure and something of a challenge to follow the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, in this debate. Indeed, it is something of a challenge to follow the 50-odd other contributors whom we have had today, because there is little left to say that has not already been said. In that respect, I would like to go in to bat to defend council planning committees, notwithstanding the fact that several other people have done the job already.
I spent four years chairing the planning committee in the London Borough of Havering, on the north-east border of London, where the city meets the country. There was a great deal of pressure there between the housing demand and the green space that people wanted to build on, so it was quite a tough place to do that job. All my committee members were trained in basic planning law so that they could do their jobs better, so I do not think that is a bad idea; I think it is a bad idea to insist that they be trained and then to take their powers away from them and have them discharged somewhere else. That seems somewhat perverse.
I must admit to the Minister that, even though we were a good planning committee, occasionally we discussed people’s extensions and modifications to their homes. That was quite important because, in allowing something to change on one house, you created a precedent and the ones next door could do the same thing. You could pretty soon see whole streets, and whole neighbourhoods even, change substantially because of decisions made on a relatively small number of properties. Because of that, it is still a really good idea to allow some democratic involvement in those decisions, because people will look at their changing neighbourhood and say, “Where did I vote for this? Where did I have a say in what is happening?”
I also used to feel that it was very important to run a committee that was fair and gave people a say because, for quite a lot of the public, the planning committee was the only democratic part of the council that they met or encountered. If we did our job badly, were unsympathetic or were poorly briefed, that reflected badly not just on the committee but on the whole of the authority.
On occasions, we were quite independent. We even sent the council’s own applications back for changes to be made to them. A good committee should not be scared to do that. We had some challenges while I was there. We had a race for golf courses. Suddenly, there was a demand for lots of golf courses around north-east London—not because there was a demand for golf, but because there was a demand for space to dump inert waste from building sites without having to pay the landfill tax. It is that sort of perverse incentive that, if we are not very careful, badly drafted environment law creates. I urge Ministers to take a close look, particularly at Part 3 of the Bill, to imagine how it might be misused. If they do not take that look, I am sure people in the property industry will do so—and will take advantage of it. It is worth taking the time.
I was also impressed by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, at the start of the debate. He said some fairly strong things about the big housebuilders. The noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, said some good things about design and architecture in the future, but I think they could have been a lot more cutting than they were. I have lived in new-build flats in London for the past 30 years. There have been a considerable number of problems with not just the design but the execution of the build. We hear a lot about fire safety—quite rightly after the Grenfell disaster—but the shortcomings go much further than that. I can give the Minister, if she wants, a whole list of defects and problems that regularly occur in new builds.
I hope the Government achieve their target to massively increase housebuilding, but a wave of increased housebuilding must not come at the expense of the quality of the properties that are built. We do not want to see people who buy their houses and flats landed with the costs of repairing them and making changes to them a short time after they have been built. To allow that to happen is bad news anyway for the housing market in the UK in the long run, because people will not want to participate in it if they think that what they are buying is junk. I am really looking forward to taking part in the scrutiny of the Bill in the coming weeks. I hope we can do a constructive job of it.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I will speak on Part 2 of the Bill. I declare my interests in the register, as a former practising chartered surveyor. I certainly support the Bill. I like it very much. I wish to address just a few concerns this evening.
Most of the ground has been well covered. I will try not to repeat too much. First, I want to touch on housing. One and half million homes in a short window of time is a huge undertaking. It will not be done piecemeal. It requires many vast new-build schemes. These are going to be predominantly, I am sure, on green spaces. We must learn from the mistakes of the last 30 or 40 years, when acres of matchboxes identical to each other have been built with no thought whatever to the appearance to those passing by, or nearby, or living in them. What an opportunity this is to introduce some design vision to the process—style guides and development themes. Please, let us move on from matchboxes.
Introducing design at the outset is free. It is more expensive—only slightly more expensive—because it is cosmetic, but it costs nothing to the developer. It is factored into its appraisal, and it comes off site value. Living in an attractive, landscaped environment has a great impact on society as a whole and, of course, to the people who live there themselves. The Bill refers to design training for planning committee members. This is an excellent suggestion and will inform the design vision I refer to. The RIBA states that feedback from its members over the last couple of years suggests that 54% of local planning authorities lack any design expertise.
Secondly, I am very pleased the Bill refers to brownfield land, but it is not much more than that. The reference to passports to accelerate the development process is welcome and applauded, but I regret there is no single brownfield land clause in the Bill. It merits and deserves a clause of its own. It is of primary importance because tens of thousands of residential dwelling units could be built on brownfield land. They are usually in metropolitan areas. There is no need for the additional infrastructure services of schools and transport infrastructure, medical centres and shops—simply expenditure on expanding the existing provision in the metropolitan areas.
My third concern is planning departments. I will build on the excellent words of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and support the planning system as it was structured. I do not want to refer at all to the roll call of consultants who surround and influence the planning process. The system of local planning authorities itself is well designed, but it is broken. Years of under-resourcing have taken their toll. The Government’s Autumn Statement had £45 million for 300 new apprentice planners, which is a woefully inadequate addition to the cohort. It is fewer than one per local planning authority. There are 2,200 current vacancies in the planning system among local planning authorities and 13% of planning authorities are trying to operate with a shortfall of 25% or more in their numbers. Morale is understandably low. They are under-resourced and unloved.
It is a revolving door of employment. Case handlers change, sometimes twice, for an applicant. Knowledge of the file is interrupted. Site visits, meetings and relationships are destroyed as the faces change. Delays are inevitable. The Government must act and rebuild from the bottom up. Do not break the structure, but rebuild, recruit and retrain. Return professional pride to these wonderful teams of people. Let them take pride in their work again.
Finally, there is flood risk. The Bill makes no direct reference to flood risk management. There are too many homes being built with a one in 100 likelihood of flooding, which, as we all know, is accelerating rapidly with climate change. We should not build on flood-risk land; it is madness. The Bill could stop it. To conclude, this is a good Bill, but there are gaps which need filling.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, it is always a joy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow. It is perhaps slightly less of a joy to be speaker number 59 on the speakers’ list and honorary tail-end Charlie. I can reassure the House of two things. First, I have only one point. Secondly, it is a new one.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I declare my interest as a practising barrister and mediator in a set of chambers that specialises in public and planning law.
The specific issue I want to discuss is, perhaps counterintuitively, the reduction of statutory appeals and contentious litigation in the planning sphere. I suggest that we do this by expanding the use of mediation and alternative dispute resolution. We should aim in the Bill to ensure that landowners, housebuilders, local authorities, nature conservation bodies, local people and other stakeholders are having proper and more constructive conversations. If they do, the likelihood of litigation in the planning sphere, with all its delay and division, could and should be reduced. In Committee, I hope to table amendments that will offer a way forward in this regard.
The Scots have been ahead of us in this game for some time. Section 40 of the Planning (Scotland) Act 2019 contains a measure introduced by the Scottish Government to provide specific legislative provision that focuses on the promotion and use of mediation in the planning process. Those measures in that Act require Scottish Ministers to issue guidance on
“the promotion and use of mediation”
and other methods for resolving disagreements related to planning matters. Experience tells us that it is working.
On the other hand, while mediation within the English planning system is known and has been successfully used, it continues to be a significantly under-deployed and under-appreciated resource. Generally, while mediation has become central—and is increasingly becoming mandatory—to the civil justice system in other fields and has been greatly encouraged by repeated appellate court judgments, the planning system lags somewhat behind, despite its potential for avoiding conflict having long been acknowledged in numerous reviews and reports from 2006, 2009, 2010 and 2011.
Despite these reviews and reports, in practice there has been little sustained progress towards the formal adoption of mediation in planning. For example, when he was Communities Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, introduced “Section 106 brokers” in the summer of 2012. The initiative was then taken into legislation through the short-lived Sections 106BA to 106BC of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as inserted by the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, which allowed for renegotiation in respect of those agreements. However, that measure was subject to a sunset provision and expired on 30 April 2016.
Another provision was that of the Planning Minister, Sir Brandon Lewis, who included in Sections 106ZA and 106ZB of the Planning and Housing Act 2016 a measure through which a form of dispute adjudication was to be introduced. However, it was never implemented. Most recently, in summer 2021 the then Government introduced the pathfinder scheme to deploy mediation to reduce the enforcement appeal backlog. I am told that that scheme was not a success because a lot of local planning officers were less than enthusiastic about engaging in meaningful discussion about mediation, often because they did not understand the process. The experience from Scotland is that those efforts can be facilitated only by greater education and training as to the merits of and costs that can be saved by adopting that course.
It is tolerably clear, though, that where formal mediation has been used in planning scenarios, it has often been successful. Even where its techniques have been deployed informally through the presence of a neutral facilitator or chair, negotiations have been accelerated and produced better outcomes. Consequently, public and private resources have been saved, stakeholder relations have been improved and, crucially, earlier delivery of new developments and infrastructure has been the result.
Therefore, if the Bill is truly going to succeed where other measures have failed in bringing about meaningful and lasting reform of our planning system, a culture of better, more constructive and less disputatious conversations should be a part of the changed regime. Having a statutory provision promoting mediation would be timely. In the planning context, it would reflect the new mood music from the senior courts about resolving differences through better conversations, and lead to quicker, cheaper and more certain outcomes.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I am speaker number 60, and this has been a long and wide-ranging debate. I thank all noble Lords who have raised important and pertinent issues for the House to address at the next stage. Some have been new issues, and I look forward to hearing about mediation processes within the planning system. I particularly thank my 10 Liberal Democrat colleagues for their contributions, which have been, as noble Lords have heard, both supportive and challenging in equal measure. Many of us have benefited from the professional groups, charities and individuals who have provided helpful information on which we could base our debate today. I remind the House that I have a relevant interest as a councillor on Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire.
This is a very significant Bill for our nation. It has the potential to fundamentally change the foundation of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which established the principle that planning permission is required for land development. It separated land ownership from the automatic right to develop it. Enshrined in that Act is local democratic decision-making, on both what land can be developed and how it can be developed. This democratic principle has gradually and properly expanded over the years to include and involve in the process those affected by potential development.
In the era of instant and easy communication of both factual and inaccurate information, the principle of local communities having their say and elected representatives making the decisions is ever more important. Ensuring the involvement of communities is vital in both hearing local information about a site and demonstrating that those directly affected are important in the process. The erosion of the local democratic process, as proposed in the Bill, is not acceptable and will not lead to swifter planning decisions, as many noble Lords from across the House have referenced. A better balance must be found between the needs of development and of local communities and their elected representatives.
Major infrastructure projects are, as we have heard, beset with delays and eye-watering cost rises—HS2 is just one of the examples that has been referred to in our debate—and change is necessary. Reducing the time taken to reach a decision is critical. Removing the pre-application stage, however, is a false economy, as it is at that stage that interested parties are alerted to the scheme and can have input, which helps the applicant make amendments in response. As there will be increasing numbers of nationally significant infrastructure projects, it is vital that communities are informed and engaged at an early stage, both in the detail of the application and in its prime purpose for the nation. Communities must feel that they can have their say if resentment at change is not to thrive.
Turning to the more specific planning process changes, spatial development strategies will do much to inform economic development, infrastructure investment and local strategies in a mayoral authority. I too remember, and was part of helping to develop, the previous regional development strategies 20-odd years ago. However, any such strategy must have the support of communities and their local elected representatives if it is not to be constantly challenged. The new clauses introduced into the Bill when it was taken through the Commons throw some light on how this will be achieved. What is not clear is whether all constituent authorities will have a place on a joint board and what decision-making powers the board jointly and severally has in relation to the mayor. Perhaps the Minister can provide some details on the membership and powers of the joint boards. She will have thousands of questions to answer when she sums up, so maybe a note would suffice.
On the proposed changes to the local planning system, the starting point for these discussions must be the knowledge that the local authority planning procedures vary greatly according to the type and size of council. Differences reflect the communities that are served, and a one-size approach to local planning definitely does not fit all.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken, I agree with mandatory training for members of local planning committees. I introduced it when I was leader of Kirklees 20 years ago. Members of planning committees then understand the constraints of planning and highways legislation; it is important and it helps the debate on any planning applications to focus on planning issues.
The number of members of a planning committee is also important. Limiting the membership must go alongside the rights of ward councillors to speak to the committee on a pertinent application. That is their elected duty and responsibility. Equally, as other noble Lords have said, local councils should have the right to choose the size of their planning committee so that it suits their local needs. Imposing top-down schemes of national delegation is not the way forward. There is no evidence that planning committees are the blockers—a contemptible accusation. Some 80% of planning applications are already approved, one way or another; some 90% are already delegated to officers’ decision-making. Of those referred to the Planning Inspectorate by developers, less than 3% are overturned on appeal. The planning system works—it just needs more investment.
The real blockers to housing development are the major housebuilders which acquire planning consent and then wait for an upturn in the market or even play the system with constant applications to alter aspects of the original planning permission. The evidence is clear. The Government could easily reach their target of 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament if the 1.2 million currently with planning permission were built. Reform of this part of the process is desperately needed. That is what needs to change.
There are families in every community who are desperate for a home at a social rent. The scandal of the Bill is that this need is not specifically addressed, nor is the urgent need to provide a definition of so-called affordable housing.
Part 3 of the Bill has attracted a very large number of comments and challenges from across the House, and rightly so. The proposal for a nature restoration fund reads like a developers’ charter. It enables developers to disregard the impact on and destruction of nature as a result of their development and salve their consciences by contributing to the fund. That will not do. Developers must be cognisant of the effect of their construction on habitats. The Bill could well result in some localities having their local habitats and green spaces destroyed, and the recompense is miles away. That is no good for them or for the biodiversity of the area. Fundamental changes to this part of the Bill are essential, and no doubt will be proposed.
Finally, the direction of travel envisaged in the Bill is one that we on these Benches support. However, the Bill has absolutely failed in finding the right balance between the competing ambitions of infrastructure provision, housebuilding and economic development on the one hand and community involvement, democratic decision-making and nature protection and enhancement on the other. We on these Benches will do all we can to work with the Government, where this is possible, to tip the scales in support of democracy, nature and communities.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to rise to speak to the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill—second last, as I am sure that noble Lords are aware. There is much to commend in the Bill, easing the path to building more homes for the people in this country and allowing strengthening of our infrastructure.
Before I begin, I draw the House’s attention to my register of interests as a farmer and landowner, an owner of residential development land, a developer of commercial property, renewable energy infrastructure and new forests, and an investor in natural capital-related businesses: Agricarbon, Cecil Earth, John Deere and Circular FX.
Planning goes to the heart of how homes are supplied. I hope that the Minister will consider the means by which we bolster much-needed supply, including the supply of planning officers, as many noble Lords have mentioned. We are deeply concerned about the proposed national scheme of delegation, which would remove councillors’ ability to vote on individual planning applications. As my noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook set out earlier, democratic accountability matters, especially when it comes to housebuilding. Many noble Lords clearly agree.
Local consent, legitimacy and trust are essential to delivering not just more homes, but the right homes. While the planning system is part of the problem in the housing shortage and slow and expensive delivery of critical infrastructure, we must also address cost of delivery, heavily impacted by inflation on labour and materials; increasing energy-efficiency regulations; tighter environmental regulations; and accessibility and safety requirements. All these add to the cost, and we need to question whether we can truly afford all of them.
Housing affordability has also been impacted by the increase in mortgage rates, thanks to inflation and this Government’s forecast expenditure remaining at 45% of GDP over this Parliament, even with optimistic productivity forecasts, undermining financial markets’ confidence. What plans do the Government have to reduce the cost of building new homes and providing their infrastructure to make houses more affordable? Does the Minister intend to drive down new and existing house prices by creating a larger supply of houses than can be absorbed by the market at current prices? The housebuilders have received a bruising this evening, but what proportion of the 1.5 million target is expected to be supplied by the private housebuilding sector and what by the public sector?
I would like to focus on the environmental aspects of the Bill, set out in Part 3. While a nature restoration levy may appear to be a welcome simplification of the environmental conditions attached to the planning system, this is a problem that is more imaginary than real. As Richard Benwell from Wildlife and Countryside Link said in giving evidence to the other place:
“It is worth noting that Natural England reckons that 99% of the housing applications that it is consulted on go through perfectly properly; only 1% receive objections on the basis of environmental concerns. It is also worth noting that … the long-term trend is that only 10% of major infrastructure projects are challenged”.
Where is the problem that the Government are trying to fix with a radical overhaul of how environmental damage is dealt with in planning? Is this really because the Government resent £100 million being spent on a bat tunnel, or because the previous Opposition, now Government, rejected our amendment to the levelling-up Bill, which would have removed the blockage by Natural England advice on nutrient neutrality rules of well over 100,000 houses?
The fingerprints of Natural England are all over those instances, and I support my noble friends Lord Gascoigne and Lady Coffey and others in questioning whether Natural England should really be allowed to build an authoritarian empire to deliver these EDPs. Natural England will have forcible powers of entry, the ability to set its own fees, and uncontrolled compulsory purchase order powers, extending even to gardens and allotments. This does not seem right. We will be seeking to remove or restrict these powers and to challenge the role of Natural England in Committee.
We hear major concerns about Part 3 of this Bill from the National Trust, the NFU, the Wildlife Trusts, the Woodland Trust, Wildlife and Countryside Link, the Better Planning Coalition, the CPRE, the CLA, the RSPB and many more—I do not think I have ever come across an issue on which they were united. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, highlighted, even the supposed beneficiaries are very concerned about Part 3 of the Bill. Many noble Lords from all Benches have added their voices today, and I hope the Government are listening to this debate and the negative response to Part 3 from all those organisations with deep domain expertise.
The Office for Environmental Protection has been cited in passing by a number of noble Lords. In its letter to the Government, it said that
“aiming to improve environmental outcomes overall, whilst laudable, is not the same as maintaining in law high levels of protection for specific habitats and species. In our considered view, the Bill would have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection provided for by existing environmental law”—
the Environment Act.
“As drafted, the provisions are a regression.”
I have a number of amendments that would have the effect of underpinning the Environment Act and simplifying the interrelationship between legacy EU law and our own law, which has driven confusion. I hope the Minister will take these in the constructive spirit in which they are offered.
The apparent removal of the mitigation hierarchy, mentioned by many noble Lords, appears to lead to the potential for a complete loss of protection for key environmental features, which is both a destruction of nature but also a loss of access to that nature for local communities. The requirements on the Secretary of State are very weak, with only a “likely” overall improvement in the same type of feature over 10 years—a vanishingly small amount of time in the lifespans of ecosystems, let alone trees, and a very low bar for decision-making. This does not fill the House with confidence, and we would be interested in working with all noble Lords to strengthen these environmental protections and restore the mitigation hierarchy in the Bill.
I question whether it is appropriate that the nature restoration levy should be used for compulsory purchase by Natural England. Why should developers funding EDPs be subsidising the Government’s acquisition of land? In the other place, we suggested this should fall to the Treasury, and I expect to repeat those arguments in more depth in Committee.
The Secretary of State in the other place mentioned that
“we expect farmers and land managers to benefit, with the nature restoration fund providing opportunities to diversify their business income”.—[Official Report, Commons, Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee, 15/5/25; col. 427.]
That is a generous sentiment but, as my noble friend Lord Lucas highlighted, nowhere in this Bill do I see any requirement for Natural England to consult with land managers and farmers, or to work with them on delivering environmental improvement within EDPs. At a time when the Government have imposed the family farm death tax, slashed delinked payments and slammed shut SFI applications, I am surprised that the Government do not look to allow farmers and landowners to provide these services commercially to developers or Natural England.
To add insult to injury, the publication of this Bill has chilled the biodiversity net gain and nutrient neutrality markets, undermining an existing business activity for many farmers. I join my noble friend Lord Goldsmith in asking the Minister how she sees Part 3 of the Bill relating to those markets? What role can they play if developers are forced to pay the nature restoration levy without the option of their own full or partial mitigation activities, either on-site or through these existing markets?
The Minister was unable to tell me, in an Answer to a Written Question, what levy rate developers will be required to pay nor how large the nature restoration fund is likely to be. I wonder whether the Government have given more thought to this and whether they can answer those questions now. How can we be confident this will not undermine the financial viability of developments or, as other noble Lords have mentioned, be used as an excuse to reduce other contributions made by developers?
Moving outside of Part 3 of the Bill and addressing other concerns that impact on the environment and rural community, I have been confused by comments from the Minister and her officials in meetings, and by the Secretary of State, in their descriptions of when they see compulsory purchase orders being used without hope value. I would be most grateful if the Minister could lay out exactly those circumstances.
Depending on the answer to the previous question, I also ask the Minister how this Bill really can be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, given that it allows the compulsory purchase of property at beneath its market price. Let me remind the House of the Council of Europe’s explanation of the ECHR:
“Under the European Convention on Human Rights, people have the right to possess property that is lawfully theirs. Governments cannot take property away without proper reasons - and neither can other people. For example, if a government takes land away from someone for public use, the former owner has to be properly compensated”.
In response to a Written Question, the Government helpfully cited that in 2024, local authorities used CPOs 54 times and others used them seven times. Can the Minister indicate what increase in frequency of CPOs is expected, both by Natural England and other bodies with CPO powers? Will these CPO powers be used on land already controlled by housebuilders, by Forestry England, by university colleges or by the Church? Who is excluded, apart from the Crown Estate?
I expect we will also address in Committee whether the Government have got right the balance and extent of compensation to landowners and occupants. Agricultural tenants invest heavily in equipment, buildings, soil, and indeed their businesses. Their economic loss as a result of a CPO is very material. To back up my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, I highlight that the Bill provides no protection to our best and most versatile land that is responsible for much of our food security, alongside reducing protections for other land.
The Bill is attracting considerable attention in this House and beyond. As His Majesty’s Official Opposition, we intend to play a detailed and constructive role in improving the Bill and helping to deliver a better outcome for all stakeholders. Noble Lords have raised considerable concerns, many reflecting those of rural representation groups and conservation bodies. I am grateful to the Minister for conceding that there is scope for strengthening the Bill, suggesting an openness to constructive amendments.
There have been many contributions over the course of the evening. Given the hour, I will return to those in Committee. We hope that the Government are able to take a co-operative approach, engaging with all Members of this House, and have an open mind to amendments that will allow better delivery of houses and infrastructure while restoring nature and protecting those impacted by development. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for this wide-ranging, very productive and comprehensive debate. With over 60 contributions made, I am obviously not going to be able to reply in detail to every one. I will do my best; I have tried to put first the things that were talked about the most. If I do not get to some of the questions I will of course reply in writing.
I have been very encouraged to hear the degree of consensus on the need for action and on much of the intent of the Bill, even if there has been some reference to what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to in her characteristically direct way as the bad and the ugly in the Bill. It has been a very good discussion, and I do not think there is any difference of opinion about the need for things to change.
I especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Banner, for his contribution to the Bill, particularly in the critical area of judicial reviews, which we have looked at in great detail; I am grateful for his support in that work. The contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Liddle, from opposite sides of the House, definitely showed why the Bill is so important. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, described it well when he said the Bill is “about the kinds of places we want to build and the kind of country we want to be”. That is a very good way of describing what we are doing here.
I will make a few general points and then turn to some of the specific issues that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Best, referred very powerfully to the housing crisis and the broken model of relying on volume housebuilders to deliver against the housing need which we definitely have. We currently have 160,000 children in temporary and emergency accommodation. That is an absolute scandal—we have to deal with these issues.
I was at St Mary’s school in Walthamstow yesterday, where the children are doing a project on homelessness, and I asked them what they would say to the Prime Minister. They said, “Can you tell the Prime Minister to build some more homes that people can afford?” I think that was quite right. I said that I will tell the Prime Minister that, so we will get on with that as quickly as we can.
Since 1990, home ownership for 19 to 29 year-olds has more than halved. Homes cost eight times the annual earnings of an average worker. The number of homes granted planning permission has fallen from 310,000 in 2021 to 235,000 in 2025 Q1. The number of new homes is estimated to drop to around 200,000 this year, and this would be the lowest year for net additional dwellings in England since 2015-16.
Infrastructure costs have increased by 30%—more than GDP per capita—since 2007, and the time it takes to secure planning permission for major economic infrastructure projects has almost doubled in the last decade to more than four years. We are not putting the blame on planning officers or councillors. I pay tribute to all those planning officers across the country who work with this system day in, day out, and to all the councillors who play their part in it as well.
We know that 96% of planning decisions were made by planning officers in the year ending March 2025, and it was that small percentage outside of that which were made by planning committees. Only 20% of planning applications for major development are decided within the 13-week statutory deadline. It is important that we focus now on how we are going to improve this system.
I will comment on the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Grender. On the 700,000 empty homes in this country, once housebuilders have been granted permission for residential development, meeting local housing needs and preferences, we expect to see them built out as quickly as possible. Local planning authorities already have powers to issue completion notices to require a developer to complete its development if it is stalled, and if they fail to do so the planning permission for the development will lapse.
On homes being approved but not yet built, we know that too many developments secure planning permission and then are either stalled or not built out quickly, to the frustration of local planning committees and authorities and their communities. That is why we are proposing to introduce a new statutory build-out reporting framework to ensure that there is greater transparency and accountability about the build-out of new residential development. We are currently consulting on that, but we are determined to make sure that communities do not see empty homes, or homes that are permissioned and are not built, when there is such an enormous need for housing around the country.
Lord Fuller (Con)
Will the Minister accept that in many of the cases where permissions are granted, pre-commencement conditions are not yet met and that is the reason these permissions are not executed or completed? In so many cases it is because of the other statutory consultees: it is not the council; the baton passes from the council to the developers at that stage. They are the hold-up, and they are that break between the issuance of permission and commencement on site, and that is really where much of the government effort needs to be.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I understand exactly the point the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is making and there are measures in the Bill which will ease that pressure. We are looking at stat cons and how that process works but, overall, we need to make sure that we get a very smooth process, where we speed up the whole application process, the pre-commencement phase and the build-out phase, because that is what will start delivering housing at pace in this country.
Some noble Lords have mentioned the New Towns Taskforce. It will be reporting this summer, and we will also be publishing a comprehensive housing strategy. I cannot say exactly when; I have that Civil Service phrase “in the not too distant future”, which is frustrating, but I hope it will be very soon.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester mentioned the very excellent report of the Church housing commission and the Nationwide Foundation. I was very grateful for that piece of work; it has been incredibly helpful in shaping thinking, particularly on social, affordable and specialist housing.
The noble Lord, Lord Patten, and other noble Lords mentioned that planning is not necessarily the block to growth. It is not the only key to growth, but it too often can be a substantial constraint on it. We want to move that forward as quickly as possible.
I was asked for the number of homes we are going to be building and exactly what the plan is over the years. We are working on that plan, particularly for the social and affordable housing. It was going down— I have mentioned the figures already—and it will ramp up to deliver those 1.5 million homes during the course of this Parliament. It is very important that, as we do that, we deliver the kind of homes we want to see, in relation to design and net zero, and that they do not have a detrimental impact on our environment. My noble friends Lord Hunt and Lady Liddell have emphasised skills and investor confidence as further parts of this picture. They are very important, and I will say a little bit more about those in a moment.
The ambition of the Bill is really transformative. We want to mark the next step in the most significant reforms to the planning system in a generation. We are building on urgent action to unlock development, including: our new pro-growth National Planning Policy Framework published in December; ending the de facto ban on onshore wind; a review of the role of stat cons, as I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller; supporting SME builders; and boosting local authority capacity. I have spoken before about the Government’s action on skills. All of this and the Bill will help deliver our Plan for Change, get 1.5 million safe and decent homes built and fast-track planning decisions on 150 major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. We recognise the scale of the challenge. I look forward to working with noble Lords in this House to make sure that the Bill facilitates that scale of ambition.
On the specific issue of the reform of planning committees, many noble Lords have mentioned this, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Coffey, Lady Jones, Lady Miller and Lady Pinnock, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Lords, Lord Mawson, Lord Gascoigne, Lord Shipley and Lord Bailey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and probably some others that I did not get round to writing down. This is a very important part of the Bill. Planning committees play a critical role in the planning system, ensuring adequate scrutiny is in place for developments and providing local democratic oversight of planning decisions. However, they are not currently operating as effectively as they could be.
We are not taking local decision-making out of local hands. Those decisions will continue to be vested locally, but we want to engage the public and councillors more at the stage of the local plan, where they can really have an influence on place shaping and can influence what they want to see in their communities, as a number of noble Lords have said.
We will be introducing a national scheme of delegation, which will facilitate faster decision-making, bring greater certainty to stakeholders and applicants and effectively utilise the planning professionals, by doing what they are best at. We are also introducing mandatory training for committee members. We have always had compulsory training for planning members in my local authority— I did not realise that it was not compulsory. We need to make sure we do that to get well-informed decision-making and improve consistency across the country.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the role of AI in planning. I met with the digital team in our department this morning, and it is making great strides forward in planning. This is very exciting: it is not just for digitising the planning system and mapping out all the spatial issues we face in the country, including all the nature mitigation that is needed, but it is also to help with consultation. On the local government consultations we are doing at the moment, we are getting hundreds of responses. If you can digitise the assessment of that, it is really going to help with the planning process, though, of course, it always needs human oversight.
The noble Lord, Lord Banner, rightly referred to resources and capacity in the Planning Inspectorate. I reassure noble Lords that consideration is being given to this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, referred to Planning for Real; I remember it very well—just before I became a councillor, I got involved in a Planning for Real exercise. We are hoping to engage and encourage people with those kind of exercises as they draw up their local plans.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, spoke about digital twins and AI, which is another thing I have been very interested in. I know that Singapore has a fabulous way of doing this, and it is very important to planning.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murray, for his contribution on mediation. We are very supportive of that and are looking at it.
Some noble Lords suggested that reforms within our Bill remove democratic control from local people and restrict the input of community voices in the planning process. That is simply not the case. Engagement with communities is, and will remain, the cornerstone of our planning system and a vital step in the design of major infrastructure. We are currently consulting on the proposals for the scheme of delegation, so everybody will have a chance to contribute to that.
I will move on to wider housing and planning issues, including affordable housing. A number of noble Lords raised the issue of social and affordable housing, including the noble Lords, Lord Cameron, Lord Teverson, Lord Best and Lord Evans, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Levitt. This is a vitally important issue. The Government’s manifesto commits us to delivering the biggest increase in social and affordable housing in a generation. The spending review confirmed £39 billion for a successor to the affordable homes programme. For the first time in recent memory, we will be able to give providers a decade of certainty over the capital funding they will have to build new, more ambitious housing development proposals. In the National Planning Policy Framework, we have asked local councils that, when they draw up their local plans, they assess the need not just for affordable housing, because that is a very difficult definition, but for social housing. That is critical.
On housing quality and design, the noble Lords, Lord Thurlow, Lord Crisp, Lord Shipley, Lord Carlile and Lord Best, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, all raised this issue. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for meeting me to discuss this. We need to ensure that new developments are built to a high standard and the importance of good design, promoting the health and well-being of all those who live there. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that architects have not been mentioned perhaps as much as he would have liked, but the NPPF makes clear the importance of well-designed, inclusive and safe places and how this can be achieved through local design policies, design codes and guidance. That includes transport, open spaces, and climate change mitigation and adaptation.
I will move on now, because time is pressing on, to the issues that I think were probably mentioned by most noble Lords: namely, the nature restoration fund and Part 3. If your Lordships do not mind, I will not read out all the names, because we would be here most of the evening.
When it comes to development and nature, the status quo is not working. We need to build on the success of policies such as diversity net gain and ensure that we do everything we can to deliver positive development. By moving to a more strategic approach to discharging obligations, the nature restoration fund will allow us to deliver environmental improvements at greater scale, with greater impact, while unlocking the development this country needs. We are confident that the new model will secure better outcomes for nature, driving meaningful nature recovery and moving us away from a system that is at the moment only treading water.
On the issue of regression, I reassure noble Lords that this new strategic approach will deliver more for nature, not less. That is why we have confirmed in the Bill that our reforms will not have the effect of reducing the level of environmental protection of existing environmental law. Through the NRF model we are moving away from piecemeal interventions and going further than simply offsetting harm, as is required under current legislation. We have been clear that environmental delivery plans will be put in place only where they are able to deliver better outcomes which will leave a lasting legacy of environmental improvement. I will not go into more detail on that now but will set it out in writing, because I know that lots of noble Lords are concerned about it.
On irreplaceable habitats, let me reassure everyone that we consider them to be just that: irreplaceable. The legislation is clear that an EDP can relate to a protected site or a protected species, with these being tightly defined in the legislation. As the Housing Minister made clear in the other place, the Bill does not affect existing protections for irreplaceable habitats under the National Planning Policy Framework. While there may be circumstances where an environmental feature is part of both a protected site and an irreplaceable habitat, an EDP will not allow action to be taken that damaged an irreplaceable habitat, as this would by definition be incapable of passing the overall improvement test. I hope that that has provided some reassurance.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, that green space in urban areas is already part of the planning system through the National Planning Policy Framework. A number of noble Lords commented on the capacity and capability of Natural England, and I will write to noble Lords on that, if that is okay.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, talked about the impact of the NRF on farmers. I know that that is a very important issue, and many in this House very ably represent the interests of farmers, so I welcome the opportunity to flag the opportunities the NRF presents for farming communities. We want to work in partnership with farmers and land managers to deliver conservation measures which will provide opportunities for them to support the delivery of such measures and diversify their business revenues.
I will write to all noble Lords about EDPs and all the other issues relating to Part 3. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that he quoted my words back to me very accurately. I have now been to Poundbury, by the way, and seen the swift bricks in action. We recognise that these are a significant tool, and we have made it clear in the revised NPPF that developments should provide net gains such as that. I recognise why many would want to mandate this through legislation, but we think there is a better way of doing that, so we will be consulting on a new set of national policies, including a requirement for swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings. I hope that that answers the question.
I shall talk briefly about the Gypsy and Traveller housing, mentioned by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. I share their frustrations at how this has been dealt with. As part of the revised National Planning Policy Framework, we have corrected long-standing inconsistencies in the way applications for sites are considered and provided greater clarity. We have revised the definition of Gypsies and Travellers to align with domestic and European law.
I see that I have run out of time. I will not try to cover all the other issues. I have got plenty to say on development corporations, infrastructure and so on, but I will write to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and answer the questions I have been asked, including on rural housing, protection of the green belt and so on.
I reiterate my thanks to your Lordships for your engagement with the Bill to this point and give particular thanks to the opposition spokespeople: I have been there, so I know what that is like, and I am grateful to you.
I look forward to working with all of you during the passage of this important and truly ambitious piece of legislation. My noble friend Lord Hanworth referred to the ambition shown by the post-war Government when reconstructing our country. It was that Government who took the pre-war planning inspiration from garden cities and Ebenezer Howard a step further to create my town and other first-generation new towns, with the boost that gave to the economy. We now have the opportunity to take the next step to clean energy, to use artificial intelligence, to have a new clean energy transport infrastructure and to plan the new homes and communities that a new generation will need. I look forward to working with all of you on that over the next few weeks and months.