Oral Answers to Questions
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
There are currently no plans to review the operation of the Barnett formula. The Barnett formula has stood the test of time because it is simple and efficient, and it provides a clear and certain outcome. It is a key part of the arrangements for pooling and sharing risks and resources across the United Kingdom.
Seamus Logan
We know that if the Government today pass their disgraceful, discriminatory and, some say, illegal cuts to disability support, that will almost certainly lead to a reduction in the Scottish budget as a result of the Barnett formula. That is a deliberate choice that Scottish Labour MPs will be making if they support these cuts, and for which they must answer to their constituents. Will the Chancellor or the Minister tell them, this House and, indeed, the nation exactly how many millions of pounds they will voting to take out of the pockets of disabled and vulnerable people in Scotland, many of whom voted for Labour almost a year ago?
Darren Jones
One thing I can tell the Scottish people, and indeed the House, is that it is this Labour Government who have given the largest real-terms increase in spending to the Scottish Government since devolution began—billions and billions of pounds of extra money is going to the Scottish National party Government in Holyrood. On devolved matters, it is for the SNP Government to be accountable for the delivery of public services to people in Scotland, where they are failing on everything from the NHS to welfare and the economy.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
In the recent spending review, the Chancellor outlined plans for a multimillion-pound investment in essential building works at Budmouth academy in Weymouth. We welcome that new investment in local schools in our town, and it will enable Budmouth academy finally to upgrade its school buildings. Looking ahead, will the Chancellor work with me to speedily deliver the new investment and ensure that Budmouth academy gets a richly deserved upgrade as soon as possible?
Mr Speaker
Unfortunately, I cannot see the relevance of the question. I call Bobby Dean.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs uses a range of data sources to monitor the wealthy population. International exchanges of information, including the common reporting standard and US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act data, offer opportunities to develop deeper insight into the international financial affairs of some of the UK’s wealthiest taxpayers.
Bobby Dean
The Minister will no doubt be aware of reports of the so-called exodus of millionaires. Those reports are from “high profile individuals” and city spokespeople, but there are rarely hard numbers behind them. Are Treasury Ministers able to verify the Tax Justice Network’s research that says that just 0.3% of millionaires have exited the UK and that that number has remained low and stable over the past decade, and will they publish their own figures as well?
James Murray
When considering fiscal measures or financial changes, the figures that matter are those provided by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The OBR has certified that the non-dom reforms that the Government have implemented will raise £33.8 billion in total revenue, and that figure accounts for some non-doms who are ineligible for the new regime choosing to leave the UK.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
Public investment makes us all more prosperous, but clearly that public investment, in our roads, rail and energy infrastructure, needs to be paid for. Will the Minister set out how we are funding that public investment by taxing the very richest people in this country?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that our changes to the non-dom reporting regime are essential to raise billions of pounds to support the public finances and get our public services back on their feet. I contrast that with some of the proposals set out by opposition parties. Indeed, Reform UK’s plans are for a tax cut for foreign billionaires.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
In her Budget last year, the Chancellor tucked away about £10 billion over the next couple of years from reform to the non-dom tax regime. It is important to remember that the OBR said in its fiscal outlook that that figure was “highly uncertain”, and a high-level survey by Oxford Economics found that fully two thirds of non-doms are considering leaving the country in the next couple years as a direct result of those policies. That implies not an increase of £10 billion but a decrease of £8 billion. The Chancellor has created a fiscal black hole of £18 billion with just one policy alone. In this week of heroic U-turns from the Government Front Bench, will the Minister confirm whether they will be axing this tax? When will it finally be condemned to the history books?
James Murray
I am not really sure whether there was a policy suggestion in that comment or not. As the shadow Minister will know, the fiscal black hole that we had to address when we won the general election was the £22 billion black hole that the Conservatives left after their mismanagement of the economy. As I said, the Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that our reforms to the non-dom regime, with our removal of non-dom tax status, will raise £33.8 billion over the five years of the forecast. It is the OBR’s figures that we will trust in that regard.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The Government are committed to ensuring that there are fewer sick and disabled people in poverty by helping them into work and getting them off NHS waiting lists. That is why at the spring statement we announced the largest investment in employment support in at least a generation. The Government have already taken action to tackle poverty, including with the fair repayment rate, which lowers the cap on deductions in universal credit, and we have increased the national living wage by 6.7%. Beyond that, we are investing to reduce poverty by expanding free school meals and investing in a £1 billion settlement for crisis support. We will set out our child poverty strategy in the autumn. We have invested £29 billion in reducing NHS waiting lists, and since we took office there are 385,000 more people in work.
Rachael Maskell
Many disabled people are really struggling right now. We know that three in 10 are living in poverty, as I can see in my York constituency, but I was particularly taken aback by the Women’s Budget Group report, which highlighted that three quarters of the people who will lose their personal independence payment and carer’s allowance are women. How will the Chancellor ensure that when fiscal decisions are made, we look in particular at the intersectionality between women, disabled people and other protected characteristics to ensure that they are not pushed further into poverty?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend will know that nobody currently receiving personal independence payments will see any reduction in the support they get. In terms of supporting women into work, recognising some of the intersectionalities she mentioned, the Government have increased the national living wage by 6.7%—sadly, it is still too often women who are paid the lowest wages—and our Employment Rights Bill will offer more security and dignity in work. We are also rolling out more childcare, including new nurseries at primary schools, and my right hon. Friend the Business and Trade Secretary will today make a statement announcing the launch of a review of parental leave, which could benefit all working parents, but particularly mums.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Does the Chancellor accept that cancer is a major driver of poverty? That is not only because people who are ill cannot work during their treatment, but because sometimes people who are happily cured find that they have collateral damage that means they cannot work at a full level throughout the rest of their life. Does she recognise that radiotherapy plays a huge part in making sure that people are cured and then able to be productive in society? Given that the international average for people with cancer having radiotherapy is 53%, while in the UK it is only 36%, will she look at the economic advantages of investing in radiotherapy?
Rachel Reeves
In the spending review, we invested an additional £29 billion every year for day-to-day spending in the national health service, as well as a record uplift in capital spending in the NHS so that there is more money for the equipment to do that vital work, including in cancer treatments, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. In our first year in office we have delivered 4 million additional appointments in the NHS and reduced waiting lists by 250,000. That is only possible because of the decisions we took in the Budget last year—those included increasing taxes on non-doms, as well as the increase in national insurance contributions—which have gone into funding our national health service.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
St Helens is ranked as the 26th most deprived area nationally, and that poverty has an impact on health and sickness from pre-birth to old age. As a country, we spend more on crisis intervention and less on early intervention after 14 years of the Tories. Will the Chancellor please assure me and people in St Helens North that this Government will do all they can to properly fund councils and health services to help more people live longer, healthier lives?
Rachel Reeves
That is a really important point. Our Prime Minister is absolutely committed to early intervention to stop the costs of crisis emerging later on. Later this week, on the anniversary of Labour’s creation of the health service, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will publish the 10-year health plan, which will focus on ensuring that young people especially, and particularly those in some of our most deprived communities, are not let down and have a healthy start in life. Across the whole of Government, we are determined to achieve that.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Today’s disastrous welfare debacle was all down to the Chancellor’s obsessive pursuit to stick to the grotesque Tory fiscal rules. Yet 150,000 people could still be saved from poverty if all the Scottish Labour MPs joined those prepared to vote down the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. Does she agree that if Scottish Labour MPs go through the lobby to support the Bill, they would be as well not bothering standing again?
Rachel Reeves
This Government changed the fiscal rules at the Budget last year with a stability rule, so that for the first time we pay for day-to-day spending through tax receipts, and an investment rule, which enables us to invest in the things that will help grow the economy, such as energy infrastructure, defence spending and transport and digital infrastructure. As a result, in the Budget and then in this year’s spring statement, we unlocked £300 billion more to spend during the course of this Parliament, including the record settlement for the Scottish Government. It is now up to the Scottish Government to spend that money wisely and to try to reduce waiting lists in Scotland, as we have done in England and, indeed, in Wales.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
First, it was a humiliating reversal of the Chancellor’s winter fuel cuts. Now, welfare cuts that she rushed to meet her fiscal rules have been shredded, leaving unfunded spending to pay for. In October, the Chancellor said that extending the freeze in income tax thresholds
“would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
Does she stand by the commitment to end that freeze from 2028—yes or no?
Rachel Reeves
It was the hon. Member’s Government, when they were on this side of the House, who froze those allowances, taking more money out of the pockets of working people. Despite that, they left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. I will take no lessons from Conservative party, which has opposed everything that is needed to invest in our public services. We are in the mess we are in because of the damage that it caused.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The Government recognise the critical contribution that transport makes to our growth mission. The Government increased the capital envelope by over £100 billion at the autumn Budget last year, and by a further £13 billion at the spring statement. Taken together, that represents a big increase in capital investment. As a result, the transport capital budget, excluding High Speed 2, will increase by 1.9% per year in real terms over the spending review period. That investment will improve connectivity in our towns, cities and villages, reduce journey times and increase transport reliability. For areas of transport that are devolved, it is up to the Scottish and Welsh Governments to allocate their funding and be accountable to their respective Parliaments for those decisions.
Ruth Jones
I welcome the announcement in the spending review that railway projects in Wales, including five new stations east of Cardiff, will receive an extra £445 million in funding over the next decade. Will the Chancellor provide more detail as to how the money will be specifically allocated and when work will begin?
Rachel Reeves
It was a pleasure to be in Cardiff just after the spending review to look at the difference made by the investment that the Labour Government are putting into transport in Wales. The spending review and the infrastructure strategy recognised Wales’s long-term infrastructure needs and how they have been neglected for too long by the Tory party. We delivered at least £445 million for rail enhancements, which provides funding for continuing to develop and deliver the stations identified in the Burns review, including Newport West and Somerton. Plans for future rail investment in Wales will be made in close consultation with the Welsh Government and through engagement with the Wales Rail Board.
Euan Stainbank
I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British buses. Our £15.6 billion commitment to regional transport through the spending review should be good news for bus manufacturing. However, Alexander Dennis’s ongoing consultation threatens 400 jobs in Falkirk, putting another major employer at risk just after the closure of the Grangemouth oil refinery. The Scottish National party’s ScotZEB 2 scheme famously failed to invest in Scotland. Where things are built and by who matters, so will the Chancellor act to guarantee that our investment in transport is of maximum benefit to Scottish vehicle manufacturers?
Rachel Reeves
It is important that, as this Government put more money into infrastructure, including transport, it benefits companies and jobs here in Britain. It is not right the Scottish Government spend more on buses made in China than on buses made in Scotland. There is nothing preventing the Scottish National party from investing in jobs and growth in Scotland.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
MPs and councils of all parties across east and north Yorkshire are united in wanting to enhance connectivity in the area, have greener options and optimise the economic output of the area, so will the Chancellor work with us on a cross-party basis to look at reopening a direct rail line from Hull to York, so that those great university cities can be united by effective transport infrastructure once again?
Rachel Reeves
I really welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman supports the investment that this Labour Government are making in transport and infrastructure after the 14 of years neglect by his party. We have increased transport spending by 1.9% per year in real terms in every year of this spending review period, benefiting all parts of the country, including Yorkshire, where both he and I have the honour and privilege of being Members of Parliament.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister, the Business Secretary and the Chancellor had the joy of coming to my constituency to see the MIRA technology park last week. They will have come via the A5. The previous Prime Minister talked about the funding that would be submitted via the A5, but in the spending review that money seems to have dropped, so will the Chancellor commit to the same funding for the A5 that we had from the last Government, because it is really important for my area?
Rachel Reeves
The irony is that the last Government made a lot of commitments but did not put any money into delivering them. That is the difference that this Government are making, with fully funded plans to upgrade transport. The Department for Transport now has its settlement and it will look at a number of projects. The mess left by the Conservatives is something we have had to sort out. The Conservatives have not backed any of the measures that we have taken to bring in more revenue, yet, as we have seen, they are very keen on spending the money. That is why we were left with a £22 billion black hole when we came into office a year ago.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
Kick-starting economic growth in every region and nation is the No. 1 mission of our Government. As part of our new infrastructure strategy, we have allocated £725 billion to building and rebuilding bridges, roads, schools and hospitals across the country. Also, the £2.3 billion for local government transport will benefit places such as Eastleigh and Gloucestershire. In Wales, key rail routes will benefit from £445 million of investment.
Liz Jarvis
Small to medium-sized businesses are the backbone of the local economy in Eastleigh, creating jobs and driving innovation. However, local businesses, including the precision manufacturing firm G. W. Martin, have told me that the increased costs as a result of the changes to employer national insurance contributions have left them with no choice but to pass those costs on to customers, making UK manufacturing less competitive globally. What concrete steps will the Government take to help businesses in Eastleigh?
Emma Reynolds
Half of small businesses will not be affected by the employer national insurance increase, as the hon. Member will know. We will also be setting out a small business strategy in the Government’s plan to support those businesses across the UK later this year.
Catherine Fookes
As the Minister knows, I am delighted with the spending review’s investment in Welsh rail of £445 million. It shows the power of two Labour Governments working together and corrects years of underfunding from the Tories. This investment in Welsh communities and Welsh business is extremely welcome and it will be a brilliant driver of our Government’s mission for economic growth. Will she outline what steps she is taking with other Departments to ensure that rural economies and market towns such as Monmouth, Abergavenny, Caldicot and Chepstow, and small businesses across Monmouthshire, can be helped to thrive and contribute to that growth mission?
Emma Reynolds
I welcome what my hon. Friend said. The Government are supporting the rural economy with over £2.7 billion a year for sustainable farming and nature recovery. We are investing £1.9 billion to improve digital connectivity, which will be important to the small businesses and others that she mentioned. As I said to the previous question, we will set out a small business strategy later this year.
Cameron Thomas
North Gloucestershire is ready to jump-start economic growth, with its existing advanced engineering and defence industries ready to drive the UK toward economic and defence objectives. Babcock, GE Aerospace, Moog and Safran are already developing world-leading technologies, and the Garden Town project includes a further 100 hectares of employment area. Will the Minister join me in Gloucestershire so we can demonstrate this expertise and the potential for growth on the ground?
Emma Reynolds
Defence companies are an incredibly important part of the economy, and the hon. Member will know that we are increasing defence spending to up to 2.6% by the end of this Parliament. It has only ever reached those levels before under a Labour Government.
Max Wilkinson
The industrial strategy was right to highlight the potential for the National Cyber Innovation Centre in my constituency. If we are going to deliver that, we will need to make sure that junction 10 of the M5 is also done to enable the traffic to get around that development. This is a development of national importance. The strategic sites accelerator has also been cited by the Government. Can the Minister advise me on how areas like Liberal Democrat-run Cheltenham and Gloucestershire can access that fund?
Emma Reynolds
I will ensure that the hon. Member gets a meeting with the relevant Transport Minister, but I hope that he is as excited as I am about the £1 billion that we are investing in the state-of-the-art Golden Valley development, which will create 12,000 high-skilled jobs and 3,700 new homes, and is close to the GCHQ headquarters in Cheltenham. I am sure that that is something he will welcome.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the new Green Book with its proposals on place-based analysis will mean that left-behind places like mine will start to get the infrastructure investment that they so desperately need?
Emma Reynolds
We pledged to reform the Green Book, and we are doing precisely that, alongside the spending review. We recognise the strategic importance of investment in every part of the country. We want to realise the growth potential of places like the one my hon. Friend represents—she is a doughty champion for her constituency.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
After years of unfunded and undelivered promises from the Conservatives on levelling up, places like Rochdale are finally getting the fairer share of money that they really deserve. The Minister expanded a little on the Green Book, but could she outline how its place-based approach will help places like mine and advanced manufacturing in the Atom Valley?
Emma Reynolds
As my hon. Friend will know, we launched funding of £15.6 billion for transport for city regions in his constituency. I am pleased that this Government recognise the potential of places like the one he represents. We are going to unlock that regional growth across the north and in other parts of the country.
Mr Speaker
I will just make the point again that we are a long way from Eastleigh; I do not understand how the questions are grouped in this way. Other people listed on the Order Paper are being left behind and are missing out as a result.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
The spending review announced significant investment into clean energy to strengthen our energy security and our economy. That includes over £8.3 billion for Great British Energy and Great British Energy Nuclear and £14.2 billion for Sizewell C.
Deirdre Costigan
Although my constituents in Ealing Southall are no doubt sweltering in today’s heat, they are worried that come winter, they will again face eye-watering energy bills to heat their homes. The previous Government left us with the leakiest homes in Europe, slashing grants for loft and cavity insulation. Can the Minister set out the work that this Labour Government are doing not just to support the clean energy sector, but to upgrade my constituents’ homes to take that clean, cheap energy and bring down bills in Ealing Southall?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is an excellent advocate for her constituents in Ealing Southall, and I am sure that many of them will benefit from our warm homes plan, which will see £13.2 billion invested across this Parliament. That investment will be allocated to schemes to support the roll-out of heat pumps, alongside energy-efficiency measures and other low-carbon technologies. This will help with environmental goals, but crucially, it will cut bills and tackle fuel poverty.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
This week, the 19% tariff on imports of US ethanol falls to zero through the 1.4 billion litre quota negotiated by this Labour Government, which represents the size of the UK’s entire ethanol market. That will have a hugely damaging impact on our rural economy, UK jobs and the NHS, with Government effectively offshoring the benefits of ethanol production and its by-products to the US. What conversations are the Chancellor and her team having with this green energy sector, in which a huge number of jobs are now at stake in Teesside and Hull?
James Murray
Of course, our colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade are having conversations with those businesses and industries that may be affected. I hope the hon. Member welcomes the trade deal that we got with the US—an economic deal that is so important for our prosperity and will see us being the only country to avoid some of the tariffs that are affecting all other countries around the world.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is becoming clear that one year in, the public still do not know what Labour is all about, and the same could be said for its so-called National Wealth Fund. Not only has the National Wealth Fund invested less equity in clean energy than before its costly £7 billion rebrand, but it is also now rightly subject to a Treasury Committee inquiry, at which expert witnesses could not name a single thing it is doing differently. The CEO of the British Business Bank now says the Government did not understand what they were setting up. Can the Minister tell us why the National Wealth Fund has invested less in clean energy than before the costly rebrand and why the Government U-turned on incorporating the British Business Bank?
James Murray
The shadow Minister forgets to mention the fact that we have had £30 billion of investment in green energy since the general election. I am sure he has consulted the spending review documents closely—I know he is a diligent shadow Minister in that regard—and he will have seen the investment that we are putting into Great British Energy, Sizewell C, small modular reactors, fusion, nuclear R&D, the warm homes plan, and carbon capture and storage. All of this is to make sure we improve our energy security and bring down bills for good.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I can reassure the hon. Member that there will be an increase in the Northern Ireland Executive’s funding through the annually managed expenditure forecasting process. This will be confirmed at the autumn Budget in the usual way. More importantly to pensioners in Northern Ireland, he will be aware that in June, the Communities Minister in Northern Ireland confirmed that winter fuel payments will be available in Northern Ireland on the same basis as in England and Wales.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for that very positive answer. What assessment has been made of the impact of increasing the winter fuel payment in line with inflation? Given the increase in the cost of living, does he believe that current winter fuel payments are up to the standard in terms of how far they will go to support those who are eligible?
Torsten Bell
Our priority at the moment is to extend eligibility for the winter fuel payment, as the hon. Member and I have discussed on a number of occasions, but obviously that sits within a wider set of support. He will have seen the extension to the warm home discount announced in recent days and the extension of the household support fund. As he is well aware, social security is a transferred policy in Northern Ireland.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that it is only because of the Barnett formula and a Labour Government that Scotland—including communities in Stirling and Strathallan—now has record funding of £50 billion this year, and it is deeply concerning that the SNP Government in Scotland have no clear plan to invest this funding properly in Scotland’s NHS, Scotland’s schools and Scotland’s local services?
Torsten Bell
As so often, my hon. Friend says it all. We have seen record investment in the Scottish Government’s budget, but we do not see waiting lists falling in Scotland, as they are in England and Wales.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
We very much recognise the social and cultural value of horseracing, which is why on-course betting is exempt from duty, and horseracing is the only sport to receive a Government mandated levy. We are consulting on measures to simplify gambling duty and improve compliance. No decision will be made on rates before the Budget, and we are working with the horseracing sector to identify unintended consequences and mitigations.
Sally Jameson
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In Doncaster, we are incredibly proud of our historic racecourse, which is home to the iconic St Leger festival. As someone who has attended the racecourse for a number of events throughout my life, I can say that it is part of our local community and brings thousands of jobs. Will the Minister confirm that he will continue dialogue with the horseracing industry, noting that it brings 85,000 jobs to the country nationally and is the second largest spectator sport in the country, and identifying that this is very different from online casinos and games of chance?
James Murray
It is excellent to hear my hon. Friend speak so passionately about Doncaster racecourse and the wider sector, and I reassure her that we will absolutely continue close dialogue with the horseracing industry on these proposals. I and my officials are working closely with the horseracing sector to identify any unintended consequences and possible mitigations. We intend to continue those conversations with the industry, and we welcome further engagement.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
How do the Government assess the implementation of a flat rate in terms of improving fairness and simplification for all involved, reducing administrative costs and encouraging compliance?
James Murray
One of the principles behind the reforms that we are looking to make to the gambling duty is to tackle issues of compliance by simplifying the system. The consultation is open at the moment, and I encourage the hon. Gentleman, and anyone else who is interested in contributing towards that, to make their views known.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry recently met the trustees of the British Coal staff superannuation scheme to consider their proposals, and I have been monitoring the developments closely.
Nick Smith
I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his answer. Last weekend I attended the anniversary of the Six Bells mining disaster in 1960, in which 45 men and boys died. I met Mervyn Frampton, whose brother Keith was killed in that tragedy. Mervyn is 90 now, and we talked about when he and his butties powered our country and were members of the British Coal staff pension scheme. Will my right hon. Friend please be mindful of those who risked their lives for us, and who are still owed pension fair play?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I extend the thoughts of the House to his constituents and the communities that he represents. He will know that I have always kept the service and sacrifices of the mining communities in my mind, both in opposition when campaigning for changes to the mineworkers’ pension scheme, which this Government implemented at the last Budget, and now in considering proposals from the BCSSS. I will be looking at those issues in more detail over the summer, and I hope to say more in the autumn.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The Government protected the smallest businesses from changes to national insurance by increasing the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. That means that this year 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance contributions at all, and more than half will either gain or see no change to their national insurance contributions.
Mr Mohindra
Given the recent trio of U-turns, this Government have demonstrated that they are keen to change their minds as well as to create new multibillion-pound black holes. Will the Chancellor do the right thing and U-turn on the increase in national insurance contributions, to provide businesses with a much-needed boost in the sluggish economy that she has created?
Rachel Reeves
It is a bit rich for anyone in the Conservative party to mention black holes, after the one that they left for us to clear up. The hon. Gentleman will have seen the Lloyds business barometer, which has recently been published and shows that business confidence is now at a nine-year high, led by increases in confidence in retail and manufacturing. That report referenced the impact of the spending review on boosting business confidence—a recognition that this Government are backing Britain and backing Britain’s businesses.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Chancellor is quite right to mention that business confidence is at a nine-year high. Does that not go to show that not only were the announcements in the spending review right for business, but her emphasis on stability and certainty in the economy is exactly what is needed? Moreover, it is in sharp contrast to the chaos, constant changes of policy and complete disaster in economic policy that we saw from the Conservative Government.
Rachel Reeves
The stability that this Government have returned to the economy has meant that the Bank of England has been able to cut interest rates four times in the last year, taking hundreds of pounds off people’s mortgages—there was such a big impact in that regard under the last Government. The reasons for the increase in business confidence also include the industrial strategy publication, the spending review and the three trade deals, all of which are boosting business confidence and have helped to create 385,000 new jobs in Britain since the last general election.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Labour’s jobs tax has really clobbered British businesses. The Office for National Statistics says that the number of available jobs is collapsing. Perhaps the Chancellor has not updated herself on how British business thinks about confidence: the Institute of Directors has said today that business confidence has plummeted; the Bank of England is warning of significant declines in wage growth; and the British Chambers of Commerce says that taxes on businesses cannot be increased. The Chancellor has bungled welfare changes, eviscerating confidence in the Prime Minister and blowing an even bigger hole in the public financing, meaning that she will raise taxes yet again this autumn. Will she avoid creating the same damaging uncertainty she did last summer by ruling out from the Dispatch Box today any further tax increases on British businesses?
Rachel Reeves
I am not going to take lessons from the Conservatives: they increased taxes 25 times. When they increased taxes, it was always ordinary working people who paid the price. In our Budget last year, we protected the payslips of ordinary working people by not increasing their income tax, their national insurance or their VAT, and we did not go ahead with the increase in fuel duty that the Conservatives had planned. Instead of talking down the British economy, why do the Conservatives not back the plans that are backed by British businesses to grow our economy and make working people better off?
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Non-profit businesses and charities have been hit really hard by the jobs tax. Last week, my local meals on wheels service told me that businesses like theirs around the country are having to make redundancies and put up prices for vulnerable people. In the context of today’s welfare reforms that the Government are pursuing, can the Chancellor confirm whether the Treasury will conduct any assessment of the increased cost of essential and charitable services relied on by disabled people and their carers at a time when their welfare support could be cut?
Rachel Reeves
As the hon. Lady knows, the changes we have made to the welfare Bill will mean that nobody who is currently receiving personal independence payments will have a cut, so I just do not think the premise of her question is correct. When we debate the welfare Bill today, we will be voting for the biggest increase in the universal credit standard allowance for a generation and protecting those people with the most severe conditions from having to be reassessed for their condition, which is degrading. We have got rid of the Tories’ work capability assessment changes, which the courts said were illegal, and we are putting £1 billion into back-to-work support. At the same time, we are investing £29 billion in the NHS. That is possible only because of the rise in national insurance increase on business, which the Liberal Democrats opposed—and yet that is how we are funding our NHS.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
The Government have committed £2.7 billion per year to support sustainable farming and nature recovery, supporting the rural economy. We have also confirmed investment of £1.9 billion over four years into digital connectivity as well as £2.3 billion of local government transport funding for smaller cities, towns and rural areas.
Rachel Gilmour
While I welcome the Government’s rural growth plans, I am concerned about the persistent poverty in many rural areas. The additional costs of living in these communities—known as the rural premium—exacerbate hardship. What specific steps will the Chancellor take to support those in, or near, poverty in rural areas, and will the Treasury commit to revising the indices of multiple deprivation to more accurately reflect deprivation in rural and coastal communities, such as west Somerset and mid Devon?
Emma Reynolds
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will be coming forward with further details of funding for the 350 most deprived communities across the country, including rural areas.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
As one of the most deprived regions of northern Europe, Cornwall benefited from objective 1 structural and sustained prosperity fund funding. Can the Minister confirm that, under this Government, Cornwall will not lose out on funding for economic growth and the investment that our communities deserve?
Emma Reynolds
We are supporting growth across the country, and we will publish further details of how we will do that in the coming weeks.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
The 10-year infrastructure strategy is a key part of this Government’s growth mission, committing to a minimum of £725 billion of investment over the next 10 years in local transport, affordable homes, and modernising schools and hospitals in every part of the country.
Jessica Toale
I was pleased to see that the creative and digital industries, financial services, and clean energy were all included as priority sectors in the Government’s industrial strategy. Those sectors have huge potential in my constituency of Bournemouth West. Focusing on the latter, as a fellow south-west MP, what assessment has the Minister made of the Dorset clean energy super cluster’s potential for growth, jobs and bringing people’s bills down, not just in Bournemouth West but across the region?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for championing the Dorset clean energy super cluster opportunity, which was announced by her council at the UK’s Real Estate Investment and Infrastructure Forum only recently. Offshore wind, hydrogen, nuclear, and carbon capture and storage are frontier technologies and industries that are at the heart of our clean energy sector plan, and they will create opportunities in every part of the country, including in the south-west.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The infrastructure plan reiterated the Government’s support for a third runway at Heathrow, a project that the Chancellor has repeatedly stated will be privately funded. However, given the vast amount of rail and road infrastructure that will be needed to support a bigger Heathrow, as well as the huge risk a private company would take on, which it would want underwritten by Government, could the Chief Secretary to the Treasury outline to the House how much taxpayer cash has been earmarked as needed to enable a bigger Heathrow?
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady will know that we are waiting to receive detailed proposals from Heathrow for the development of the third runway. The Government will consider those proposals in due course and make further announcements when decisions have been taken.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
The year before we came to power, the tax gap stood at £47 billion. That is unacceptable, which is why we announced the most ambitious-ever package of tax gap measures in the Budget, and went even further in the spring statement. We are now forecast to raise £7.5 billion from the tax gap in 2029-30, including by recruiting 5,500 more compliance officers, investing in better technology and closing loopholes. We will bring forward further measures to close the tax gap in the autumn Budget.
Joe Powell
As the Minister is no doubt aware, an increasingly common issue on our high streets is phoenixing. That is where a shop unit continues to trade while cycling through multiple limited companies every few months, none of which pays corporation tax, VAT or business rates. Can the Minister encourage officials at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to walk along Whitehall, just a few hundred metres from this Chamber, and take a look at whether the series of Harry Potter-themed gift shops across London—which have been accused by “London Centric” of doing exactly that—are playing by the rules? Will they ensure that tax enforcement supports legitimate small businesses on our high streets?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is a powerful campaigner and advocate for tackling those who do not play by the rules. While I am unable to comment on individual taxpayer affairs because of my position, I very much recognise the issue. We are determined to tackle this problem, and HMRC is working across Government on enforcement action, including work with Companies House and the Insolvency Service to tackle phoenixism.
Andrew George
Does the Minister agree that instead of handing £500 million of taxpayers’ money to those who are entitled to small business rate relief, which is what has happened in Cornwall over the past 10 years, it would be far better to invest that money in desperately needed first homes for local families in desperate housing need, rather than give it to second home owners? Would he be prepared to meet me, so that we can establish a better method of achieving housing justice through tax policy?
James Murray
I am happy to hear from the hon. Gentleman about how he will support our home-building plans in his constituency and across the country. We know that the most important thing to tackle the housing crisis is to support the reforms that this Government are making to the planning system to make sure we can build 1.5 million new homes and invest £39 billion in our 10-year affordable homes programme—the biggest in a generation.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The Government are delivering on the priorities of the British people. Yesterday, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that the UK was the fastest-growing G7 nation in the first quarter of this year. Since the election, this Labour Government have brought £120 billion of private investment into our economy. There have been four interest rate cuts, lowering the cost of mortgages, and 384,000 new jobs—more than 1,000 jobs a day—since this Government were elected. Real wages increased more in the first 10 months of this Labour Government than they did in the first 10 years of the last Conservative Government, and we have a £1,400 pay rise for a full-time worker on the national living wage. That is the difference that this Government are making after 14 years of mismanagement by the Conservatives.
John Lamont
The award-winning bookshop and deli Mainstreet Trading Company in St Boswells has been forced to reduce its operating hours because
“increases to employer national insurance mean that our operating cost base has increased significantly.”
What advice does the Chancellor have for small businesses suffering because of this Labour Government’s reckless decisions?
Rachel Reeves
This Government increased the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500, and that means 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance at all. Indeed, half of employers will either gain or see no change. It was also welcome that the Lloyds business barometer showed business confidence at a nine-year high, with a particular uptick in retail. I cannot comment on an individual business, but that is the system nationwide.
Mr Speaker
This is topicals; we have got to get going. Brian Leishman will set a good example.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
There is £200 million available, and the Government will look at all proposals for investing it.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
The winter fuel payment U-turn will cost £1.25 billion, and the welfare reform U-turn will cost £2.5 billion, all adding to Labour’s unfunded black hole. This is from a Chancellor who said that she would never make a spending commitment without explaining where the money was coming from—yet another U-turn. The Chancellor has also said that her fiscal rules are iron-clad and non-negotiable. Can she reconfirm that commitment now, or are we heading for yet another U-turn?
Rachel Reeves
I would take that a bit more seriously if the Conservatives were not voting against the welfare reforms this evening, and if they had not committed to fully reversing the winter fuel changes, which would cost a further £400 million that they cannot explain. I am always grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, because he always offers a useful lesson in what not to do. Even George Osborne now says that the shadow Chancellor has “no credible economic plan”. I will give the shadow Chancellor this: he knows a thing or two about welfare spending, because under his watch, the UK became the only country in the G7 with an unemployment rate stuck below pre-pandemic levels. Under his watch, the cost of working-age inactivity rose by £15.7 billion a year.
Sir Mel Stride
The House will note that the right hon. Lady did not categorically rule out the possibility of changing the fiscal rules in the autumn. Given that, will she at least confirm that she stands by her commitment not to raise the rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT in the autumn? Is it a yes, or is it another potential U-turn?
Rachel Reeves
We made a commitment in our manifesto not to increase the key taxes that working people pay, and we stick by those commitments because, unlike the Conservative party, we stick by our manifesto.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
We understand the importance of in-person banking, in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere, which is why we secured a commitment from the industry to roll out 350 banking hubs across the United Kingdom. I am leading the work on a financial inclusion strategy, which we will publish later in the year and which emphasises the importance of access to banking, and I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
More than 50% of local authorities are having to overspend on the dedicated schools grant to cover the rising costs of SEND services, and the increasing demand for inter-authority borrowing has pushed up interest rates. May I urge the Chancellor to consider, as a matter of urgency—even before the Government publish their White Paper on special educational needs and disabilities—introducing a concessionary interest rate, perhaps at the same level as the Public Works Loan Board rate, so that councils do not have to raise council tax just to serve their interest payments and can spend the money on frontline services instead?
Rachel Reeves
The hon. Lady, and other Members, will have seen the reference in the spending review to a real-terms uplift in schools spending in every single year of the current Parliament, as well as additional capital investment to help rebuild the schools whose roofs were literally crumbling under the last Conservative Government. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary will publish a Green Paper on SEND reform in the autumn, and we have extended local authorities’ statutory override for SEND education for a further two years while we bring in those reforms. This Government want to ensure that mainstream schools are more inclusive for all children.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Rachel Reeves
As my hon. Friend will know, in last year’s Budget we got rid of the non-dom tax status, increased capital gains tax, put VAT on private school fees and ended the loophole for private equity, as well as introducing further measures, in order to raise £40 billion. As a result, we are investing £300 billion more than would have been raised under the plans that we inherited from the Conservative party. Ours is the only country where—
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Rachel Reeves
We are increasing transport investment by 1.9% in real terms after HS2 in every year of the spending review period. We are also extending the bus fare cap, which is particularly beneficial to rural areas.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
The Government agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. At the end of the current Parliament, people will be better off as a consequence of the decisions that this Labour Government are making. We have already increased the national living wage by 6.7% to benefit 3 million people, while full-time workers are seeing an increase of about £1,400 a year in their wages.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Rachel Reeves
I am sure that the relevant Health Minister would be happy to meet representatives of the hospice. The Health Secretary set out the settlement for hospices at the end of last year to compensate financially for the increases in national insurance, but those increases in national insurance are funding the NHS, which helps fund our hospices.
Frank McNally (Coatbridge and Bellshill) (Lab)
This Government delivered a record real-terms settlement for Scotland at the spending review, so it was deeply concerning to hear from the Scottish Government last week that there is a £2.6 billion black hole in the public finances, which could see NHS spend reduce by 12%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the SNP’s long-standing record of fiscal mismanagement must end, and that Scottish Ministers must ensure that the funding gets to the struggling Scottish public services?
Darren Jones
This Labour Government in Westminster are delivering for the people of Scotland. As a consequence of our spending review, Scotland will receive an average of £50.9 billion per year over this Parliament—the largest real-terms increase in funding since devolution began. The only reason there is a black hole in the budget in Scotland is because of the SNP Government, and the people of Scotland need a new direction with a Labour Government in Scotland.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Darren Jones
On behalf of the House, may I thank social care workers for the service they provide in all our constituencies? As a result of this Labour Government commitment’s to social workers and the social care system, we will have increased funding for social care by £4 billion by 2028-29 through the local government settlements, and we will bring forward a fair pay agreement to make sure that there is a fair deal for those people serving our constituents on the frontline.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
The main beneficiaries of Brexit have been printers, because of all the extra paperwork that the previous Government created. The National Audit Office has estimated that their border arrangements have cost us £4.7 billion and rising, and the single trade window will add to the red tape. Does the Chancellor agree that the best way to reduce the paperwork requirements in the first place is to do a good deal with Europe, and will she update us on her progress on that?
James Murray
My hon. Friend will have seen the Prime Minister’s work to reset relations with the EU. She mentions the single trade window, and it is the Government’s intention to deliver that. More widely, the Government are committed to minimising the administrative burdens and frictions experienced by businesses trading internationally.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Rachel Reeves
The problem with the Conservatives is that they support all the funding, but they do not support any of the ways of funding it. Agricultural property relief means that estates worth more than £3 million will now be taxed at half the rate at which inheritance tax is usually charged. That can be repaid over a 10-year period, interest-free. I think that is the right and fair settlement, given the fiscal environment we face.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Economic Secretary is reviewing the work of the Financial Ombudsman Service. We on the Treasury Committee recognise that there have been challenges with the service, but how will she make sure that the consumer voice is central to her review?
Emma Reynolds
I have had meetings with Which? and other consumer representatives. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are reviewing FOS. We want to make sure that it is a simple, impartial dispute resolution service that quickly and effectively deals with complainants so that consumers can get a fair deal, but that financial services firms are not subject to a quasi-regulator in the way they are at the moment.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the question of pensioners’ living standards, and we are taking action right the way across the board to deal with that. She will have seen the increases in the state pension in April. We have seen nearly 60,000 extra awards for pension credit over the course of the year since last July, compared with the year previously. On her question about pre-1997 indexation, this issue was recently discussed at the Work and Pensions Committee, and we have set out our response to that Committee’s report.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Backing Rolls-Royce, a brilliant Derby business, to deliver small modular reactors with £2.5 billion of investment shows what Labour’s new industrial strategy is about—backing British business, creating more skilled jobs and delivering clean, secure energy. Does the Chancellor agree that, after years of chaos under the Conservatives, Britain is unashamedly open for business?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We are proud as a Government to back Rolls-Royce, and to have it as our preferred provider for the small modular reactor programme, resulting in lower bills and more good jobs, particularly in Derbyshire.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
From responses to my written parliamentary questions, we know that the median earner can expect to pay £273 more in tax this year under Labour. When the Chancellor sat on the Opposition Benches, she described freezing tax thresholds as “picking the pockets” of working people. Does the Chancellor accept that she is now the one picking the pockets of working people?
Rachel Reeves
In the Budget last year, we increased taxes by £40 billion, but without affecting the pay packets of ordinary working people. We did not increase their national insurance, their income tax or their VAT, and we did not go ahead with the wrong-headed increase in fuel duty that was put in place by the Conservative party. We are protecting working people; the Conservative party picked their pockets time and again.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Ports are engines for economic growth in sectors such as energy and critical minerals. Falmouth port, in the constituency neighbouring mine, is surrounded by massive tin and lithium deposits, and it has ambitious plans to play its part. In line with our manifesto commitment for a £1.5 billion ports fund, will the Chancellor outline what mechanisms the National Wealth Fund and GB Energy can deploy to invest in ports?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He will know that this Government have already invested through the National Wealth Fund in the tin mine in his constituency, bringing good-quality jobs paying decent wages to the people of Cornwall, as advocated by Cornish MPs. However, there is more we can do through the National Wealth Fund, including investing in our ports, which is absolutely vital for clean, cheap energy and for creating good jobs in this country, including in Cornwall.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
A recent freedom of information request has revealed that, for a number of schemes, HMRC has settled with large corporations for just 15% of what was owed. With the loan charge review ongoing, does the Chancellor agree with me that individuals should be treated no differently from the large corporations for which this precedent has been set?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; he has engaged with me about the loan charge previously. As he knows, there is an independent review of the loan charge at the moment, and I think it is important that I as a Minister do not comment on that. Let the independent reviewer complete his work and report back to us as a Government.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The loan charge scandal was absolutely awful and has devastated the lives of tens of thousands of people. It failed to be addressed under the last Government. Can the Minister please tell us what he is doing to make sure people are not still being sold this illegal product?
James Murray
I thank my hon. Friend very much for her question. I can reassure her that, alongside the loan charge review, the Government have published a consultation on a comprehensive package of measures to close in on the promoters of marketed tax avoidance schemes. As we know, these contrived schemes both deprive public services of funding and leave their clients with unexpected tax bills.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Does the Chancellor believe that the changes she has made to employer’s national insurance contributions will lead to higher levels of employment, or will they lead to higher levels of unemployment?
Rachel Reeves
Let us look at the record so far. There are 385,000 more jobs in the UK economy today than there were when Labour came to office a year ago, which is more than 1,000 jobs a day. So businesses are voting with their feet and taking on more workers, because of the policies of this Labour Government compared with the Tory policies that took our economy down.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
As people are living longer, they face more complex financial choices. The new, simplified advice regime announced by the Government and the Financial Conduct Authority yesterday is hugely welcome and will help more people make better informed investment decisions. Will the Minister provide more detail on the steps the Government will be taking to help firms deliver better advice at scale, especially to young people and the self-employed?
Emma Reynolds
We are really excited about targeted support, because it means that firms will be able to make suggestions to consumers with similarities, so that they have the confidence to invest in the long term and can get better support—not advice—on their pensions.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Further to that answer, will the Minister confirm that one of the regulatory barriers in that area are privacy and electronic communications regulations, which prevent firms from proactively reaching out to customers to offer targeted support? As part of the review, will she ensure that that specific regulatory change is made, so that that can happen?
Emma Reynolds
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are looking at that. We will make sure that firms can take advantage of suggesting targeted support to their consumers so that they are better off, can make more of their money and get a better pension, too.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Some 58% of investors think it is important that stocks and shares ISAs are invested in UK companies. Currently, it is estimated that £100 billion is held in the cash ISAs of people who do not have stocks and shares ISAs. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to encourage further investment in UK stocks and shares, and investment in UK companies?
Emma Reynolds
As we set out at the spring statement, we are looking at the balance between investments in cash and investments in stocks and shares in ISAs. We want to get that balance right. We understand the importance of a rainy day buffer in cash, but we need to give people the confidence to invest. That is a win-win: it is a win for them and a win for British companies listed on our stock exchange.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Jackie from Street suffers with Crohn’s disease, fibromyalgia and mental health issues. She worked for most of her life until ill health made it impossible. Under the reforms, she will lose her entitlement to personal independence payment and employment and support allowance, plunging her into poverty. Can the Chancellor give Jackie the reassurance she needs that she will not be left in poverty?
Rachel Reeves
Yes, I can absolutely give my assurance to Jackie, and to other people who are currently claiming PIP, that they will see absolutely no change in their entitlement. That is what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced to the Chamber yesterday: everybody who is currently on those benefits will see no change whatever. The Timms review, which will be co-produced with disabled people and those who represent them, will build a new system for the future.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that we are driving growth across every part of the country with investments at the spending review, including £15.6 billion for transport projects in city regions and additional support that I saw myself in Warwickshire with the launch of an electric bus fleet, including buses built at Alexander Dennis in this country; and that this shows a Government who are investing in the future prosperity of our country?
Rachel Reeves
It was great to be with my hon. Friend in Warwickshire just a couple of weeks ago to welcome some of the investment, through our industrial strategy and our spending review, which will turbocharge the British economy, creating more good jobs and paying decent wages in all parts of the country, including in Warwickshire.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Last week, ahead of the launch of its ethnicity code, the Lending Standards Board announced it would be closing, following the withdrawal of support from major high street banks. This was going to be a groundbreaking step towards tackling the barriers that ethnic minority business owners face in accessing finance. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the ethnicity code is implemented, supported and scaled, so that its principles are embedded across the financial sector?
Emma Reynolds
I am aware of the situation. I reassure the hon. Lady that the Government are committed to ensuring that firms continue to deliver good customer outcomes, now and in the future, with proportionate regulation and oversight. I am happy to engage with her in more detail on the subject she mentions.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Will the Chancellor please provide an update on the invaluable Viking CCS project in the Humber?
Rachel Reeves
At the spending review, we were able to build on the investment we had already made in Merseyside and Teesside with Track-1 of carbon capture and storage, and put investment into both the Acorn project in Scotland and Viking CCS in the Humber to support the Government’s ambitions for Britain to lead the way in carbon capture and storage, creating more good jobs in all parts of the country, including in Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes.
Parental Leave Review
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s manifesto commitment to review the system of entitlements to parental leave.
This Government are dedicated to delivering more for working families, and our plan to make work pay is central to achieving that, with the mission to grow the economy, raise living standards across the country and create opportunities for all. It will help people to stay in work, improve job security and boost living standards, which includes helping working parents and supporting them to balance their work and home lives.
Parental leave and pay entitlements play a key role in that. We know that the arrival of a child, whether through birth or adoption, is a transformative time in a family’s life. We also know that the current parental leave system does not support modern, diverse working families as well as it could. Parents’ groups and campaigners have long argued that our paternity leave is too short and compares poorly with other countries. While shared parental leave is available to families where fathers and partners want to take a longer period of leave, evidence shows that take-up is very low, with the parental rights survey reporting that 1% of mothers and 4% of fathers use this entitlement. The survey also showed that 35% of fathers do not take paternity leave for financial reasons.
We are committed to improving the parental leave system and are already taking action. Improving the system will have the added benefit of increasing workforce participation by helping employers to fill vacancies and will contribute to increased productivity, benefiting the economy.
The Employment Rights Bill is one vehicle through which we are improving the parental leave system. The Bill makes paternity leave and parental leave day one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of their intent to take leave from their first day of employment. It contains a number of other measures that will improve the support that working families receive. It will put in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave and mothers who come back to work for a six-month period after they return, except in specific circumstances. It will also make flexible working the default, except where it is not reasonably feasible, and requires that all large employers produce action plans that contribute to closing the gender pay gap.
I am pleased to announce that the Government are going further and taking another step forward in delivering improvements for working families. I am pleased to launch the parental leave review today, fulfilling our commitment in the plan to make work pay to review the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports working families. The review is part of delivering the plan for change, and links two of the Government’s missions: kick-starting economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. The work of the review will support the Government’s commitments to raise living standards and give children the best start in life, and links to work being undertaken to alleviate child poverty. It presents a much-needed opportunity to consider our approach to the system of parental leave and pay, giving due consideration to balancing costs and benefits to both businesses and the Exchequer. I welcome the opportunity today to provide the House with more detail on the review.
The review will be co-led by the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Work and Pensions, the two Departments with the main responsibility for the current parental leave framework. There will, however, be close working across Government to deliver this review to reflect the wide influence the parental leave system has on policies in other Departments.
The current system has grown up gradually over time. The first maternity arrangements were set out in the Factory and Workshop Act 1891, which introduced the idea that women who work in factories cannot work for four weeks after giving birth. Subsequent entitlements have been added to support specific groups as needs have emerged, which has created a framework that does not always work cohesively as a whole. This piecemeal approach to parental leave and pay means that the system has never had an overarching set of objectives that it should deliver. This review presents an opportunity to reset our approach to and understanding of parental leave and pay, and what we want the system to achieve.
We will use the review to establish what Britain needs from a parental leave and pay system to support our modern economy and deliver improvements for working families. We have set out four objectives as our starting point, which we intend to test as we progress the review to ensure we are truly reflecting the needs of the nation.
Our first objective is to support the physical and mental health of women during pregnancy and after giving birth to a child. Our second objective is to support economic growth by enabling more parents to stay in work and advance in their careers after starting a family. This will focus on improving both women’s labour market outcomes and tackling the gender pay gap.
Our third objective is to ensure that there are sufficient resources and time away from work to support new and expectant parents’ wellbeing. This will include facilitating the best start in life for babies and young children, and supporting health and development outcomes. Our fourth objective is to support parents to make balanced childcare choices that work for their family situation, including enabling co-parenting, and providing flexibility to reflect the realities of modern work and childcare needs.
Three cross-cutting considerations will also be factored into our review. The first is to build a fair parental leave system between parents within a family, different types of parents and parents with different employment statuses. The second consideration is to balance costs and benefits to businesses and the Exchequer, as well as to examine how the system can support economic opportunities for businesses and families. As part of this, the review will consider opportunities to make the process surrounding parental leave simpler for both businesses and parents. The final cross-cutting consideration focuses on improving our society—for example, by supporting the child poverty strategy, and by shifting social and gender norms, including around paternal childcare.
All current and upcoming parental leave and pay entitlements will be in the scope of the review. This will enable us to consider how the parental leave and pay system should operate as a complete system to improve the support available for working families. This broad scope means that the review will consider the individual existing entitlements, and how best to ensure improvements can be delivered for working families, as well as related wider issues and themes. For example, the review will consider whether the support available meets the needs of other working families who do not qualify for existing statutory leave and pay entitlements, such as kinship carers and self-employed parents. It will also consider how the pay system works more broadly.
This will be an evidence-based review that reflects and considers the perspectives and experiences of those who engage with the parental leave and pay system. We welcome views from, and intend to engage constructively with, a wide range of external stakeholders, including groups such as trade unions that represent both parents and families, and employers or employer representatives. There will be opportunities for stakeholders to contribute views and expertise throughout the review, including through a call for evidence, which launches today. This call for evidence seeks initial evidence specifically in relation to the objectives that will set the foundation for what we want our system to deliver.
The review launches today. We expect it to run for a period of 18 months. The Government will conclude the review with a set of findings and a road map, including next steps for taking any potential reforms forward to implementation. This is an important step forward to ensure that our workplaces are fit for the 21st century, and I commend this statement to the House.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement.
From personal experience—as a father of three—I understand the importance of fathers being able to spend time at home with their newborns and supporting mothers in those early days. Having experienced paternity leave both as a Member of Parliament in 2020 and 2021 as well as in very different circumstances in 2016 while self-employed, I am proud that the UK already offers some of the most generous maternity and paternity rights, but of course there is always room for improvement.
The Conservatives introduced shared parental leave, allowing new parents to spend precious time caring for their newborns. It is therefore with interest that we digest the contents of this ministerial statement today, but I do have deep reservations about both its substance and its timing. I understand that the Government pledged that this review would be done and dusted within a year—another broken promise—but it is curious that they have chosen today of all days to launch it.
I am in no doubt that today’s statement has been rushed into the Minister’s hands to deflect from what I suspect will be a difficult day of parliamentary business for the Government. That much is clear, as the Secretary of State was entirely incapable of confirming the current rates of statutory paternity pay on LBC this morning. I welcome the fact that he apologised to Nick Ferrari in admitting that he really should know—perhaps the Minister can set the record straight for his boss today.
I wish to take this opportunity to make it crystal clear that Conservatives are not opposed to increased parental leave, as long as it is proportionate, affordable and does not increase unemployment. Therein lies the problem, because this Government have left themselves no breathing room. Their political choices have imposed the most significant headwinds on business in a generation. Those choices have driven unemployment up by 173,000 since July last year. Businesses across the land are contending with taxes on jobs that Labour promised would never come, and now they are staring down the barrel of 300 pages of closely typed, union-led, red tape in the unemployment Bill, which will upset a carefully balanced and fair relationship between employees and employers that has spanned decades. Even Tony Blair and Gordon Brown refused to open that box. No real business supports that Bill. The five biggest business groups have warned against it. It will make hiring tougher, and force employers to take fewer risks on new starters, disproportionately pushing young mothers out of the workforce. Flexible working will be almost entirely eviscerated from Britain’s job market.
The reasonable measures from which employers and employees have benefited for years have allowed businesses to take a chance on new hires. We already know that businesses across the UK have had no choice but to cut jobs, reduce hours or put hiring on pause because of the Chancellor’s toxic treatment of enterprise. If it is helpful, I can spell this out for the benefit of those on the Government Front Bench. It really is quite straightforward: it is not possible to benefit from employment rights if people do not have a job in the first place. With that in mind, it deeply concerns me that the Minister’s statement made only a passing mention of the impact on businesses. That comes as no surprise as not one person around the Cabinet table has any real business experience.
The Government have admitted that this review, which they said would be squared away by now, will take 18 months. Over the next 18 months, we will watch the ravaging impacts of Labour’s anti-business policies transform from a drip to a deluge. With the jobs tax, the business rates relief cut, investment and capital forced overseas, the Employment Rights Bill and the family business death tax, unemployment will continue to rise, businesses will close and any chance of growth will be sapped from our economy. It is all well and good that the Minister announces this review in the House today, but let us be in no doubt that, when it concludes in 18 months’ time, Britain’s economy will have been stripped of all signs of life because of the choices Labour has made.
Justin Madders
I take it that the shadow Minister is not in support of the review. May I correct him on a few points? Of course it is not a coincidence that this is being announced today; our manifesto was clear that we would launch the review within one year of taking office, and, of course, this week we do celebrate that astounding election victory. On his point about statutory paternity pay, it is £187.18. We know from representations that we have already received that many do not think that that is the right level. He mentioned how Tony Blair and Gordon Brown refused to open this box, but it was their Government who gave us the right to statutory paternity pay and a number of other family-friendly rights, of which the shadow Minister himself has taken advantage.
I think we know where the Conservative party stands on these issues when their leader says that maternity pay has gone too far. I do not quite know what she meant by that, but I think it means that the Conservatives would be rolling back some of the well-earned gains in family-friendly policies.
The shadow Minister, as I would expect, does not miss an opportunity to mention the Employment Rights Bill. May I suggest that he has a word with his shadow Secretary of State who clearly has not read it? I refer to his recent open letter to businesses in which he mentioned a number of issues with the Bill. First, he complained that we are creating the fair work agency, conveniently forgetting that in both the 2017 and 2019 Conservative party manifestos, there was a similar pledge to create a single enforcement body. He referred to an introductory measure on electronic industrial action balloting. The Conservatives, of course, will be big fans of electronic voting given the number of leadership elections in which they have taken part in recent years. The shadow Minister needs to inform his shadow Secretary of State that that is not in the Bill. I do not know where he thinks that has come from. We are going to introduce electronic balloting, but it is not in the Employment Rights Bill, because we already have existing powers to implement it.
In that open letter, the shadow Secretary of State mentions, most curiously, that the Bill will include
“a trade union ‘right to roam’”.
I do not know if he was searching for a new mobile phone contract at the time, but no such right exists.
The shadow Minister talked about the effects on appointments, but he needs to keep up to date: the latest Lloyds business barometer says that business confidence is now at a nine-year high and that 60% of firms expect higher staffing levels in the next year. That is a sign that this Government are getting things done.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is great to see so many hon. Members, with almost every party represented but one: there are four empty seats where the Reform UK MPs sit. They like to bang on about family values, but when it comes to actually standing up for dads and for parents, they are nowhere to be seen.
I thank the Minister for acting on the importance of shared parental leave. On paternity leave, as someone who had a caesarean section, I was so grateful to my husband’s employers for granting him more than two weeks’ leave; as everyone knows, mothers are not meant to lift even a kettle for six weeks after a c-section, which makes things impossible. However, we also know that not everybody is that fortunate, and that is especially true for self-employed people. The Women and Equalities Committee took evidence on parental leave and heard that nearly a third of self-employed dads and other parents did not take a single day’s leave following the birth of their child, so how will this review ensure that self-employed parents’ needs will be taken into account?
Justin Madders
I thank the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee for her contribution. She raises an important point and we are studying her Committee’s recent report on the issue with interest. It is important that we look at how people in different forms of employment are able to take advantage of parental leave, in one form or another. That is important not just for providing physical assistance in the circumstances that my hon. Friend mentioned, but because the parent should be there, if they can, to bond with the child in those early weeks, and the review will definitely consider that.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to the much-needed review on parental leave. Every child deserves the best possible start in life and the opportunity to flourish, no matter their background or personal circumstances. Too often, parents struggle on inadequate parental pay and without good enough access to shared leave. Childcare costs are eye-watering, and the balance between family life and work has only become harder to strike.
The Liberal Democrats have been calling for an overhaul of the parental leave system, to give parents a genuine choice about how they manage their responsibilities in the first months of their child’s life. If I could gently correct the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), it was the Liberal Democrats who were proud to introduce shared parental leave in government. However, years later, millions of parents are still being denied the choice to spend more time at home, with around a quarter of fathers ineligible for paternity pay.
As we welcome this review into parental leave, I urge the Government to look more broadly into the prevalent inequality in caring responsibilities. What steps are they taking to support the millions of family carers who are looking after disabled or elderly relatives and who have no paid leave at all? Will they commit to a similar review into provision for unpaid carers and to make carer’s leave paid? Will they commit to reviewing the needs of carers and those of the families who have taken on kinship caring responsibilities? I welcome that commitment in the statement today, but do the Government plan to introduce statutory kinship care leave?
We call on the Government to use the review to finally deliver meaningful reforms that address the long-standing concerns of carers and their loved ones, as well as making changes to the circumstances of working families that can make parenting a joy rather than a burden, and end the dilemma of having to choose between work and family.
Justin Madders
I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ support for this review. The hon. Lady is right to point out that it was the coalition Government who introduced shared parental leave, although that is the first time in a long time that we have heard anyone admit that they were part of the coalition Government. She raised some very important points, a number of which will be covered by the carer’s leave review, which is also taking place. Kinship caring will be a part of that. I know that the Liberal Democrats have a long-standing policy on carer’s leave and pay, and the review will be cognisant of that.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
As I welcome the Minister’s announcement, I think of the HGV driver who I met recently who said that he was not able to take time off to be with his partner and their newborn baby. Will the Minister assure me and all my constituents that the new rights will work for working-class people as well as people on higher incomes in professional jobs? Does he agree that today’s announcement, along with our announcements on free school meals, childcare and housing, make it clear that the Labour party is the party of the family?
Justin Madders
One of the real achievements of the last Labour Government was to recognise that giving children the best start in life is fundamental to rebuilding our society, and that is at the heart of what we have proposed today. My hon. Friend raises an important point that these entitlements have an element of income inequality to them, which we will bear in mind. One message we heard very clearly is that many fathers would like to take more paternity leave but simply cannot afford to do so, and we will be looking at that as part of the review.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Having a child is a personal choice, and it is a blessing that I have enjoyed five times. Becoming old, sick or disabled are not personal choices, yet we have had cuts to the winter fuel allowance and we are about to discuss a controversial Bill that would remove a large element of the support that we currently give to sick and disabled people. What does that say about the Government’s priorities?
Justin Madders
The right hon. Member will know that the winter fuel allowance has been restored for many people in this country, and the Chancellor has given a clear commitment that any existing PIP claimants will not be affected by the measures in the Bill. As part of the review by Sir Charlie Mayfield, we are looking in the round at how we ensure that people are able to be supported to stay in work, and I hope that the Conservatives would support that.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. As a dad, I know from two very recent experiences how valuable paternity leave is for fathers. Good companies also know that, as Tesco and other good employers have already increased their employee paternity leave offers because they know that a good workforce is a happy workforce. May I encourage the Minister to actively pursue those companies to ensure that their data and insights are fed into the review, with a view to permanently increased paternity leave?
Justin Madders
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his recent parenthood and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), who I understand is on paternity leave as we speak. My hon. Friend makes an important point about good businesses understanding the importance of treating their staff well. I draw the House’s attention to a quote from the chief people officer for Aviva, which operates a progressive parental leave policy. He said:
“The chance to spend more time with a new arrival during the important first few months has proved to be hugely beneficial for thousands of our Aviva parents. From supporting their partners, to the positive impact it has on mental wellbeing and engagement with family life, equal parental leave has been literally life-changing for our people.”
We want to encourage businesses to look at those sorts of things. I am sure some other firms will be doing equally well, and we are happy to hear any evidence on those matters.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
As someone who is about to welcome their second child into the world—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you very much. I am delighted to be discussing parental leave and I welcome this review. The Minister said that one objective of the review is to reset the relationship between men and women—I paraphrase—and to make that more equal. May I gently suggest that while the measures set out are necessary, they are insufficient? To get to the heart of that matter, we need to look at early years funding. When £6.12 is provided by the Government for early years provision, but providers, such as the Little Learning Tree in my constituency, say that it costs £7.50 to deliver, we have a problem. The parental leave review will not get to the heart of that matter, so will the Minister consider including the Department for Education in the review to get to the heart of equality between men and women?
Justin Madders
The hon. Member raises an important point. The Government have clearly done great work already in expanding the availability of affordable childcare, but there is always more to do. This specifically will not be part of the review, but I can confirm that we will be working with other Departments to see how their input can help to achieve the outcomes we want from the review.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The fathers who met me in Haslingden will welcome the review and the Minister’s announcement, but in conversations I have had I have been struck by the difficulties faced by some of our public sector workers, with teachers almost forced back perhaps a week—if they had been able to take that—after a holiday period, and police officers facing particular challenges with parental leave and paternity rights. Will the Minister reassure me that those important issues will be squarely within the terms of the review and that he will be looking to make progress on them?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend raises concerning issues about the culture of some employers who possibly do not see the value of parental and paternity leave. We all know that recruitment and retention is an issue in teaching, and in particular there are not enough male teachers. That is a challenge, and maybe one thing behind that is the cultural shift that we need to see. I am sure that those comments can be fed in.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
My constituent Christina Harris sadly lost her job when she had to take time off to care for her seriously ill daughter Skye, who I am pleased to report is now in remission. Christina started a parliamentary petition calling for employers to hold open the jobs of those parents who, through no fault of their own, have to take time off to care for a seriously ill child—a bit like maternity leave in principle. She achieved a debate in Westminster Hall in February, which the Minister replied to. He then kindly met her some weeks later and, if I may say so—I was there—he dealt with her incredibly empathetically and listened carefully to what she said.
As the Minister said, the review will have a “broad scope”. Can he offer any hope to my constituent Christina Harris with regards to her idea and to the approximately 4,000 parents each year who through no fault of their own find themselves in similar circumstances?
Justin Madders
It was indeed a pleasure to meet the right hon. Member’s constituent Christina. She raised an important issue, which we know is not isolated. As he will know, a carer’s leave review is being undertaken, and that is probably the more appropriate forum for this issue, but I know that he will continue to campaign passionately on this matter and I look forward to that further engagement.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
May I first pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Business Secretary, along with many others, for leading from the front on the importance of their role as fathers? I truly believe that paternity leave is the single most important area where the Government can improve the lives of families and women, too. I hope that we can get to providing six weeks’ paternity leave paid by the Government at 90% of pay. Employee support, though, will be critical to making that a success. Does the Minister agree that the review is an opportunity to engage and provide clarity to businesses on how to work with paternity leave and parental leave?
Justin Madders
One thing that has become clear, not particularly in relation to paternity leave but in relation to shared parental leave, is that employers often find it difficult to navigate the system, never mind the parents. We will be considering and looking at that as part of the review.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Only 3% of women surveyed by Maternity Action had no financial worries during the course of their pregnancy. Given how awful that statistic is, will the Minister commit to listening to people with lived experience and co-producing the outcomes of the review with them?
Justin Madders
The hon. Member makes an important point. We will of course be taking representations from all interested parties. A call for evidence is now live and will be up for a period of eight weeks, and we encourage any bodies that have important things to say to feed those in as part of the process.
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
Alongside the Government’s actions on increasing the provision of affordable, available and accessible childcare, I strongly welcome this review as a real step forward. Does the Minister agree that, for many, the complexities of the system form a real barrier to accessing it, and that for low-paid workers in particular the provision of unpaid leave makes it simply unaffordable? Will he give a commitment that the review will have at its heart true system accessibility so that people can take proper advantage of it and benefit along with their children?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend, as a new father himself, will know about the system. He rightly referred to the complexity of the system and the lack of availability and opportunity, particularly for those in low-paid occupations, as well as those who are not directly employed. Those are all things that we will be considering as part of the review.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is of course to be welcomed that the Government are looking at how best to support families of all shapes and sizes in the early weeks and months of a child’s life. I know that the Minister is aware that there is currently a gap for those who are self-employed looking to grow their family through adoption, because he and I have corresponded on the matter. I listened carefully to his comments. He talked about adoption and about self-employment, but I wonder whether he could give constituents like Kirsty from Marple the reassurance she is looking for that an explicit stream of this work will look at self-employed adopters, who currently do not get any financial support from the Government.
Justin Madders
As the hon. Member said, she has raised this very important point before. Having had some recent involvement in the adoption system myself, I understand that it does not really fit into the current rights system. It is important that we look at that in the round and, as I have mentioned, those currently excluded from the system altogether because they are self-employed or in some other working relationship that does not fit within the statutory parameters will also be considered.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I very much welcome the review. I think most people in the Chamber—with some exceptions—recognise that supporting families and children is in our national interest, and I am very pleased to hear the Government recognise that parental leave is just not enough right now, particularly for dads, and to give a commitment on that. I am concerned about the timescale for when we will be able to make progress on the issue and the implications for mothers, who may face more discrimination if they have protected rights and dads do not. Given that there is a general consensus that we need to do more to support fathers, will the Minister accept as a holding measure the amendment tabled in the Lords by Baroness Penn on introducing the Women and Equalities Committee’s recommendation to bring in by the end of the Parliament a right to six weeks’ parental leave for the second parent paid at 90% of salary, so that we can make a difference for every parent within this lifetime?
Justin Madders
If I was to accept specific recommendations at this point, that would be rather pre-empting the review, but I do hear the arguments that have been made. Obviously, the other place will decide how it wants to proceed with various amendments to the Employment Rights Bill—I just hope that it hurries up with it.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
May I add my voice to welcoming the review as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for fatherhood? It is a step in the right direction in correcting a decade of Tory failure on this issue. The Tories thought that giving dads two weeks of paternity leave and allowing them to break it up into one-week chunks was progress.
I note that fathers were not in the four objectives announced by the Minister. Does he accept that we cannot achieve those four objectives without better paternity leave and pay? For example, we cannot achieve good physical and mental health of women after birth without addressing the rights of fathers and birthing partners. If he accepts that, will he agree to meet the APPG throughout the review?
Justin Madders
I am of course happy to meet the APPG as part of the review. The hon. Member said that there was no explicit reference to fathers in the four objectives, but I suggest that our general references to parents do include fathers. For example, the second objective is to support economic growth by enabling more parents to stay in work, and the fourth objective is to support parents to make balanced childcare choices that work for their family situation, including by enabling co-parenting. I believe that clearly addresses his point.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
As the father of twins, I saw the impact of that, with increased complexity from children being born early or with disability and the mental health aspects of leaving your loved one at home with multiples when you go back to work. In the wider review, could we look at the mental health aspects for mothers, particularly in cases of multiple births?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I have not considered whether there needs to be an additional approach for multiple births, but I am happy to see any evidence that he submits on behalf of that particular group as part of the review.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Everyone will know that I want to see life-affirming laws restored to the United Kingdom. Therefore, underpinning the birth of a child with adequate parental leave is of the utmost importance, given the important needs before and after birth. Will the Minister confirm that the review will look at the issue of premature births and at ensuring that mums and dads who are blessed to have a premmie baby are not disadvantaged? Will he also ensure that learning here is related to Northern Ireland and the devolved Assembly, so that it too can make progress in that regard?
Justin Madders
We of course want to work with all devolved nations on such important matters, and it is fair to say that we hope that any changes or improvements that are made are spread throughout the nation.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
welcome the review. We should also recognise that the journey to becoming a parent is not straightforward, with the equivalent of one child in every UK classroom born through IVF. As he knows, and as we have discussed, there are glaring gaps in employment law, with no statutory right to fertility treatment. Will the review look at that and recognise that sometimes we also need leave to become a parent?
Justin Madders
I recognise my hon. Friend’s comments and her long-standing campaign on the issue. IVF is much more commonplace than it was when these laws were originally introduced and the process of securing pregnancy in those situations is a very different issue. I am afraid that it is not part of the review because we are looking at what happens at the point of birth, but I am happy to continue to engage with her on the wider points.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
A key barrier for many women returning to the workplace after starting a family is the challenge of balancing work with feeding their child. There is a lack of facilities in many workplaces, with no provision for expressing or storing breast milk. Will the review consider improving provisions for breastfeeding parents and the need for individuals to be given breaks to do so?
Justin Madders
That is an interesting point that is slightly outside the scope of the review, because it is more about how people are dealt with in the workplace. This is really about ensuring that we have the structures in place to ensure that people can balance their parenting needs with the ability to carry on in work and make the most of those opportunities. However, I am happy to correspond with the hon. Lady on the matter because she raises an interesting point.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
As a supporter of The Dad Shift campaign, I wholeheartedly welcome this statement. One of my constituents told me that after the birth of both his children, his wife had complications. The first time around, he was able to take only two weeks off and then had to return to his 40-mile commute, leaving his wife to recover while caring for a newborn. The second time around, his employer had been bought out by a Belgian firm, so he was able to take far longer off to fully support his wife. Does the Minister agree that boosting paternity leave entitlement would go a long way towards closing the gender pay gap?
Justin Madders
I have met The Dad Shift and held an event in my constituency. The group puts forward an articulate case as to why paternity leave is falling down. I reflect on my own experiences some time ago. My first child was born before paternity leave was introduced—yes, I am that old—and my second was born after paternity leave had been enabled in law. The experiences were like chalk and cheese, and that speaks to the importance of enabling fathers to have some of that time off in those early, crucial weeks.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I welcome the review and, in particular, the fact that it will look at leave for kinship carers. The Minister knows that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have long campaigned for statutory paid leave for kinship carers, given their sacrifice and given how many fall out of the workforce when they take on those responsibilities. May I press him that within the 18-month timeline for the whole review, he might look to fast-forward kinship care leave? The economic case, both short and long-term, is so strong that, frankly, he ought to be able to move on that aspect quicker than some of the others he has to consider.
Justin Madders
I recognise the consistent campaigning on that particular issue and pay tribute to the work that kinship carers have done to take on those responsibilities. There is an articulate case made about their contribution to society as a whole. However, it would not be appropriate for us to short-circuit the review by dealing with particular groups; we need to look at the system as a whole. In fact, one of the deficiencies in the current system is that it has been built up piecemeal over many years and does not have the holistic approach that we are now seeking to introduce.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
It is 55 years—over half a century—since the Equal Pay Act 1970, yet women are still paid less than men. The phrase I read 20 years ago about childcare being “catastrophic for women’s careers” could still be quoted today. The Employment Rights Bill that this Government have brought forward ensures that businesses do not just publish their gender pay gap; they will now have to do something about it, with mandatory action plans. Will the Minister tell us how today’s parental leave review will help further reduce the gender pay gap and finally deliver equality for working women?
Justin Madders
May I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her consistent campaigning on this issue? She is right to point out that the Employment Rights Bill has important advances in that area. The review will also, I hope, have a positive impact on the gender pay gap. In particular, the review’s second objective is to ensure that we enable parents
“to stay in work and advance in their careers after starting a family”.
That will focus in particular on the women’s labour market and its outcomes, and of course on tackling the gender pay gap.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Today’s statement is positive and I thank the Minister for it. The fact that parents cannot share leave leaves a sense of there being one primary caregiver, which is not an accurate picture of most households in this day and age. Indeed, more than 50% of households in Northern Ireland are dual income, meaning that childcare needs are shared. Will the Minister and the Government, in the pilot scheme, consider ensuring that mothers and fathers can use the leave between them as needed, as opposed to the leave being used by one parent solely? Will he commit to that being part of the review?
Justin Madders
As always, it is a pleasure to hear from the hon. Gentleman. He raises an important point about how the current shared parental leave system is not working. We have seen that the percentage of people taking advantage of that is in the low single figures. We are aware of that and will be looking at it closely as part of the review.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the review, as I know will families and dads in St Helens North. I am also sure that Jay White, who runs the Dad Matters organisation in St Helens, which supports new dads and is doing a great job, will warmly welcome it as well. With dads across the country and, as we have already heard, across the Chamber, I have been supporting The Dad Shift campaign, saying that two weeks are not enough. I know from personal experience, and from speaking to dads across St Helens, that it is not enough. Will the Minister confirm for the benefit of dads in St Helens North and elsewhere that the current state of paternity leave, including consultation with employers, will be a key focus for the review?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify the current paternity leave measures as being of concern to fathers and, indeed, to all parents across the country. That will certainly be a large focus of the review.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that, as well as being good for parents and for children, ensuring that dads are able to spend an appropriate amount of time off with their newborn children would be good for our economy, good for productivity and good for businesses too?
Justin Madders
Yes, I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s proposition. Indeed, we have consistently said through the passage of the Employment Rights Bill that treating the workforce well, giving them proper support and ensuring security at work, is the way to prosperity in this country.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Having raised with the Minister the need to do more on paternity and kinship leave in particular, I very much welcome today’s statement and the upcoming landmark review. I recently had the pleasure of hosting a number of parents at the Victoria pub in Hitchin to talk about the challenges caused by the current paternity leave framework. It was particularly heartbreaking to hear one man’s story. He was an expectant father and he talked about the impact it was already starting to have on him. Ahead of the birth, his wife was a high-risk case, so he was already having to take significant leave in advance of the birth. He was worried that this would deprive him of his ability to be there in those crucial days after the birth—with the family, with his child and with that new mum who would desperately need his support. That cannot be right, so can I invite the Minister to Hitchin to have a pint and speak to local parents about the impact that this review could have on cases such as this?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend certainly knows how to get me to attend a constituency—with the offer of a pint—and I look forward to taking him up on that. He has raised an important point about medical issues. Obviously, there have been some recent changes in neonatal leave and care, which is a huge step forward, but we ought to discuss pre-delivery issues further, so I look forward to having that pint and that conversation.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
In his statement, the Minister mentioned the very low level of take-up of shared parental leave. Would he agree that that is partly due to the gap in pay between men and women, and that if we can normalise paternity leave in our society, that will help to make sure that both mams and dads have equal pay?
Justin Madders
That is an important point, and I expect we will be examining it as part of the call for evidence. I referred to the work that Aviva has done in this area. That organisation has clearly seen a culture shift, whereby it is now completely normal and acceptable—indeed, it is encouraged—for both parents to take their share of leave. We can all take lessons from that.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome today’s long overdue review of parental leave. The UK currently has among the lowest paternity leave in Europe, and that is not just a statistic; it is a real-life struggle for families up and down this country. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the review will look not only at the amount of leave but at the amount of salary provided during the period in order to protect those on the lowest wages? How will he go about ensuring that the voices of fathers, campaigning groups like the Dad Shift, and trade unions are heard in the review?
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the financial implications of this measure. Of course, we will engage with all the relevant organisations. The cost is important, and we have to balance the objectives we are trying to achieve with the cost to the Exchequer and to businesses. The review will be considering that in some detail.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the launch of the review. I recently held a dads’ drop-in event supported by the Dad Shift, where I heard from dads about examples of excellent employers doing the right thing, but also frustrations among the self-employed and those who run small and medium-sized enterprises about how complex and confusing the system can be. Can the Minister confirm that the voices of businesses of all sizes and of dads will be at the heart of this review? Also, can he give a message to his Government colleagues that Government Departments and organisations often lag behind the best of the employers in this country?
Justin Madders
This Government should be leading the way in these areas. If there are specific examples of where we can do better, I would be interested to discuss them with colleagues in other Departments. My hon. Friend is right to reference the complexity of these issues. We have heard that businesses, particularly small businesses, sometimes struggle to navigate all the paperwork, and that is something that the review will also be considering.
Clean Air (Human Rights)
Tuesday 1st July 2025
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberClean Air (Human Rights) Bill 2024-26 View all Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish the right to breathe clean air; to require the Secretary of State to achieve and maintain clean air in England; to make provision about environmental targets and minimum standards in relation to clean air; to make provision about the powers, duties and functions of public bodies in England in relation to air pollution; to give the Office for Environmental Protection additional powers and duties related to clean air; to require the Secretary of State to comply with the United Nations Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution; to require the Secretary of State and public authorities to apply specified environmental principles in carrying out their duties under this Act; and for connected purposes.
I am grateful for the chance to present the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, alongside cross-party colleagues. The Bill is about the right to breathe clean air, and the right to grow up and to grow old without stunted lungs, without preventable diseases like asthma, and without disabling and potentially lethal harm being done to our lungs, hearts and brains by preventable air pollution. We call this Bill Ella’s law because it is also about a little girl—a nine-year-old who made history and whose memory powers this campaign for environmental, social, and indeed racial justice. I am grateful to the many hon. and right hon. Members who are here to listen to her story today. Ella’s mother, Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah CBE, is also here in the Gallery, with Ella’s sister and brother, Sophia and Robert. I know that the whole family have many good friends in this House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
Ella Roberta Adoo-Kissi-Debrah had nearly 30 emergency hospital admissions between her first diagnosis of asthma at the age of six and her tragic death, aged just nine, on 15 February 2013. Throughout her illness there had been no mention of air pollution being a possible factor in her condition, and Ella’s original death certificate simply said that she had died of acute respiratory failure. Her mother Rosamund did not know why her lively, sporty and talented daughter had become so ill after being such a healthy child.
Years after Ella died, Rosamund began to ask questions and push for answers. The family lived close to the heaving South Circular Road in London—one of the busiest main roads in Europe. With the help of medical and scientific experts such as Professor Stephen Holgate, Rosamund began to realise that there could be a link between the high air pollution where they lived and the course of Ella’s illness. Together they began to ask: was air pollution responsible for Ella developing asthma in the first place, and were high pollution days responsible for triggering the repeated attacks and emergencies that eventually took her life? Taking new knowledge and evidence, working with legal professionals like Jocelyn Cockburn, a long road began to a new inquest and a landmark new death certificate that, for the first time in the world, cited air pollution.
In December 2020, deputy coroner Philip Barlow ruled for this change, and said that
“excessive levels of air pollution”
had made a “material contribution” to Ella’s death. In his report to prevent future deaths, he recommended that the Government should take note that there was no safe level for particulate matter and that World Health Organisation guidelines should be seen as minimum requirements. He said that legally binding targets based on them would reduce the number of deaths from air pollution in the UK, and highlighted the lack of public awareness and information about daily pollution levels. That is what this Bill will do: set targets in law, based on the very latest World Health Organisation guidelines, and provide a pathway to comply.
Ella’s illness began in 2010 and spanned a period when the area around her home experienced some of the highest levels of air pollution, consistent breaches of legal limits and terrible injustices. In 2010, that area should not have had anything like those levels of pollution. That is because, following intensive work by the campaigner and friend of Ella’s law, Simon Birkett, the founder of Clean Air in London, alongside environmental campaigners in Europe, European Commission directive 2008/50/EC had entered into force in June 2008.
That directive set limit values for annual average nitrogen dioxide concentrations in the air people breathe of 40 micrograms per metre cubed, and those limits should have been met by 1 January 2010. It also set the first limit values for small particulates, which are even more deadly at the smallest particle sizes and in much lower concentrations. In the UK we did not achieve these limits before 2010, when Ella’s illness began, or even soon after. Instead, this period was one of delay to clean air zones, deception by diesel car manufacturers and even a mayor putting glue on the roads next to the air quality monitoring stations on days when legal particulate limits might be breached. This was a true scandal and a tragedy.
I hope the Government are aware that the 2010 limits are still far from being fully reached in parts of England today. Their own projections say that parts of the country will not become compliant until 2029, 2032 or even 2045. Those legal limits were based on the 2005 air quality guidelines from the World Health Organisation. In 2021, the WHO halved its guideline for the smallest particulates and slashed its guideline for nitrogen dioxide from 40 micrograms per metre cubed to 10. A new EU directive entered into force for our neighbours in December 2024.
It is clear that we need something new here as well, and success is clearly possible. There has been much better action in recent years in some areas, notably London, and a good proportion of that has been due to the influence of Rosamund on the Mayor of London, as well as determined campaigning by groups like Mums for Lungs, the Healthy Air Coalition, Asthma + Lung UK, Clean Air in London, Friends of the Earth, ClientEarth and many others. We are making some progress, but to respect the right to breathe clean air, we must move faster and work more widely in the transition to clean heating, cleaner transport and cuts in pollution from aviation, farming and industry. The second best time to do the right thing is always now.
Last month, on Clean Air Day 2025, I was pleased alongside other MPs to meet doctors and campaigners, including Rosamund, on their walk and wheel to Parliament from Great Ormond Street hospital. They brought us the latest important medical evidence from the Royal College of Physicians, whose new report to MPs highlights and summarises evidence gained over the last decade, showing that there are now links between air pollution and almost every organ in the body and the diseases that affect them. It estimates that during 2025, 500 premature deaths per week will be attributable to air pollution, and calculates that there was an economic burden of £27 billion in 2019 due to healthcare costs, productivity losses and reduced quality of life. Above all, the report highlights how air pollution is a preventable public health threat. This Bill would give us the tools to prevent it, bringing the nearly 70-year-old Clean Air Act 1956 up to date and in line with the excellent blueprint published today by the Healthy Air Coalition.
Introducing the Bill again during this Session is important. The cross-party proposers want to extend and build on the efforts of Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and others who helped steer a similar Bill through the other place in 2022. My predecessor the former hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas, promoted the same Bill in this House after that, right up to the end of the previous Parliament.
The ultimate hope of us all is that this Government will adopt and back Ella’s law in her memory: adopt its provisions, take up the important actions it will mandate and recognise in law the human right to breathe clean air as soon as possible. For the other children who still die unnecessarily due to air pollution, and for the families who still lose loved ones to dementia, cancer, heart disease and other issues caused and made worse by dirty air, I ask the House for leave to present this Bill in that hope.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Siân Berry, Ms Stella Creasy, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Wera Hobhouse, Shockat Adam, Seamus Logan, Claire Hanna, Afzal Khan, Ellie Chowns, Ruth Jones, Uma Kumaran and Dr Roz Savage present the Bill.
Siân Berry accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 November, and to be printed (Bill 279).
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Tuesday 1st July 2025
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberUniversal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill 2024-26 View all Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 149 / Noes: 328 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 335 / Noes: 260 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
The reasoned amendment in the name of Rachael Maskell has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill and our wider welfare reforms seek to fix the broken benefits system that we inherited from the Conservatives and deliver a better life for millions of people across our country. Our plans are rooted in principles and values that I know many in this House share: compassion for those who need our help most, a belief in equality and social justice, that everyone should have the chance to fulfil their potential no matter where they are born or what their parents did, and responsibility for our constituents and our country as a whole, so that we ensure the welfare state is sustainable and lasts for generations to come. But the system we inherited is failing on all those counts.
Conservative Members left us with a system that incentivises people to define themselves as incapable of work just to be able to afford to live. They then wrote people off without any help or support, then blamed them to grab a cheap headline. The result is 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness, and one in eight of all our young people not in education, employment or training, with all the terrible long-term consequences that brings for their future job prospects, earnings and health. The number of people on disability benefits is set to more than double this decade, with awards for personal independence payments increasing at twice the rate of increases in the prevalence of disabled people in our society, adding 1,000 new PIP awards a day—the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year.
Liz Kendall
Let me make some progress.
I do not believe that this is sustainable if we want a welfare state for generations to come that protects people who most need our help. There is nothing compassionate about leaving millions of people who could work without the help they need to build a better life. There is no route to equality or social justice when 9 million of our fellow citizens are out of work and not looking for work, and when our country has one of the widest disability employment gaps in Europe. There is no responsibility in leaving our system of social security to continue as is and risk support for it becoming so frayed that it is no longer there to provide a safety net for those who can never work and who most need our help and support. This Bill, alongside our wider reforms, will help people who can work to do so, protect those who cannot, and begin to get the benefits bill on a more sustainable footing.
Labour’s historic mission is to get more people into good jobs because we know the value of good work, not only as the best route out of poverty and to raise living standards, but because good work brings a sense of purpose, pride and dignity and because there is such clear evidence that good work is good for physical and mental health.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right that any Government that take office should aim to reduce poverty in this country. Why then do her own Government’s figures show that the actions she is taking this afternoon will put an extra 150,000 people into poverty? Does she really think that is what her Back Benchers expected when they were elected to government last year?
Liz Kendall
That is what they call chutzpah, seeing as Conservative Members put an extra 900,000 children into poverty. This Government are determined to tackle child poverty and will take 100,000 children out of poverty through our plans to extend free school meals to every household on universal credit—a downpayment on our child poverty strategy in the autumn.
I am proud that at the spending review—alongside billions of extra investment to create good jobs in every part of the country, to invest in transport infrastructure and in skills so people can get those jobs, and to drive down NHS waiting lists so people can get back to health and back to work—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered the biggest-ever investment in employment support for sick and disabled people, quadrupling what we inherited from the Conservatives to £1 billion a year.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the improvements she has made to the Bill, which are extremely reassuring for my constituents, 9,000 of whom are on personal independence payments and are now reassured. Some, however, are concerned about the number of adults who could be put into poverty, following the publication of the impact assessment yesterday. I recognise that these figures do not take into consideration the impact of the planned record investment in employment support. Will she publish further assessments that provide a more accurate view?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that those figures do not take into account the employment impact from the investment we are putting in. We have produced extremely clear evidence that good employment support works, including Work Choice—a Labour programme ended by the Tories—which meant that 40% more disabled people were in work eight years later. We will, indeed, publish further updated impact assessments before Committee stage, spelling this out in more detail.
Jim Shannon
I have been asked by representatives of people with Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis to put this question to the Secretary of State, and I hope she will give me the answer. They are worried that people with these fluctuating conditions will be locked out of qualifying for the higher rate of the UC health element, as a functional limitation must “constantly” apply for a claimant to meet the severe conditions criteria. Will she commit to add an explicit reference to the Bill to ensure that those with fluctuating conditions such as Parkinson’s and MS are not locked out of the higher rate? It is really important for those people.
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Members have asked whether people with fluctuating conditions will meet the severe conditions criteria, which are for those with lifelong conditions that will never improve and mean they can never work. It is the case that, as someone’s condition progresses, if they change and meet those severe conditions criteria, they will be protected. One of the reasons for the Timms review, which I will come on to, is precisely to make sure this vital benefit recognises the impact of fluctuating conditions on people’s lives. That is crucial to make sure this benefit is fit for the future.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Liz Kendall
I will make a tiny bit of progress, and then I will give way.
As I set out to the House yesterday, we have listened carefully to concerns that there would not be enough employment support in place quickly enough by the time the benefit changes come in. We are bringing forward an additional £300 million of employment support for sick and disabled people, delivering a total of £600 million next year, £800 million the year after and £1 billion in 2028-29—increasing our total spending on employment support for sick and disabled people to £3.8 billion over this Parliament—to ensure that anyone who is affected by this Bill will be offered personalised work, health and skills support, including access to a specially trained adviser by the time the legislation comes in.
Dr Luke Evans
The last Government introduced WorkWell pilots in 15 areas for 59,000 people, providing a multidisciplinary team package to get them back into work. Am I correct in thinking that the £300 million the Secretary of State is investing is built off the back of that pilot? Are they planning to continue the pilot and grow it? The results seemed to show that it had a strong record of getting people back into work while supporting their health. That is what this House wants to do. Does she agree that that is the case, and is that the funding?
Liz Kendall
Joining up work and health support is essential. I have been to visit some of the projects in place, and they are making a really big difference. We are building on that with additional investment, quadrupling what we inherited from the Conservative party. Joining up work and health support is very important, because good health and good work are two sides of the same coin, but this needs to be available widely across the country.
Let me turn to the specific measures in the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4 begin to tackle the perverse incentives left by the Conservative party, which encouraged people to define themselves as incapable of work by rebalancing the universal credit standard allowance and health top-up. I am very proud that we are delivering the first ever sustained above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance—the largest permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefits since the 1970s. Some 6.7 million households—the lowest-income households—will benefit from the increase in the universal credit standard allowance, and it will deliver a £725-a-year increase in cash terms by 2029-30 for a single person aged 25 and over.
Having listened seriously to concerns about our original proposals on the UC health top-up for existing claimants and future claimants with severe conditions and those at the end of their lives, we will ensure that for these groups, the combined value of their universal credit standard allowance and the health top-up will rise at least in line with inflation, protecting their income from these vital benefits in real terms every year for the rest of the Parliament.
Alongside those changes, schedule 1 to the Bill will ensure that people with severe lifelong health conditions will never be reassessed, removing all the unnecessary and unacceptable stress and anxiety this brings, so that they have the dignity and security they deserve. Yesterday we published draft regulations on our new right to try, which will guarantee that, in and of itself, work will never lead to a benefit reassessment, giving people the confidence to try work—something many people have called for for years.
I turn to clause 5 of the Bill, on personal independence payments. Yesterday I told the House that we have listened to the concerns raised by many Members, disabled people and their organisations about the impact of the new requirement for existing claimants to score a minimum of four points on at least one daily living activity to be eligible for the daily living component. Even though nine out of 10 people claiming PIP at the point these changes come in would be unaffected by the end of the Parliament, I know this has caused deep and widespread anxiety and stress, so we have changed our original proposals. The new four-point eligibility requirement will only apply to new claims from November 2026. This means no existing claimants will lose PIP because of the changes brought forward in this Bill, and anyone who currently receives any passported benefits, such as carer’s allowance, will also be unaffected by this change.
Mr Betts
The changes to PIP, as far as they go, are very welcome, as is the review to be conducted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, which will be co-produced with disability groups, as I understand it. However, the Government have committed to make changes in November 2026, when that review may not have been completed. Would it not be far more logical to have the review, bring it to this House for agreement and then make the changes after that?
Liz Kendall
I will come on to this point in a moment, but the purpose of the PIP review is to have a wider look at the assessment. It has not been looked at for over a decade since it came in. I understand the sequencing point, and I will come to that in a moment. It is extremely important to have a very clear message that existing PIP claimants will now be unaffected by the changes in the Bill.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the fact she has listened this week, but she knows that many disabled people watching our proceedings today will remain very worried. She is absolutely right that the existing system is not working. Can she say more about the Minister for Social Security and Disability’s review and about how we can rebuild the confidence of disabled groups and the people who are worried, because every welfare reform seems to have been bad for them, in the fact that we can have a system that assesses who really needs it?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I will come on to say a little more about that in a moment. The review will be co-produced with disabled people, their organisations, clinicians, other experts and MPs, because we must ensure that we get this right. I have been a long-standing champion of co-production, including when I was the shadow Minister responsible for social care. I think we get the best decisions when we work closely with people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Liz Kendall
Let me say a bit more, because many hon. Friends raised these issues, including yesterday. We believe that protecting existing claimants, while ensuring that new PIP awards are focused on those with higher needs, strikes the right and fair balance going forward. I want to address some of the questions raised yesterday by Labour Members about the sequencing of the PIP changes, and the wider review of the PIP assessment that is being led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability.
Liz Kendall
I will make progress on this point.
No existing PIP claimant will be affected by changes in the Bill. They will also be reassessed under the existing rules whenever they have an award review. From November 2026, new claimants will be assessed under the four-point criteria. The purpose of the Timms review is to look at the PIP assessment as a whole, and ensure that it is fair and fit for the future. It therefore takes account of the huge changes in society, the world of work, and the nature of health conditions and disability since the benefit was first introduced more than a decade ago.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I welcome the improvements made to the Bill so far, but I think we still need more details about the co-productive element of the Timms review. Will she confirm that the review will guarantee that disabled people and their organisations are the key voice in developing this policy? Will the review change and revolutionise the view in Whitehall, so that future policies that impact disabled people will always have their voices central to the discussion?
Liz Kendall
I can absolutely reassure my hon. Friend about that. Many hon. Members have asked for precise details about how this process will work, and it is extremely important for us—we are beginning the process—to discuss this with disabled people, their organisations and other experts. It is not for me—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) would let me finish my sentence I will, of course, give way. It is important that we do not come up with—it would be completely wrong if we in Whitehall came up with a process and imposed it on other people. We have to do this properly.
Esther McVey
Have the Government taken legal advice as to whether it is lawful to treat people with the same conditions, disabilities and circumstances differently within the benefits system? It is morally unacceptable, but does the Secretary of State believe that it is lawful?
Liz Kendall
I gently remind the right hon. Lady that her own party had different rules and different rates for people on existing benefits compared with those on new benefits. That is something the Conservatives did—once again Conservative Members seem to be railing at the very problems that they caused.
I understand why many Members would like to see the results from the Timms review implemented before the four-point change takes effect. However, reviewing the assessment as a whole is a major undertaking that will take time to get right, especially if we co-produce it properly. It will be for those involved in the review to determine the precise timetable, but we are absolutely committed to moving quickly and completing the review by next autumn. I assure the House that any changes following the Timms review will be implemented as soon as is practically possible via primary or secondary legislation. Once we have implemented changes from the review, any existing PIP claimant can ask for a reassessment.
Let us be honest: welfare reform is never easy, especially perhaps for Labour Governments. Our social security system directly touches the lives of millions of people, and it is something that we all care deeply about. We have listened to concerns that have been raised to help us get the changes right. The Bill protects people who are already claiming PIP. It protects, in real terms, the incomes of people already receiving the UC health top-up from that benefit and their standard allowance. It protects those with severe lifelong conditions who will never work, and those near the end of their life, as we promised we would. But I have to tell the House that, unlike the previous Administration, this Government must not and will not duck the big challenges facing this country, because the people we are in politics to serve deserve so much better.
We are taking action to put the social security system on a sustainable footing so that it is there for generations to come. We are helping millions of low-income households across the country, by increasing the standard rate of universal credit. And because we know that there is no route to social justice based on increased benefit spending alone, we are providing record investment in employment support for sick and disabled people, so that they have the same rights and chances to work as anybody else. Our plans will create a fairer society in which people who can work get the help they need, and where we protect those who cannot—a society where the welfare safety net actually survives and is always there for those who need it. Above all, this Government are determined to give people hope that tomorrow will be better than today, with real opportunities for everyone to fulfil their potential and build a better life. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
We are staring down the barrel of a crisis that no serious Government can ignore. The welfare system no longer works as it should, and what was once a safety net has become a trap. A system designed to protect the most vulnerable is now encouraging dependency, and dragging this country into deeper debt. The welfare system is a crucial safety net for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, so I was quite surprised at the tone that the Secretary of State decided to take today. She thinks that she can stand there and get away with the fiction that all this was caused by the previous Government, so let me refresh the memories of Labour Members, especially those who were not here at the time.
In 2010, we inherited 8% unemployment, and we brought it right down. The last Conservative Government reformed welfare to introduce universal credit, and our reforms helped to ensure that unemployment more than halved and was at a near record low. What have we seen since Labour came in? Unemployment has risen every single month since Labour came into office. During our time, 800 jobs were created for every day we were in office. At the same time, until the covid pandemic, we kept spending under control, cutting the deficit every year. But covid changed everything—[Interruption.] It did, and now we face a new—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, it is delightful to hear Labour Members laughing. I remember when we sat on the Government Benches, and they were demanding that we spent more and more and more money. Thank God it was Conservatives who were there under covid—Labour would have bankrupted the country!
We face a new reality. Under this Government, every working day 3,000 people move on to incapacity benefits—3,000 every single day. That is a 50% increase from when we left office. The Government have been in power for only one year; imagine what it will be like after the next four years. A 50% increase and 3,000 people going on to incapacity benefits every day is not normal, sustainable or acceptable. Spending is spiralling under Labour.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend quite rightly mentions covid. I am sure there is one thing that we can agree on. Unfortunately, people were assessed much more often in person before covid, and during covid that was understandably stopped. Surely we can all agree that we have to get those in-person assessments going and get them going quickly.
Mrs Badenoch
The Father of the House is absolutely right. This is something we should all be able to agree on, but the Government are too busy trying to shift the blame instead of solving the problem.
Let us talk about solving the problem. We have 28 million working people propping up 28 million people who are not working—the rider is getting heavier than the horse. Health and disability benefits were £40 billion before covid. By 2030, on this Government’s spending plans, they will hit £100 billion.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I wonder whether the right hon. Lady could help the House. During the 14 years when the Conservatives were in power, when was the time that the benefits system worked well?
Mrs Badenoch
I will remind the right hon. Lady of our inheritance. We took difficult—[Interruption.] I will. I have said it before, and I will say it again: we had 8% unemployment, and we got it down to 4%. Every single time Labour leaves office, it leaves more people unemployed.
The welfare system needs continual reform. We took difficult decisions and got universal credit through with so much opposition from Labour. We improved the system, but that does not mean it cannot be improved further. We have offered to help, but the Government do not want any help: they just want to make things worse.
By 2030, on this Government’s spending plans, we will hit £100 billion on health and disability benefits alone. That is more than we spend on defence. That should make everyone in this House stop and think, because this Bill does nothing to fix that problem. That is why we cannot support it.
The Conservative party is the only party in this House urging restraint. Unless this House acts, the Government will bankrupt our children. They will bury the next generation under a mountain of borrowing and debt, and they will do it not because we have no choice, but because they lack the courage to choose. A fundamental and serious programme to reform our welfare system is required, and this Bill is not it—it is a fudge. I feel sorry for the Secretary of State: she looks as if she is being tortured.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs Badenoch
I will in a moment.
We all know why this is happening: this is a rushed attempt to plug the Chancellor’s fiscal hole. It is driven not by principle, but by panic. The changes were forced through not because they get more people into work, but because someone in 11 Downing Street made a mistake. It is clear that these changes were not designed to introduce fundamental reforms.
How did we get here? Last year, at the Chancellor’s first Budget, she left herself no headroom. That same Budget killed growth, meaning that unemployment has increased every month since Labour took office. This is a good time for me to remind the House again that every time Labour leaves office, it does so with unemployment higher than when it came in, and it is doing that again.
Mrs Badenoch
I will give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) first.
Laurence Turner
I am sure the right hon. Lady would not want an inaccurate statement to stand on the record. Unemployment fell under just two 20th-century Governments: the first Labour Government and the 1970 Government of Ted Heath. I know that she is repeating a standard Conservative party message, but it is a really cynical and silly misuse of statistics.
Mrs Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. He needs to get an education and look at the facts.
Graham Stuart
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the chief architect of the fiasco faced by people with disabilities and every member of the Labour party today is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The fact that she is not here to face up and take responsibility is all we need to know about her and those on the Government Front Bench.
Mrs Badenoch
My right hon. Friend is quite right: this is a fiasco, and it is the Chancellor’s fault. She marches Labour Members up and down the hill all the time, and they are the ones who have to face their constituents. We are trying to help to get a welfare system under control and get people into work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) is right to raise the Chancellor. When the economic outlook worsened this spring, she chose to force through these changes to welfare, which are designed not to reform or improve the system, but to address a hole in her numbers. Those changes were rushed for Rachel, as we say. I watched when she made that Budget, and it was quite clear that she had no idea of the consequences of her decision. The country should not have to pay for the mess she has made, and neither should disabled people. Even with the changes in this Bill, welfare spending will still be billions higher at the end of the Parliament. Slowing down how much you increase spending is not a cut.
Mark Ferguson
I do not know about the rest of the House, but I am slightly baffled. The Leader of the Opposition has made a virtue of her blank slate and her blank sheet of paper, but is she in favour of more or less? Is she in favour of the actions of her Government or not? This complete lack of taking responsibility is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.
Mrs Badenoch
I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is baffled, because he is clearly not listening to what I am saying. We had three conditions. We have been very, very clear that we want to see the welfare budget come down. I will make some progress.
Even with the changes in this Bill, welfare spending will still be higher by billions at the end of this Parliament. Slowing down an increase is not a cut: we need to get this under control.
Mrs Badenoch
I will make some progress.
Despite the obvious flaws in the Bill, we offered to support benefit changes in the national interest. The hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) asked a question, and I will answer it very clearly for those who have not been paying attention. We agreed to support the Government if they could make three simple commitments; they were not unachievable or unreasonable commitments. First, they had to cut the overall welfare bill, because we are spending far too much already. Secondly, they had to get more people into work. Thirdly, they had to stand by the Chancellor’s own commitment that, with taxes at a record level because of her choices, she would not come back for more tax rises.
What did we get from the Government? A sneery response indicating that they could manage on their own. How’s that going? What happened instead was that the number of MPs opposed to the Bill grew ever larger, until the inevitable U-turn finally came, announced by a press release dispatched after midnight and a panicked letter setting out that the reforms had been gutted. The Bill is now more incoherent than it was at the beginning.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Just to reflect on the record of the previous Government, as of 2024, approximately 24% of the UK population—nearly 16 million people—were living in poverty. Between 2019-20 and 2022-23, an additional 2.1 million people were living in poverty. In the year to April 2024, before the Labour Government came into power, 4.45 million children, or 31% of children in the UK, were living in relative poverty. Will the right hon. Lady agree with me that the previous Tory Government failed a majority of the population, including disabled people and children?
Mrs Badenoch
I definitely will not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is talking about relative poverty figures. The fact is that the best way to get people out of poverty is to get them into work—something we did again and again and again.
The Bill is more incoherent now than it was at the beginning. It does not do the job at all. Reforms that were not enough in the first place will now cut only £2 billion from a ballooning budget, instead of £5 billion. They will create a new welfare trap and a two-tier welfare system. Right up until the last moment, the Government kept pushing and pushing, ruling out changes and sending their poor, weary Ministers and ambitious Back-Bench bootlickers out on to the airwaves. At the last moment, as we have seen before, the Government abandon them after all of that—they have been hung out to dry.
The Government do not care how they have made their Back Benchers look, and it is not for the first time. Week after week, the Chancellor was sent here to say with a straight face that she was right to cut the winter fuel payment, that there would be no turning back and that the country’s finances would simply collapse if she did not take pensioners’ fuel money and give it to the trade unions, and her Back Benchers sucked that one up. They muttered and they grumbled, but each of them went back and told their constituents that the winter fuel payments were being confiscated to fix the foundations.
Only once pensioners had sat in the cold all winter, the Chancellor had tanked the economy and Labour MPs had had the door slammed in their face up and down the country did they finally accept that it was a mistake. This time, when asked to line up behind a Bill that takes money from older, disabled people with physical disabilities—a Bill that, according to the Government’s own modelling, gets no one into work—funnily enough, lots of Labour MPs did not fancy another go. Perhaps they will think twice next time the Chancellor comes to them with a bad idea.
Paul Holmes
The Prime Minister’s inability to control his Back Benchers means that the Chancellor now has to find an extra £2.5 billion to fill the savings that she is claiming to have made. Can the Leader of the Opposition guess how she might raise that money?
Mrs Badenoch
The fact that the Government have refused to commit to not raising taxes means it is probably inevitable that they will. However, it is quite clear that Labour MPs will feel emboldened to push for more unaffordable changes to our welfare system, including the two-child benefit cap.
Let us be clear: part of the reason why these plans have been so rushed and badly thought through is the mess the Chancellor has made. This Bill is an attempt to find the quickest and crudest savings possible—to plug the hole in the public finances that she has created—but the Chancellor is not the only one to blame. It beggars belief that the Labour party came into office after 14 years in opposition with no serious plan for reforming welfare. What was Labour doing all that time? The welfare bill is already totally unsustainable, and it is only getting worse.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
As one of the Labour Back Benchers who will be supporting the Government, I would just point out that there are not that many Back Benchers behind the Leader of the Opposition, and there are fewer every week. However, given that she has just said that she wants to cut the budget of the Department for Work and Pensions further, perhaps she could tell us what she would cut. What exactly would she do?
Mrs Badenoch
We would cut unemployment.
As I was saying, health and disability benefits are forecast to rise to £100 billion, meaning that one in every four pounds raised in income tax will pay for those benefits. That is not sustainable. Until the pandemic, we in the Conservative party had spent years bringing down the benefits bill and getting people back into work, including millions of disabled people. Talent, energy and ingenuity are not confined to those in perfect health. If we want to afford public services, improve people’s lives and compete globally, we cannot consign so many people to a life out of work—we have to get them into work. I believe that the whole House agrees that the system needs change. We may disagree on what exactly that change looks like, but what we have in front of us today is just a big mess.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Secretary of State was right: welfare reform is tough, and Governments tend to duck the issue, with notable exceptions such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). However, if a Government are going to change welfare radically, they should surely review the options and then decide which ones to take. By contrast, this Government have decided on their option, and are then going to review what they might have done. Surely that is not the right way to run welfare, or any part of Government.
Mrs Badenoch
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have nothing further to add—he said it as well as it could possibly be said.
The whole House agrees that the system needs to change in one way or another, but what we have in front of us today is a big mess; it is neither fish nor fowl. Because of the Government’s hasty concessions, we now have a two-tier benefits system under which people who are already on benefits will be incentivised to keep them.
There are other issues. Why, for instance, should someone diagnosed with Parkinson’s after November 2026 receive a lower payment than someone diagnosed a month prior? We need to fix a whole load of problems. For instance, we need to filter out people who are gaming the system, we need to redesign the system so that genuinely disabled people do not find it so Kafkaesque, and we need a fundamental rethink of who we can afford to support and why. One in four people in this country now self-report as disabled—that is an extraordinary state of affairs. We clearly cannot afford to support all of them; rather, we should focus that support on those with the greatest need.
Many people with disabilities live full and independent lives, contributing to society. Research published by the Centre for Social Justice last week shows that we could save up to £9 billion by restricting benefits for lower-level mental health challenges such as anxiety. Labour Members ask what we would change—that is one of the things we would change. Findings published by the TaxPayers’ Alliance today show that people with conditions including acne and food intolerance are getting benefits and entitlements such as Motability. The impact assessments for the Bill—not my impact assessments, but the Government’s—show that it will get no one into work, so the Government should think again. We will support them to do so.
We support replacing remote or online assessments for claimants with face-to-face assessments—that simple change alone could dramatically reduce the number of new claimants. Before the last election, we outlined reforms that the new Government rejected out of hand, so will the Secretary of State return to them? The changes we are discussing today are rushed and confused. Rather than the fundamental reforms we so badly need, we have been presented with a botched package of changes that have been watered down and carved apart in the face of Back-Bench pressure. There is no way we can back this, so instead of allowing her Back Benchers to dictate her policy, the Secretary of State should go back to the drawing board. She should cut the overall welfare bill, get people into work, and eliminate the need for new tax rises. That is a programme that we would support in the national interest.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, whilst noting the need for the reform of the social security system, and agreeing with the Government’s principles for providing support to people into work and protecting people who cannot work, declines to give a Second Reading to the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill because its provisions have not been subject to a formal consultation with disabled people, or co-produced with them, or their carers; because the Office for Budget Responsibility is not due to publish its analysis of the employment impact of these reforms until the autumn of 2025; because the majority of the additional employment support funding will not be in place until the end of the decade; because while acknowledging protection for current claimants, the Government has yet to produce its own impact assessment on the impact of future claimants of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Universal Credit limited capability for work and related activity and the number of people, including children, who will fall into poverty or experience worsening mental or physical health as a result, nor how many carers will lose carers allowance; because the Government has not published an assessment of the impact of these reforms on health or care needs; and because the Government is still awaiting the findings of the Minister for Social Security and Disability’s review into the assessment for PIP and Sir Charlie Mayfield’s independent review into the role of employers and government in boosting the employment of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions.
I put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for selecting the reasoned amendment that stands in my name and those of other Members, and—most importantly—in the names of 138 deaf and disabled people’s organisations that backed it and co-produced it, working alongside us. It is about time that we all recognised the ableism within our systems that has made disabled people feel so far away from policymaking. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability will be looking at changing that—once and for all, I trust. On these big decisions, it is so important that disabled people are involved.
My constituent sat in front of me with his gorgeous little girl, who thankfully had headphones on and was playing a kiddie’s game. He said that he would not get through this. He just about manages now—some days he gets up, others not, as his mental health is failing. He cannot work. Everything else has been taken from him, and the loss of this little bit of funding to help them get by—to give him just one ounce of dignity—was more than he could bear. Then the words came: “It would be better that I wasn’t here.” That was also his expectation. He has tried before. He will be safe now, but the one who follows will not.
Another constituent felt dehumanised, as they would lose their independence to shower and dress, and others could not balance their books, as Scope’s disability price tag is £1,095 of extra costs every month. They face changes that would switch independence to dependence—dependence on social care, food banks, and pleading for emergency funds or seeking charity. Those with fluctuating conditions who came to see me just do not know where their future lies.
These Dickensian cuts belong to a different era and a different party. They are far from what this Labour party is for—it is a party to protect the poor, as is my purpose, for I am my brother’s keeper. These are my constituents, my neighbours, my community and my responsibility, and I cannot cross by on the other side, as one who is better known than the 150,000 who will be pushed further into poverty. As so many of us fear and as the evidence shows, since 600 people took their lives under the Tories’ brutal reforms, the tragedy of this ideology could be worse. I will fight for the purpose of politics—for these people’s livelihoods and for their lives. It is a matter of deep conscience for me to ensure that for once, these precious people are treated with dignity, so that they matter for being and not just for doing.
Sixteen million; in the chaos and confusion, where the sequence of consultations on the Bill makes no sense to them, no sense to me and, if we are honest, no sense to any of us, they beg the Government to just stop and start again by listening to their voices. At this 11th hour, I plead for the Bill’s withdrawal, which would be met with relief and praise. Let us consult, co-produce, incorporate the Mayfield review findings and accommodate those of the Timms review first. We should let the voices of older women, whose physical health is declining as they work into later life, come to the fore. Refuge says that disabled victims of domestic violence will not be able to leave to find their place of safety without PIP. They should be heard.
The olive branch of grace for current claimants offers no mercy to those who are to come. Disabled people have fought all their lives not to have the ladder pulled up behind them. We are talking about 430,000 people on PIP losing £4,500, 730,000 people on universal credit losing £3,000, and 150,000 people being pushed into deeper poverty. There is a reason that we are a dystopian state of excessive wealth and abject poverty: Governments focus on what they value most, and these people never get the attention. When people are left behind, it pressures services, shortens lives and breaks societies.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I am proud to put my name to the hon. Lady’s reasoned amendment. Does she agree that we have a decision to make in this House today? Do we stand alongside some of the most vulnerable—people who feel that politics cannot deliver for them? Surely we have a moral duty, across this House, to stand with those people, to pause and to show them that we care.
Rachael Maskell
What the hon. Member says is so powerful. I urge all my colleagues to take with them the stories of their constituents. We are here because of them, and they expect us to serve them in this difficult vote. I, too, find it hard, as I have known my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for 30 years, and I know that he comes from a good place, but this Bill is just wrong. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) is absolutely right.
If we can afford not to have a wealth tax, not to equalise capital gains and not to draw on the excess profits of corporate greed, we can afford PIP for a disabled person. We must clear the waiting lists, prevent people falling out of work, get physio to the injured, hold employers to account for their failings and make them open their doors. In assessments, we need to look not just at what somebody cannot do but at empowering them to do what they can. We should optimise health and opportunity and take a public health approach with social prescribing and advancing adaptive technology.
Why not have a bridge between what we have now and where we are heading at the end of this process, so that nobody falls through the net? When they are managing discomfort, despair, pain and prejudice, are isolated and lonely, or their life has spiralled out of control, disabled people want anything but this Bill. They are already discriminated and dehumanised, so I plead that we do not leave them desperate, too. There is a heavy duty on us all, and it starts with compassion, kindness, safety and support. Disabled people want reform, but not by this broken Bill. My vote weighs heavy on me, as this is a matter of deep conscience, as it should be and will be for us all. As Nelson Mandela said:
“May your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in a moment, but I will be imposing a six-minute limit after his speech.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I associate myself with the speech just made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). The Liberal Democrats will be supporting the reasoned amendment that we are now debating.
Over the past few weeks that the Green Paper has been under debate, some of the comments from Labour high command, such as describing Labour Back Benchers as “noises off”, have been disturbing in the extreme. People who should know better within the leadership of the Labour party described PIP as “pocket money”, which is utterly shameful. The way the Bill is being dashed through is equally shameful, and it decreases the credibility of Ministers. If the Bill is fine, it should have appropriate levels of scrutiny. We all know that rushed Bills are poor Bills, and the law of unintended consequences will come to haunt the Government if this Bill goes through.
As has been alluded to, this two-tier approach to the system is wrong. I and the Liberal Democrats have grave concerns that it is un-British, unjust and not the way of our world. We have heard the Minister saying that it has been done before, but that does not make it right. It is almost Orwellian that we will have a system where in our law we say that all disabled people are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Neil Coyle
Is the hon. Member saying that he regrets the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition establishing PIP and abolishing disability living allowance? The Leader of the Opposition gave the example of someone with Parkinson’s. Someone with Parkinson’s who is over 65 could be on DLA, PIP and attendance allowance. Does he regret that decision? Should that situation not exist?
Steve Darling
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution—his contributions are always good value.
What message does this Bill send to disabled children? We will be saying that those who have gone down the path of their disability degenerating to the extent that they can claim PIP will be over the line, but those youngsters who know they have a degenerative condition can look forward to no PIP under the Bill.
I reflect to the Chamber that PIP is often a passport to other levels of support, such as blue badges or rail cards, which give people the opportunity of getting out and living their best lives. Perhaps the most important passported benefit from PIP is carer’s allowance. We have grave concerns about this Bill’s impact on those families who will no longer benefit from carer’s allowance. They will be robbed of up to £12,000 a year.
Do not get me wrong; we as Liberal Democrats recognise that the benefits system is broken and needs resolving, but it needs, as we had in our manifesto, co-design with disabled groups and carers groups to make sure that we get it right for our people.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has claimed that she is listening. Does the hon. Member agree that she is certainly not listening to many of her Back Benchers, nor the 86 disability charities that have said this Bill will harm disabled people? We all know that reform is needed, but when we talk about reform, there is no mention of the fraud that goes on within the system that is costing our country billions. Surely we should start with that and not impact on and affect the most vulnerable in our society. We will be voting against this Bill today for that reason.
Steve Darling
I agree with the hon. Member.
Let me return to the reasons why people are not in work—the root causes, and some of the challenges. People have come to my constituency surgery and said, “I have a long-term illness, but I cannot be fixed by the NHS because it is broken.” Until we have sorted out the national health service and the social care system, people will be trapped in long-term ill health, and that needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency. I have already banged on about this, but while we acknowledge that PIP is not an out-of-work benefit but a benefit that helps people to lead lives that many of us would take for granted, the reality is that the Access to Work scheme is massively broken, and that too needs to be resolved. While there are warm words—
Ms Billington
I thank the hon. Gentleman, but may I remind him that although the Access to Work scheme may well be broken, measures in the Bill and the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper deal specifically with how we should improve it for our constituents, many of whom rely on it as a way of ensuring that they can become fully able people, and able to work? If the hon. Gentleman votes against the Bill, the risk will be that that goes too.
Steve Darling
The Access to Work system has been here for years, and it continues to be broken. The Government could easily fix it, but they are choosing not to roll up their sleeves and engage in sorting it out now. Constituents have told me that they have almost lost their jobs because of what is going on here and now. We also need answers from the carers allowance review. Many pieces of the jigsaw must be in place before we push forward with these proposals.
Let me emphasise that this is a broken system, and we should not proceed until we have heard from that Timms review. We should not be abandoning some of the most vulnerable members of society. The Liberal Democrats will vote for the amendment, and if that is lost, we will vote against the second motion. We cannot help those who are already broken by breaking a system.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), my fellow Select Committee Member.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the need for reform of the social security system. I believe that the social security system, like the NHS, should be there for any one of us in our time of need, whether that need is a result of being in low-paid work or of not being in work at all, protecting us from poverty and destitution. Unfortunately, it did not do that under the last Government. If we become sick or disabled or if we can no longer work, the system should be there for us. I believe that the vast majority of people of working age want to work and do the right thing by their families, and, as the Committee heard, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. We have just completed our “Pathways to Work” inquiry.
The Leader of the Opposition, who I think was the Equalities Minister in the last Government, did not mention, for example, the inquiry conducted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission—which was subsequently escalated to an investigation—into the DWP’s potential discrimination against disabled people. That is still outstanding. Nor did the Leader of the Opposition mention the investigation of the last Government by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for breaches of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities—not once, but twice. What she said was therefore a little bit rich.
For the last 15 years we have seen a punitive, even dehumanising, social security system in which not being able to work has been viewed with suspicion or worse—with devastating consequences, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Too many people relying on social security support to survive have died through suicide, starvation and other circumstances exacerbated by their poverty. Since 2010, under previous Administrations, 10 prevention of future deaths reports have been issued by coroners because of the direct causal responsibility of the DWP. We do not even know the full number of claimants’ deaths or the full extent of the harms, but my Committee’s “Safeguarding Vulnerable Claimants” report, published in May, defined recommendations to prevent such harms from being done to claimants, and it has been at the forefront of my mind while I have been considering the Bill.
I want to acknowledge some of the positive measures in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper and the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which I believe will have a significant and positive impact on people’s lives and help them to get into work. Those measures include the reform of jobcentres and the merger with the National Careers Service; the new right to try and the new regulations just announced; the Trailblazer programme, which will increase the opportunity for people to get closer to the labour market by working with community groups, the voluntary sector and health bodies; Connect to Work, providing employment support; “Keep Britain Working”, an essential and independent review undertaken by Sir Charlie Mayfield on how to reduce the appalling disability employment gap, which was not improved by the Opposition during their 15 years in power and which remains at about 29%; and—this is really important—the commitment to safeguarding, which is one of the key measures in the Green Paper.
There is also, of course, the work that the Government are undertaking in other Departments. They are increasing NHS capacity to ensure that, for example, hip or knee replacements or mental health support are available in weeks, as was the case when I was an NHS chair under the last Labour Government, not the years for which people are now having to wait. They have introduced the Employment Rights Bill and the industrial strategy—I could go on. However, the Bill, as it is currently planned, risks undermining some of those excellent initiatives.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is always fair-minded in the Chamber and outside. She will recognise that 2.5 million, or perhaps as many as 3 million, more disabled people entered the workforce under the last Conservative Government. Does she share my concerns that the Bill could undermine the ability of people with disabilities to enter the labour market?
Debbie Abrahams
We have to ensure that that does not happen. There are risks: I am being very honest about that.
As we heard in the evidence that my Committee received as part of our “Pathways to Work” inquiry, ours is an ageing society, with worse health than other advanced economies as a result of the austerity policies of the previous Government, including the cuts in support for working-aged people. According to a very good report—published in 2018, so before the pandemic—if we improved the health of those in the areas with the worst health in the country, we would increase our productivity by more than £13 billion a year. We need to look at that in the round.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Just last week, the Health Secretary made an announcement about redirecting health support to the more deprived areas. Does my hon. Friend welcome that, and does she think it will help to improve the health outcomes of people in those areas?
Debbie Abrahams
I have not yet seen the details, but it is a subject that I raised, and, as we know, the funding will follow.
Covid exacerbated these problems, as did the mental health crisis that we have experienced in the United Kingdom, especially among young people. A UK Millennium Cohort study shows that the key drivers of the NEETS levels are poverty and austerity, as well as other issues faced by families.
Let me get back to the Bill. I thank the Government for the concessions that they have made to date to protect existing PIP claimants and people on UC LCWRA with severe conditions or terminal diagnoses. Th growing evidence of the potential harms that they would have experienced was significant, and it was the right thing to do. However, people who are newly disabled or who acquire a health condition from November 2026 will also need help with their extra costs. The New Economics Foundation has estimated that 150,000 people will be pushed into poverty as a result of no longer being eligible for PIP.
Debbie Abrahams
No—I am sorry, but I will not get an extra minute.
Pushing people into poverty will, in itself, worsen their condition. It will make it easier for people to live independently, including going to work, if they get money through PIP.
There is still confusion about the PIP review. Will it be co-produced with disabled people and their organisations? If so, why are we saying that the outcome of that review, and the new PIP assessment, is predetermined at four points? Therein lies the problem. Most of us are aware that this dog’s breakfast of a Bill is being driven by the need to get four points to the Office for Budget Responsibility to enable it to be scored for the Budget. The Governor of the Bank of England has said that we have to stop over-interpreting the OBR’s forecasts, which, as we know, are fallible.
I urge the Government to remove the reference to four points in clause 5. We can table amendments, but the Government should put a commitment to the co-production of the new PIP assessment review on the face of the Bill and delay the implementation of the freezing of UC LCWRA.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
It is a delight to take part in this debate, and I will speak about my lived experience. I want to put on the record that after I was shot and left the military, I received a war pension, and that having had some of my foot amputated this year, I am undergoing reassessment for that process. At one stage in my life, I was also diagnosed with complex PTSD and suffered extreme mental health issues for about 15 years, which I have openly shared in this Chamber, so I understand how people can be impacted by unforeseen circumstances.
I saw that from a young age, when my dad died and left my mum, me and my two brothers on our own, with literally nothing. We had a roof over our heads, but I watched my mum go without food to put food on our table. I spoke to my mum at the weekend, and she said that the welfare support she had at that time was a lifeline. She said that she could not possibly have seen a way through if we had not had that. I grew up on free school meals, and understood that the system supported us and allowed us to get through what was a very challenging childhood, although I was brought up in a loving environment. Later in life, I lost a business and found that I could not put food on my children’s table. I had support through a challenging time, and did everything I could to work my way out of that and get back on my own two feet.
As a Conservative, I firmly believe that there should be support for people when they need it, because you never know what you are going to face, and the support should be there when it is required. However, welfare should not be an option for people who do not want to work. I have seen many times multigenerational unemployment, whereby families create a career of benefits; they grow up having seen relatives in welfare for many years, and they do everything they can to stay in it. I have seen it at my surgeries, where people say to me, “I can normally cheat the system, but I’m struggling here.” It is not everybody, but I have had people openly admit that to me. As I said, the system needs to be there for people who need it, but at the moment it is my firm view that there are a lot of people who do not need it. It should always provide an incentive for people to return to work where possible, although I also understand that some people will never be able to work and we should support them.
Government figures published in April stated that the total cost of health-related benefits in 2019-20 was £46.5 billion. That has risen to £75 billion this year, and is expected to rise to £97.7 billion by 2029-30. On this trajectory, the cost will almost double within a decade. The OBR predicts that the Government’s welfare reforms will increase costs by 5.3%, but expects GDP to grow by only 1.6%.
I know the Secretary of State agrees that welfare needs reforming, because on 19 July she sent a “Dear Colleague” letter explaining a system that the Government believed was right. We then received another letter on 26 June that said the system has changed. If the Secretary of State has had to change her mind in the space of a week, how can we believe that the system being put forward is right? I do not believe it is, and this Bill is not a serious attempt to reform welfare. I will back that comment up.
We have talked about the social security system. The Government’s forecast for the total cost of the social security system for 2025-25 is £316 billion, and today we are discussing a Bill that does not save even—or saves only about—1% of that cost. That is not reform; it is tinkering around the edges.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Given the rather botched way in which the Government have dealt with this issue and the U-turn that is proving to be unsatisfactory, and given the scale of the changes that need to be made, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government will just move away from any meaningful reform, deeming it to be too difficult or too hot to handle? That does no service to those who are in receipt of benefits, and it is certainly of no benefit to taxpayers.
Stuart Anderson
My hon. Friend is right.
The Government have a huge majority, and they have a chance to reform welfare. If they do not take it at this moment, it will not get reformed. I believe that pausing the Bill would get the support of many Members across the House. The Government should go back, create an assessment process that can actually look at who requires welfare and who does not, and plan the system out before looking at implementing it—a multi-stage approach. I respect the Minister and am looking forward to the Timms review, but we might as well make him the Chair of the Select Committee as well; it is as if he is marking his own homework. We need to have a fairer approach, and the new system does not provide it.
I believe in welfare and have benefited of a good welfare system. I am proud that we have a welfare system to support the people who need it, but it must be affordable and sustainable, and where possible it should put people back into work. I do not believe that any of these changes are going to do that. I believe, hand on heart, that every Member will recognise that saving 1% on the whole social security system is not reform—nobody can ever say it is. It is tinkering around the edges and a missed opportunity.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her diligent and careful work over recent months. I am sad that we have ended up here. No matter what, and regardless of the concessions, a vote for this Bill today is a vote to plunge 150,000 people into poverty and to tighten the eligibility criteria for those who need support the most.
Some of us have been here before. In 2015, when the Tories pushed through their Welfare Reform and Work Bill, I and other colleagues were persuaded to vote for it on the promise that we could change it in Committee. It did not change, and although we voted against it on Third Reading, the damage was done, because the nuances of the stages of a Bill are completely lost outside this place. The result was that the savings predicted never materialised and employment levels did not increase. Instead, there was an increase in poverty, an increase in suicides, strain on the NHS and other public services, and, in the long run, higher welfare spending and reduced growth.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case. None of us should take any lectures from the Conservatives. She and I were here when the bedroom tax was introduced. We can have many moral arguments about welfare reform, but the bedroom tax saved very little in the end, which shows that this way forward is not the way to help people into work and ultimately cut our welfare bill.
Debbie Abrahams
I remember well the UN rapporteur saying that the Conservatives were engaged in cruelty towards people in this country who needed help the most.
What I cannot fathom is why a Labour Government are not first putting in the support and then letting it bed in, which is what will reduce the welfare bill and increase employment levels. The impact of any cuts would then not be as drastic. The starting point should never be cuts before proper support. The review led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability, who I have a lot of respect for, is starting to look a little bit predetermined as the change in criteria will happen at the same time as the review concludes. It remains unclear how existing claimants with fluctuating conditions will be assessed, and the impact that these changes will have on the carer’s allowance. However, we do know that disability living allowance claimants and those on other legacy benefits will be assessed under the new criteria, putting almost 800,000 disabled children at risk of losing support.
The north-east region has the highest number of disabled people in England, and the number of people searching for work outpaces the number of available jobs. How on earth will cutting the health element of universal credit incentivise those people to go out and find a job that does not even exist? Since PIP is an in-work benefit, restricting the very support that could keep people in work will only help to increase unemployment. All of this for £2.5 billion of savings, when we know that savings can be made elsewhere and when we know that those with the broadest shoulders could pay more. Instead, we are once again making disabled people pay the price for the economic mess that the Conservative party left us.
As it stands, we are being asked to vote blind today. There is no new Bill, no new explanatory notes and no fully updated impact assessment. There is no time for sufficient scrutiny, and no formal consultation has taken place with disabled people. The majority of employment support will not be in place until the end of the decade, and Access to Work remains worse than ever before. We are creating a two-tier, possibly three-tier, benefit system, and we know for certain that disabled people are going to be worse off. This is not a responsible way for any of us to legislate. It is predicted that disabled people will lose on average £4,500 per year, yet we know they already need an extra £1,095 per month just to have the same standard of living as those in non-disabled households. There is a reason why 138 organisations representing disabled people are against this Bill, and there is a reason why not a single organisation has come out in support of it.
I am pleading with MPs today to please do not do this. For those on my own Labour Benches, staying loyal to your party today may feel good in this place, but once you go home and are in your individual constituency, the reality of this will hit—and it will hit very hard.
Emma Lewell
I am sorry, but I am concluding my comments.
Just as in 2015, constituents will never forgive us, and it will haunt those MPs who vote for this Bill. I, of all people, should know.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I come here today fuelled by the voices of hundreds of my constituents, and I want to speak about the harm I think this Bill will cause if rushed through the House. How a society treats its most vulnerable members is a real reflection of its progression and intent, and despite recent U-turns and last-minute changes, people, including children, will be pushed into poverty because of this Bill.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that changing life-critical benefits in a rush, gambling with people’s futures without evidence, and only listening when their Back Benchers rebel is simply not how Governments govern at their best?
Mr Morrison
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.
As I have said, many of my constituents have raised their fears, worries and anxieties about these plans. As they have been unable to provide their own stories directly because of the Government’s lack of consultation, I want to use my time to be their voice. Amy from Bramhall suffers from ME, and her illness can fluctuate hour to hour and day to day, making it hard to pass assessments for support. Amy recently appealed to me for assistance after the DWP withdrew her PIP, despite the fact that her illness was getting worse. Amy said:
“It is astounding how I can be reduced to zero points from receiving higher levels for mobility and daily care when I have not been cured nor had any improvement in how my conditions affect my life. In 2018 when my PIP was downgraded, following appeal it was rewarded back to me. Yet, now, without improvements to how I am affected it has been completely stopped.”
Those who have had to face mandatory reconsideration will know the extent of the documents needed and the stress involved, but to cope with this when someone is ill and suffering every single day is simply not sustainable. Amy has been advised that the mandatory reconsideration will take 15 weeks, which is almost four months, so where will Amy get the support she needs during this wait? This situation highlights the barriers that people with chronic illnesses and disabilities face when trying to get support.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that these changes risk devastating consequences for people living with complex mental health conditions? They may not score four points on a single activity, but experience persistent moderate challenges across many areas, and this could in fact lead to financial hardship and worsening mental health, which will put more pressure on other services and negate the point of the exercise in the first place.
Mr Morrison
I thank my hon. Friend for that incredibly important point. Whether it is motor neurone disease, blindness, ME, arthritis, mental illness or cancer, these barriers will only be further entrenched should the Bill be passed.
Disability Stockport is a local charity that specialises in autism and mental health. It has told me that it is deeply opposed to the changes the Government are proposing:
“Such cuts would exacerbate poverty, worsen mental health issues, and further reduce the already limited support available to the most vulnerable and marginalised people across Greater Manchester. We believe this would pose a serious risk of harm.”
While Disability Stockport welcomes the Government’s investment in employment support, it is clear that much more is needed, because of people such as Joan.
Joan lives in Cheadle Hulme and worked in financial services before falling very ill. She explained to me the persistent and defeating barriers that disabled and ill people face when trying to secure employment. She faces a six-month wait for an assessment for Access to Work. How can this Government expect more disabled people to work if they have to wait six months just for an assessment? Joan told me that it is a degrading process to have to work without adjustments. She has to push herself through pain and fatigue, because she does not receive sick leave during her probationary period. If Joan moves jobs, she will have to start over again, despite a registered record of her need adjustments. This is just one example of the lack of full and effective investment in supporting disabled and chronically ill people into work.
The Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People has told me it is concerned about those using PIP to pay rent and bills. It also expressed the view that this rushed legislation does not truly apply more pressure on or give more support to employers to make accommodations for disabled people. Instead, the Bill will protect the status quo, and the onus to get support will be on the individual, not the employer. It asked:
“What will happen to 16-22 year olds who no longer get Disability Living Allowance and don’t quality for PIP?”
These young people will fall through the cracks and be pushed into poverty.
By bringing forward this Bill, which could amount to the biggest cut to sickness and disability benefits in a generation, it is clear that there is no sense of the real-life impact it will have on hundreds of my constituents and hundreds of thousands of people across the constituencies represented by Members of this House.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Can the hon. Gentleman confirm what he thinks is the extent of the cut, because my understanding is that spending is still going to increase? Can he also confirm if the cut, as he sees it, is even bigger than the cut his party forced on the poorest in this country when in coalition?
Mr Morrison
I thank the hon. Member for his comments, but these are the voices of my constituents, whom I am here to represent. Labour Members can talk about the coalition Government all they want, but I am talking about the here and now, and Members of this House will be judged on which Lobby they vote in later.
It is ironic that the Government have introduced a child poverty taskforce, yet through this Bill are actively undermining that work towards alleviating child poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that, because of this Bill, following the so-called mitigations from the Government, 54,000 children will be forced into poverty, which is the equivalent of 1,800 full classrooms.
Disabled people, and all benefits claimants, should be thoroughly consulted before legislation is rushed through. If the Government will not listen to the voices of my constituents and the constituents of other Members, then maybe they will listen to the voices of respected charities such as Child Poverty Action Group, Citizens Advice, the Trussell Trust, and Mind. They are all urging the Government to change course.
The Bill will likely reduce support to millions of disabled people, pushing at least 150,000 people into poverty. Food bank use will undoubtedly soar. Worklessness will grow and the Government will, ironically, add even more to the unemployment figures that they are so desperate to bring down. The charities rightly warn, despite the last-minute changes the Government have hurriedly introduced, that adult social care services, NHS services, housing and homelessness support, the justice system and advice services will be catastrophically stretched, with many organisations facing breaking point.
The Government know that there are multiple other ways to ease the country’s finances, but they are making a very deliberate choice to penalise a group of people who have neither the strength nor the time to fight it. It is absolutely shameful. Unless the Government scrap the two-child limit and benefit cap, child poverty will be higher at the end of this Parliament than at the start. Is that really the legacy this Labour Government want to leave?
Finally, I urge the Government to think of the stories of Amy and Joan, and to reflect on the very real and personal impact that the changes will have on them and the millions who share their story. The Government must change course without delay. I am sure I speak for many in this Chamber when I say that we came into politics to fight for the most marginalised and vulnerable in our communities. If the Bill passes, we will have all let them down.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I am grateful to have a couple of minutes to give my comments.
I have been frustrated that Ministers have continued to say that the Bill is rooted in fairness. It originates, as far as my recollection goes, from a £5 billion cut from the Treasury, and I think that has marred the whole situation. The political mess it has unleashed is the result of a lack of a clear purpose. I am incredibly proud of the work I have done and the campaigns I have been part of with disabled charities. I am just sorry that they feel excluded from the process up until this point, but I am glad that the Secretary of State has made a commitment to work with those charities going forward.
We say we want to win the support of working-class communities, yet the people I represent, in the most deprived communities in our country, do not yet think our Government are on their side. They felt the winter fuel cut was an attack on them, and they think that taking money off physically disabled people who cannot wash themselves is plainly wrong. I want welfare reform. I want the dignity and pride of work for as many of my constituents as possible.
I want to say to the Secretary of state that I am reassured that the 14,697 people in Liverpool Walton currently on PIP will be protected, that the Government will scrap reassessments for those with the most severe conditions, and that the Government have committed to spending £1 billion a year on health, skills and work support. But we are in a dire state. There are people for whom no amount of employment support will make a blind bit of difference. There are 1 million young people not in work or training. Give them the chance to find purposeful, dignified, unionised work. If they are on benefits, get them doing something useful in the community for them. Recommit to full employment.
In the poorest areas, welfare is the lifeline for people up against a housing crisis and ever-rising bills for food, electricity and the cost of living, but of course it should not be. Tackle the fundamental problems, impose rent caps in the poorest areas, drive out the landlords extorting my constituents and help my constituents to buy their homes. I do not want the Labour party to be the party of welfare; I want it to be the party of transformation. It was founded to give workers a voice and to take on their class enemies. We are in government, with the levers of power in our hands, so show the British people that we are on their side.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I wanted to speak in this debate to try to get behind some of the headlines and challenges that those on the Government Benches face in getting to a settled view today, by looking back over the last years the Conservatives had in government at some of the lessons that we must draw from that experience but which are relevant to consider today.
I will not be able to support the proposals, not because I do not think some of them have significant merit, or because I do not have the greatest respect for the Minister for Social Security and Disability, who has spent 31 years in this place and who I believe will do all that is asked of him, but because I do not think that the changes in the Bill are sufficiently ambitious to deal with the scale of the challenges we face.
I was in government for seven years and I was in the Treasury for most of that time. During the covid epidemic, we had to make some pretty quick changes while the economy was shut down overnight. They involved changes to benefits, standing up a furlough scheme very quickly, bounce back loans and many interventions to try to keep our public services going, and they were at the core of some of the patterns of behavioural change that we now see in our benefits system. I was looking at the numbers for my constituency, which I recognise is a wonderful place and also quite a wealthy place that does not have some of the embedded challenges in other parts of the country. The number of PIP claims in January 2019 was 2,065 and in April 2025 it was 4,211. The vast majority of my constituents and the vast majority of people in the country cannot understand how those numbers have doubled in such a short amount of time.
I fully respect the aspirations of the Secretary of State and her ministerial team in seeking to address that, because we have to come to terms with what we can afford as a country. I also respect sincerely the remarks of the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), whose constituency is rather different from mine, because I think we are united in this place in wanting to look after the most vulnerable. I want to see those who are suffering, who are disabled and who need support from the state to receive that support in a timely way. What I do not want to see is people written off permanently.
About 12 or 14 years ago in this House, we had a debate about mental health. Several Members of Parliament stood up and bravely talked about their own mental health challenges. We then went on a journey to bring parity of esteem to mental health and physical health in our benefits system. I believe that that pathway into assessment for mental health has not worked. It writes people off too easily and it does not serve them well, by leaving them in a place where they are, on an enduring basis, reliant on the state. As a country, we cannot afford it. It is time to legislate for more resilience: resilience in our country and in those who receive benefits such that they can get out of that place of dependency, because I do not think it is a happy place for anyone to be.
When I reflect on the changes proposed today, I can see the hand of the Treasury. I can see the fiscal imperative. I can see the public finances and what is now likely to happen in the autumn, which will mean more tax rises. Now, for some on the Government Benches that will be a price worth paying, but we as a country will lack the productive capacity to grow if we tax those who create jobs to a level where they just will not create jobs any further. We have to come to terms with that profound reality; if we do not, we are in a death spiral as a country.
I give credit to the Government for some of the steps they are taking today. However, for reasons different from those stated by many on the Government Benches, I will not be able to support the Bill. I do not think it is holistic, goes far enough or deals with the profound tragedy that has happened to our benefits system as a consequence of covid and our public finances.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I always appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks in the Treasury Committee and in the Chamber as an extremely fair-minded colleague. I appreciated his remarks in yesterday’s statement and the admission that the previous Government’s handling of our recovery from the pandemic was not what it should have been. However, does he not recognise that the constituents with whom I meet now rely on their PIP to get to their places of work because of the stripping away of council funding for bus routes, social care and all the services that were left in tatters by the previous Government?
John Glen
I reciprocate the hon. Lady’s warm sentiments. She makes her political points, some of which will be true in some circumstances, and some of which will not.
My point today to everyone in this House is this: let us be real, honest and true about the trajectory of growth in welfare spending in this country, and let us be honest about what we can afford. We face a transformed landscape of threats to this country, with calls for more spending on defence. We have to address our priorities, but we must also recognise that the most vulnerable need continued support. However, the system we have brings too many into dependency on the state, and that is not right.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
We all know the famous quote:
“The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”
It is a litmus test for the morality and integrity of our country’s values. In recent years, the United Nations has twice reported on the conditions for disabled people in the UK, finding that there were “grave and systematic violations” of human rights. Sadly, the Bill as it stands will worsen this situation.
Despite concessions, and even excluding existing claimants, brutal cuts will still push hundreds of thousands of vulnerable, sick and disabled people into poverty. Existing claimants will live in fear that if their situation changes and they are reassessed, they could lose everything under the new system. Disabled children will look to the future with trepidation, knowing that in adulthood the support that would have helped them to live a full and fruitful life might not be there.
I truly welcome the proposals to support with a little help those who could work, but according to the Learning and Work Institute, the number of people who will be helped is nominal, at between 1% and 3%—a finding echoed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which concludes that we might expect increases in employment in only the tens of thousands.
Although the concessions made over the weekend are welcome, they create a two-tier system, as the amount of support that someone receives will now depend on when they made their claim. That is simply not fair, especially as those who require help need this support through no fault of their own.
Yes, it is clear that our punitive and broken welfare system needs reform—it drives disabled people into poverty. However, there should have been proper consultation with those most directly affected in order to build a system that truly nurtures, but that has not happened. The Government should have published assessments on the impact of these updated proposals on the poverty of future claimants, those undergoing reassessments and their carers, but they have not. The Government should have assessed the knock-on impact on local authorities, the NHS and the charity sector and the scope for non-payment of household debts as people pushed into poverty desperately seek help elsewhere, but they have not. We are being asked today to vote on a Bill and rush it through without consultation or knowing the full picture, and that cannot be right.
If this is about cost, I recognise the financial challenges facing the Government—challenges that are a direct result of 14 years of mismanagement and under-investment by the previous Government—but the sad thing is that there are alternatives. The Government could introduce higher taxes on extreme wealth, end the stealth subsidies for banks and tax gambling fairly and properly. The list of alternatives is endless.
Every single disability organisation is against this brutal Bill. If we ignore them and say that it is okay to treat one group of people as lesser than another and okay to neglect the vulnerable, undermine their rights and dignity and push them into poverty, what does that honestly say about the true measure of our society? I say to my colleagues on the Front Bench: please pull back from the brink now, before it is too late, and withdraw this Bill.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Terrified, anxious and angry—these are the words that Citizens Advice Rural Cambridgeshire has heard most since these changes were proposed. I recently hosted an emergency forum in St Neots that brought together those on the frontline—food banks, advice bureaux, charities and social organisations—to discuss the impact of these changes, and every organisation said the same thing: the Government’s proposals, as they stood, should not go ahead. The fact that the Government reached the same conclusion just yesterday does nothing to reassure people that they know what they are doing. Their last-minute changes may protect existing claimants, but they will create a fundamentally unjust two-tier system.
As we have heard from my Liberal Democrat colleagues, we understand that the system needs reform, and we understand concerns that the welfare bill is currently too high. However, we also understand disabled people and their carers, which is a claim the Government cannot possibly make for themselves when they have yet meaningfully to consult those whose lives will be so significantly altered by the proposed changes.
The figures that many Members have mentioned help us to see the scale, but they do not tell the stories of the millions of real people whose lives will be changed by these reforms, so let me share the story of a 23-year-old autistic man on the Switch Now learning programme based in my constituency. Through education, health and care plan funding, he receives a full-time education and would be supported to progress into employment by next summer. Switch Now has a brilliant record of success, and I would welcome the opportunity to talk to the Secretary of State more about its work. However, his PIP was unexpectedly cut a few months ago with little notice, from around £100 a week to just £20. With that reduction, he cannot afford to feed himself through the week, let alone afford the transport to get to his programme every day or the care that he needs elsewhere.
My constituent and many others like him are doing exactly what the Government claim they want them to do: working hard, completing training and looking to the future where they can join the workforce with that support. They need that help. Hundreds of thousands like him will still face these barriers, even after yesterday’s changes. A 23-year-old autistic person applying next year will be treated differently from one applying today—not because their needs differ, but because of political timing. If the Government now accept that changes are necessary, why are we voting before the Timms review concludes? Why implement a four-point threshold on criteria that the Government admit need to be reviewed?
The Government’s approach exposes a lack of compassion. How will they encourage the back-to-work culture that I know the Secretary of State wants? Every person who might have a future lifeline taken away by these reforms is a human, but it is difficult to see that the Government are treating them that way.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State dismissed concerns about the two-tier system, but that is patently absurd. The Government are creating different levels of support for identical conditions purely based on application dates. Disabled people should not be shouldering the burden of fixing our public finances. They and the disability groups that represent them must be meaningfully consulted on any changes that will affect them. I will be voting against these changes and I urge anyone who cares about disabled people and fundamental fairness to do the same.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
This is, as has oft been reported this week, the first anniversary of a Labour Government— and have I not been waiting for that for a very long time? It is also the 10th anniversary of the start of my time chairing two Select Committees, first looking in detail at public spending and, for the last year, looking at the Treasury—and what a privilege that has been. I therefore cannot stand here and claim that I did not know that the Labour Government would be inheriting a very difficult financial situation.
Although this matter is not just about money, and should not just be about money, it is a tragedy that too many young people in particular are being pushed into disability benefits. It is a sign of what the Public Accounts Committee would call “cost shunting”— failures in parts of the public sector, where money has been taken away, have seen people pushed into other areas where they could claim the money. Too often, these people are being written off, and I have too many of them in my constituency. I can see the face of one mother who came to my surgery. She was distraught that her two young sons, one of whom is in his early 20s, were in a terrible state and had never been able to work.
A week is a long time in politics, as has famously been said. One week ago, this Bill meant that more than 300,000 people currently receiving personal independence payments were fearful that they would lose them through reassessment. But things have changed since then—I pay tribute to many hon. Friends for that, particularly to many of those who chair Select Committees and to the Government, who have embraced the discussions that we had in good faith. As a result, the Government have agreed to protect existing PIP claimants to make sure that those people are not fearful that they will lose their money and that they can relax and know that they can be secure in their future.
The Government have also ensured that those receiving universal credit and the health top-up are protected in real terms. I pay particular tribute to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for that proposal.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Throughout this process, I have focused primarily on the impact of these changes on people with severe disabilities who are unable to work. Originally, the Bill would have made those people worse off, which was unacceptable to me, but the Government’s changes ensure that their income will be genuinely protected in real terms. Does my hon. Friend agree that that change is vital?
Dame Meg Hillier
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That was one of the biggest concerns that I had with the Bill. It was also why so many hon. Members stood up and said that they did not want this to go ahead on those terms, and the Government listened.
The Government are also introducing important employment support. That presents a huge opportunity for our local councils and for others that provide that support. I am talking about not just the DWP, but charities that specialise in working with people. I have an example of such work. DWP staff in Hackney have worked with a woman, a victim of domestic violence, who at the age of 49 found herself homeless. They helped her into a flat. She was a parent of three and had not worked since she was 16. They found her work, and after a few weeks she came back to them and said, “I like this 10 hours of work a week. I want more.” Intensively done, these efforts can work. It takes time, which is one reason that we needed to protect current PIP claimants.
The co-production of the Timms review is a groundbreaking change. If the DWP adopts that, does it well and makes it the blueprint for the future, it will put disabled people in the driving seat in shaping benefits, not just now but in the future. That is long overdue and it is one of the biggest changes that came out of the discussions in recent weeks.
We all know that work is a noble endeavour. I will not repeat what others have said about that, but it is good for people and people want to work. Many disabled people in my constituency, and up and down the country, are not supported into work. Whether they are receiving PIP or they become well enough to work and do not need PIP, the dignity of work should be open to all. Too many disabled people are excluded from the workplace, so work support is critical to them.
I welcome the work of the Mayfield review. At a roundtable last week, I met employers and people who are putting people into work, who praised the early findings of the Mayfield review—one of the people there had been involved in it. It is demonstrably good value for employers to support people to stay in work because they keep that experience and knowledge.
I also welcome the right to try and all the other payments and support set out in the Bill. We need to reform the welfare system because it is letting too many people down: too many people moulder on benefits and never have the chance to get off them.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has put into the changes that have been made to the Bill. She spoke of cost shunting—the way that cuts in one area have forced people to claim in other areas, and those costs have risen. Does she not therefore think that it is important that the Government address those areas where the cuts have been made that forced people out, before we reduce the support for the new claimants that will be coming in?
Dame Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Cost shunting can work both ways, so it is vital that the Timms review examines that. If this Government are serious about mission-led government and working across Departments, it is crucial that the Department of Health and Social Care and others are closely involved.
We all know that government is about hard choices—no one said that to govern is easy. However, I say to the Government that it is about not just what they do but how they do it. I trust that over the past week the Government have really learned that. I am blown away by the talent of Members of the House, particularly new colleagues I have met since 2024. There are people sitting on the Benches on both sides of the House who have huge talent and experience. We are not just message replicators or voting fodder—there is talent, knowledge and expertise in this House that the Government would do well to harness. It is easy to get into a bunker mentality and feel like government is hard—I have been a Government Minister; there is lots to do and there is never a minute to oneself—but listening and engaging is vital and makes for better policy.
The privilege of this place is that every centimetre of the United Kingdom is represented by a Member of Parliament, so we have reach, which is a valuable tool for anybody who takes policymaking seriously. Parliament has a vital role and the Government need to engage better with Members of this House, particularly those who work on the Committee corridor. I pay tribute to my fellow Committee Chairs. We have a constitutional role to play to challenge and cajole Government, but we also have a role to inform and shape policy.
We live in a world where we see leadership in some prominent countries by people with whom we do not have the same values. The world is being taken in a direction that I do not want to see, and that is a risk in this country. Under the last Government, we saw how division rent the party now in opposition asunder. I have spent more than half of my 31 years in elected office under Governments led by the Conservatives—that is miserable, frankly, because it means that we did not have the power to shape things in the way that we do when we are in power.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The hon. Member talks about the previous Government. Does she agree that politics is about choices? This Government too have chosen cruelty: they came for the elderly, then the children and now the sick and disabled. Who is next?
Dame Meg Hillier
I am absolutely clear that government is about choices. When a party is in government, it has to make choices to run the country. Some 14 of my 20 years in this place have been served when other parties have been in government, and I have seen Conservative Prime Ministers pass through a revolving door, but I would always rather see a Labour Government. Divided parties do not hold power or government. If we want to see our values played out in this country, we need to vote for the Bill today.
There is still a lot to do, a lot of discussion to be had and the Timms review to take place, but major changes were made last week that have significantly altered the Bill in a short space of time. We should bank that and continue to fight, with the passion that hon. Members have demonstrated today, for the rights of disabled people and all of those who want a job, whether they are disabled or not, and need support to get into work.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
So there we have it: a Prime Minister not in control, a Work and Pensions Secretary with her hands tied behind her back, and a Chancellor now scrambling to find ways to balance the books after months of reckless spending. This shoddy attempt at welfare reform has revealed something that the nation has learned over the last year: Labour did not plan for government. We all know that the welfare bill is enormous, with more than £150 billion being spent on benefits for working-age adults. A staggering one in four claim to have some form of disability; that is simply unsustainable.
The Government had a prime opportunity in their first year in office—their honeymoon period—to bring about long-term reforms, yet this half-baked Bill, which has already been hastily rewritten to appease hard-left Government Members, does not even achieve the £5 billion of savings originally intended. Worse, it leaves us with a two-tier system from a two-tier Prime Minister.
We all know why the Chancellor needs these savings: she will go down as the Klarna Chancellor—spend now, pay later. After all, she has blown taxpayers’ money on 25 more pointless quangos.
Mr Bedford
I am not giving away.
The Chancellor has also blown billions of pounds on GB Energy—a project so vague that no one seems to know what it does—while handing out inflation-busting pay rises to appease the unions. Now she cannot even claw back £5 billion of savings to keep market confidence as the country’s debt spirals out of control.
When the Work and Pensions Secretary tabled the Bill, Conservative Members gave her three reasonable asks. First, we needed the Government to commit to reducing welfare spending, yet as their screeching U-turn shows, they are incapable of tackling that problem. Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts an increase of £60 billion in annual welfare costs by the end of the Parliament.
Secondly, we asked for a clear commitment that the Government would get people back to work. However, as was highlighted by the Secretary of State yesterday, the pathways to work programme will not be fully funded until the end of the Parliament, so it will arguably be inconsequential, weak and woefully underfunded.
Mr Bedford
I am not giving away; I am going to make progress. The hon. Member can repay the favour sometime.
Thirdly, we needed a guarantee that taxes would not rise again in the upcoming Budget. But let us be honest: the Chancellor has only one move left—she will raid the pockets of hard-working families, which is something Labour promised not to do. Even today, we have heard rumours in the media that she is coming after people’s ISAs.
It is painfully clear that the Government have lost their fiscal credibility. I say to my constituents: I will always be there to support you and I will fight your corner when the Government come back again for more of your hard-earned income to cover their incompetence. This embarrassing failure of leadership from a Government who should be at the height of their power has led Conservative Members to conclude that we cannot and will not support the Bill.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The social security system should be there as a safety net for those most in need—those who are vulnerable, disabled or have ill health—but after 14 years of the Conservatives, it has been left with gaping holes. Disabled people were the ones who suffered the most harm under previous Conservative Governments as well as under their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.
We all know that many disabled people suffered. Indeed, the DWP found that between 2014 and 2020 there were 69 process reviews—for those who do not know, those reviews happen when claimants have committed suicide. The National Audit Office found that in fact the number was probably higher. Just a few weeks ago, the second coroner’s inquest into the death of Jodey Whiting found that the DWP’s failings precipitated her death.
I set that out because it is important that we understand that disabled people’s lives have not been valued or respected for the last 14 years. Then, five years ago, when the pandemic hit, we all know that nearly two thirds of those who lost their lives had either a long-term condition, a disability or ill health. We also know that blanket applications of “do not attempt resuscitation” orders were placed on many. Indeed, Mencap found, and showed in its evidence on that issue, that that was happening to those with a learning disability. When the Government rightly put in place financial support such as the furlough scheme and the £20 uplift to universal credit, again, disabled people on legacy benefits did not attract that support. It is therefore fair to say that disabled people were hammered; in short, our lives were not valued.
In 2009, under the last Labour Government, we signed the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. The coalition Government then came in in 2010 and rather than supporting and implementing that, became the first nation state to be investigated for the way in which they treated disabled people through their welfare reforms. What was found? Grave and systematic violations of the rights of disabled people—and just last year, the update to that review said that there were no significant improvements. That was the record of the last Conservative Government, so we take no lessons from them.
Universal credit and personal independence payment are there as an income-replacement benefit. When we talk about UC and personal independence payment, they are not an out-of-work benefit, and people need to understand that. This is about an extra cost benefit that is there to help those who have a disability and need that additional support.
I come to the Bill, which still includes billions of pounds’ worth of cuts that will have a significant and negative impact on tens of thousands of disabled people. We know that it will potentially create a two-tier—and possibly three-tier—system. It is not me saying that, but the experts—the many organisations that provided Members from across this House with briefings. Imposing that four-point descriptor will mean that many will not be able to get support. If someone like me, who has sight loss, loses their sight in two years’ time, they would potentially not get the support they need. That is unfair and unjust.
It is vital that this Government wait for the OBR’s analysis. The proposals were not developed in consultation with disabled people, nor with us as Members of Parliament. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment shows that up to 150,000 people will be affected by the changes, although it will be more than that according to analysis by NEF and many others.
I respect the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), so I urge the Government to please let us have his review, let us all feed into it and let it be co-produced with disabled people. Let us also wait for Sir Charlie Mayfield’s findings from his Getting Britain Working review. I have met him and I am excited by his work. I welcome some of the other proposals from the Government in their “Pathways to Work” Green Paper on the right to try. That is so important, because I strongly believe that disabled people who want to work should be given the support that they need. Yet we all know that there are far too many challenges in that space.
I stand here as somebody who lives with a disability and as somebody who has served as a shadow Minister for Disabled People for many years. I know their lived experience. It is vital that they are at the centre of all the reforms. We cannot rush through these plans and changes as they will lead to a negative impact. We do not want to see this progressive Labour Government, who want to bring about change, break down barriers and create opportunities for people, end up leaving disabled people worse off.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Too much of what we have discussed today has not centred disabled people, the Bill or the changes that we are being asked to vote on. We are being asked to vote on the Second Reading of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. We have had some reassurances from the Government and they made some announcements yesterday. Yet even if we take those into account, the principles of the Bill are wrong. This is the wrong Bill at the wrong time, which will attack people and make their lives worse. It cuts money from disabled people, and it is driven entirely by the need to make cuts and not by the need to improve the welfare system.
If, for example, the PIP numbers are spiralling out of control, perhaps the Government could concede that there are more disabled people than there were before. Perhaps there are more people that need additional support. The number of people on the state pension increases at a rate larger than the population of Leicester every year. Perhaps that is because there are more older people than there were in the previous year. Perhaps the increase in PIP numbers is happening because more people are struggling to live their lives. Perhaps that is because, as Scope has said, £1,095 a month is the additional cost of living with a disability.
If this is a Labour Government who are on the left, who care about making people’s lives better, and whose principles are those of the party that created the welfare state and the social security safety net, why are they now choosing to dismantle it? Why are they choosing to go for disabled people when there are lots of other ways they could make savings? They could scrap their self-imposed fiscal rules. They could choose to have a more progressive taxation system. They could choose to levy this £2 billion of savings—or £5 billion, however much it is today—on someone other than the people who are already struggling.
Those people are already living in a world that is made for neurotypical people and for people who are healthy. They are already struggling with the additional costs of having to heat their homes more and having to buy special food. That is what PIP is used for: to allow people to get to work when they are struggling because they cannot do the 40-minute walk in the way that able-bodied people can. It is for people who cannot sit at home and put the heating off because they need a consistent level of temperature to manage their chronic pain. This Bill will take money away from those people in the future who have exactly the same conditions as those who are eligible now, and it is purely on the basis of cost. This is absolutely not about reforming the welfare system.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State stood up to answer a question from me. She said:
“I do not expect the hon. Member to have read every line of our manifesto, but reforming the benefit system was in it.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2025; Vol. 770, c. 32.]
It was not. Reforming the benefit system was not in the Labour manifesto. It talked about “reviewing universal credit” and said it would “reform employment support”. It did not talk about reforming the benefit system. The Government are going to have a hell of a time when they get this Bill through to the Lords, because the Lords are going to know that this was not in the Labour party’s manifesto.
If the Government are going to reform the welfare system, they should look at the issues that the Timms review is looking at, but to be fair, I do not have a huge amount of trust in the Timms review, given that the Minister said to me the day before “Pathways to Work” was published that I would be reassured and that I would welcome the proposals in it. The Minister honestly thought that I would welcome, on behalf of disabled people up and down the United Kingdom, the fact that they would have to get four points in one of the components of the personal independence payment to be eligible, and that I would welcome the fact that people would have the payments that they live on taken away. They use that money to be able to live. As I have said, this UK Government making these changes are supposed to be a Labour Government.
I want to talk about a couple of the specific matters in the Bill. First, the issues in “Pathways to Work” in relation to age discrimination continue to apply. They have not been fixed. There is nothing in this fudge of a compromise that changes them. A disabled person under 22 could have exactly the same additional costs as a disabled person aged 25. A two-tier system is being put in place. Also, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has said, there are major issues with the proposals on severe conditions in relation to limited capability for work. It is clear that the Secretary of State does not know what it says in the Bill. The Bill says that the descriptor must apply “at all times” for the claimant to be classed as meeting the severe conditions criteria. If I cannot do something 95% of the time, but 5% of the time I can, I will not be considered to have a severe condition. Unless the Government promise to make changes to this, the severe conditions criteria will apply to hardly anybody. People with Parkinson’s, ME or MS, for example, and who have recurring or remitting conditions will really struggle to claim this benefit. The Government need to reprioritise and to rethink. They need to listen to disabled people and to understand the impact that this will have on their lives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will reduce the time limit to five minutes after the next speaker, but I have no plans to reduce it further. Members will be able to see just how many are standing to speak and will know that this debate is scheduled to finish at 7 pm. That will mean many Members—35—will be disappointed.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I wish that we were not here today. We do not need to be here today. There is nothing special or magical about this Tuesday—nothing at all. The deadline we have been given is to solve a political problem. That is why so many of us on the Labour Benches have been pleading with the Government to pull the Bill, go back to the drawing board and work in partnership with disabled people and others, including with the Timms review, to ensure that we get a welfare system that works for disabled people and others. There is no need to ram the Bill through other than to save political face. There is no need to ram it through at Third Reading next Wednesday in Committee of the whole House so that disabled people cannot give evidence from their experiences in Bill Committee. There is no need to do that at all. We should be solving this problem, not solving a political problem.
We are being asked to vote on the principles of the Bill, and all hon. Friends should be clear about what those are. They are on the face of the Bill. It says,
“to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment.”
That is the purpose of the Bill. My colleagues and I did not come into Labour politics to restrict eligibility for personal independence payments. When I think about what we are being asked to vote for tonight, I think not just of my colleagues here, but of the disabled people who come to my constituency advice surgeries. I think of the disabled people who had hope in their hearts a year ago when a Labour Government were elected after 14 years.
Let’s be clear: this was not in our manifesto. The Labour party as a whole has not approved this, and the Bill has been rushed through. We need to be clear that if this were a free vote, it would be hard to find many Labour MPs at all voting for it. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, this is a matter of conscience, and we need to be clear about what we are comparing here. When we decide how to vote tonight, we are not comparing the Bill as the Government intended with the Bill as is promised; we are comparing the situation of disabled people across the country as it is now with the situation that will come to pass if the Bill is passed.
This Bill, which was brought—whatever the narrative—to save billions of pounds, with these concessions still cuts billions of pounds from disability support. No Government and no Labour Government should seek to balance the books on the backs of disabled people. That is not what any of us in the Labour family, left, centre or right of the party, came into politics to do, and that is why so many people are uneasy about this.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) spoke clearly from her experience. She regretted not voting against the Conservatives’ welfare Bill back in 2015. I urge all colleagues to listen carefully to what she said because the truth is this matter does not end when the voting Lobbies close tonight; this matter will come back to haunt Labour MPs in their constituency surgeries Friday after Friday up to and including the day of the next general election. People will ask, “Why on earth did you vote for these cuts?” or “Why on earth did you sit on your hands?”
It is notable that 138 disabled people’s organisations are pleading with Labour MPs to vote for the reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central and vote against this Bill. I know the Whips and those on the Front Bench can make compelling arguments, but for me, the real compelling argument has been made outside this Chamber by those 138 disabled people’s organisations. It was very telling that, when asked yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) to name one disabled persons’ organisation that supports this disability benefit cuts Bill, the Secretary of State could not name one, because there is not one.
I honestly believe that for any Labour MP who votes for this Bill tonight or sits on their hands, that vote will hang like an albatross around their necks. I understand that some colleagues will feel they have to vote for disability benefit cuts out of party loyalty, but there are other types of loyalty in addition to that: loyalty to our consciences; loyalty to our party’s values; loyalty to our disabled constituents; loyalty to those who are really struggling and come to see their MP—people like me, on about £90,000 a year—and ask them for help. I do not want to be in my constituency advice surgery saying to those people, “You know how you’ve got a problem and you’re in a really difficult situation? Well, that’s because of the way I voted.”
I urge MPs to have the democratic dignity that comes today by voting with their conscience and voting to give disabled people outside this place what they have been denied for too long: dignity, respect, a voice in this House and a vote in the Lobby—
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I want to begin today not with statistics or slogans, but with the reality of just one life: a constituent of mine, Sarah, from Hassocks. Sarah has a spinal cord injury. She is a wheelchair user, and this is what her personal independence payment makes possible.
It pays for underwear that does not dig into her skin, wedge pillows to raise her legs, grabber sticks, so that she can pick things up off the floor, and a second wheelchair to keep upstairs. It covers the use of a specialist rehabilitation gym that keeps her as healthy as possible. It allows her to buy heated blankets for the cold weather, because the cold weather makes her pain worse. It pays for specialist outdoor clothes from Norway to cover her legs, and in hot weather, it pays for extra fans, because the heat makes her injured body swell.
Sarah’s PIP funds a CPAP—continuous positive airway pressure—machine that runs 24 hours a day, connected directly to the hospital, because she has developed sleep apnoea, and it pays for the additional electricity to keep it going. It pays for a specialist mattress to prevent pressure sores, bathing aides and specialist body wipes for when cleaning herself is just too difficult. It pays for extra fuel for an average of four medical appointments each month, some in Hassocks and some as far away as London, and it has helped to make her garden accessible so that there is at least one part of her home where she feels free. These are not luxuries; they are the bare essentials that allow Sarah to live in dignity, with some measure of independence.
Sarah told me she has no faith in the system operated by the Department for Work and Pensions and no trust that fair and just decisions will be reached, because in her experience, the DWP’s overriding drive is not to understand but simply to cut.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I wonder whether the hon. Member has told her constituent, Sarah, that under these proposals, nobody who is currently on PIP will have a single penny of their income cut, and they will be protected for time immemorial.
Alison Bennett
I did not need to explain that to Sarah—she fully understands that—and I am about to address that point.
The Government’s last-minute climbdown has brought Sarah no comfort, because she never imagined she would be in a wheelchair. She never thought her life would change forever in an instant, and she knows that for thousands of people, that change is still to come. Life can turn on a sixpence—a single diagnosis, a single accident—and suddenly we find ourselves in a world we never imagined, up against barriers we never thought we would face. When that happens, the welfare system should be there to support us, not abandon us.
It is not just disabled people themselves who will be harmed by this Bill; it is also the millions of family carers—the unpaid carers—whose labour sustains our entire health and social care system.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the fate of unpaid carers, given that carer’s allowance hinges on a disabled person receiving PIP? With one in five people in my constituency who are disabled, which is well above the national average, should the Secretary of State commit to delinking carer’s allowance from PIP eligibility, or as a minimum, to providing automatic transitional payments during PIP reassessments, so that devoted carers are not left destitute while assessments drag on?
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend makes a wise point. In my constituency of Mid Sussex, one in four carers are themselves disabled. Carers UK has warned in the clearest possible terms that the Bill still risks a severe and lasting financial impact on future unpaid carers and disabled people—people already facing significant hardship. Even after the Government’s partial concessions, around 81,000 future carers stand to lose support by 2029-30. That is not a small technical change; it is a decision that will push families closer to poverty, create a two-tier system of entitlements, and deepen inequalities.
Let me be clear: the Government have produced no impact assessment, no comprehensive evidence of what this will mean, and there has been no consultation with carers themselves. Carers have been ignored by the Government throughout this entire debacle, and their voice must now be heard loud and clear. The Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose the Bill, which risks stripping thousands of carers of vital assistance, and leaving some of the most vulnerable people in Britain without support. Yes, we agree that the welfare bill is too high, but if the Government were serious about bringing it down, they would be serious about fixing health and, critically, social care at pace, tackling chronic ill health at its root, rather than punishing those who live with its consequences.
Sarah told me that she wanted to speak up not for herself but for that future community of disabled people. In truth, most able-bodied people think that they understand disability, but until someone is there, they cannot comprehend the world of barriers that are thrown up. For many, that day will come after this Government’s reforms have been forced through. That is why I say to Ministers that they should pause the Bill and go back to the drawing board. They should consult the people whose lives they are about to upend, and show them the basic respect of listening before they legislate to take away their support. If we do not stand with disabled people and carers now, and if we do not insist on compassion and fairness at the heart of our welfare system, we will all pay the price later, not just in higher costs to the NHS and social care, but in the erosion of the values that bind our communities together.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
As Chair of the Procedure Committee, I am often asked about how we legislate in this House. Many Members, and members of the public, have approached me about the speed with which the Bill is being pushed through. Moving from Second Reading to Third Reading in eight days does not give Members the time they deserve to scrutinise the Bill, and by denying the Bill the opportunity to go into Committee, we are denying disabled people and their organisations time and space to give evidence and ensure that the Bill is the best it can be. We all agree that the current system is broken. I have been a constituency MP for 10 years, and I have lost count of the number of times that I have sat in advice surgeries with constituents who have been failed by the current system. The need for reform is clear, but it is also clear that we need to do it in co-production with disabled people.
One of my closest friends, Zara, is a disability rights activist—indeed, she was when I met her when we were 18. She taught me many things. She taught me that having a disability was no barrier to living a full and exciting life. She taught me never to dance too closely on the dancefloor of a nightclub to someone in a wheelchair, because you will lose a toenail. She taught me “nothing about us without us.” That is the thing she taught me that I value most, and those are the values with which I approach the Bill.
When we legislate for disabled people without involving them, we make bad legislation—we make poor legislation, and I mean “poor” in many senses, because the Bill will push 150,000 disabled people into poverty. As a Labour MP and someone who cares deeply about reducing poverty, I cannot do that. PIP is an in-work benefit and enables many of my disabled constituents to be able to go to work in the first place, and the threats we see to it actually threaten their ability to access work. I have heard from constituents who are concerned about the fact that PIP is a passport benefit to claiming things such as carer’s allowance, and I seek reassurance on that from those on our Front Bench.
Most people would agree that eligibility for disability benefits should be determined on need. The concessions we have had from Government this week lead me to think that that value is not shared, because we will see future claimants being judged differently from today’s claimants. That means that in two years’ time, when I am sat in my advice surgery hearing from a constituent who is struggling to access PIP, I will be asked a question about how I voted today. I will be asked to explain why, because that constituent’s diagnosis or accident happened later than somebody else’s who has been left with the same disabilities, one of them is eligible and the other is not. I do not think I can look my constituents in the eye and say that I voted for a fair system, because this is not fair. A two-tier system for disability is unfair, and I do not want to be able to justify that. The Timms review will not be out until autumn next year, and I am beginning to wonder what the point of it is if the four-point rule will already be implemented by that point.
It is not easy to vote against my party Whip. I joined the Labour party 21 years ago—I added it up recently, and it was a bit of a shock that that was more than half my life. I joined because I believe in social justice and equality. I joined because people such as Zara taught me it was important to stand up for social justice and equality. I joined a Labour party that was reducing child poverty and introducing things such as the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and actually making life better for disabled people, and I have not changed: those are still my values today. That is why tonight I will vote for the reasoned amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I will do so because it is consistent with my values as a Labour MP and with the mantra that Zara taught me: “Nothing about us without us”.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
This is a crucial moment for a lot of people in this country. This Bill did not come from the demands of the disabled community or from an understanding of the inequality and injustice in our society; the whole origin of this Bill was a demand to save £5 billion. That £5 billion was wanted by the Defence Secretary for more armaments—no doubt other Departments were making demands—so the whole thing has been driven from a bad source at the very beginning.
It would be much more honest and much better if the Government simply withdrew the Bill altogether and allowed the review of the Minister for Social Security and Disability to take place and look at the issues of poverty facing people with disabilities and the huge levels of stress that many others face. That includes children with special needs that are not met in schools and children with autism or other special needs not being housed in decent-sized homes. There is a whole area of discrimination against people with all forms of disabilities that could and should be addressed.
As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) just pointed out, it was a previous Labour Government who introduced the disability discrimination legislation that made such an enormous difference. Going back further, it was the Labour MP Alf Morris who introduced the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which made a phenomenal difference to a lot of people’s lives. What has happened is that that whole tradition seems to have been stood on its head.
We are now presented with a piece of legislation that was going to take the personal independence payment away from a very large number of people, but instead, after the failed rebellion by some Labour MPs, it was changed to say that only future generations will be denied access to the payments they absolutely deserve. That means that in future, there are going to be very serious levels of poverty—much worse than there are now—among every family that includes someone with a level of disability.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, entitled to his opinion regarding this proposed piece of legislation, but would he concede that voting against it also means voting against £725 extra in cash terms for those on universal credit, against denying those people the ability to try work, and against investing £1 billion in the health and skills of people who wish to try work?
Jeremy Corbyn
Voting against this Bill will be a clear message to the entire community that we believe in the equality of people’s needs, and that we will bring in new legislation that will meet those needs. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that he will have to face people in his own advice bureau who will be asking why they cannot get a personal independence payment, yet their brother, their sister or their neighbour still gets it because they got it before the cut-off date. He knows full well the anomaly that, presumably, he will be voting for this evening. Perhaps he would care to reflect on that, and how to represent the people who have sent us to this place.
At the present time, the levels of poverty among the disabled community are absolutely huge. According to Scope, the cost for any family with levels of disability is around £1,000 per month. That is what will be removed if this legislation goes through. I ask Labour MPs—because it is in their hands at the present time—to reflect on what was said in the Labour manifesto last time, what was said in previous Labour manifestos and the history of the Labour party with respect to disability, and not to turn that history on its head by deliberately impoverishing the next generation. Are we to be a society that is a welfare state, with universality of benefits and support for people whoever they are and whatever their needs are—that is the whole tradition of the welfare state—or in 10 or 15 years’ time are we all going to be supporting charities, trying to raise money for people who are in desperate poverty because they have a disability that is absolutely no fault of their own?
We are going to move into a two-tier benefits system, in which those who got PIP before 2026 will seem to be relatively all right, but the rest will not. This is a ridiculous situation for the Secretary of State and the Government to have put the House in, and the only sensible thing to do is to withdraw the Bill now, allow the review to take place, and recognise the needs of all people with disabilities. If that costs us more money, so be it. As a society, are we content not to have a wealth tax, to have massive levels of inequality, and to accept that those with disabilities live economically much poorer lives because of the system we have? Surely, our function as Members of Parliament is to recognise a problem and be prepared to grasp that nettle and, above all, change it.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
In March 2020, when the Conservative Government looked like an outlier in appearing to pursue a strategy centring on herd immunity, I felt raw, hot fear. Thinking of my toddler and what might happen if I caught coronavirus meant that I sobbed deeply. After 10 years of austerity, I knew then that disabled people would pay an enormous price, and they did: almost 60% of covid-related deaths in that first wave were of disabled people. I vowed then that I would do all I could to create a country that treats disabled people with dignity and respect.
The social security system was broken by the Conservatives’ legacy of austerity and their monumental mishandling of the covid pandemic. I am now one of the only visibly physically disabled Members of Parliament. I am proud that our manifesto committed to championing the rights of disabled people, and the principle of working with disabled people to ensure that our views and voices are at the heart of all we do.
My communities nurtured me growing up, and they taught me the values of fairness, equality and community. It is with a heavy, broken heart that I will be voting against this Bill today. As a matter of conscience, I need my constituents to know that I cannot support the proposed changes to PIP as drafted in the Bill. Since April, I have been engaging relentlessly with the Government at the very highest level to change their proposals, making clear that I could not support the proposals on PIP. PIP is an in-work benefit designed to ensure that disabled people can live independently. Low-level support such as PIP helps to build the bridge to the deinstitutionalisation of disabled people, keeping us out of the dark corners of hospitals, prisons and social care settings.
The concessions that the Government have announced are significant, including that all recipients of PIP who receive it will continue to do so. While that will come as a relief to my 6,000 constituents who receive PIP, 4 million disabled people still live in poverty in the UK. The proposed changes to be made in Committee are still projected to put 150,000 people into poverty. I cannot accept that or a proposed points system under current descriptors, which would exclude from eligibility those who cannot put on their underwear, prosthetic limbs or shoes without support.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the issues with the points system is that it does not take gender into account? The assessment process does not understand that there are different issues for women and the physical things that our bodies face. Any changes that we make to the points system or descriptors must include a gender reference.
Dr Tidball
Absolutely, I agree. As a disabled woman, I know the added burden of menstruation, incontinence and pregnancy on disabled women, as those things intersect with their disability.
Research shows that supportive, incentive-based approaches far outperform cuts or sanctions in getting disabled people into sustainable employment. To be able to vote for this Bill on Third Reading, I will be looking for further reassurances that the detail of the Bill will fulfil Labour’s manifesto commitments to disabled people. I need to see three things from the Government embedded in the amendments.
First, the Timms review must not be performative. The Government must not make the same mistake twice, and co-production must be meaningful. The social model of disability must be central to that, removing barriers to our inclusion in society. Disabled people’s voices should be at the heart of decision making about our lives. The sequencing of the Timms review and decisions about future recipients need to change.
Secondly, the Government must consult disabled people over the summer to understand the impact of the proposed changes from November 2026 on future claimants, to mitigate risks of discrimination and poverty for those with similar disabilities to current claimants. The Government must produce an impact assessment based on that. In fulfilling the outcomes of the consultation’s findings, they may need to reconsider the savings that result from this process.
Thirdly, growth must mean inclusive growth. In implementing the £1 billion employment, health and skill support programme, there needs to be a clear target and a sector-by-sector strategy for closing the disability employment gap. That matters. The Conservatives left us with a pitiful 29% employment gap and a 17% pay gap for disabled people. As the Tories vote against this Bill today, I say loudly that that should not be read as a mark of solidarity for disabled people. Instead, they should be hanging their heads in shame, acknowledging their legacy of 14 years of failure for 16 million disabled people across our country.
I am proud that our Labour Government have done much already to promote the rights of workers and opportunities for disabled people. This Labour Government now have an opportunity to build on the positive aspects of its “Pathways to Work” Green Paper to bring in a new era of policy making for disabled people that puts a laser focus on closing the employment gap. The disability sector believes that the employment gap can be reduced by 14%, generating £17.2 billion for the Exchequer. We must seize this moment to do things differently and move beyond the damaging rhetoric and disagreements of recent weeks. There is an alternative approach, in line with the Prime Minister’s statement that reform should be implemented with Labour values of fairness. A reset requires a shift in emphasis to enabling disabled people to fulfil our potential.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I cannot proceed with my speech without putting on record my admiration for the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). She made a courageous and passionate speech, and I hope that all Members listened to it very carefully.
Let me start on a personal note. My dad is currently receiving PIP. He has been a proud scaffolder throughout his life, and Members should trust me when I say that he is not happy to be sitting at home. He would much rather be contributing to society, but his hips are giving up on him, and the NHS waiting lists are so long that he has been told he has no choice but to stay at home. Home life is difficult. He does not score four points on any particular measure, but he cannot move around as he used to, and he needs support to manage the basics. PIP does not solve everything, but it gives him dignity and independence, helping him to live his life while he waits for treatment. Cutting his entitlement will not incentivise him back into work. He needs no incentive. He just needs treatment. Following the Government’s recent announcement, I understand that my dad will no longer lose out, but the next person like him will. The Secretary of State talked earlier about a better tomorrow, but her proposals mean discounting the value of tomorrow’s disabled, suggesting they are less worthy of support than today’s. It is for that reason that I still cannot support the Bill.
Let me be clear. I agree that the welfare bill is too high, but we have to look at why that is. It is not because we have suddenly become a workshy nation, but because we have become less well. If the Government were serious about reducing the welfare bill, they would focus solely on fixing the root causes: chronic ill health, a broken social care system, and a mental health crisis among young people. While the Bill does good things—and I am sure that the reviews to come will propose more good things—to address the reasons for people being out of work, that is not its primary driver. The motivation for it was made clear in its timing, just before the Chancellor’s spring statement, with the core savings resulting not from helping people back into work but from tightening the eligibility criteria for a disability benefit. The Bill also removes carer’s allowance from thousands of unpaid carers—people who provide tireless, often invisible care that props up our NHS and social care system. Taking away their support is not just unjust, but economically reckless.
Let us be honest about the consequences. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, the Bill will push hundreds of thousands of people into poverty by 2029. How can anyone in this place look at that figure and truly believe that the Government are making these reforms to help people rather than to balance the books?
I appreciate that some will feel that the new deal struck over the weekend is a fair compromise, and in political theory it may be, but in practice it remains unsupported by disability groups and unsupported by the public. The majority in the country see the Bill for what it is: an unfair cost-cutting exercise. This is not reform; it is retreat—a retreat from compassion, from evidence and from the values that should underpin our welfare state.
I believe that there is a better way, a fairer way, one that supports people into work by investing in health and care rather than punishing them for being ill, one that helps disabled people to live independently rather than stripping them of the support that they need to survive, one that values carers rather than treating them as an afterthought, and one that does not create an arbitrary division between today’s disabled and tomorrow’s. That is why I will support the reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and vote against Second Reading. We believe that reform must be fair, sustainable, and rooted in dignity.
My dad wants to work. He is not looking for a handout. He wants to be well again. I believe that there are many more like him, and that this Bill will make their futures worse. I urge Members to think carefully about the legacy of tonight’s vote. I say, “Vote for compassion, vote for fairness, and vote against the Bill.”
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
At the heart of any progressive society is a simple test: how do we support people when they are most in need? The test is simple, but the answer is anything but, because need is not uniform. The duty of the Government is to create a safety net—one that is wide enough to break people’s fall, but not so wide that they can never escape it. We have a consensus in this House that the system is failing, and people are right to ask how we can fix it, but before we answer that, it is important to know where we are now and how we got here.
Where are we now? We should look at the situation when Labour came into power less than a year ago: NHS waiting lists were at record highs; 3 million people were shut out of work through ill health; universal credit allowance was at a 40-year low; young people were written off, with one in eight not in work, education or training; and we had a mental health crisis, with over 1 million people in desperate need of support. The Conservative party is responsible for that situation, and we are responsible for fixing it.
The Conservatives failed with their welfare reforms. For those who are disabled and want to work, the status quo puts up too many barriers. A disability employment gap of 28% is far too high, and behind that statistic are individuals who are being failed by the system—people who, with some adjustments, could get all the benefits that good work brings, but who are denied that opportunity. It is a dead-end system that counts people out more than it helps them up.
As more people come into the system, they are locked into the same damaging status quo. Every day, we see 1,000 new people claiming PIP. As a constituent in Wirral West said to me last week, many on PIP are in work. She is right, and it is important to point that out, but it is also the case that over 80% of people on PIP are not in work. Some of those people will never be able to work—they have an irreversible health condition that would not allow it—and they have been reassessed endlessly, which is unnecessary and cruel. But others are telling this Government that they want to work, and we have a duty to give them equal choices and equal chances, which they have been denied for far too long. Doing nothing is not an option. We have been doing that since 2019 and, at the current rate, the number of PIP claimants will more than double by the end of the decade, from 2 million to more than 4 million.
How did we get here? The statistics I have mentioned are not just data points; they tell a wider story about the path of decline that the Tories took our country down. It is a story familiar to many of us: local councils were cut to the bone, austerity left public services failing people across the board, health and social care services were stripped out, and we had a cost of living crisis that pushed families to breaking point. That is just the backdrop. The Conservatives presided over multiple failed welfare changes and scrapped the Work and Health programme, which helped unlock support to get people into work. They shut down Work Choice, thereby closing avenues to help disabled people to get on at work, and they left Access to Work in backlog chaos, meaning that many people have missed out on vital funds. The safety net was torn to shreds by neglect, and the system was stacked against those it should empower.
Given that legacy, is it any wonder that people worry when they hear about reforms? I do not blame them, but we need to fix the situation. We need deep and lasting change for our country, with direct support alongside wider reforms, and that is the journey we started when people voted us into government last year. We are delivering an extra £29 billion each year for our NHS to bring down waiting times, with a 10-year plan on the way. We will provide mental health services in every school, breakfast clubs and free school lunches so that we can help future generations. Employers are part of the solution too, and our Employment Rights Bill will give people confidence that they will be supported into good work. We will build more and better-quality homes, and nearly 3 million more households will qualify for the warm home discount next year. However, those steps alone will not secure our safety net.
We cannot allow misinformation to enter this debate. That would serve only to scare those who are most in need, so let us be clear: these reforms have never been about taking support away from those who are most in need. In fact, those people will never again suffer the indignity and anxiety of needless reassessments. The Government are taking action to support disabled people with targeted help, including by increasing the disabled facilities grant by £172 million.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks eloquently about the legacy left by the Tory Government. Does he agree that we need two Labour Governments working together in Scotland because the situation—[Interruption.] Those on the Opposition Benches may not want to hear it, but one in six Scots is languishing on an NHS waiting list as a result of the decisions of the Scottish Government—
Matthew Patrick
My hon. Friend is totally right, and the SNP record is worse. One in eight young people are not in employment, education or training here, but in Scotland the figure is one in six, and the SNP should be ashamed of its record for the Scottish people.
The Bill will introduce a right to try, so that people who receive support but have a job offer know they can take that opportunity with both hands and with no fear, because if for whatever reason it does not work out, the same support will be there for them. This removes an important barrier for many. We are also increasing the standard rate of universal credit and committing £1 billion in pathways to work funding. We aim to restore dignity to a system that has become a burden to those it should serve. This is a moment to rebuild trust in the safety net, to protect those who cannot work and empower those who can, and to restore dignity to everyone.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
This Government’s Bill is not just flawed, but morally indefensible. From the outset, we need to be honest about what this Bill represents. It is not a reform; it is a calculated assault on some of the most marginalised people in our society—people with disabilities, people with complex mental health conditions and people already struggling under the weight of austerity and neglect. This Bill continues a pattern we have seen too many times, with cuts dressed up as reform and cruelty wrapped in the language of efficiency. The Department’s own assessment confirms the truth: 150,000 people will be pushed into poverty, approximately 20,000 of them children, if the Bill passes. That is not a side effect but the outcome, and the Government know it.
This Bill targets those with fluctuating, invisible or mental health conditions—the very people who already face systemic injustice. It imposes narrow functional descriptors that do not reflect the real-world barriers people face. It punishes people not for being unwilling to work, but for not fitting neatly into bureaucratic tick boxes. Worse still, there has been no meaningful consultation with disabled people or carers, and no engagement with those who live this reality every single day. The Government are making policy about disabled people without disabled people. That is not just neglect; it is offensive. The evidence is clear: the Government are looking to make savings by depriving thousands of their means to live while telling them that the planned changes will empower them.
According to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, one in five people in receipt of PIP are already in paid employment and working to the limits that their condition allows. Of those, 60% will lose their PIP. These people are already in work. What more do the Government want? Why are they punishing them? In my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr, 9,000 people rely on this vital payment, but nearly 4,000 are set to lose out entirely, including 630 people currently in work. What do the Government say to my constituents who will lose the income required to live with their condition? What do they say to the millions of families who will have to tighten their purse strings so they can pay for the basic needs of loved ones?
Ayoub Khan
Worse still, just a year ago, when this Labour Government came to power, the people were promised change. The Prime Minister said on the campaign trail that those with the broadest shoulders should pay their fair share, yet only one year in this Government are stripping income from those who are most in need by telling disabled people that they are not impaired enough to earn state support.
Ayoub Khan
This is nothing short of shameful, and if the Bill passes, it will be a national disgrace. The welfare state was built on the principles of solidarity, dignity and security, and this Bill tramples on those values. It will strip away independence, force people into deeper hardship and leave many with no safety net at all.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I just make the point to the hon. Member that the hon. Gentleman is clearly not going to give way, which is in his gift.
Ayoub Khan
I say to the Ministers and hon. Members who claim that these changes are needed to preserve the welfare state that the welfare state was built on the idea that everyone would receive state support for things that were out of their control, no matter what. Passing this Bill will not preserve the welfare state but dismantle it, and I urge every Member of this House to reject it. We can and must do better than this. The people we represent deserve far better.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham North) (Lab)
I begin by welcoming the positive steps the Department has set out in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper on supporting people into work; the right to try work without the fear of having to go through reassessment for benefits if it does not work out; reforming and modernising the Access to Work system; disability pay gap reporting; disability employment gap reporting; ensuring everyone has access to a supportive work coach; the assessment process, and ensuring that assessments are recorded as standard, which people were desperately crying out for; and ensuring people with lifelong conditions do not need to be reassessed when we know their condition is unlikely to ever improve. I also welcome many of the concessions the Government have made over the past week: bringing forward employment support, introducing protections for current PIP claimants going forward, and recognising the need for co-production.
However, I continue to have some concerns, which I believe must be addressed. We need the Timms review to report before the new system is rolled out. On co-production, I want to start by saying that this should have happened way before we got to today’s debate. I know from my time as shadow Minister for disabled people that when we work with disabled people and their organisations from the start, we produce better policy. There is so much talent out there and, like many of us in the Chamber, disabled people and their organisations want reform of the benefits system, but the reforms set out in the Bill are not what they want or need. We should have been working with them on it right from the start.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. Does she agree that, as well as having meaningful engagement with disabled people themselves and disabled groups, it is really important that the Timms review engages with unpaid family carers, both because they are caring for people with disability and because they are implicated through carer’s allowance being linked to PIP?
Vicky Foxcroft
I absolutely agree. The review needs to ensure that it has the right engagement and consultation with everybody, but it must be co-produced with the experts by experience.
I want to take this opportunity to clarify exactly what we mean by co-production. The principle of co-production is rooted in the US civil rights movement and the ladder of citizen participation developed by Sherry Arnstein in 1969. It should be in place from the start of the process. All information should be made available to everyone. A plan should be agreed together. There must be the ability to bring in experts. These experts should be paid for their contribution and treated as valued partners. We should empower and upskill those who are involved. And I hope that it goes without saying, but all information should be available in accessible formats. The valued partners need to be user-led disabled people’s organisations.
I finish by underlining that the focus of making the changes should not be on making cuts, but on getting it right. The focus on getting it right means that everything needs to be in scope of the review, not just the ability to tinker within limited predetermined parameters. Co-production must take place before any changes to the current assessment criteria are proposed. If that means pausing to ensure that we get it right, then that is what we must do.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I have great respect for the experience and intelligence of the Ministers behind the Bill, but what we have left in front of us today is no more than a clumsy salvage operation. How on earth did we end up here? The Government say that the cost of disability benefit is spiralling out of control. They say there is no option but to make cuts. However, the premise behind this argument is too simplistic. Overall, the cost of in-work benefits as a percentage of GDP has not changed much, because every time a Government try to cut one benefit, another rises in its place to compensate.
Before any changes were proposed, there should have been a serious analysis of what is driving the surge in PIP claims, but Ministers have made little attempt to understand why—it is just a curve on a spreadsheet that needs to be flattened. We are left with the implicit assumption that the Government believe that hundreds of thousands of people are currently receiving benefits that they do not really need and do not deserve.
However, there are lots of factors driving this increase, some of which are actually a direct knock-on effect of other Government policies. For example, many of the extra claimants are the result of a recent rise in retirement age; the Government have simply shunted one benefit cost—pension payments—into another—PIP. Another big slice of the increase comes from people who are unable to access healthcare in a timely fashion, especially since covid, and have therefore fallen out of the workplace. Perhaps most of all, people are driven towards benefits by the terrific rise in the cost of living—they just cannot get by any more. Fundamentally, life costs more for people who are disabled. Besides the impact on daily living, many treatments and aids are not available on the NHS.
Overall, there are three telltale signs that what we are looking at is a botched compromise. First, we have the new four-point rule for PIP assessments. Any question that scores a one, two or three will not make any difference to the outcome. If someone cannot undress their lower half and needs help to go to the toilet, incredibly, they will not qualify for help. There is literally no point in asking half the questions on the form. The whole four-point rule has been dreamed up not because anyone thinks it is a good way to assess hardship, but to hit an arbitrary cost saving.
Secondly, we have the incomprehensible proposal to change PIP assessments next year, without waiting for the outcome of the Timms review. I quote from the Commission on Social Security, which has written to the DWP:
“The circus around the proposed changes to PIP and universal credit are a classic example of what happens if policy makers do not work with those whose lives are profoundly affected by Government policy.”
Thirdly, we have the decision to give higher benefits to existing claimants than to new claimants, as if someone’s needs were somehow less because they applied after 2026. I do not know how anyone can stand over this as a credible policy.
Even on the most optimistic forecasts, only a relatively small minority of current claimants will be able to find jobs, and no account at all has been taken of regional employment blackspots. For every disabled person who can be helped back into work, there will be others moving in the opposite direction. About a third of ME and MS sufferers who are currently in work will be unable to continue as a direct result of losing PIP support, but they do not figure in the Government’s back to work estimates. We also have the 150,000 people who will lose their carer’s allowance, which is likely to rebound on the health service and wipe out whatever savings the Government had hoped to make.
The Secretary of State has set high standards to be judged by, saying:
“For me, this is a moral mission because I believe that there is a better future for people in so many parts of the country. It is absolutely not cruel.”
Well, it might have been a moral mission, but it is certainly not a moral outcome. This is not fairer and more compassionate, as the Secretary of State has claimed. It is harsher and more chaotic.
The Bill can no longer be considered a serious attempt at welfare reform—it is just a cobbled together scheme to get us through the next 24 hours. I urge all Members to vote against it.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I never expected to be standing here opposing Labour Government legislation that seeks to impose changes on disability benefits that will put 150,000 people into poverty. The Government’s own poverty assessment states that the concessions mean there will be a “negligible” impact on pensioner and child poverty. I do not know when we became so matter of fact about the implications of putting people into poverty, or where that language comes from. I would expect us to be moving people in the opposite direction.
We talk about choices, and we hear a lot from the leadership about tough choices. I do not consider cutting disabled people’s benefits to be a tough choice for us politicians, but it will mean that people on the receiving end will be forced to make tough choices about the way that they make ends meet. Too often, we make choices that adversely impact those who cannot fight back. We show deference to people with wealth and power, when we know that they should be bearing a heavier amount of the burden. Those who have enormous wealth have done extremely well over the past 15 years. Average incomes for ordinary families in that time have stagnated and the standard of living has gone down. If we want to make tough choices, we should be looking there.
I wish to use my time today to highlight some of the areas where we could make a difference: reforming capital gains tax, for instance, through increasing rates and closing loopholes to raise £12 billion a year; closing the carried interest loophole to private equity bosses so that they pay their fair share to raise half a billion pounds; applying national insurance to investment income to raise up to £10.2 billion; introducing a 4% tax on share buybacks to raise between £0.1 billion and £2 billion a year; ending and redirecting fossil fuel subsidies for oil and gas companies to raise £2.2 billion a year; taxing private jets to raise an additional £1.2 billion a year; and stopping rich multinational corporations evading tax and mandating that they declare their profits wherever they operate to raise £15 billion a year.
Then we come to the performance of the Treasury. In 2023, according to the Audit Commission, the Treasury gave out £204 billion in tax relief. The Audit Commission, the Treasury Committee and the Institute for Government concluded that the Treasury is not investing enough into understanding the benefits of these tax reliefs. There are a total of 1,180 tax reliefs, 815 of which the HMRC has no idea what benefit they bring to us. That is billions of pounds a year going on tax reliefs.
Those are the choices that we are choosing not to make. Let us balance those choices against the choice that we are being asked to make today. It beggars belief that we are putting savings in the welfare budget ahead of changes to the welfare budget that might assist people into work. The amount of money that is available in the examples that I have given could easily offset what we are talking about today and allow us to implement the reforms of the welfare state. Then we could see how they benefit the people in the system and what savings can be achieved.
For all those reasons, I will be supporting the reasoned amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and voting against this Bill.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I speak today not just as a Member of this House, but as someone who has lived with the reality of a disability in my own family. I grew up with a sister who has a learning disability. Later in life, she also faced the brutal challenge of cancer. I have seen for myself the emotional toll, the complexity of care, and the financial pressures that came with that journey—pressures that were not self-inflicted, or in any way her fault.
I have also seen at first hand how PIP can be a lifeline for many people working in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, helping them to avoid total reliance on the state. For my constituent Shane, this support is “the fragile scaffolding” on which his life and work currently depend. All these experiences have shaped my own principles, including the need to take personal responsibility, to have a moral duty to support those who genuinely cannot support themselves and to follow the foundational principle that people in exactly the same situation should be treated the same before the law. This Bill breaks those principles.
Under Labour’s current plans, someone like Shane, or my sister, Becky, will be treated completely differently by the state, not due to their willingness to work, but based on a completely arbitrary cut-off date, currently being forced through by Ministers in Whitehall. If the Bill passes, someone in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, newly diagnosed with a learning disability, cancer or other life-changing condition in late 2026, will get thousands of pounds less in support than someone in identical circumstances today.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The hon. Member is giving a great speech. He highlights the ridiculous two-tier system that the Government are setting up, whereby it is fine for existing claimants but not fine for future claimants. My North Cornwall constituents, Dennis and Jill from Bude, already face a similar two-tier system: they do not qualify for the carer’s allowance because they are of pensionable age. Does he agree that we should be expanding the system rather than narrowing it?
Robbie Moore
I am sure that Dennis and Jill will be looking at the debate carefully and understanding clearly the issue of fairness, which is at the heart of what this legislation addresses. As I have explained, it is a scenario that Shane, in my constituency, is experiencing: he is able to receive PIP today, but someone in a similar circumstance to him will not be able to receive it after late 2026. That is not fair.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Lauren, from my constituency, is a bright and determined 16-year-old young woman, who has just completed her GCSEs and came to do work experience in my office. She has cerebral palsy and is applying for PIP not because she wants a handout, but because she knows that she will need support to live independently and pursue a career and life ambitions that will probably bring her to this place at some point, if she gets her way. Does the hon. Member agree that young disabled people deserve clarity and dignity, and that this Bill is not giving them that?
Robbie Moore
This Bill gives no clarity or dignity to the many people such as the constituent the hon. Lady kindly mentions, or those in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. That is why I do not support a plan that creates such a two-tier system, which now seems to be the hallmark of this Labour Government and goes against the very principle of fairness.
Let us not forget exactly why we are here: these changes are being pushed through at pace, at the eleventh hour, without proper evidenced reasoning for the new cut-off date. That is not the kind of detailed policy making that we expect from our leaders.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the Labour Government’s proposals are creating the worst of both worlds? On one hand, they are failing to tackle the rising welfare budget, but on the other they are creating anxiety and fear among many disabled and vulnerable people, who do not understand or know the impact of these changes on them?
Robbie Moore
That is the nub of why there is so much concern that has been consistently raised by all Members on the Conversative Benches, and many on the Government Benches as well, who, dare I say, are considering how they will vote later.
No one doubts that our welfare system, which is set to exceed £100 billion by 2030, needs reform. If we continue to follow the Chancellor’s strategy of recklessly borrowing, which will have the same negative implications on PIP, some of the poorest in society who feel the biggest impact of any financial crisis will be exposed.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thus far, I have kept out of this debate, probably for the wrong reason, but my wife has been disabled for 26 years and is in receipt of PIP. Although I became an MP in 2017, as a family, we were deeply grateful for the support. My wife is an honest lady—I hope I do not embarrass her by saying that—and she would have been delighted to have been consulted about PIP, as set out by the hon. Member for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft). She would have put her thoughts down on paper, and I am sure that many recipients of PIP would have said, “Yes, we will try to see if we can help to get the budget straight in some way.” That way, the Government would take people with them; that is important and we are missing that.
Robbie Moore
Trust is at the heart of the issue, and if we want to create a system that commands public trust, this is not the way to do it. We need to reward effort and promote self-reliance, but the Bill creates a two-tier system detached from individual responsibility. We need to make the welfare system more targeted, but the Bill, like many Government policies, simply shifts new costs on to people who will genuinely be ill, newly disabled or simply younger and does little to target those relying on the state.
Anna Dixon
The hon. Member talks about fairness and trust. I wonder if he is proud of his Government’s record, where Tory cuts to welfare pushed more people into poverty, with 2.9 million emergency food parcels in the last 12 months. If he votes against the Bill, he will be voting against the biggest uplift in the UC standard allowance. Is he proud of that?
Robbie Moore
I will take no lectures from somebody who supported a 10% rise in council tax across the Bradford district, impacting many of those who will be impacted by PIP.
This is not principled reform, it is not radical and it is not good policy making—and many Labour Members know it. The Government can and should be doing better. I will not support the Bill.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Welfare reform is important because the current system is not working and because it has a huge impact on the lives of so many individuals and families across the country. For the past 10 years in this place, I have seen so many of my constituents trapped in poverty with the constant fear and insecurity the current system brings, but we should not be in a position in which the Government are scrambling at the last minute to make changes to improve proposals that were not good enough when the Bill was tabled. While there are many positive measures in the Bill, we should not be here because the Government have had evidence since April of the extent of concerns from right hon. and hon. Members. Those concerns have been patiently and respectfully expressed in private and in public, but it appears that the extent of those concerns was simply ignored for a long time, until it became clear that the Government might lose the vote.
We are now reaching for solutions at the final hour, which should have been better considered over a longer period of time as part of a rational and respectful response to feedback. I regret the situation deeply, and I say to Ministers that, whatever happens today and in the coming days, there must be a profound change in the approach to engagement with MPs, whose primary duty is to their constituents and especially to those who rely on the services we design and govern.
On where we are with the Bill, I welcome the substantial changes agreed to in discussions last week to which I was a party. The protection of existing PIP and universal credit health top-up claimants will alleviate the anxiety so many of our constituents have been experiencing for months that they would see their incomes drop, with no additional support, without any change in their condition. The commitment to co-produce the Timms review with disabled people is significant and welcome. I hope that the Government will put that commitment on the face of the Bill before we get to Third Reading and that more detail will be provided about how co-production will be done so that disabled people and their organisations can have confidence that they really will be true partners in the process, and that engagement will be properly resourced.
The commitment to bring forward employment support is also helpful. The last Labour Government sought to address unemployment and the size of the welfare bill, and they did so by front-loading employment and health support. That should have been part of the plans from the start, because addressing the barriers to employment that many sick and disabled people face is the best way to address the challenges that the Government are seeking to tackle.
Deirdre Costigan
I know that many hon. Members were concerned that support would not be put in quickly enough. However, my constituency of Ealing Southall already has £8 million of funding from the Government’s get Britain working trailblazer programme. Does she welcome that the new proposals include £1.3 billion for investment in that programme and that that help will be rolled out to every disabled person who wants a job?
Helen Hayes
I welcome the bringing forward of employment support, and I know how effective that support can be, but we have yet to see it bed in.
I have further concerns that have not yet been addressed. I am concerned about the impact of the Bill on young people, and care-experienced people in particular. We need further detail on the support that will be provided for 16 to 22-year-olds, particularly with their mental health, to enable them to participate in the workplace.
There is one further concern that has not been addressed and on which I want to press the Minister, which is the lack of alignment between the conclusion and implementation of the Timms review and the implementation of raising the threshold for PIP to four points. I believe that the Secretary of State made some movement on that point in her opening speech, but so far, it is not clear that we will avoid a situation in which there will be a category of new claimants—people who become disabled after November 2026 but before the implementation of the Timms review—who will face an increased threshold without any of the mitigations that will come from a revised assessment process and descriptors that are co-designed with disabled people. That would be unfair and unequitable, and I believe that it makes the policy and putting four points in the Bill incoherent. We must have a system that aligns the implementation of the new system with the review process, co-designed with disabled people, that defines it.
I believe that the Government must also set out further detail on the impact assessment between today and Third Reading. That the Bill will plunge 150,000 people into poverty is an unacceptable consequence. If the Government are confident that their mitigations and the additional support mean that that will not be the case, it must provide this House with credible evidence so we can believe that. At the moment, we have to base our judgments on the evidence that is in front of us and that says that 150,000 people’s lives will be made worse as a consequence of the Bill.
One of the most regrettable aspects of the process is that it has harmed the trust and confidence of disabled people. Full alignment of the Timms review with the introduction of the new system is an essential requirement of beginning to rebuild that trust. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says from the Dispatch Box in closing the debate.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
This cruel mistake of a Bill must fall today. The reasons in the amendment tabled by the Green party stand, and with my colleagues I will vote to stop it on Second Reading and support the reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). The proposals are a mess, the timetable is breakneck and other hon. Members have said it right: it is about the spreadsheet. The rush to get it through before the Budget is a dead giveaway that this is about making cuts and not improvements.
The Government’s actions in that way do not respect sick and disabled people. Way before making any changes to social security, real dialogue should have taken place that respects their rights and needs. Already, three in four people who need to use a food bank have a disabled person in their household. The Bill will further impoverish hundreds of thousands with cruel cuts in support. The Government’s promises of changes from removing to denying support will harm millions in future and create a multilayered mass of injustices. The Bill clearly must fall today.
Instead, why not do what Greens, disabled people’s organisations and many Members across the House have proposed and work with disabled people to co-produce a social security system that is fair, humane and accessible, without pre-emptive criteria? A whole playbook of proposals was put forward by the hon. Member for York Central on tabling her amendment. Why not do that? Why not develop policies that are genuinely good value, which do no harm and which achieve the stated objectives of helping to invest in people to save money? Why not raise the investment needed to save on future spending from fair taxation on the very wealthiest, who are orders of magnitude away from the struggle to survive that MPs hear about every day from the people the measures are aimed at? The least advantaged should not pay, but there are those who clearly should.
I echo many Members across the Chamber when I say that I am sad that a Labour Government have brought us here. This is in such contrast to the post-war principles that the party once stood by, which were about real social security alongside investment in jobs. Shamefully, in its current form, the Bill brings in the largest social security cuts since summer 2015, 10 years ago when George Osborne was Chancellor.
The compromise proposals that mainly protect current claimants are unfair and divisive, and so many will remain unhelped if our honourable colleagues give in. What about the young people whose disabilities are yet to develop and who will need PIP to thrive? What about the people who fall sick or get injured the day after these measures come into effect? And what about the people with conditions such as Parkinson’s, MS or ME, who are still effectively excluded from the Government’s serious condition criteria because the Bill does not allow for fluctuating conditions?
This whole process has truly scared people, and it has mobilised them. I have heard directly the testimonies of worry and fear from hundreds of my constituents in Brighton Pavilion. The Secretary of State knows that I have raised with her the terror that people are feeling right from the start. Will she now apologise for that? I have heard from a roundtable of organisations in Brighton who are supporting people to get by. They have told me how people are using disability benefits to cover just the very basics, such as shortfalls in rent, heating costs and food. I have heard how local employment services are hanging by a thread and local authority support has been hollowed out. Brilliant organisations such as Amaze, Money Advice Plus, St Luke’s and Citizens Advice are already inundated with people concerned for their futures. They want structural barriers and inequalities removed first, but they want investment in people as well.
Today, we must vote down these proposals, so that the Secretary of State can listen and learn and go back and do better. Those who are sick, injured or disabled today and in the future need our solidarity, and they will get it from the Greens.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
When coming to a crunchy question or problem, I always think it is wise to take a step or two back and try to unpick some of the assumptions that underpin the issue—to see the bigger picture, if you like. Not everyone will agree with some of the conclusions that I come to, and that is fine—this is a debate, not an echo chamber, although some people may be surprised to hear that—but it is right that we robustly test the proposition before us, to try and understand the structural issues that underpin this Bill.
Let us consider the key issue here: rising welfare costs could lead to the welfare budget becoming unsustainable. The assumption often made is that welfare costs rise because of individual failings, such as people being lazy, unwilling to work or even dishonest—workshy, in other words—but this assumption does not stand up to scrutiny. The welfare bill is not growing because people suddenly became lazy. It is rising because our economy and our society are fundamentally broken. They are broken because of 14 years of cuts and of dehumanised, punitive changes wrapped up as reform but little more than a brutal disciplining of the workforce, compliments of the Conservatives. That workforce are increasingly finding themselves trapped between insecure low pay and in-work poverty, or a humiliating workfare programme that has sucked the marrow out of millions, leaving them drained and burned out and leading to a soaring mental health crisis.
What does explain our dilemma is the fact that work itself has fundamentally changed. Jobs are less secure and often poorly paid, and many who work full time still need benefits because wages do not meet the basic costs of housing, food, childcare and utilities. On top of this, the cost of living crisis is being driven by a toxic mix of structural failures. The climate crisis has increased volatility in the global supply chains of everything from microchips to semiconductors, pushing up food and energy costs. At the same time, companies operating under monopoly and oligopoly conditions, particularly in the energy, water and food sectors, have taken advantage of this disruption to engage in price gouging, driving profits sky high while families struggle to make ends meet.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, the weakness of trade unions has limited workers’ ability to bargain for pay rises that reflect rising costs—costs that, by and large, Governments have failed to cap. Yes, caps on energy prices have been half-heartedly attempted, but what about a cap on rents and on greedy landlords? What about capping the large agri-corporations pushing up food prices or water companies extorting all of us? These are the underlying structural causes. Their collective outcome is a relentless squeeze on real incomes and an increased reliance on welfare simply to survive. In truth, our welfare system is increasingly the state subsidising employers who pay poverty wages, landlords charging unaffordable rents and corporations extracting vast profits, all at society’s expense. All the while our climate and ecology decline, adding to that instability.
The Bill, which at its heart is about balancing the books by tightening welfare eligibility and gatekeeping access, will not address those root causes. It still punishes victims rather than tackling the structural failures, and I cannot support it. That is why I will support the reasoned amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). The Labour Government have made a start on many of those structural issues—the trade union Bill, GB Energy and the leasehold Bill—but they must go further and faster if we are to make a real impact on who our economy works for and, ultimately, bring down the welfare bill.
Welfare reform should deliver dignity and fairness, not austerity and exclusion. Until we face those deeper truths, we will continue to address the symptoms rather than the causes, perpetuating the very injustices we claim to want to solve and that so many of us came to this place to sort out.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I rise to support the reasoned amendment and to vote against the Bill, which will produce an abandoned generation: young people with disabilities and life-limiting conditions who are currently on children’s disability living allowance and who would normally transfer to PIP at the age of 16. The Bill completely ignores them and forgets about them. The usual process is that around someone’s 16th birthday, the DWP sends them an invitation to claim PIP, and it is then up to the parent or young person themselves to apply, within a time limit of 28 days. This Bill does nothing to address that. It is a process of mandatory self-application, so there is no automatic conversion for a child with a disability or a life-limiting condition who is already entitled to DLA to move on to PIP.
The stricter eligibility criteria in the Bill and the concession actually make it worse, because as of November 2026 new PIP claimants must meet the four-point single activity daily living test. For those young people with a disability or life-limiting condition who are currently in receipt of children’s DLA who would normally have transferred to PIP, come November 2026 their condition must be such that it enables them to reach that four-point eligibility test. Those young people, who this place and the devolved legislatures keep talking about and encouraging to stay in education and be supported with their special educational needs, are now being told that, come 16, if their condition does not meet the four-point criteria, they will not be in receipt of personal independence payment. That payment is a door opener for their families and allows them to access carer’s support. It allows those young people, if they look to further their education or employment, to access mobility and support schemes. It allows those young people with disabilities and life-limiting conditions to hope and to dream, and to be eligible for support to enter the workforce. If a young person who, come November 2026, does not have a condition that allows them to reach that four-point criteria, that payment will be denied to them.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I want to share the words of young disabled children from my constituency. They said to me this weekend, “Don’t speak for us, speak with us.” That struck me, because so often in this place decisions are made about people without ever really listening to them. Does the hon. Member agree that if we are serious about a just and compassionate welfare system, we should honour those words, “Don’t speak for us, speak with us” and, better still, listen?
Robin Swann
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I have met these young people, too. I met people from an organisation called BraveheartsNI, which represents a cohort of young people with congenital heart defects who are at that transitional stage. They told me about the real concerns—they are not just concerns, but fears—among these young people, who have been looking forward to the opportunity to go to university, get on to training courses and seek employment but still require additional support.
Mencap has highlighted that child DLA is the main childhood disability benefit for children aged nought to 15. Some 166,000 children with learning disabilities, autism and Asperger’s retained or increased the total monetary value of their child DLA award when transitioning to PIP. Mencap is concerned that this number will decrease because of those young people not being able to achieve the four-point eligibility criteria.
For the sake of those young people who have special educational needs, disabilities and life-limiting disabilities, who we all come to this place to support—to give them a future and to give them hope—I implore the Government to withdraw this Bill now, go back, engage and co-produce something that meets the needs of our country and our young people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
On a long, hot, sweaty day like this, one of my hearing aids has collapsed in the middle of this session, so I am only half hearing you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you did call me, didn’t you?
Andrew Pakes
Thank you—you have saved me the embarrassment.
It is a great privilege to speak in this debate alongside so many passionate advocates who want to get this reform right. I think all of us on the Government Benches, whatever our differences of opinion on a point of policy, came into this House to make a difference and fix the welfare system, to liberate and create opportunities for people. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement yesterday and welcome news of the PIP assessment review, which moves us forward. It is vital that we engage those most affected by a failed welfare state in designing a successful one.
We have put off change for too long. That is particularly true when it comes to young people. If politics is about choices, condemning nearly a million young people to the scrapheap of unemployment was the choice of the Conservative party. I want to focus my contribution on how these changes can affect young people and their life chances.
Full employment and good-quality jobs have been a central part of Labour’s most successful Governments. That is why fixing Britain’s broken system of social security must be a priority for this Labour Government. There is no dignity in denying young people the opportunity to learn, earn or make a better life for themselves. As we approach the 80th anniversary of the 1945 Labour landslide, we must remember previous Governments who have dealt with such big challenges. Work was essential to that great 1945 Labour Government. William Beveridge’s landmark report in 1942 laid the foundation for Labour’s post-war welfare state, with an NHS, free education for all and full employment.
The vision of Labour leaders such as Attlee, Morrison and Bevin was that every citizen would live a life free from want, squalor, disease or poverty, with meaningful help when times were tough. In return, every citizen was expected to play a full part in the social and economic life of the nation. Looking at the high number of people not in education, employment or training—NEETs, that terrible phrase—in my constituency, I see an economy that is still letting people down, a mental health system that is letting young people down and an NHS system that is trapping too many young people on a life of benefits.
When the Minister winds up the debate, can he confirm that we will deliver the employment support that young people need and simplify the way that benefits and jobcentres work, so that young people get the support they deserve? Will the Secretary of State work with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to fix our broken mental health system, so that young people have a hand up rather than being pushed down? Our values should be about compassion, and our social security system should be about dignity for those who are unable to work or need support. That is why I welcome the protections that have been announced for people already on PIP.
There has been a common theme in the debate. Many Members have raised concerns not with the fact that the Timms review will happen—it will begin to embed co-production, as the Secretary of State and many others in this House have said—but, I think legitimately, about its timing.
Anna Dixon
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I am pleased that he could hear my desire to intervene. Does he share my concern that the Timms review is too slow and will not conclude under its current timetable until next autumn? Does he agree that the Timms review should be accelerated so that a package of measures that have been co-produced with disabled people and their carers, including young people, can be implemented in November 2026?
Andrew Pakes
I thank my hon. Friend for making an important point. I would, if possible, give my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability Duracell batteries to turbocharge his work in this area.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
During this debate, my hon. Friend and others across the House have raised concerns that the changes to PIP are coming ahead of the conclusions of the review of the assessment that I will be leading. We have heard those concerns, and that is why I can announce that we are going to remove clause 5 from the Bill in Committee. We will move straight to the wider review—sometimes referred to as the Timms review—and only make changes to PIP eligibility activities and descriptors following that review. The Government are committed to concluding the review by the autumn of next year.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful for your clarification. We have just heard that a pivotal part of the Bill, clause 5, will not be effective, so I ask this: what are we supposed to be voting on tonight? Is it the Bill as drawn, or another Bill? I am confused, and I think Members in the Chamber will need that clarification.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The hon. Member will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair, and the vote will be on the Bill as it stands. We have had a clear undertaking from the Dispatch Box as to what will happen in Committee.
Andrew Pakes
As a member of a party that often debates clause IV, I welcome today’s news about clause 5, which I think addresses many of the concerns that hon. Members across the House, particularly on the Government Benches, have raised.
There is an urgency to moving forward with the Bill and with change. Today’s system is broken. The legacy of the previous Government is shocking. Some 2.8 million people are outside the labour market due to long-term sickness. That is the same as the populations of Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool combined. One in eight young people are outside education, employment or training. The UK is the only G7 economy where sickness rates are higher than before covid, and as we have heard, health and disability-related benefits will cost around £100 billion over the next four years. That has a massive impact on our national resources. Economic inactivity not only holds back growth and makes us all poorer, but it blights the lives of those without work. That is why Labour Members believe that tackling worklessness is not just an economic case but a moral crusade.
In conclusion, I want to see real support for people to get skills, opportunities and jobs. I want every 18 to 21-year-old to be offered a life off benefits through an apprenticeship or training. I want real support for people with poor mental health so that they can access the care they want. We need Labour’s Employment Rights Bill to be fully implemented to change the culture of work, so that employers work with disabled people to create the opportunities we need. Most of all, we need a system of social security that is there for everyone with a genuine need, so that no one falls into poverty because they lose their job and everyone who can work is given a path back into employment.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I rise not just with grave concern but with absolute conviction. I speak in support of the reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and with a plea to the Government to pause, think, reflect and bring back something that will work for the betterment of disabled people. I am afraid to say it, but I have been saddened to hear disabled people being presented in a negative light throughout this debate, although not by all Members. Disabled people are not a burden on society; they are part of society, and they make an invaluable contribution to it. The support that they receive allows them to make that invaluable contribution.
If this Bill passes, it will do unconscionable damage to disabled people, their carers and their families, who are already on the brink in this cost of living crisis. It will deepen poverty, increase hardship and undo decades of progress on social security. I urge the Government to withdraw it now and come back when it is fit for purpose. My independent alliance colleagues and I have been clear and consistent in saying that we are acutely aware of the devastation this Bill will cause. We have fought it and will fight it every step of the way until a Bill that is fit for purpose is before us.
Today we are being asked to sign off on billions of pounds in cuts without any credible data. We have a moving target, as elements of the Bill that are published will no longer apply when it comes back to the House. We have heard the Department’s analysis that 150,000 people would be pushed into poverty, and maybe more than 20,000 children. Despite the talk of concessions that were rushed out and tweaks that were made, they do not change the core injustice.
This Government want to create a two-tier welfare system in which today’s disabled people get help but tomorrow’s disabled people are discarded. New PIP claimants will have to pass a cruel new threshold to qualify for PIP compared with existing claimants. My question to the Secretary of State is: can she explain to my constituents who designed this four-point system? Who defined the criteria by which somebody would qualify or not qualify?
Mr Adnan Hussain
Does the hon. Member agree that now is the time when the Government need to confirm what we are voting on? We have had U-turn after U-turn, and I believe Members are confused.
Iqbal Mohamed
I will accept a Government who listen, adapt and change their approach in the light of new evidence put before them, so I would congratulate the Government on improving on the proposals. I really do not question the core intentions. Fourteen years of waste and mismanagement have led us to the point of having an unmanageable welfare state, and that absolutely must be assessed and improved, but that cannot be at the expense of support for the most vulnerable in our society.
This Bill will impact not just on disabled people, but on carers. It slashes £500 million from carer’s allowance, which is the largest real-terms cut since the benefit was introduced in 1976. Carers save this country tens of billions of pounds through unpaid labour, and nearly half of them already live in poverty. Is this really the thanks that they deserve?
It gets worse: if an existing claimant loses their PIP on reassessment, which happens all too frequently due to assessor errors, they will be treated as a new claimant and be subject to stricter rules. That includes anyone moving from DLA to PIP. That is punitive and regressive, and will erode trust in the entire system.
We are told that there will be consultation, but what consultation happens when a Bill is pushed through in a single week without adequate scrutiny or engagement with those most affected? The principle of “Nothing about us without us” has been flagrantly ignored.
We have heard from Scope that the extra cost of living with a disability is nearly £1,100 a month, which is not covered by PIP. That is expected to top £1,200 by 2029, yet under this Bill those same people will be expected to survive without the support they rely on. The Government expect disabled people to shoulder £15,000 in extra costs and to offer them less and less.
The public see through this. Only 27% support these reforms, while nearly half of those surveyed believe that they will worsen the health of disabled people, and over half expect more pressure on the NHS. These cuts will make people sicker, more isolated and more dependent on an already overstretched service. The politics of this is damning, but it cannot be about politics—it must be about the people we are in this place to serve. I ask the Government to please go back, wait for the consultation to be completed, and then integrate the learnings and the feedback from the people affected so that this legislation makes a positive contribution to our society, not a negative one.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
There is no denying that the ideological austerity of the previous Government over the past 14 years has led to the decimation of our services, the devastation of our communities and extreme poverty, as well as an economic mess, so I get that this Government have to make some extremely difficult decisions. However, the central point in this debate is that we cannot balance the books on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. It is not the fair thing to do, it is not the right thing to do, and simply put, it is not the Labour thing to do.
Labour Members who oppose the Bill do not come from the same place as Tory Members. We come from a place of sincerity; they come from a place of political game-playing. We continue to come from that place of sincerity, but it is disrespectful to Back Benchers, and in particular to Labour Members, that we continue to be fed things piecemeal, even at this late stage. While I welcome the previous concessions and today’s concession, we have been talking about this for months, and we could have been engaged in the process. We approached it in good faith, and this piecemeal approach makes a further mockery of a process that will result in hundreds of thousands of people being pushed into poverty.
The timescale we have been given already lacks the respect that this democratic House should be afforded, but the piecemeal way in which information is being leaked to us means that we are being asked to rely on the good will of Ministers. I have the greatest respect for Ministers, but we as Back Benchers should be afforded the same dignity, because we have all been elected on the same premise. My constituency of Bradford East suffers from some of the worst health inequalities and child poverty—over half of all children who live in my constituency are living in absolute poverty. I have to go back and face them.
Regardless of what Ministers tell us, the Bill today is the same Bill we had a week ago and the same Bill we had when it was introduced. That is what we are voting on. We can discuss the concessions next week if the Bill makes it, but it must be pulled today, because I cannot go back to my constituency tomorrow and tell my constituents that for the sake of some concessions that were not in the Bill, I voted for it, even though it could deepen the poverty that people on my streets face. That is not the premise I was elected on.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman is making a most correct and powerful point, which is that this is not the best way of making law and it is hugely disrespectful to Members on all sides of the House, irrespective of position. Does he agree that that is compounded by the woefully inadequate time that is being set aside for Committee consideration of the Bill and Third Reading next week? That timeframe is very truncated, and we are all absolutely dizzied by the number of U-turns and concessions. The hon. Gentleman is right: it is much better to withdraw the Bill, start again, and bring it back in September.
Imran Hussain
Absolutely, and I will come on to that point. I have already touched on the seismic nature of the Bill. To be frank, I have spent a decade in this place, and I have never seen a Bill of this seismic nature and with these direct consequences being rushed through in one week. The motion that goes to the House of Lords will be a money motion, which will not allow it to make any amendments before the Bill comes back.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Would it not be a sensible way forward if the House simply passed the excellent reasoned amendment moved by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and parked the issue there? We would then have the necessary consultation and preparation for a more effective Bill.
Imran Hussain
Courageous political leadership sometimes demands that we admit it when we get it wrong, like we did with the winter fuel allowance. I sincerely think that people respect us when we get something wrong and come back to it. We have had concession after concession, and that is admission enough that we have got this wrong. My view remains that it would be dignified for the Government to say, “We will go with the reasoned amendment. We will have meaningful consultation with disability groups, and then we will come back.”
Everything I say is said in absolute sincerity, and I finish by making a point that has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom are acting in good faith for the collective good of the people they represent, which is this: all of us will have to go back to our constituencies and justify the decision we make today. I have always promised my constituents in Bradford East that I will never vote for anything that will increase poverty and deprivation or deepen the health inequalities in my constituency, because it is not this place that sends me to Bradford, but the people of Bradford who send me to this place. I will remain true to them, I will remain accountable to them, and I will make sure that their voice is heard. I will be voting for the amendment, and I will be voting against the Bill today.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
What an excellent and powerful speech to follow. We should all be here to stand up for the dignity of people who need us to stand up for them.
I know what it means to become disabled, because 11 years ago, I developed Guillain-Barré syndrome. It happens to one in 100,000 people. Unfortunately, I ended up totally paralysed for three months, but fortunately I then made a full recovery over the next couple of years. It was an insight into what it is like to become disabled. I went from full health to total dependence overnight and lost the ability to move for three months. Fortunately, I was lucky and I recovered, but I remember those early days vividly and what it was like to suddenly learn to live with a disability. I remember, for example, having to have some clicking contraption, and a hook to be able to grab my socks and get dressed in the morning. That is an example of the extra costs and challenges that people living with disabilities face, as has been highlighted today.
Personal independence payments are a lifeline that enable people with disabilities and long-term health conditions to live independently, participate in society and, crucially, stay in work if they can. Wales will be hit hard by this proposal. In Wales we have higher rates of long-term illness and disability, and in rural areas the cost of living with a condition is even higher. These changes will hit hardest where communities and people are struggling to cope as it is. The Government’s so-called climbdown does not fix this. Delaying the stricter criteria until 2026 does not make the policy fairer; it just creates a two-tier system. From 2026, someone newly diagnosed with a condition will not be entitled to the support that someone with the same condition receives today.
When I was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome, I was added to a Facebook group consisting of many people who had been struggling to live with the consequences of it, and who talked about how they coped. Clearly the people being added to that group today will be in an even worse position, and that is frankly immoral. If the Government were serious about trying to reduce the welfare bill, they would be focusing on fixing the issues in health and social care and tackling the root causes of chronic ill health, or providing good jobs across Wales. In Wales, where Labour has been running the healthcare service for more than 25 years, 800,000 people, almost a third of the population, are stuck on NHS waiting lists, and more than 9,000 people have been waiting for more than two years to start treatment. That means hundreds of thousands of people are unable to work as normal because they are languishing on waiting lists.
So many people in Wales are not receiving the healthcare that they need, although our welfare system as a whole was built by Welsh politicians, by Nye Bevan and David Lloyd George. In Wales we know how to fight for each other, and we do not forget our roots, but the Government have. It was shameful to see Welsh Labour politicians sitting there on the Front Bench. People in Wales will be disgusted by the changes being made to disabled benefits and PIP payments, which will make life harder for people with disabilities.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
On the subject of tackling the root causes of illness and poor health, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the substantial package of mental health support announced by the Welsh Labour Government this weekend, including £5.6 million to tackle the long waiting list for children awaiting diagnosis for conditions such as hyperactivity disorder and autism, is to be welcomed?
David Chadwick
I think we all know that a great deal of this is political posturing, and that the Bill will not fix the underlying problems we have in Wales. Many of those problems have been caused by the Conservatives’ closing down of our industries 40 years ago. Wales has been waiting for a response since then, and this is not it. Picking on the vulnerable is what the Conservatives do, but it is not what the Welsh do, and that is why we voted them out last year. I say to Members, “Do not punish people for getting sick. Do not divide disabled people into first and second-class citizens. Do not vote with the Government today.”
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
Let me start by saying how shocked I am that the Minister has intervened, near the end of the debate, to say that he will be removing the whole of clause 5 from the Bill. While I am grateful for the concessions, this has further laid bare the incoherent and shambolic nature of the process. It is the most unedifying spectacle that I have ever seen. As the House has just heard, we will vote tonight on the Bill as it stands on the Order Paper, and not as amended. I am really sorry to say this, but when it is not written down, it is not worth the paper it is written on. We were promised a Hillsborough law by April this year, and nothing has come to fruition.
Paula Barker
No, I will not.
It is with sadness that I will vote for the reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and I will vote against the Bill. I implore my Government to do the right thing: to pause, take a breath, and let us get this right.
Before entering Parliament I had served local government, the trade union movement and working people throughout my life. Service matters deeply to me, and I see it as my job to do exactly that as a Member of Parliament. I am a passionate believer in the dignity of labour and of secure, well-paid work being the route out of poverty and to opportunity and a life free from fear, but this Bill, I regret to say, will create poverty, and has already induced fear.
I think everyone in this House believes that we need to reform our welfare system, but we must be honest: the Bill before us today is not reform. It is simply cuts, which have been brought forward to fill an economic black hole. In the Liverpool city region, nearly 30% of residents are disabled—more than 10% above the national average. Liverpool has one of the highest disability rates in the country, and our region already experiences some of the highest poverty rates in the UK.
Even with concessions, this Bill still entails cuts, not reform. It will see 150,000 people pushed further into poverty, and create a stark disparity in our welfare state for disabled people. Despite a commitment to co-production, there is nothing that commits the Government to ensure that the PIP assessment review’s findings have any bearing on this legislation.
Over the last few weeks, we have heard a lot about the lack of time to scrutinise legislation when debating another Bill in this place, yet here we are with a Bill that has concessions that are not actually on the face of the Bill because there has been no time. There will only be eight days between Second and Third Reading, which is truly a lack of time to scrutinise proposed legislation.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, and we are here as legislators. Does she agree that the fact that we have been denied the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill denies us the opportunity to make it right for disabled people?
Paula Barker
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention, and I absolutely concur with her views.
We must be crystal clear on what we are voting for tonight: we are voting for the Bill as it stands, unamended. The late changes, combined with the compressed parliamentary timetable, mean that MPs will have just a single day to debate and consider amendments, and the fact that this is a money Bill means that it will not be subject to amendments from the House of Lords.
Our movement, at its best, is the rising tide that lifts all boats—not some, but all. I cannot in good faith look my constituents in Liverpool Wavertree in the eye and tell them that this Bill would improve their lot, because quite frankly it will not.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I have heard some really passionate, personal speeches in the Chamber today, and I thank all hon. Members for their testimonies and contributions.
The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill is a direct attack on ill and disabled people, just to cut costs. Arbitrarily restricting eligibility for PIP, and cutting the health element of universal credit, will have devastating and lasting consequences. Whatever this Labour Government claim, there is neither fairness nor compassion in their approach to welfare. It is certainly not fair or compassionate for the people of Wales, who will be disproportionately impacted by these measures.
I thank organisations such as Policy in Practice and the Bevan Foundation for their vital work in filling the absence of data for Wales, which the UK Government have all but refused to provide. Four of the 10 local authorities that are worst hit by the welfare cuts are in Wales, impacting on 6.1% of the Welsh population at a cost of £470 million for our communities. In Carmarthenshire alone, the economic impact will be nearly £17.5 million, and too many people will suffer. My constituents will suffer.
Robin Swann
I just want to make a point of clarification. The hon. Lady mentions that her constituents will suffer. The Government have withdrawn clause 5, but under clause 6 the legislation will still apply in Northern Ireland. Are the Government going to put a barrier down the Irish sea with regard to PIP?
Ann Davies
I will allow the Minister to answer that in his closing statement. I could not possibly comment.
My constituent Clare Jacques has several disabilities, including arthritis. She currently receives PIP, which has helped her to build on her master’s degree in equality and diversity in work and allowed additional support, such as the ability to have a carer accompany her when necessary. Ms Jacques does not have four points in any one part of the daily living component. Versus Arthritis has calculated that 79% of people who claim PIP in Wales for arthritis alone score fewer than four points, which is nearly 17,000 people.
This is not just about claimants. Mencap, which has been mentioned, has estimated that over 13,000 carers may lose their carer’s allowance in Wales due to caring for people with fewer than four points. The Government’s justification for this suffering is completely flawed. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that 60% of recipients scoring four or fewer points are already in employment in England and Wales, rising to 63% in my constituency of Caerfyrddin.
The UK Government claim that their amendments to the Bill will lessen the blow—we will have to wait until after Second Reading to see them—but they are set to penalise people who become disabled after the arbitrary cut-off date of November 2026. What data has informed these concessions, and what specific evidence suggests that people can pick and choose when they become sick or disabled, because that to me looks like discrimination? Legal experts for the Equity union agree that it could be
“unlawful on the grounds of arbitrariness.”
Such arbitrariness looks half-baked considering the PIP assessment review will be published only in autumn 2026.
The UK Government’s amendments to the Bill do not address the fundamental injustice at the heart of these measures. Is plunging 150,000 people into poverty rather than 250,000 really a marker of success? Is only punishing people who will get ill or disabled in future, or those who turn 18 later, really a sign of a fair and compassionate welfare reform? I call on hon. Members across this House, and particularly my friends on the Labour Benches, to vote against this cruel Bill. The Labour UK Government must abandon these damaging plans entirely, and instead create a welfare system founded on dignity, equity and compassion, and one developed with disabled people and representative organisations. Plaid Cymru Members will be voting for the reasoned amendment moved by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and against the Second Reading of the Bill.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Millions of disabled people will listen, view or read about this debate and its consequences, and feel fear. For some Members of the House, this is just an afternoon’s political cut and thrust, but for the disabled it is the rest of their lives.
Members will have heard that we should be concerned about the rising trajectory of welfare spending in this country. Ministers say that all the time, but what about the rising trajectory of tax avoidance, or the rising trajectory of salaries in the City of London? Why must people on welfare bear all the opprobrium and have the money taken out of their pockets? We are the Labour party, and historically we have stood up against injustice. Why are we stepping away from that today?
Anybody who has ever had anything to do with the welfare system knows that it needs reform. I deal month after month with dozens of people who are struggling with the welfare system. It is not that people do not accept that it needs reform. The problem is these reforms, which are unfair, ill thought out and, in the end, focused on saving money.
On the question of the personal independence payment, too many Members talk about PIP as if it is too easy to claim, and that people are gaming the system or even engaged in some sort of scam. The truth is that PIP is generally not merely difficult to claim, but humiliating to claim. Any reform should deal with that.
There are so many practical problems with the Bill. It is being rushed through in a week, which is ridiculous. There has been no formal consultation with the people whose lived experience it is concerned with. It is not a coincidence that a not a single organisation which speaks for the disabled supports the legislation. It will become law before two important reviews—one into PIP itself, the Timms review, and the “Keep Britain Working” review—will actually report. The reviews, and in particular the Timms review, will actually be a dead letter.
And because it is too late to change the face of the Bill, Members are being asked to vote purely on the basis of verbal assurances from Ministers. None of us would come to an important arrangement with our council on the word of councillors, so, with all due respect, why are we expected to vote for a law that will affect millions of people’s lives and drive hundreds of thousands of people into poverty purely on the basis of what Ministers claim they are going to do? I, myself, continue to oppose the Bill on moral, legal and political grounds.
Millions of disabled people will watch this debate on television, hear about it from their friends and family or read about it in a newspaper. They will not be able to believe that the Labour party—the Labour party—is putting legislation through like this. If this legislation means anything at all, it means money coming out of the pockets of the disabled, otherwise what is the point of it? If you are going to save money in this financial year, disabled people have to lose money. It will be shocking to so many people listening and hearing about this that Labour Ministers are standing up and putting this through to hit Treasury targets.
Even at this late stage, I urge colleagues to think about the people who put us here and withdraw the Bill. It cannot be right that we have had concessions so late in the day, even in the course of the debate. If Ministers were proud of what they are doing, concessions would not be coming so late in the day. As I say, even at this late stage, we should withdraw the Bill.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I have been sitting here for over four or five hours, and there have been so many changes and concessions that I really do not know what we will be voting on. This is no way to bring in a Bill, when it is so important to people’s lives.
The independent alliance stands firmly against the Bill, because it is unfair and unworkable. No Member should, in good conscience, vote for it. Of course, abuse of the welfare system is unacceptable—we all agree on that—but the Bill does not target fraud. It targets the most vulnerable and most needy in our communities.
There have been some excellent and very powerful contributions, and, like everybody else, I have constituents who have shared their story. Jo, a constituent of mine, is actively suicidal. All sharp objects and medications have been removed from her home. The only reason Jo is not in hospital is that there are no beds available, yet Jo has been told she is not ill enough to qualify for PIP under this system. Is this the kind of society we want to build? The Bill is not just unfair; it is unworkable. The Government are asking Members to vote for cuts now based on the promise that they will help people back into work in future, yet the supporting evidence from the OBR will not even be available until October. The process has been rushed, the consultation inadequate and the system proposed cruelly simplistic. Scoring four points on a single activity will become the deciding factor in whether somebody receive life-changing support.
According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, cutting disabled people’s benefit will not magically create suitable jobs, especially in those areas of the country that have long had a weaker jobs market.
A disability that is close to my heart is visual impairment. There are 2 million people in this country living with visual impairment, which is set to double by 2050, yet 25% of employers would not be willing to make workplace changes for employees with a visual impairment, and 48% did not even have an accessible recruitment process. There is nothing addressing this issue.
Government figures estimate that these changes will push approximately 150,000 people, including thousands of children, into poverty. There is no credible employment support plan for them. There is no guarantee that those whose conditions fluctuate will be treated fairly. These changes will disproportionately punish people with mental health conditions, like Jo.
Politics is not a game. We cannot balance the national budget on the backs of disabled people, and the public know this. I will be supporting the reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), because this Bill is simply unfair, even though I am not quite sure what it stands for at the moment. It is unworkable and unworthy of this House’s support. I urge all Members to do the same.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
It is safe to say that the topic of today’s debate has been my overriding focus in recent months. I thank my constituents and all organisations for their input, as well as the Secretary of State and the wider DWP team for listening to concerns, and indeed for acting on them with recent amendments.
The Bill will raise the universal credit standard allowance by the largest increase since the 1970s. It will help 3.9 million families with an average gain of £265 a year, bringing us closer, finally, to ensuring that every family can afford the essentials without relying on charity or community support. I wholeheartedly welcome this as part of the Government’s wider efforts to rebalance universal credit to better reward work and improve basic adequacy, along with an end to reassessment for those with the most severe conditions and an end to work capability assessments, as well as the right to try work without the risk of losing existing entitlements and crucial increased investment in health and into work pathways.
However, the undeniable focus of the Bill has been changes to the personal independence payment. I truly thank my Clwyd North constituents for their time and their trust in sharing their stories so openly. To them, I say: I hear you, and will continue to represent you. So many of my constituents have been desperately worried about what the eligibility changes mean for them; this concern is real, and it must be taken seriously. One constituent said to me:
“Every time I turn on the news, it’s there. I’ve looked at the changes and I know they won’t affect my payments, but I keep wondering if I’ve got it right…and it’s causing me real anxiety.”
That level of fear is hugely regrettable, and is a responsibility we all share.
Thanks to the incredible support of advice organisations in Clwyd North, many of my constituents have navigated the complex PIP system—one, by the way, that is too reliant on appeals and outside agencies—and now have some stability in meeting daily costs, which remain far too high for far too many. It is right that the Government have listened to these concerns, and I welcome the Government’s amendments to protect existing claimants and the accelerated review of PIP assessments with a stronger commitment to co-production with disabled people.
However, it is also right to recognise that the system is not working as it should be. It is right that we recognise that too many believe that they have nothing to offer and that their health, and particularly their mental health, defines what they can do. It is also right that we stop that belief being passed on to the next generation—something I have seen far too often as a teacher—and stop too many young people feeling that they do not belong in the social networks and financial independence that good work provides.
The expected soaring reliance on PIP reflects the woeful lack of health and local support that has been offered until now. Areas such as mine have sought to fill this gap, with services that create bespoke pathways to work—like the pathway trod by my constituent whose life changed forever when he was helped out of his bedroom, which he had stayed in for years while struggling with his mental health, and into stable work in our local hospitality sector. There are many more like him. We must turbocharge that support, working closely with health services to provide the wraparound care that people need. And, as an inactivity trailblazer area, Clwyd North is determined to lead this effort.
Reform is endlessly challenging, but it is necessary as the system we inherited is not working. It is a hugely ambitious challenge and requires us to be bold and determined. I came into politics to be bold, and I will work tirelessly to make real change happen. And it is with that belief that I support this Bill today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Steve Witherden—not here. I call Ian Byrne.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I just need to clear up a few things. This vote tonight is on the Bill that we have in front of us, which include includes restricting eligibility for PIP. Even with what the Minister has just said, three quarters of a million low-paid, sick and disabled people will lose the health element of universal credit, costing them £3,000 on average. That is £2 billion-worth of cuts even after what the Minister has just said. If the Government want to change it, they should pull it and start again. I know how frightened disabled people must be watching this debate tonight and seeing the shambles rolling out in front of us. Last night, I stood outside this building with people from Disabled People Against the Cuts, many of whom had travelled here despite the heat and the real hardship. They told me not just of their anger, but of their fear, their sense of betrayal and—I do not use this word lightly, Madam Deputy Speaker—of their terror. They are far from alone.
At a recent citizens’ assembly in my constituency, disabled constituents and families came together to discuss this Bill. Not one person supported it. Yesterday, I asked the Secretary of State whether she could name a single disabled people’s organisation that supported this Bill. She could not name one—not one.
Disabled people in my constituency tell me that they feel abandoned and punished. Perhaps most heartbreakingly, they believed that, after 14 years of Tory austerity and attacks, covid, and the cost of living crisis, a Labour Government—their Labour Government —would protect them. That belief has now been shattered. Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask myself how can I look them in the eye and tell them that they are wrong, because the truth is that this Bill is an absolute shambles. It is immoral. It has been rewritten on the fly. Policies affecting millions and millions of disabled lives have been made up in this Chamber over the past couple of hours. We are being asked to vote on a Bill, as legislators, without full impact assessments, without proper scrutiny, without even knowing what the final version will be. How can we vote for something so absolutely consequential for so many people in our constituencies across the country without the data, without the analysis and without everything that we need as legislators to make informed decisions?
What we do know, though, is devastating. The Government’s own figures say that this Bill will push at least 150,000 more people into poverty and 100,000 more people into absolute poverty. It will create a cruel two-tier welfare system, where support depends not on need, but on when someone was assessed. That is not just unworkable; it is absolutely morally indefensible.
Madam Deputy Speaker, some votes define us in here. They reveal who we are and who and what we stand for. This, tonight, is one of those votes. I say to colleagues, especially to those on my own Benches: do not ignore the voices of the people who need us most; stand with them. Stand on the right side of history. Vote against this Bill and hold your head up high.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I was pleased yesterday to hear the Secretary of State acknowledge the anxiety of disabled people in her comments from the Dispatch Box. If we really want to understand why changes such as this cause such anxiety and fear in the disabled population, then just sit and listen to the speech that was completely without empathy from the Leader of the Opposition at the start of this debate. Areas such as the north-east of England where, over decades, industry has declined are the same places that have the highest levels of poverty, poor health outcomes and consequently the highest need for social welfare support.
The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) talked about the lack of productive capacity. I can tell him that it was successive Conservative Governments who stripped the productive capacity from seats such as mine. That is why Professor Peter Kelly, a former director of public health for Stockton North, when asked what would be the best way to improve the health of our residents, said it would be for
“everyone who can to have a secure, well paid job that they like doing”.
We see it time and again: a physical health condition is left untreated due to long NHS waiting lists and the resulting inactivity leads to musculoskeletal problems, which turn to isolation, anxiety and depression. Our benefits system often compounds that hurt, forcing people to prove and reprove their disability, creating a climate of doubt rather than dignity. I am pleased to see that the Bill will address that by removing the need for reassessment and protecting existing claimants.
I thank the Minister for Social Security and Disability as well as other Ministers for listening to me when I have raised the concerns of my constituents. There have been some really meaningful concessions on the Bill, such as the protection of existing claimants, support for new claimants and inflation-proofing of annual increases, but as the Minister knows, a major concern for me has been clause 5—I was pleased to hear about the withdrawal of that clause—as well as the Timms review on PIP assessments.
I am also concerned about mental health being made worse by debt and unemployment. I welcome the Government’s investment in expanding access to occupational health and the almost 7,000 new mental health workers since last July. Those are not just policies; they are the foundations for a healthier and, I think, more hopeful society.
We have heard a lot about work and Labour’s commitment to work, with the purpose and dignity it offers as well as the improvement in mental resilience. I want to be clear that there is a value judgment behind that, but it is not one that chooses to separate people in work from those who are not. People’s lives have equal value regardless of whether they work, but work does in and of itself improve the quality of people’s lives.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving a passionate speech about our region. Does he agree that although lots of people would like to contribute, for too long the workplace has not been disability-friendly? My experience as a trade unionist is of seeing time and again people who really needed support and wanted to be in work being managed out of the workplace, despite that being illegal. They have told me that they were bullied out of the workplace because of the weak reasonable adjustments clause.
Chris McDonald
I agree that accessibility to work is important, both through buildings and transport, as well as Access to Work. It is not just about supporting people to get into work but whether they can physically get into work.
To reiterate, people’s lives have equal value regardless of whether they work, and it is our duty to ensure that as many people as possible are supported into secure, purposeful, well-paid work, and that employers satisfy their duty to make necessary adjustments for people with disabilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) outlined some things that the Government are doing to try to reduce unfairness. I would add to that investment in our NHS, which will help deal with people’s long-term health problems, and the employment support measures announced by the Government, which will offer a pathway to work. The Employment Rights Bill and the industrial strategy will create more opportunity for work.
I also want to speak directly to those who may never return to work. They deserve dignity, and they deserve unconditional support. They offer more to society than previous Governments have ever recognised. This is the time to turn a page on Conservative Governments who treated claimants with suspicion and to work hard to build trust with actions rather than words.
I would like to conclude by quoting a few words that I heard on the “Today” programme last week from the former welfare Minister, Lord Blunkett. He said:
“Labour is the party of supporting people into work, not the party of keeping people on benefits.”
I have got faith in the intrinsic value of everyone in our society and their ability to contribute. So long as the voices of disabled people continue to be heard and they remain at the table, the Government’s plan for changing the country will enable everyone to thrive regardless of their ability.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I have to say that I am absolutely amazed at what has happened, even just this afternoon. Like many people in this place, I have been totally ignored when saying anything about this Bill. The Bill was published a few months ago and very little consultation, if any, has taken place.
I have been here nearly 15 years and have never once seen a massive commitment given about a Bill like the one my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability has just made in an intervention. This is crazy, man! This is outrageous! The Bill is not fit for purpose. If we looked at the 16 pages that make up the Bill and I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister to rip out the ones that have changed, there would be only two pages left. Withdraw the Bill!
With the commitments given from the Front Bench, we are really not that far from some sort of satisfactory Bill that everybody would get behind. If we had had another hour or two, we could have voted on something that we would all have agreed with, instead of this hotchpotch of a Bill that means nothing to nobody.
I might seem terribly cross, and that is because I am. That is because we are discussing the lives of millions of disabled people who live in our constituencies. Not one of them voted for their representative, regardless of the party, to reduce the PIP payment or any payments received by disabled people. We also have to remember that this is not just about disabled people. It is about people who are sick, who are ill—people who one day were absolutely fine and the next day, possibly because of an industrial accident or some sort of illness, lost their capacity to earn any money.
The Bill as it stood—the Bill as it still stands, I should say—means that there would be a two-tier system. It does not do any good to try to argue the cheat in this House that there would not be a two-tier system. Somebody with a condition is paid money and given support to a level on one day and then the next day, because of a date on a calendar, the support for someone else is less. I am happy to give way to anyone who can tell me how that is not a two-tier system and how that is not unfair. Come November next year, if the Bill continues as it is, people who might have paid their tax and national insurance for many years and who are currently not ill or poorly and who do not have a serious condition could fall into that bracket the day after the introduction of this legislation. That cannot be fair, man—it just is not fair.
I am speaking here among good colleagues. I think everybody has had a rough time over the past few weeks and we want to see a resolution. We understand that there is huge expense involved and we understand the black hole that we found when we got into power, but people did not vote for the Labour party’s change to be a change for the worse. They really had some faith in the Labour party. I still have a little bit of faith left, but it is draining out of us and it is draining out of my constituents. We need to restore that faith and make sure that people really understand what change we mean and what we meant at the time of the election. I say to the Minister: we need to look after people. We need to look after not just the sick and the disabled, but everyone else in this country. That is what change means.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I speak as a signatory to the reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), because I recognised, as many across the House did, that there were serious problems with the original version of the Bill. Welfare reform, which we all believe in, has to be fair, compassionate and grounded in evidence, and I am afraid that the Bill, as first published, failed on all three counts. I acknowledge that there have been significant and welcome changes, and I genuinely thank Ministers for meeting me and for listening. We all know that scrapping or reducing PIP for people who are already in work was always the wrong target. It risks making employment harder, not easier, for many disabled people, and it is right that current recipients of PIP—there are over 7,000 in my constituency —will now be protected.
If we are to avoid repeating the mistakes of this recent period, we need a proper process for consultation and co-production. Ministers have said that they will now do that through the Timms review, and that is the right vehicle. I welcome another concession around the £300 million of employment support that is being brought forward. In my view, that should always have been front and centre to this reform. Intentions alone are not enough, however, and while I welcome the removal of clause 5, which will mean introducing no changes before the Timms reviews reports, I am concerned that this process remains open-ended.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, welcome the commitment that was given from the Dispatch Box on the removal of clause 5, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my hope that, when the Minister sums up this evening he will categorically state that those people grandfathered in today, to help get past that clause 5 moment in the Bill, will still be grandfathered in without clause 5 and despite whatever comes out of the Timms review, so that they are not put back into the pool of potentially being reassessed in the future.
Darren Paffey
My hon. Friend makes an important point that I hope the Minister will confirm.
There are other assurances that many of us would like to hear from the Dispatch Box today, including a defined timetable for the report. In wrapping up the debate, will the Minister confirm that November 2026 is now no longer a relevant date at all? I am glad that we will now avoid the absurd situation of having potentially three different assessment regimes running in parallel. What has been announced will, I hope, give clarity to claimants and will, I hope, in good faith demonstrate that the Government are serious about introducing reform properly.
Kirsty Blackman
If November 2026 is not a hard deadline any more, why do the Government need to push this Bill through today? Why does it have to get through before the summer recess so that it can go to the Lords in order that it can be in place before November 2026 if that date no longer matters?
Darren Paffey
Most of the answer to that question is obviously a matter for the Minister, but I do not want to delay the uplift in universal credit, so I am willing to vote that through today.
We understand the catastrophic financial mess that we inherited, but we have to underscore the fact that abstract OBR dogma means nothing to our constituents who have been worried these last few weeks. There must be a willingness from Government from the Dispatch Box today to rebuild that trust. Reform has to start with the right foundations: with investment in the NHS to help people become work-ready; with a renewed Access to Work scheme; with better jobcentre support; with the right to try; and with employer engagement. These are all good measures, and they all have my full support.
As I have just said, I welcome the uprating of universal credit, as well as the scrapping of the work capability assessment and the additional support that has been promised to those who cannot work and will never be expected to. These are important steps in restoring fairness and dignity to the social security system, but my supporting the Bill today, which was a last-minute decision, does not mean that I give the Government a blank cheque. I, like many across this House, will be watching very closely as the next stage unfolds. I still believe that the next stage is rushed, but we are where we are. I will consider opposing the Bill on Third Reading if today’s commitments are not delivered on in the coming weeks. That is not a position I enjoy being in, and anyone who thinks it is an easy position to be in does not know what they are talking about.
In constituencies like Southampton Itchen, we know the difference that a fair and functioning welfare system can make and the damage that is done when it fails. That is why we have to avoid making the same mistakes that the last Conservative Government made. Casting our minds further back, we all remember the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition’s litany of failure on welfare reform—the bedroom tax and Atos doing reassessments. I accompanied my mum to her reassessment. She was a nervous wreck because that was an absolute disaster of a scheme. We will remember the great sanctioning machine known as the Work programme. This Labour Government have different values to that, and we must demonstrate them.
There is a great opportunity here today to commit to a clear timetable for the review so that people can rebuild trust in what is about to happen, convince us as a House that the review will be a meaningful co-production, and set out what employment support will come with the £300 million that is being brought forward. If the Bill passes today then, by the Government’s own rushed agenda, they have one week to get it into shape. If we get the system right, we will have a reformed welfare system that delivers on the Government’s objectives to support people who can work into work with dignity and prosperity, and—yes—to ensure the sustainability of the welfare system.
Darren Paffey
I am coming to a conclusion.
Let us build a system that is sustainable, but that is, above all, just and fair.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I speak on behalf of the hundreds of desperate people in Durham and beyond, as well as the dozens of organisations, who have contacted me with concerns about the Bill.
I am sure that many Members across the House, not least those of us in areas that have been decimated over the last three decades, will agree that there is a need to reform the social security system and to support people to stay in and get back into work. We have been told that the purpose of the review of PIP is to ensure that the benefit is fair and fit for the future, and that it will be co-produced with disabled people and the organisations that represent them. But what is fair about us being asked to vote on changes when the terms of reference of the review were only announced yesterday? I popped out earlier for a banana, and when I came back in, things had changed again, so I am even more unclear of what I am voting on.
As we have heard, the proposals are so unfair. They will create a two-tier system of social security. Someone who fell ill earlier this year will have the support they have always had, but woe betide those who fall ill later this year or next year. How can we be asked to vote for a system that, rather than penalising everyone for being ill, has been tweaked to only penalise people based on when they got ill—or, in fact, they get more ill, as anyone reporting a change in circumstances will be caught up in these changes?
Every organisation I have spoken to, including at my recent expert roundtable event in Durham, agrees that the changes to PIP will have a bigger impact on the north-east than almost any other region in the country. This is not a level playing field. The scale of ill health is 50% higher in the north than in the south. The north-east has a higher rate of people living with a disability than any other region. The “Ageing in the North” report recently published by the Northern Health Science Alliance and Health Equity North suggests that in the south, people leaving the job market later on in life overwhelmingly retire; in the north, they leave due to ill health. The impact that these changes will have on individuals, communities and the economy in the north-east will be huge, regardless of any recent concessions. Again, we are being asked to vote on proposals before any meaningful consultation with disability charities and organisations has taken place, and without a regional impact assessment being carried out.
Let us remember that PIP is an in-work benefit. For many, it provides them with the support they need to stay in work. If people are caught up in these changes or claim after they are introduced, it will be much harder for them to stay in work. If we vote for this Bill, we will be knowingly leaving vulnerable people without the support they need to live dignified, independent lives, free from poverty, when we should be supporting and championing the rights of disabled people, their carers and their families.
As the parent of a daughter, Maria, who lived her life with a severe disability, I empathise with all those who are unlikely to undertake meaningful or secure employment because of their disability and to experience the dignity that so many people in work enjoy. Even if someone cannot contribute economically to society, they still deserve dignity. They still deserve to be treated with respect and to feel of value in society, no matter how they are able to contribute.
I joined the Labour party 30 years ago to be on the side of the poor and the weak. This Bill penalises those with the weakest shoulders. That is not what I was elected for, and it is not what this Labour Government were elected for. I plead with colleagues again: pause this process, start again and do it the right way—do it the Labour way.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I think every Member of this House would agree that welfare needs reform. I think about the constituent who was asked in a PIP assessment, “How long have you been autistic?” I think about other stories that are close to my heart, which I cannot repeat because they are not my stories alone to tell. The words come easily; the path to reform is harder, and I think many of us have walked that hard path in recent weeks. We have heard many points made in this debate, and in the short time available to me, I would like to respond to some of them.
A number of Members have sincerely suggested that there is something inherently wrong about creating a system where people’s treatment depends on the date of application, but I ask, how many people in this Chamber who have been a negotiator or a trade union member have voted for an agreement that involved red-banding a particular rate of pay? I think every representative of every party that has served in government has passed cut-off points into legislation. I remember leaving school around the time that the statement system in special educational needs started to be phased out in favour of EHCPs, and the consequences of that are with us to this day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) said that we are being asked to place trust in Ministers, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability. Following many discussions in recent weeks, I do have that trust, and I know that many Government Members have that personal trust. The fact that the review will now be co-produced with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations is a real and material change.
In this age of snap judgments, when we are expected to respond immediately to every manner of change and when politics in public is rewarded more highly than the politics carried out in private, the party system perhaps is not in good repute. But I know that many Members—I am one of them—have wrestled with their individual concerns and the desire to have collective discipline, without which there is no party and no programme, and nothing would ever get done. These are good and honourable principles to have. They must be moderated by a willingness to listen, and however it came about, people have listened today. The changes that have been made, as Ministers and officials will know, have been the subject of many long and, at times, difficult conversations.
We now have a Bill that removes the critical problem for many of us, which was that the change would have begun next November before the review was completed. That has been addressed. We are in the business of making material change for the people we represent. I think about the 10,037 PIP recipients in my constituency, with perhaps 1,000 more recipients of DLA, and the many more family members who will have the ease of mind of knowing that the changes we in this place have made will protect their income and security in life. The Bill still has some way to go over the course of the next week, but we must recognise progress when it has happened. I thank everyone in my constituency who has contacted me and taken time to meet. In all those discussions with officials and Ministers—
Laurence Turner
I will not, as I do not wish to deny other Members the chance to speak.
All those representations were helpful and made a difference, and I am grateful to everyone who shared their story. I will be voting for the Bill tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have run out of time. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
This has been an extraordinary afternoon in the Chamber. Listening to the debate, we have surely all been moved by the stories we have heard of the experiences of hon. Members, of the experiences of their families, loved ones and constituents, and of how the welfare system has served its vital purpose of providing a safety net in times of desperate need, particularly for people whose disabilities or ill health have made it impossible for them to make ends meet on their own. It is clear that there is broad consensus across the House that the welfare system needs reform. There has also been consensus that what we were debating was a bad Bill. It was a rushed and chaotic compromise that would harm disabled people, create a two-tier benefit system, and barely make a dent in the overall welfare bill. How could anyone justify voting for something that would not make a single disabled person’s life better? It is clear that many, many Members could not.
I said that it “was” a bad Bill, because while we have been debating it, it has more or less disintegrated. Less than two hours ago, the Minister for Social Security and Disability told us, in an unprecedented intervention, that clause 5 of the Bill is to be removed in Committee. That takes out all the changes to personal independence payment, and with them almost the entirety of the remaining savings in the Bill. Describing it as chaos now feels like an understatement.
We have a Government with a supermajority who were voted in on a manifesto for change, a welfare system that everyone agrees needs reform, and public finances that simply must be brought under control, but the Government are now serving up a Bill with next to nothing in it. They had already U-turned once; it seems they cannot even deliver a U-turn. The Prime Minister told the country that he was distracted at NATO, and he flew back home on Thursday to sort the problem out. This is what sorting it out looks like. Once again, his calamitous negotiations are letting the country down.
Last week, we offered the Prime Minister help in the national interest and set out three tests that he would need to meet to have our support on welfare legislation. The first was that the welfare bill must come down. We all know people whose lives would not be possible without the help that our welfare system provides. Each and every one of us in the Chamber wants a welfare system that is there for those who need it, but if the welfare bill spirals out of control, it puts that support in jeopardy. The Bill now makes no meaningful changes to a system that we all agree is not working, and I reckon it will now save less than £1 billion from a sickness benefits bill that will be rising to nearly £100 billion by the end of the decade. That is a total dereliction of duty by a Government who claim to want welfare reform and fiscal discipline.
Secondly, we said that we would support plans that get people into work, but the Bill will not help a single person into work. Ministers said, “Trust us, employment support is coming,” but why would anyone trust this Government on jobs when 100,000 were lost in May alone? None of us have seen the Government’s plan to get more disabled people into work, and apart from new red tape and making it more expensive to hire people, I do not think there is one. Thirdly, we said that we must not have more tax rises in the autumn. Given that the Chancellor had already committed to that, it should have been the simplest of those three conditions to agree to, but this desperate climbdown blows an even bigger hole in her Budget. She is pushing us into a doom loop of higher taxes, fewer jobs and more welfare. At this rate, the time is coming when our constituents will not even have a welfare system to call on in times of trouble.
What is left for us to vote for or against this evening? All of us in this House know that welfare needs reform and want to see more people helped into work. All of us in this House—surely most of us, at least—recognise that the country must live within its means. The remnants of this Bill will manifestly achieve none of that. In fact, the only purpose it will now serve is to etch forever into the statute book the moment when this Government totally lost control.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We have had a passionate and eventful debate. We have heard the concerns, and the Government will amend the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have set out, but the system we have inherited does not work. Uniquely in the G7, our employment rate is still lower than before the pandemic. Every other G7 country has got back to where it was before, or better, but we have not. The system is trapping hundreds of thousands of people needlessly in low income and inactivity. It tells people that they cannot work, and for many of them that is simply untrue. We have to change that.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I am sorry to come in so early in the Minister’s peroration, but we have limited time. Can I have the assurance, on the concession given this evening with regard to the Timms review, that its outcome and recommendations will be in primary legislation, not delegated legislation?
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me say a little about the announcement I made in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) earlier on. We have listened to the concerns expressed in the debate, specifically about the new four-point threshold being implemented before the outcome of my review. As I have said, we will in fact move straight to my review and make changes to PIP eligibility activities and descriptors only following that review.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
May I ask the Minister to confirm at the Dispatch Box that clause 5, which specifically references the need for claimants to score four points in order to receive the daily living allowance, will be removed from the Bill?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that that is the case. We will table the amendment to do that.
Let me say in answer to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), who raised this point perfectly properly in the debate, that we will also remove the parallel provisions for Northern Ireland. He suggested that that would mean removing clause 6, but it does not mean that, because there are a lot of other things in schedule 2, which is referenced in clause 6. Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 addresses the points that we are dealing with.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me make a little further progress. I still have not quite answered the question put to me in the first place in the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). His question was about whether the outcome of the review will be implemented in primary or secondary legislation. That depends on the outcome of the review and the form of the assessment we take forward. We will come back to that when we have concluded the review.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me make a little bit of headway before I give way again.
Under the last Labour Government, in the 12 years up to 2010, the disability employment gap fell steadily. In 2010, as soon as the Tories and Lib Dems took over and scrapped the new deal, it stopped falling, and it has barely shifted since. This Bill opens up the chance for proper support into work once again for people who are out of work on health and disability grounds. We will provide that again, recognising that with—for example—far more mental health problems among young people, the needs post pandemic will be different from those of the past. I listened with great interest to the powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), calling for a target for the disability employment gap. She makes a strong argument, and that is the kind of approach that we need to develop as we bring forward our plans for employment support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
I will not give way at the moment. The Bill opens up that possibility, and it deals with work disincentives inserted into universal credit by the previous Government. The current system forces people to aspire to be classified as sick in order to qualify for a higher payment, and once so classified, it abandons them. We have to change that system.
Simon Hoare
The House knows that not only is the Minister an honourable man, but he has spent the largest proportion of his parliamentary career looking at these issues. He must surely understand, however, that the confusion that has been expressed in this place is now being felt and expressed in the country at large. I have never seen a Bill butchered and filleted by its own sponsoring Ministers in such a cack-handed way—nobody can understand the purpose of this Bill now. In the interests of fairness, simplicity and natural justice, is it not best to withdraw it, redraft it, and start again?
Sir Stephen Timms
No, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman one of the things that the Bill does. Part of the problem is that it is very hard to bring up a family on the standard allowance of universal credit. The Tories reduced the headline rate of benefit to the lowest real-terms rate for 40 years. Families have to rely on food banks, and people aim to be classified as sick for the extra benefit. The system should not force people into that position; it needs to be fixed, and the Bill makes very important changes in that direction.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I came here today with the intention of voting against the Government on this Bill. I have to say that with clause 5 having been removed —which, as I am sure everyone at home will be delighted to know, completely withdraws PIP from the scope of the Bill—there is consequently nothing to vote on. However, could the Minister give me some comfort by confirming whether or not the Timms review is going to take place within a spending envelope?
Sir Stephen Timms
I can assure my hon. Friend that the review is not intended to save money—that is not its purpose. The review is to get the assessment right and make sure we have an assessment that will be fit for the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
I need to make a little more progress. As a number of Members highlighted in the debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd North (Gill German) and for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), a key step in this Bill is the first ever permanent real-terms increase in the standard allowance of universal credit. Actually, it is the first permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of benefit for decades, and of course, the Tory party is against it. The Tories froze benefits time and again, and created the work disincentives and mass dependence on food banks that this Government are determined to now erase.
We are, of course, also concerned that the future cost increases of PIP should be sustainable. Let me just look back at the record of those cost increases. In the year before the pandemic, 2019-20, PIP cost the then Government £12 billion at today’s prices; last year, it cost £22 billion. We want the system to be sustainable for the future. That is extremely important, because many people with large costs arising from ill health or disability depend on PIP. Those people need to be confident that the support will be there in the future, as well.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is doing an admirable job defending the farcical. Last week, there were £5 billion of savings. Today, there were £2.5 billion of savings. Then he came to the Dispatch Box and did three more U-turns. As he stands at that Dispatch Box today, how much will these new measures save the taxpayer?
Sir Stephen Timms
We will set out those figures in the usual way.
The last Government wanted to change the personal independence payment from cash to vouchers. They wanted to take the independence out of the personal independence payment, and we opposed them. It has been suggested that the benefit should be frozen, but the costs that the benefit is contributing to are continuing to rise along with all the other costs, so we oppose that, too. Some argue for means-testing, but disability imposes costs irrespective of income. We reject all those proposals.
Let me just make a comment about the concern that has been expressed—it does not arise now, given what I have announced—about a two-tier system. A two-tier system is completely normal in social security. PIP replaced DLA in 2013, but half a million adults are still on DLA today, and that does not cause problems. Parallel running is normal, and actually it is often the fairest way to make a major change.
Barry Gardiner
I think that Members on the Government Benches appreciate the concessions that the Minister has already made. When he is talking about whether measures will be put in primary legislation, he must understand that Members will not be able to amend things if they are not in primary legislation. That is a key concern when we do not know the outcome of the review.
Sir Stephen Timms
My answer to my hon. Friend is the one I gave earlier: we need to await the outcome of the review and the assessment that it develops to determine whether it will be implemented in primary or secondary legislation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
I want to make some further headway. In her speech, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) drew attention to the fact that she and I had known each other for a long time, and that is correct. She urged us to listen to the voices of our constituents. In February, someone I had not met before came to my constituency surgery. He explained to me that he lost his arm aged six in a road accident. As a result, on leaving school at 16 he could not find a job. He tried really hard, but he could not find an employer that would take him, until in the year 2000 somebody told him about the new deal for disabled people, which found him a job. He then worked for 23 years without a break in a whole series of different jobs. He brought up his children and he paid his taxes, until in October 2023 he was in an unsatisfactory zero-hours job and he left it. To his dismay, he has not been able to find a job since. He came to me as his local MP to ask where to get help again, like he had from the new deal, but unfortunately that was all scrapped by the Tories and the Lib Dems after 2010. We are determined now to provide proper support again, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced further early funding for that support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
I will not be giving way again. The Tories were never really interested in the disability employment gap. They had a brief flirtation in the 2015 general election campaign, when David Cameron suddenly announced a target to halve the gap. Unfortunately, as soon as that general election had been safely won, that target was immediately scrapped, and they reverted to type.
We do care about disability employment. That is what we are making changes to address. In this Bill, we are making the changes to deliver.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Division 248
Ayes: 335
Labour: 333
Independent: 3
Noes: 260
Conservative: 100
Liberal Democrat: 70
Labour: 51
Independent: 12
Scottish National Party: 9
Green Party: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Reform UK: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Alliance: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the shambles this afternoon, with the Bill being ripped apart literally before our eyes in this Chamber and the Minister unable even to tell us how much it will now save, can you please advise me whether it should still be rushed through to be debated next week in Committee of the whole House, or whether the Government should in fact withdraw it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The hon. Member has put her point on the record. She has been a Minister in the past and so will know that the scheduling of business is a matter for the Government, and not for the Chair.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings in Committee of the whole House are commenced.
Programming committee
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.—(Chris Elmore.)
Question agreed to.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any increase in the administrative expenses of the Secretary of State that is attributable to the Act;
(b) any increase in sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided that is attributable to increasing—
(i) the standard allowance or limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit;
(ii) the personal allowance, support component, severe disability premium or enhanced disability premium of income-related employment and support allowance.—(Chris Elmore.)
Question agreed to.
Business without Debate
Traffic calming measures on the slip road off Water Orton Road
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Water Orton Road, in Castle Bromwich in my constituency. It calls on Solihull council finally to take action to tackle the out-of-control speeding on the slip road off the Water Orton Road. Although Solihull council’s intention to tackle speeding on the main Water Orton Road was admirable, it has unfortunately diverted the problem to the slip road. This has made life for many of my constituents a misery, with resident Helen Rogers telling me that inconsiderate, selfish drivers are leaving locals intimidated and frightened for their safety. Let us not wait until there is a fatality. We must take action immediately. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Solihull council to implement traffic-calming measures on the slip road off Water Orton Road following a spate of road traffic incidents.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the Castle Bromwich Ward, Solihull,
Declares that traffic calming measures need to be put in place on the slip road off Water Orton Road in the Castle Bromwich Ward to ensure the safety of local residents; further that Solihull Council need to act on the concerns of residents, following several recent road accidents as a result of road users using the slip road to circumvent the speed calming measures on the main road.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Solihull Council to take immediate action to ensure that traffic calming measures are installed on the slip road off Water Orton Road, in Castle Bromwich, Solihull.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003087]
Infant Feeding
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to bring this Adjournment debate to the Chamber on a topic close to my heart. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as the Chair of the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding. I am pleased as always to see the Minister in her place. I look forward to her response on behalf of the Government just days before the long awaited 10-year plan for the NHS.
When the Secretary of State for Health promised to create the “healthiest generation ever”, it was a bold and admirable ambition, and certainly one that I share with him. Every child deserves the opportunity to thrive regardless of their wealth or their postcode. When the Government talk of building a better future for children, their policies and schemes often start with school—with free school meals and breakfast clubs—or providing Government support for nurseries and early years settings, but there is little substance in the critical years from birth to three, and even less when it comes to policy around infant feeding, whether that is breastfeeding, formula feeding or a combination of the two.
I had my son nearly 11 years ago, and I remember with fondness the lactation consultant coming on to the ward in the maternity unit and showing me how best to hold my son to feed him and what to expect in the first few weeks after taking him home. I did not have an easy journey with breastfeeding: I suffered with pain when he latched, I had multiple bouts of mastitis and swelling—the list went on. My husband and I ran our own restaurant at the time, so he took approximately three hours of paternity leave before returning to work.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for the work we are doing together on the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding and for her passion in this space. Breastfeeding is a full-time job. Only last week, Carrie Johnson, the wife of one of our former Prime Ministers, highlighted how easy it is to neglect your own needs as a mother while breastfeeding. Does the hon. Member agree that it is essential that the Government establish six weeks of paid paternity leave, so that breastfeeding mothers can focus on feeding their baby and partners can focus on looking after mum?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I was so pleased to hear the statement in the House earlier today. I know that she has been a tireless advocate for making sure that parental leave for all parents is improved dramatically. I thank her for her advocacy in that area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady; I spoke to her before the debate. In the last Parliament, one of the Scots Nats MPs was chair of the APPG. I was supportive of that as a man, as I thought that was important. My wife was an example of where breastfeeding is so important. Is the hon. Lady aware that Northern Ireland had the top score—69.5 out of 100—among UK nations? That may be because Northern Ireland has already put policies in place and is the only nation to have completed updated resources on infant feeding and HIV. Will she join me in urging the Northern Ireland health trust to share best practice with the other devolved nations and with the Minister to help encourage breastfeeding among those mothers who are able to do so?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is right that Northern Ireland scored the highest in the report card format on the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative, which I will come to. In comparison, England scored a paltry less than 50, which was very much due to scoring zero on infant feeding and HIV.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this Adjournment debate on such an important topic. She spoke of some of the difficulties she had at the start of her breastfeeding journey, which my partner Catherine also experienced. When my partner had those difficulties, she accessed a breastfeeding support clinic in my constituency at Meadway health centre, which was a huge source of support and benefit to her. Does the hon. Member agree that it is important to protect and support access to such services, ensuring they are there for every woman who wishes to breastfeed?
Jess Brown-Fuller
It is as if the hon. Member has lifted my words directly off the page in a timely manner. The reason I managed to carry on was that I attended a peer support group in my local church hall every Monday morning, aptly called Milk. It was not about the professional support that I had while I was there—although that was great, and I give a shout-out to the wonderful Julie who supported all the mums—it was meeting the other mums who were going through the same things and the ability to ask each other questions and offer advice, as well as the amazing trained peer supporters, who were volunteers. I give a quick shout-out to Holly, who showed us that we could and would survive those difficult first few months and come out the other side, just like she had.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important Adjournment debate this evening. In South Derbyshire, I hear stories of services to support breastfeeding women being cut. I speak as a mum who breastfed to eight months, although I had that moment where I almost did not, and it was my community midwife who saved the day for me. Does the hon. Member agree that as well as having services to support breastfeeding women, whether they are successful in doing so, they decide not to or they cannot, we should create safe spaces for them? I have done exactly that in my constituency surgery, but I would like to see it in other venues.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank the hon. Member for sharing her personal story and for advocating for other breastfeeding and formula-feeding parents in her constituency. She highlights that there is a postcode lottery when it comes to that support. We need to see safe spaces across the board for all parents who are feeding.
In the group I attended, there were not just breastfeeding mums, but mums who were combination feeding, in the process of introducing solids or planning their feeding journey as they navigated returning to work. Some of those women became my closest friends and I still have them in my life all these years later.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for bringing this important issue to the Chamber. My wife and I are expecting our first in the coming weeks, so as hon. Members will expect, this is an important subject in which I am quickly upskilling myself. In my constituency, I have a similar group called Exmouth Bosom Buddies, which does a fantastic job that we know relieves pressure on the NHS. What more does the hon. Member think can be done to allow such groups to grow, thrive and flourish so that they can continue their vital work?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the hon. Member gets to her feet, I am just reminded of the midwifery-led Crowborough birthing unit, which helps the lovely mums in my constituency.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Gentleman highlights how important it is to have that community-based support in an area. Unfortunately, not every mother across the UK can say the same. There are areas where they have to travel up to an hour by car to attend that sort of group, and I will come on to that point.
When I had my daughter, five years after my son, the support that I had relied on had all but vanished. The Milk group was now being run out of, in effect, a broom cupboard at my local leisure centre, with no opportunity to socialise with other mums. Only six months later, the pandemic hit and my daughter’s health visitor reviews were done via Zoom, often without my daughter even on the screen. The local children and family centre in my constituency never reopened in the same way after the pandemic.
I was one of the lucky ones because I had already built my village around me five years earlier and I had a network of friends and family that I could call on. However, for those who have become new mothers in the last decade, that support has been all but vaporised, with community support groups patchy and often delivered by volunteers or those wonderful midwives in their time off.
It is essential to acknowledge and support those parents who cannot or choose not to breastfeed, to ensure that they feel empowered and confident in the decisions they make for their children’s nutrition and wellbeing. I am a proud advocate of every parent having choice, but that choice should be an informed one. Currently, it is not a level playing field, with formula companies preying on the vulnerability of parents.
The Competition and Markets Authority launched a market study into the formula industry in February 2024 and published its results earlier this year. The study provided a comprehensive, in-depth and up-to-date exploration of the infant formula market in the UK through a consultative process that has offered unique insights into the industry. A short extract from the CMA’s overview of its findings states:
“parents are often in vulnerable circumstances when they first make choices about whether and which infant formula to use, their brand choice is often based on incomplete or unclear information, and they are typically then reluctant to switch brands. Against this backdrop, manufacturers place significant emphasis on building their brands—including through their willingness to supply the NHS below cost—and differentiating their products to attract parents, rather than competing strongly on price. And price competition between retailers has typically been weak…Our analysis indicates that these features, in combination, are leading to poor outcomes for parents in terms of the choices they make and prices they pay for infant formula.”
In short, a vulnerable, extremely tired new parent is making choices on which formula to buy, but the claims on boxes of commercial infant formula are often unfounded. Parents have to choose between a £7 tin of formula and a £14 tin of formula, even though they are nutritionally equivalent. At a recent event, we heard the testimony of parents who had purchased the more expensive brand with the bold claims on its packaging, believing that they were doing the best for their child, only to then use fewer scoops when making a bottle to make the tin last longer. We have only to look at our supermarket shelves and see the formula milk locked in glass cabinets to understand that we have a crisis in families being able to feed their babies.
The cost of living challenges have spiralled into a food insecurity crisis, yet formula manufacturers increased prices by 24% in one year in 2023 and prices continue to rise well beyond inflation. Research shows that parents rarely switch brands once they have introduced a formula milk. This gives formula companies a clear incentive to offer their products to maternity wards at reduced prices, knowing that parents are likely to continue using the same brand when they go home. To address this, the CMA recommends standardised infant formula labelling in healthcare settings, which would eliminate this form of exploitative marketing.
Formula companies are also restricted from advertising newborn formula, but they get round this by advertising their follow-on, or stage 2, milk and making the packaging look exactly the same. The CMA recommendations ask for the Government to assess whether infant formula and follow-on milks are “clearly distinct”, then communicate that assessment to the manufacturers and enforcers. A Mintel report from 2016 reported that in 2015, for every baby born in the UK, companies spent a staggering £21 just on marketing follow-on formula. The CMA has made 11 recommendations to the Government, all of which aim to improve outcomes for parents. I am calling on the Government today to implement all 11 recommendations and finally to level the playing field for those parents who rely on formula to feed their babies.
This debate is timely, as last week I was delighted to host the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative’s launch of its 2024 report here in Parliament. I would be delighted to give the Minister a copy if she does not already have one. The key takeaway from the report is that the UK has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world. The report not only highlights the gaps in policy but creates a report card system for each of the four nations. I want to highlight a few things that were mentioned in the report.
Importantly, data—though its collection is uneven across the four nations—shows that the majority of mothers do set out to breastfeed. Despite this, by six to eight weeks, around 70% of babies in the UK receive some formula, and by six months only 1% of babies are exclusively breastfed.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I commend my hon. Friend for the great work she is doing to improve the relationship between a mother and her infant—the most important relationship in the world. Will she join me in paying tribute to the midwives of Powys teaching health board, who have the largest county in Wales to cover? Will she also join me in paying tribute to Susan Grounds, who, after being a midwife for over 20 years, retired in March and was elected as a Lib Dem councillor in April?
Jess Brown-Fuller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that these women have often been embedded in their communities for many years, helping women to raise their babies, and that they go on to do marvellous things in the community.
The majority of those who stop breastfeeding early wanted to breastfeed for longer, but did not receive the help they needed to resolve problems, all of which could be addressed with support from trained health workers, skilled peer supporters or specialist help in hospital, at home or in the community. The World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative report highlights the absence of national policy and governance in England. The devolved nations have pulled ahead on this front, with Scotland publishing a strategic framework, Wales having had an action plan since 2019 and Northern Ireland currently finalising its strategy. Support needs to be baked into policy and legislation because communities cannot do this alone. It being so early in this Parliament, the Government have all the opportunities to act. I was delighted to see today’s announcement of a review of the parental leave and pay system, and I hope that infant feeding will play into the considerations of better support for parents on maternity and paternity leave.
Health visitor teams have also dwindled over recent years, and an estimated 54,000 GP appointments could be saved every year if a professional feeding service was available in every community. Any strategy must be properly funded and integrated with current programmes across communities and healthcare settings, such as family hubs and Start for Life, which should themselves be expanded, particularly Start for Life, which is funded only in half of England’s local authorities. Some councils are choosing to make this an area to improve on, and I am pleased to see my local authority—West Sussex county council—include the early years as part of its health strategy for the next five years, even without the Start for Life funding, which it does not receive.
I would like to use an example of a mother who got in touch just last week to share her story. She had a traumatic birth with unexpected interventions. Her baby was quickly fed formula by hospital staff. The pump kit did not work in the hospital, and no meaningful help was available. She wants to feed her baby herself. She looked online when she got home to find help nearby, but there was nothing less than an hour away by car. She is struggling with which formula to use and does not understand the differences between them. She does not know other women with babies. She is feeling lost and isolated. Social media is full of conflicting advice, so she has gone out of the area for paid support, which she cannot afford on maternity pay, to help her try to regain a sense of reality. I am sure this lady’s story is the same for parents across the country.
If the reasons I have highlighted are not compelling enough, maybe the economic impact is. UK research back in 2012 on the costs of four diseases showed that even reaching moderate breastfeeding levels could save the NHS millions, and that the implementation of proven breastfeeding support systems would pay for itself within a year. For babies, breastfeeding strengthens the immune system and significantly reduces the risk of infections, obesity, asthma and long-term conditions, such as type 2 diabetes. For the mother, breastfeeding lowers the risk of breast and ovarian cancers and cardiovascular disease, and supports post-natal mental health.
I could say much more, but instead I will move to my asks of this Government. When will the Government make their decision on whether they will accept the 11 recommendations from the Competition and Markets Authority? Will the Minister consider following the devolved nations and introduce a comprehensive national infant feeding strategy to end the postcode lottery and provide support to all parents in their feeding journeys? Can we expect to see something about infant feeding in the upcoming NHS 10-year plan? Finally, there is little about breastfeeding in most health professionals training, but primary care has successfully integrated assisted roles into services such as pharmacists and social prescribers. Could the same model be extended to lactation consultants?
I would like to finish by thanking all those tireless activists and campaigners who have been fighting for all women to have support, guidance and trusted information when they begin motherhood. I will not risk trying to name them all as I will no doubt miss some, but a special thank you goes to the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative steering group, First Steps Nutrition Trust and the former hon. Member for Glasgow Central who chaired the APPG before the general election.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. Through her leadership of the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding, she is working to ensure that families across the country get the right support. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed—my hon. Friends the Members for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), and yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The number of interventions and contributions has shown how important the issue is and how deeply it is felt across the House. The hon. Member for Chichester asked about the 10-year plan. I will not go into detail about what is in it, but—tick, tock—she does not have to wait long as the plan will be launched on Thursday morning.
I look forward to working with colleagues across the House and the wider health landscape on how we deliver the plan. In that plan, they will see that children’s early years are crucial to their development, health and life chances. That is why the Government are taking a mission-based approach to raising the healthiest generation of children ever and to ensuring that every child has a healthy, happy start to life.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
To reiterate the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) and the Minister about all children needing to have a healthy start, we cannot emphasise enough how important gestation and the first six months of life are. The factors that affect gestation and the first six months of life have a bigger impact on long-term health than anything we can do after that—any conscious decisions we make about our health are less impactful than what has happened to us during gestation and the first six months of life.
Ashley Dalton
I agree. The hon. Member will see in the 10-year plan and some of the investments we are making—for instance, to reduce the number of women smoking in pregnancy—that the Government recognise that.
We recognise that infant feeding is critical to a baby’s healthy growth and development, and we recognise the significant benefits of breastfeeding for both mothers and babies. We are fully committed to supporting families to breastfeed should they choose to do so. We know that most mothers want to breastfeed, but many stop before they would ideally like to. While it has been positive to see many more mothers continuing to breastfeed in recent years, we know that they can face complex barriers to achieving their infant feeding goals.
I recognise the concerns raised through the World Breastfeeding Trends Initiative report on the UK infant feeding policy landscape. Health is devolved, and I would like to commend Northern Ireland for its performance in this area, which was raised by the hon. Member for Strangford. However, we know through the report that England scores poorly, and we want to change that.
Families need quality services, trustworthy information, affordable options and systems that support them, not hinder them. Midwives and maternity services play a crucial role through the perinatal period in preparing and supporting families around infant feeding. We have committed to training thousands more midwives to better support women throughout their pregnancy and beyond, and there has been an increase of over 1,300 full-time equivalent midwives in the workforce since April 2024. We will publish a refreshed workforce plan to deliver the transformed health service that we will build over the next decade.
To drive forward improvement in maternity and neonatal services, we announced the launch of a national independent investigation into maternity and neonatal care. The investigation will recommend one set of national actions by December. A national maternity and neonatal taskforce, chaired by the Secretary of State, will then bring together independent experts to co-produce a national plan to drive improvement.
As families transition from maternity services to the community, it is important that they continue to receive the support they need, and health visitors are key to this. However, we know that health visitor numbers have decreased and there is variation in the level of services across the country, but it remains a universal service, and we are committed to that. In the plan for change, we committed to strengthening health visiting services so that all families can access their support.
We are investing in family hubs and the Start for Life programme, with £18.5 million this year to improve infant feeding support across 75 local authorities in England. Start for Life services are helping parents to access support where they need it and in a location that suits them, whether that is their home, their family hub, a hospital setting or through the many voluntary sector organisations that have been referred to today. Local authorities are working with partners to embed local infant feeding strategies, joining up services for seamless support and tailoring them to their community, with both universal and targeted support. They are building up the workforce, investing in infant feeding specialists, delivering high-quality training and expanding networks of peer supporters. Funding is also helping to train staff to identify complex needs early such as tongue-tie, and to offer timely support.
Although long-term evaluation is needed to understand the full impact of the programme, some promising findings are emerging. For example, ambitious multi-layered integrated infant feeding plans have led to increased breastfeeding rates in Coventry, and local health visitor data shows an increase in breastfeeding at six to eight weeks from 51% to 57% in just 18 months. We are also helping families across the UK to access breastfeeding support 24 hours a day through the National Breastfeeding Helpline.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The Minister highlights some brilliant examples that are a gold standard in care, but does she recognise that the process the Government are currently undertaking, with only half of local authorities being funded, means that we still end up with a patchwork level of support for new mothers? They do not know where they are meant to go, because it is different when they cross a county border.
Ashley Dalton
This is very much targeted through the family hub service and support for Start for Life, and through the universal health visiting offer and the National Breastfeeding Helpline we aim to offer all women who are breastfeeding the support that they need to do so. Parental leave has been touched on, and we know that supporting parents goes beyond services. Returning to work can influence how families choose to feed their babies, and in the plan to make work pay we have committed to a review of the parental leave system. As the hon. Member said, that review was launched by the Department for Business and Trade in the Chamber earlier today, and we are delighted to see that come forward.
I have spoken a lot about breastfeeding, but we absolutely recognise that when families cannot or choose not to breastfeed, it is vital that they get formula that is safe, nutritionally complete and affordable. Infant formula regulations and Competition and Markets Authority recommendations are important, but we know that many families are struggling to afford infant formula. We welcome the report from the CMA into the UK infant and follow-on formula market. It highlighted some of the issues that the hon. Member raised, in particular by noting that families rely on brand reputation and price as a proxy for quality, often choosing more expensive products. However, specific regulations require all infant formula to comply with robust nutritional and compositional standards, so that all infant formula sold on the UK market meets the nutritional needs of babies, regardless of the price or brand.
The CMA has made 11 recommendations to the Government, with four aims: to eliminate brand influence in healthcare settings; to provide better information for parents in retail settings; to strengthen labelling and advertising rules; and to ensure effective enforcement of regulations. The Government are supportive of what the CMA is trying to achieve. We want parents to be confident enough to choose lower-priced products, and for manufacturers and retailers to compete more on price. The CMA recommendations are UK wide. We are considering them alongside colleagues in the devolved Governments, and aim to have a UK-wide response available as soon as possible.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for raising this important matter. The Government are committed to giving children the best start in life, and we do not underestimate the challenge of getting this right for families. We will continue to strengthen key services, build on good practice, and identify where we can have the greatest impact for families. Tomorrow I will meet the all-party group on babies, and I look forward to discussing these issues further with them.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
For the avoidance of doubt and of by-elections, Members may remove their jackets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Sheep Carcase (Classification and Price Reporting) (England) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 2 June 2025.
I draw the Committee’s attention to a correction slip that was issued on 5 June in relation to the draft statutory instrument. It corrected a typographical error on page 20, in schedule 2, in the heading to the second table, “Table 1”, which should read, “Table 2”. That does not affect the substance or intent of the legislation. Copies of the correction slip have been made available to Members.
For years, the industry has called for mandatory sheep carcase classification and price reporting. The draft instrument will bring the sheep industry in line with the beef and pork sectors, where mandatory carcase classification and price reporting has been in place for many years. The instrument mandates sheep carcase classification and the price reporting of sheep carcases for larger slaughterhouses, which are those that slaughter at least 2,000 sheep a week. Smaller slaughterhouses, which slaughter at least 1,000 sheep a week, can voluntarily decide that the regulations will apply to them. The legislation will provide a process for the introduction of a system for the authorisation of automated sheep-grading methods for slaughterhouses that wish to use automated carcase classification.
We are introducing the legislation because slaughter-houses can set their own standards for preparing and presenting sheep carcases for classification and weighing. As a result, carcase weights across the sector lack consistency due to variations in the way that the carcase is prepared, trimmed and presented. That inconsistency leads to a lack of transparency across the industry, with non-comparable prices being quoted or recorded. Consequently, farmers often struggle to achieve the best payment for the quality of their sheep carcases when they sell their stock.
We want a more transparent, productive and efficient sheep market. By addressing that long-running supply chain fairness issue, we will encourage farmers to improve their productivity and ensure that they are paid a fair price based on the quality of their sheep. Producers can also then rear lambs that will better fit the market’s specifications and consumer demand.
The legislation will also introduce a consistent and robust mechanism for the evaluation of the carcases of sheep aged less than 12 months at the time of slaughter. That encapsulates the prime lamb market. The draft instrument requires the use of the EUROP grid, as it is commonly known, to assess conformation—that is, shape and the degree of fat cover. The meat industry is familiar with that carcase classification scale through the mandatory schemes for pig and beef carcases. Several abattoirs have already been using it when voluntarily classifying sheep carcases.
The new system will require operators to ensure that sheep carcases are presented in a consistent way post slaughter, at the point of weighing and classification. Regulated slaughterhouses will have to use one of two specified carcase presentations at that point. The regulated slaughterhouses will be required to report the weight of the carcase and its classification details, along with the price being paid for sheep sold, on a dead-weight basis—that is, when payment for the sheep is dependent on the classification and weight of its carcase. The carcase and pricing details must be reported to the supplier of the sheep, and to the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which will process the information under contract to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, as it does already for beef and pork.
The draft instrument will apply a licensing regime to classifiers and to automated classification methods. The Rural Payments Agency, which will monitor and enforce the regulations, will assess and license carcase classifiers. That means that both manual classifiers and automated classifying technology in regulated slaughterhouses will need to be licensed for sheep classification.
Provision is made for automated classification methods to be first subjected to an authorisation testing process, which must be passed before the automated equipment using that method can be put forward for licensing in regulated slaughterhouses. That will ensure that the method being used for automated classification can repeatedly and accurately classify carcases. The Rural Payments Agency will be given the powers to inspect the regulated slaughterhouses and to take enforcement action when there are breaches of the regulatory requirements.
The sheep industry, including farmers and meat processors, has been pressing us to create a mandatory carcase classification and price reporting system for sheep carcases, which the draft instrument delivers. I commend it to the Committee.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.
The Minister will be pleased to hear that the draft regulations are a point of agreement between the Government and His Majesty’s official Opposition. Time and again, I have heard from farmers just how difficult their supply chain negotiations can be, and today’s regulations are an important step for the sheep sector in strengthening protections for producers and processors. We know just how much pressure sheep farmers are under, especially those in upland areas, and a lack of certainty about the price and classification that they can expect at the end of the process only makes it far harder to run their businesses.
With the supply chain being so important, I am pleased to say that last year the previous Conservative Government began the process that has culminated in the draft regulations, with the public consultation, which ran between January and March—and, of course, through the passing of the underlying Agriculture Act 2020. It is good to see that much of the learning from the consultation has been implemented in the regulations and that the new Administration have decided to continue with the proposed changes.
The draft regulations will provide not only much needed reassurance to our primary producers, but clarity for our larger abattoirs, setting clear standards for the presentation, measurement and record keeping of carcases. In particular, there is precise guidance on the proper presentation of carcases and a requirement to measure weight to the nearest 100 grams. Standard setting in relation to automated classification is also welcome and should help many abattoirs access such processes with confidence, thus improving their options for growth.
It is also good to see that, primarily, the draft regulations will impact larger facilities of more than 2,000 processed animals a year, protecting struggling smaller abattoirs from the burdens of increased regulation. Only a few weeks ago, we discussed in detail the challenges facing smaller abattoirs, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Government—or to hold them to account —on that issue, as much work remains to be done to ensure rigorous standards without overburdening smaller businesses. We will support the Government on the regulations.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Briefly, the Liberal Democrats welcome the draft instrument, which brings the sheep carcase regulations in line with the existing beef and pig regulations. We want to ensure that sheep meat producers receive a fair price for their products, and to increase transparency and fairness for the sector, thus benefiting farmers, processors and customers across the wider supply chain. In the interest of a little levity, I will just say that we do not want our farmers fleeced.
Emma Hardy
Who would have thought that today there would be such unity in the House of Commons? I thank everyone for their support. The draft instrument is an essential tool in our efforts to increase the fairness of the supply chain. It establishes a much-needed scheme that will result in a more open, fair and transparent sheep market.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Subsidy Control (Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Subsidy Control (Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Turner. The regulations were laid in draft before the House on 2 June. The Subsidy Control Act 2022 came into force in January 2023. It was designed to balance the need for streamlined processes to ensure that public authorities can quickly and effectively give subsidies to support businesses where it matters with the need to ensure that subsidies are proportionate, represent good value for the taxpayer and do not unduly impact competition and investment. The Act also ensures that our international obligations on subsidy control are reflected in our domestic legislation.
When this Government were elected last year, we were keen to test whether the legislation had achieved the correct balance, or whether changes could be made to improve the functioning of the UK subsidy control regime. Following discussions with officials, feedback from affected public authorities and a public consultation, we have decided to amend the legislation.
The regulations set out which subsidies face mandatory referral for scrutiny by the Competition and Markets Authority’s subsidy advice unit and which may be voluntarily referred. The CMA review process is designed to capture the larger subsidies, which have the greatest risk of distorting competition or investment. Once the CMA has accepted a referral, it must publish a non-binding report on the assessment of the subsidy’s compliance with the Subsidy Control Act within 30 working days. Using feedback from the CMA’s report, the public authority awarding the subsidy should improve the design of its subsidy or its assessment of compliance, thus reducing the potential harm caused by the subsidy. As the CMA’s reports are published, the referral process improves the transparency of subsidy giving, offering competitors the opportunity to better understand when their rivals are receiving subsidies and when they may wish to challenge an unfair subsidy.
The regulations update the existing regulations, changing the definition of a subsidy or scheme of particular interest, to which I will now refer as a SSoPI. A SSoPI requires mandatory referral to the CMA for scrutiny. The amendment to the definition of a SSoPI increases the threshold at which a subsidy attracts mandatory scrutiny. Currently, that is set at £10 million for non-sensitive sectors; the amendment moves it to £25 million.
This is being done in response to stakeholder feedback that the £10 million threshold was too low and captured subsidies that posed only a low risk of distortion, including subsidies for leisure centres and wellbeing hubs, which pose a comparatively low risk of harming competition or investment in the UK or trade and investment internationally. The new £25 million threshold represents a proportionate approach that will allow the CMA to focus its resources on the effective scrutiny of the larger subsidies that pose the greatest risk to the UK’s internal market and to international trade.
While we are adjusting the mandatory referral threshold, the voluntary referral threshold, currently set at £5 million, will remain the same. That will allow public authorities to voluntarily refer subsidies that would previously have faced mandatory referral if they consider that the subsidies would benefit from additional scrutiny. The rules around accumulating related subsidies will also remain the same, ensuring that the cumulative distortive effect of subsidies to a particular enterprise is still captured and scrutinised.
We will retain the existing list of sensitive sectors and the lower £5 million threshold at which subsidies in new sectors face mandatory CMA referrals. There is a strong rationale for effective scrutiny of those subsidies to mitigate the risk of trade distortion and international challenge. Scrutiny by the CMA does not prevent the awarding of those subsidies, but will give public authorities the chance to strengthen their assessment of compliance as well as their subsidy, and mitigate any risks. These sectors were previously deemed to pose a higher risk of international challenge, and at present there is little evidence to support amending the list. On balance, the evidence provided in response to our recent consultation did not point towards any amendment of it.
As I hope is clear, the intention behind the regulations is to update the thresholds for CMA scrutiny in a measured and proportionate way, reducing administration while retaining effective scrutiny where it matters most. I commend the regulations and invite the Committee to support the passage of this instrument.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and an enormous pleasure on this hot day to speak on the draft Subsidy Control (Subsidies and Schemes of Interest or Particular Interest) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
The regulations seek to raise the threshold at which public subsidies must be referred to the Competition and Markets Authority’s subsidy advice unit from £10 million to £25 million. Let me be clear from the outset: the Opposition support a competitive, pro-investment environment in which Government act as careful stewards of taxpayers’ money. The principle of subsidy control is an important one. It ensures fair competition and transparent decision making in line with our international obligations and trade agreements. But this statutory instrument places us in a difficult position.
The Government are asking the Parliament to make a serious judgment on balancing the need to reduce burdens on public authorities and the need to maintain scrutiny of how large sums of taxpayer money are spent, but, remarkably, no impact assessment has been produced. Without one, it is almost impossible to determine the full consequences of this change.
We are told that increasing the threshold to £25 million will reduce the number of referrals by 28%. That might sound attractive on the surface—less red tape, fewer delays—but at what cost? We do not know how many significant subsidies—those with the potential to distort markets or that give rise to genuine competition concerns—will escape scrutiny under the new threshold; nor do we know the value of public funds that could be allocated without independent oversight. That brings me to the central flaw of the Government’s approach. They are asking Parliament to approve a relaxation of oversight mechanisms without providing it with the data to make an informed decision.
The Government’s own consultation received just 45 responses. Of those, a bare majority—23—supported increasing the threshold, and even on that views diverged widely, with some suggesting a threshold of £20 million, others £30 million and some even more than that. Eleven respondents opposed the change entirely, and the rest offered either no view or neutral comments. There is no transparency in the breakdown of those responses—no indication of who responded or the weight that should be given to their views. Why is that, and why has the Minister brought forward this change without providing a proper breakdown of consultation responses? More to the point, why was no impact assessment published? When public authorities and businesses alike are being asked to adjust to a new framework, this lack of rigour is unacceptable.
I have a wider point to make about the process and precedent. The Subsidy Control Act 2022, passed under a Conservative Government, was designed to replace the overly rigid EU state aid regime with a proportionate, sovereign system that protects the taxpayer while empowering public authorities to support investment. However, that system depends on the oversight and credibility of the CMA’s subsidy advice unit. If we start removing that oversight without evidence, we risk undermining the very confidence the system is meant to inspire. The Government argue that this change will allow the CMA to focus on higher-value cases, but without the data we cannot verify whether that trade-off is sound.
This is a serious matter that has real-world implications for competition, taxpayers and the integrity of public spending. The Opposition are not opposed in principle to reforming thresholds, but we do believe that any such reforms must be supported by evidence, transparency and proper parliamentary scrutiny. Until the Government are willing to provide that, we are not in a position to support or oppose these regulations. We will not hinder their passage; we will not vote one way or the other—not out of indecision, but because this Government have failed to provide us with the information needed to make a responsible and informed choice on behalf of our constituents.
Justin Madders
I note the shadow Minister’s comments and his position on this. I will try to give him some reassurance. The reason no impact assessment has been prepared is that the regulations are below the de minimis threshold for an impact assessment. They are merely about the familiarisation that public bodies will need to undergo to assess whether the referral process would apply to a particular subsidy. His concern that the regulations will lead to no scrutiny of public subsidies rather misses the point. A wide range of these public bodies have their own scrutiny processes, and lots of the referrals are from local authorities, which have well-established scrutiny processes. There will also be a CMA report next year that sets out the detail of how the scheme has operated in its first three years.
The shadow Minister is right to question the threshold. I am sure that he would expect me, as the Minister, to grill officials—on a hot day like this, grilling is appropriate—on whether the large increase is right. What I have gleaned from that is that the number of referrals to the CMA is significantly higher than was anticipated when the 2022 Act was brought in. Some of the subsidies that have been referred are not the sort that the CMA needs to be concerned about. For example, leisure centres and Arts Council England subsidies to the English National Opera are not matters that I consider to be of particular relevance to the CMA’s actions, and will certainly not distort international investment flows.
A wide range of bodies responded to the consultation, including local authorities, employers, business organisations and the British Chambers of Commerce. The suggestions made have been considered. As the shadow Minister pointed out, a number of different suggestions were made about the threshold—some were as high as £100 million. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be even more concerned if we had gone as high as that. We think we have struck the right balance to modernise and update the subsidy threshold. It goes without saying that construction costs have gone up year on year. This increase is not intended to be annual, so there is an element of future-proofing. As I said, the CMA will produce its monitoring report this year, which will give us all an opportunity to see how this has worked in practice.
The shadow Minister made fair challenges. I hope that I have given him some reassurance that we considered this matter carefully before bringing forward the regulations. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Fire engine in Nuneaton fire station
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 1st July 2025
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 1 July 2025 - (1 Jul 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent, and to send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Teas and coffees are not allowed during the sittings. If gentlemen want to take their jackets and ties off, that is fine by me. The last thing I want is a Member to collapse in the heat; that overrides any idea of sartorial elegance. When I call Members to speak, I will endeavour to call their party as well to assist people in the Public Gallery.
Clause 14
Socially necessary local services
Amendment proposed (26 June): 6, in clause 14, page 10, line 27, leave out subsections (5) and (6).—(Simon Lightwood.)
This amendment removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to carry out an assessment of the impact of ending the £2 bus fare cap and of the level of employer’s national insurance contributions.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I have concluded my remarks on this group.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. Before I came to this place, I sat on the highways and transport scrutiny committee at Leicestershire county council, so I have spent a lot of my professional life talking about buses. As is not out of the ordinary for someone living in a rural or semi-rural constituency, however, I have also spent a lot of my personal life talking about them, as cuts and broader threats to our services are often the subject of conversation around the dinner table.
We all have residents such as those my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland spoke about in our previous sitting. For example, my constituent, Jacky, fought hard to reinstate the bus service in Whitwick in my constituency, and won, ensuring that people can get to the local doctor and pharmacy. That is a socially critical service. A few years ago, the service between Coalville in my constituency and Hinckley in the neighbouring constituency was withdrawn at short notice in the middle of an academic term. North west Leicestershire and Hinckley both have further education colleges, and that essential link between the two was withdrawn in the middle of people’s courses. If the local authority had responded to campaigners then, it would have realised that the bus route between those two urban parts of Leicestershire was a socially necessary service.
In big cities, cutting one service leaves a dent, but in rural areas such as mine, it leaves a crater—and craters have been appearing all over my constituency. Bus services were cut by 62% under the previous Government. What bus providers and councils see as cutting costs, we see as cutting lifelines to education, jobs and healthcare—cutting connections with our communities. Members can imagine my constituents’ frustration when they heard a few weeks ago that notice had been served on a route between Ashby and Loughborough. The local authority has found an alternative to protect the service, but the timings are such that students now have to catch their bus even earlier to get to college.
Bus services are not just about transport; they are about opportunity, inclusion and dignity. When a young person in Measham cannot reach their college in Loughborough, or an elderly resident of Ibstock cannot get to their medical appointment, that is not an inconvenience but an erosion of their independence. We cannot afford to keep asking our communities to do more with less. That is why I welcome the Bill’s ambition. Finally, we have committed the resources that are needed to protect socially necessary services in my community and many others.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Clause 14 is so important, because it is about socially necessary routes—those that are critical to the community. It explicitly includes employment and, as the Minister conceded last week, also catches things such as hospital appointments, GP appointments and education.
Throughout the Committee stage, the Minister has hidden behind localism. Now, I am a Liberal, so subsidiarity is part of my DNA; I believe in devolving power, but national Government must not wash their hands of their responsibilities. It is reminiscent of the old Conservative trick from the Thatcher era, of Government distancing themselves from their responsibilities. Funding is crucial, but as we heard in the debate last week on amendment 54, the Minister says it is not for Government to decide what to do with it. They have given a bit of money, and now it will be up to local authorities.
The Minister even quoted other Tory lines about how there is no “magic money tree”, and I agree—there is not. So we need growth. We do not get growth by wishing on a star, taxing jobs by increasing employer’s national insurance contributions, or tying ourselves in knots with red lines over Europe rather than meaningfully re-engaging with the EU customs union. That is the way to grow the economy; that is the way we pay for these things. The Government cannot talk about growth, do nothing about it, and say to local authorities, “We have given you almost a billion pounds, and you can now go and sort out buses,” because local authorities do not have the finances.
I am straying from the Bill. I have thus far referenced the omissions from the Bill, such as money. By inserting subsections (5) and (6), the House of Lords sought to focus attention on the Government’s commissions—namely, the end of the £2 fare cap, and the disastrous effect of hiking employer’s NI costs on the provision of special educational needs and disabilities bus transport. The Government’s decision to table an amendment removing those subsections is plainly a mistake, one that threatens to undo the constructive and necessary work undertaken in the Lords. The provisions were added to ensure that Ministers are held accountable for the consequences of their decisions—specifically, the rise in national insurance contributions and the short-sighted decision to increase the cap on bus fares.
As the National Audit Office made clear in its report published last Friday, bus services are lifelines, not luxuries. They are essential for the young, for older people, for households without a car, and for those on the lowest incomes. The Government’s decision to scrap the £2 fare cap is not just wrong, but an outrage. It is a direct hit to the most vulnerable. The NAO report revealed that the lowest-income households—those in the bottom 20%—take more bus journeys on average than any other income group, at 42 journeys per household per year. Those are essential journeys to work, school, the shops or the doctor. Removing the fare cap would mean those people—the poorest in our society—paying more to do the basics of daily life. Subsection (5) rightly sought to introduce a review to assess the impact of increasing the fare cap on people’s ability to access socially necessary routes. Scrapping the review removes transparency, accountability and the Government’s responsibility to understand how their decisions impact real lives.
The same principle applies to subsection (6), which calls for an assessment of the impact of changes to national insurance on SEND transport. Transport for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities is not a side issue; it is central to an inclusive, accessible education system. Without that form of transport, many children cannot get to school. Increasing employer’s NI contributions risks undermining the viability of the services, as the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham made clear last week. The operators who run them are under increasing financial pressure. Without proper assessment and oversight, we risk sleepwalking into a situation where routes are cut, service levels fall, and SEND pupils are left without reliable transport. That would be an unforgivable failure of not just policy, but basic fairness.
Including a requirement to review the impact does not bind the Government’s hands; it simply asks them to look at the evidence, consider the consequences of their actions, and take responsible steps to mitigate harm where needed. We must protect these services for their users and uphold the principle that no one should be left behind due to financial pressures beyond their control. I urge the Government to reconsider and not shy away from scrutiny. They should own their decisions and be prepared to measure their impact. That is what responsible government demands.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to make my first speech in Committee with you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain, particularly on a matter as important to the residents of towns and villages in Cannock Chase, which I represent, as socially necessary local services.
When I first read the Bill, clause 14 was one of the measures that I was most delighted to see, along with the extension of the option of franchising to non-mayoral areas, such as mine in Staffordshire, and the scrapping of the ideological ban on council-owned bus companies, which could be an important part of the picture when restoring routes in areas like mine. I apologise to the Committee for not being able to attend its first sitting, when rural bus services were discussed.
The reality for many rural communities including some of my villages, which face reductions in services or being completely cut off, is that they mourn the loss of bus routes because they are now unable to take the bus to access vital facilities and services. Residents of the village of Slitting Mill, just outside Rugeley, have no bus service at all. When I go door-knocking there, I always hear from residents about the opportunities and freedoms that they have lost as a result. One resident told me, almost wistfully, as if she were speaking of a bygone age, of when she used to be able to catch a direct bus from her little village to the centre of Wolverhampton, where she worked. She told me that she does not blame young people for moving out of the village because of that lack of connectivity, or for not returning if they want to start a family. If someone in Slitting Mill does not have a car, their prospects for employment and training are very limited.
In my home village of Norton Canes, residents in the most deprived part of our community, on and around the Norton East Road, have been cut off for many years because the No. 3 bus skirts around the bottom of the road, and the No. 60 around the top. Although the walk of 10-ish minutes is no bother for residents without mobility issues, many of the residents who made best use of the services that went down Norton East Road are older. Many have told me that they do not even bother to catch the bus now. That is just one example of how shrinking services are exacerbating the decline of ridership.
Many residents use the bus to get to their GP appointments, and to scans, tests and secondary care services at Cannock Chase hospital. I am sure that, like me, other hon. Members have heard from constituents who often have to spend huge chunks of their income on taxis—accessible taxis are like hen’s teeth in my neck of the woods—or have to rely on relatives to drive them. Such relatives are hard to come by during working hours, but that is when most health services are open. Had clause 14 been in place when the withdrawal of services from Norton East Road was proposed, we would have had some back-up in opposing that on the grounds of its impact.
I am sure that we have all heard accounts of children and young people not being able to get to school or enjoy social time with their friends because of a lack of bus services, especially in rural and suburban areas. That restricts the horizons of the next generation. Such matters should be, but often are not, taken into account when proposals are made or services are slated for withdrawal.
Those three examples from my constituency show what the Bill means to communities such as mine, which have been let down by the broken bus system for far too long. Buses should work for people and communities, first and foremost. Clause 14 puts that aspiration at the heart of the Bill; I hope it will stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Siobhain. I thank hon. Members for their further comments on socially necessary local services. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland spoke at the last sitting about devolution and local decision making. Of course I support the principle of good decision making at the local level, and that is what the Bill is seeking to achieve by empowering local leaders.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked how local transport authorities’ decisions on socially necessary local services could be challenged. My Department included clause 14 to deliver greater protection for socially necessary local services and transparency for passengers. Members of the Committee have remarked that the definition given in the clause provides scope to reflect local passenger needs and the specific circumstances of different local areas. It will be for an enhanced partnership to make decisions based on those needs. Mandating an arbitrary level of service takes power away from communities and local leaders and could harm the overall long-term financial sustainability of local bus services.
Local transport authorities will need to vary their enhanced partnership plans and schemes to include a list of socially necessary local services. They must comply with the requirements of their EP schemes to avoid the risk of legal action, such as a judicial review, for not properly implementing the measure. If someone did wish to challenge a decision taken by a local authority, judicial review would be the most appropriate route. Guidance will be published in due course as part of the Government’s enhanced partnership review.
The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham asked specifically about proposed new subsection (9A), inserted by the Bill into section 138C of the Transport Act 2000. This is necessary, as it requires an enhanced partnership to set out a process that would be followed if an operator proposed to cancel a socially necessary bus service, or vary one in a way that was likely to have a material adverse effect on the ability of passengers to access the goods, services, opportunities or activities mentioned in the clause.
The hon. Member mentioned the £2 fare cap. The previous Government funded this fare cap until the end of 2024, with some fares likely to revert to more than £10 on the most expensive routes unless a new scheme was introduced to replace it.
Simon Lightwood
I will make some progress, but I can probably paraphrase what the hon. Member was going to say: “It was in the manifesto.” Well, you must excuse me, Dame Siobhain, if I do not take the word of the Conservative manifesto; we heard numerous uncosted spending promises from the previous Government, and now that has all seen the light of day, we can see it was not worth the paper it was written on.
The monitoring and evaluation report for the first 10 months of the £2 national fare cap was published in February 2025, and, as I have mentioned already, it was considered to offer low value for money. Maintaining the cap at £2 for the entirety of 2025 would have cost an estimated £444 million, so the £3 bus fare cap represents a £293 million saving. At the spending review, the Government announced an extension of the £3 bus fare cap until March 2027. The ability of local authorities to influence bus fares is tied to the bus operating model that they choose; in areas with enhanced partnerships, fares are set by the bus operators.
Regarding school services, the Government do not expect the recent national insurance increase to have a significant impact on home-to-school travel.
Jerome Mayhew
It is extraordinary to hear the Minister say that, given the entire sector is shouting from the rooftops that it will be an existential crisis for the provision of SEND travel. I simply do not understand what data the Minister or his officials are relying on to support his bold statement that it will not have an impact. If he is going against the reasoned objections of the sector as a whole, he needs to come forward with the data that he is relying on.
Simon Lightwood
I would simply say that it is expected that the private sector organisations that contract with local authorities will take the impact of national insurance changes into account, along with other changes in their cost base, in the usual way through contract negotiations.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 16 and 17 stand part.
New clause 37—Variation of enhanced partnership schemes to improve integration of public transport—
“In section 138K of the Transport Act 2000 (variation), at the end of subsection (5) insert ‘or—
“(c) improve integration across modes of public transport.”’”
This new clause would mean that an enhanced partnership scheme could not be varied unless it would improve integration across different modes of public transport.
New clause 50—Consultation of trade unions—
“(1) The Transport Act 2000 is amended as follows.
(2) In Section 138F, at the end of subsection 6 (f) insert—
‘(fa) representatives of relevant trade unions,’”.
Simon Lightwood
I will start by addressing clauses 15 to 17.
Clause 15 will broaden the scope and increase the flexibility of measures that may be included in an enhanced partnership scheme, by amending the Transport Act 2000 to replace references to specific routes with broader wording that covers local services in their entirety, thereby expanding the scope from measures that apply to individual routes to those that can apply across all local services in an enhanced partnership area. It means that local transport authorities and bus operators will be able to include in an enhanced partnership scheme measures that are more general in nature, rather than being limited by route. For instance, an enhanced partnership scheme will be able to introduce consistent fares and consistent reliability or punctuality targets across the entire area.
Clause 16 was developed in response to concerns from local transport authorities about their ability to require financial reinvestment in local services under the current statutory arrangements for an enhanced partnership. It will provide local transport authorities with a power to specify requirements in enhanced partnership schemes to create financial reinvestment schemes, which may require operators to reinvest any additional profit received as a result of interventions from local transport authorities, the Government or others.
The measure is intended to help to increase the level of operator commitment to the schemes and encourage operators to reinvest in the bus market. It will also help to ensure a greater return on central Government investment through the reinvestment of some operational savings back into the local bus market. Following the enhanced partnership review, which is currently under way, the Department will update guidance to assist local transport authorities and operators in understanding how the power can be used.
Most enhanced partnerships have developed a bespoke variation process through which they can make changes to a scheme, rather than relying on the variation process in the 2000 Act. However, there may be circumstances in which the bespoke mechanism does not work for everyone. Clause 17 provides that, in very limited circumstances, local transport authorities can make changes to their scheme by using the statutory variation provisions instead of the bespoke variation mechanism in the enhanced partnership scheme.
The purpose of the measure is to allow the local transport authority to make an application to the Secretary of State if an operator is acting unreasonably and has objected to a proposed variation that would have been made under an existing bespoke variation mechanism in an EP scheme. If, on application by the local transport authority, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the variation cannot be made because of the unreasonable or obstructive behaviour of one or more operators, or that the variation would benefit the people using the services, the Secretary of State can direct the local transport authority to follow the statutory variation process instead.
Additionally, the clause provides that a variation may be made using the statutory process if it is one that the local transport authority is required to make in relation to socially necessary local services. The measure is designed to provide some protection to local transport authorities to deal with deadlocks in partnership negotiations and to enable changes to local services that are in the best interest of the people who use them.
New clause 37, which was tabled by the hon. Members for North Norfolk and for Wimbledon, would broaden the reasons for varying enhanced partnership schemes under Section 138K of the Transport Act 2000. However, existing legislation allows for enhanced partnership schemes to be varied if that brings benefits to the people who use local services in the whole or any part of the area to which the scheme relates. The legislation thereby already covers the improved integration of different modes of transport, as this will have benefits for the people who use local services.
Under the 2000 Act there is also an existing duty on local transport authorities to develop and implement policies that promote and encourage safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport in their area. As the Committee may be aware, the Government are developing an integrated national transport strategy to set a long-term vision for transport, which will help to inform how transport is designed, built and operated, with passengers right at the centre. I hope that the reasons I have outlined, alongside the existing duties of local transport authorities, have convinced the hon. Members that the new clause is not necessary. On that basis, I ask that it be withdrawn.
I appreciate why my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) tabled new clause 50, and the potential benefits of union representation and input when an enhanced partnership scheme or plan is introduced. I direct my hon. Friend to section 138F of the 2000 Act, which the new clause would amend: subsection (6)(h) states that the authority or authorities must consult
“such other persons as the authority or authorities think fit.”
It can therefore be considered that trade unions already come under the interpretation if an authority feels that would make sense. I appreciate that this would be down to the interpretation of each authority, but my Department believes that the decision on who to include, beyond the required stakeholders originally set out, should lie with the enhanced partnership itself.
My hon. Friend may be aware that the Department for Transport will update the enhanced partnership guidance later in the year. In the updated guidance the Department will make recommendations for best practice and will recommend that unions are considered as consultees where a plan or scheme is introduced or updated. It will also be recommended that unions are also considered as attendees for EP forums if appropriate. I therefore do not consider the new clause to be necessary and ask that it be withdrawn.
I thank Committee members for their further comments on the partnerships. Clauses 15, 16 and 17 were introduced in the other place as Government new clauses to strengthen enhanced partnership provisions in order to widen the measures that can be taken by local transport authorities under an enhanced partnership scheme, to require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers on measures that will reduce operating costs, and to ensure that variation or revocation will benefit service users.
As I have said, clause 15 broadens the scope and increases the flexibility of EPs and broadens the wording to cover local services in their entirety. This is important to passengers because routes will not be viewed in isolation and local transport authorities will not be limited by route. That can help with the consistency and reliability of services.
The Government have listened to concerns from local transport authorities, and clause 16 provides them with a power to specify requirements in enhanced partnership schemes to create financial reinvestment schemes, which may require operators to reinvest any additional profit as a result of interventions. This is important because it encourages a commitment from operators to reinvest into the bus market, which I know has been a concern. I reiterate that the Department will use analysis from the previously mentioned EP review to update guidance to assist local transport authorities and operators in respect of how the power can be used.
Clause 17 was introduced because it was found that there were times when a bespoke variation mechanism was not working for everyone. The clause provides local transport authorities with very limited circumstances in which they can utilise the statutory variation provisions, instead of the bespoke variation, to make changes to the scheme. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Jerome Mayhew
Committee members will be pleased to hear that I will whip through the clauses quite quickly. Clause 15 amends the Transport Act 2000 to widen the measures that can be taken by a local transport authority under an enhanced partnership scheme so that they can relate to any local services in the area concerned. That is very sensible; we need not trouble the Committee any longer with consideration of that clause.
Clause 16, which deals with the passenger benefit requirement, replaces section 138C(9) of the 2000 Act. It sets out requirements in respect of local services to allow an enhanced partnership scheme to require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers in return for public expenditure on facilities or measures that will reduce operating costs. It is a simple and practical balancing act between the commercial operations that pay for themselves and the socially necessary additions that a local transport authority may wish to negotiate as part of the enhanced partnership. It is about the quid pro quo of how those can be funded other than by direct subsidy.
Clause 16(9)(a) provides that local transport authorities may include requirements that relate to operators establishing and operating arrangements that facilitate an EP scheme, and subsection (9)(b) may require bus operators to provide benefits to bus passengers if they benefit from action taken by the LTA or other public authorities, including the Secretary of State. Again, this is a sensible adoption of a quid pro quo process rather than having route extension with direct subsidy. For the Conservatives, the provisions seem to sensibly widen the options for trade-offs, and we are supportive of them.
Clause 17 inserts into the 2000 Act proposed new section 138(KA), so that where an EP scheme can be varied in accordance with the scheme, a variation can be made under section 138(K) only when the Secretary of State is satisfied of two things: first, that operators have behaved unreasonably or obstructively, and secondly, that the variation or revocation will benefit the users of local services. Again, this is a sensible approach for the Secretary of State to take and we will not object to clause 17.
The Liberal Democrats’ new clause 37 would deal with the variation of EP schemes to improve the integration of public transport. It would mean that a variation to an EP could take place only if it had the effect of improving integration across different modes of transport. Although I understand and applaud the rationale behind the drafting of the new clause, one has to be careful of the unintended consequences, because it would prohibit any change to an EP that did not also improve integration across different modes of transport. Many variations to an enhanced partnership might have multiple benefits for passengers, but might not have the benefit of improving integration across different modes of transport. Under a strict reading of the new clause, such improvements would be prohibited. I know that is not the Liberal Democrats’ intention, but as the new clause is worded that would unfortunately be the effect.
I will not make any comments on new clause 50, other than that, unusually, I support the words of the Minister in that the trade unions already come under the wording of the Bill.
Mr Kohler
New clause 37 is sensible and constructive. It would ensure that when enhanced partnership schemes are amended, improved integration across modes of public transport is explicitly recognised as a legitimate and desirable reason for doing so.
We have seen time and again, both here in the UK and internationally, that when public transport is properly integrated, it works. It becomes more convenient, reliable and attractive to passengers. People choose to use it and when that happens, buses flourish. Whether it is better co-ordination between bus and rail timetables, joined-up ticketing or clear and consistent information across modes, the benefits of integration are obvious. Without a clear statutory basis for prioritising integration, too often such opportunities are missed.
Simon Lightwood
For the reasons I have outlined, I have nothing further to add.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Requirements enabling travel by persons with disabilities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
The clause amends various sections of the Transport Act 2000 to help authorities to better reflect the needs of disabled passengers in the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. It provides that an enhanced partnership scheme can specify requirements to enable disabled people to travel independently and in safety and reasonable comfort, including—but not limited to—requirements for the provision of a taxi guarantee scheme.
The clause also requires local transport authorities to consider whether any of the requirements proposed to be included in a new enhanced partnership scheme, or when varying an existing one, will enable disabled people to be able to travel independently and in safety and reasonable comfort. It requires local transport authorities to consult disabled people or organisations that represent them before making an enhanced partnership scheme, to ensure that it is as informed as possible by an understanding of the priorities and needs of disabled people.
Jerome Mayhew
We are getting to some of the more interesting parts of the Bill now. The clause amends relevant sections of the Transport Act 2000 on enhanced partnerships and plans to help authorities better reflect the needs of disabled users of local bus services and the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. Subsection (2) inserts proposed new section 138CA into the Transport Act 2000, which provides that:
“An enhanced partnership scheme may specify…requirements about enabling persons with disabilities to travel on local services”—
and then we get the good phrase—
“independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”,
including for taxi guarantee schemes. It also states:
“Before making an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services”,
and it includes definitions for the purpose of the clause.
Subsection (3) pops proposed new paragraph (ba) into section 138F(6), on consultation. It includes disabled users or prospective users of local services, or organisations representing disabled users, among the list of people or entities that authorities must consult before making an enhanced partnership scheme—so, good progress there.
Subsection (4) inserts proposed new subsections (9) and (10) into section 138K of the Transport Act. It states:
“Before varying an enhanced partnership scheme, a local transport authority must consider whether the requirements proposed to be specified in the scheme as varied will enable persons with disabilities to travel independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort, on local services…to which the scheme as proposed to be varied relates.”
It is important that the schemes are designed to be widely accessible, including to those with disabilities. Consultation with affected groups in the design of services, as anticipated by subsection (3), is the right approach, and the clause makes clear the importance of designing services with the needs of persons with disabilities in mind. I ask the Minister: what consultation with groups representing persons with disabilities was undertaken prior to the drafting of the Bill? Although I welcome the clause, did the consultation include reference to floating bus stops, as anticipated in clause 30? If so, did the Government take account of that input?
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is great to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Dame Siobhain. I want to follow up on what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said and ask a few additional questions, particularly about the provision in clause 18 for persons with disabilities.
I obviously welcome the inclusion of this clause in the Bill—we clearly want to ensure that public transport is as accessible for all as possible—but I am slightly concerned that, in a way, it provides false hope. Subsection (2) states:
“An enhanced partnership scheme may specify”,
so it is a “may”, rather than a “must”. It is nice to have that consultation, but there is an opportunity for the local authority or whoever is providing the bus service not to do it. The clause allows for a consultation, but there are no guarantees that what disabled people want will happen.
I am also slightly concerned about the taxi guarantee scheme. I do not know whether hon. Members have experienced the same thing as me, but my constituency of South West Devon is an interesting mix of urban and rural. It might be thought that large chunks of Plymouth are technically easily accessible, but the Access Plymouth minibus system does not even work across the city, let alone go into the rural parts of the constituency. Out in the South Hams and West Devon, which is a different local authority, the bus services are typical rural bus services: they are not very reliable or frequent.
It is also worth saying that taxis are not reliable either. Just this weekend, a local taxi service that runs out of the village put a post on social media saying, “We’re fully booked this evening.” Even able-bodied people, let alone people with disabilities who are trying to benefit from a taxi guarantee scheme, need to book in advance, so I question the feasibility of delivering on this clause.
We are not only saying that bus services will be reliable for persons with disability; we are offering them a taxi guarantee scheme. Yet we do not know—I assume the Minister will be able to explain this—what assessment has been made of the wider public transport picture or whether the taxis exist to provide the scheme, particularly in our rural communities. I know the Bill seeks to address those places. Ultimately, we need to ensure that we manage the expectations of those we are trying to help with the Bill.
I ask the Minister, what consultation has been held on, and what thought has been given to, the provision of rural services for people with disabilities? The taxi guarantee scheme is a great idea, but is it deliverable? What analysis has been made of that? Secondly, what might stop a local authority from delivering on this, and what assessment has been made of potential obstacles? Apart from the supply of buses and taxis, are there other reasons why a local transport authority might not be able to deliver this?
If it is that important to ensure that persons with disability can access public transport, which is something that I think we all agree we want, then the obvious question is: why does the legislation not say that an enhanced partnership scheme “must” do it? Why does the Bill say just that it “may”? It seems that there is a conflicting ambition here. Perhaps I have answered my own question in saying that there might not be the supply, but if we want to ensure a better world for persons with disability, I am intrigued as to why it does not say that a scheme must do this.
Mr Kohler
The clause, added during scrutiny in the Lords, is a welcome and valuable improvement to the Bill, but we would like to know what consultation was held with disabled groups before it was drafted. Although the changes it makes might seem modest on paper, they have the potential to make a significant difference in improving accessibility across our bus network.
Subsection (2) allows enhanced partnership schemes to specify requirements to ensure that disabled people can travel independently, safely, and in reasonable comfort on local bus services. The inclusion to allow the specification of a taxi guarantee scheme is also welcome. Although we share some of the concerns of the hon. Member for South West Devon, such a scheme may prove to be vital in ensuring that disabled and other vulnerable users feel comfortable and confident in using the bus. Subsection (3) strengthens the consultation process and ensures that disabled users or organisations representing them are consulted before any EP scheme is made. That is not just good practice; it is essential if we are to build a transport system that works for everyone.
Subsection (4) mirrors that requirement when enhanced partnership schemes are varied, and guarantees that the accessibility is not forgotten as schemes evolve. Authorities must once again consider whether changes enable disabled people to travel independently, safely, and in comfort. These are considered but welcome changes. Accessibility cannot be an afterthought; it must be embedded from the outset and considered at every stage of decision making. These welcome measures help to support that.
Simon Lightwood
I thank hon. Members for their thoughts on the clause. I remind the Committee that the clause was inserted into the Bill because the Government listened intently to concerns in the Lords. The clause will help authorities better reflect the needs of disabled passengers in the design of enhanced partnership schemes and plans. It will enable the specification of requirements of disabled people to travel independently, safely and in reasonable comfort. That extends to when a local transport authority is varying an enhanced partnership scheme. It will help local transport authorities to understand better the impacts on disabled passengers, and fits into how the Government are reforming transport to make it more inclusive, placing the passenger at the heart of everything we do.
The Government are determined to ensure that, as far as possible, local transport authorities take proper account of the needs of disabled people in using local bus services. The clause will support them in that. I have had many meetings with various groups, including disability groups, and I engage widely with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee—DPTAC—to help and guide us on the Bill. As I said, the clause was a reaction, having listened to concerns in the Lords.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Objections by operators
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
Clause 19 will introduce a change to the 28-day operator objection mechanism in relation to EP plans and schemes. Under the Transport Act, local transport authorities are required to provide notice and comply with consultation requirements when they create, vary or revoke an EP plan or scheme. Those arrangements allow an operator of a qualifying local service to object to any proposal to create, vary or revoke an EP scheme at several key stages in the process.
The creation, variation or revocation of an EP scheme cannot proceed if a sufficient number of operators object. Where a sufficient number of operators object, the local transport authority has an opportunity to revise its proposals for reconsideration, and then operators have another opportunity to object.
The mechanism for operators to object is critical to enabling bus operators to have a reasonable say about the content and viability of an individual EP plan or scheme. However, in some cases, local transport authorities have been working with operators in advance of issuing notices, so they have an opportunity to work through any potential objections. The current legislation means that local transport authorities are required to wait up to a month for the objection period to lapse in such circumstances.
Jerome Mayhew
This clause is sensible. The Minister is right that it will streamline the objection process, so that instead of having to wait for a month to see whether anyone has objected, the affected parties will be able to notify the local transport authority in writing that they have no intention of objecting. The timetable will be shortened as a result.
The approach is multi-layered. The measure relates to the preparation, notice and consultation stage, which is section 138F of the Transport Act; the making of plans and schemes, section 138G; the preparation, notice and consultation for variations, section 138L; and the making of variations, section 138M. This is a common-sense approach to preventing unrequired notice periods from delaying the ability of LTAs to take action.
Clause 19(6)(a) will have the effect that where an LTA issues a notice of an intention to revoke an enhanced partnership plan or scheme, it is no longer required to state the date on which the revocation takes effect under the notice. That will allow the LTA to proceed with the revocation where the relevant operators have also indicated that they do not intend to object under the new arrangements. Again, that is sensible streamlining. I applaud the Government on a good tidying-up exercise.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Advance notice of requirement to provide information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
The clause will amend provisions in the Transport Act relating to powers of local transport authorities to obtain information about local bus services in connection with any relevant function, including preparing or varying an EP scheme or plan. Existing powers are set out under section 143B of the Act. They mean that operators may be required to provide information requested by local transport authorities within a “reasonable” timeframe specified by the local transport authority and in a specified format.
If it appears to a local transport authority that a bus operator has failed to take all reasonable steps to provide the information, it must inform the traffic commissioner. There have been occasions when operators have not met the timeframes set by local transport authorities.
To support the Government’s intention to strengthen EPs between local transport authorities and bus operators, the clause will amend section 143B to require LTAs to provide a 14 day-notice period before issuing an official request for information under that section. It clarifies that
“When imposing the requirement the authority or authorities must have regard to any representations made by the operator in response to the notice”.
The clause creates a mechanism through which operators can work with local transport authorities before a statutory request for information is issued under section 143B.
Jerome Mayhew
I will be brief. I agree with the explanation given by the Minister. This is a sensible clarification and we have no objections.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Bus network accessibility plans
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 23—Reporting on accessibility of bus services—
“(1) Each relevant authority must prepare and publish an annual report assessing the accessibility of bus services within its geographical boundaries.
(2) In this section, ‘relevant authority’ includes—
(a) a county council in England;
(b) a district council in England;
(c) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;
(d) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;
(e) an integrated transport authority for an integrated transport area in England.
(3) When publishing a report under this section, the relevant authority must include a statement indicating whether, in its view, accessibility standards within its geographical boundaries are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
(4) The report must also include—
(a) an assessment of areas with inadequate accessibility provisions, identifying specific locations and the reasons for accessibility shortcomings;
(b) proposals to improve bus route accessibility, including measures to address shortcomings and timelines for implementation;
(c) an evaluation of the effectiveness of previous accessibility improvements, including data on their impact on disabled passengers and other affected groups;
(d) a review of any barriers preventing the full implementation of accessibility improvements, with recommendations for addressing these barriers including any additional funding or resources required;
(e) evidence of consultation with relevant stakeholders, including organisations representing disabled people, transport providers, and local communities, for the purposes of ensuring that accessibility improvements meet the needs of all passengers.
(5) An authority’s first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed.
(6) Relevant authorities must ensure reports under this section are made publicly accessible and that copies are submitted to the Secretary of State.”
This new clause would require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.
Simon Lightwood
Clause 21 requires local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan, describing what provision is made in the authority’s area to enable disabled people to use local services. Those plans will also assess how effectively the provision enables disabled people to use local services
“independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”
and describe any further action that the authority plans to take to enable disabled people to travel on local services.
The clause specifies that the bus network accessibility plan must be published within one year of the clause coming into force, and subsequently it specifies that it must be reviewed at least every three years, or sooner if substantial changes are made to the local bus network. As it stands, there are no specific obligations for authorities to obtain an understanding of how well local transport networks in their area work for disabled people, or to highlight publicly their approach to network accessibility.
The clause requires local transport authorities to consult disabled people or organisations representing them, as well as operators of local services within their area, when preparing and reviewing bus network accessibility plans. That will help to ensure that authorities review the accessibility of their bus network regularly, including setting out any changes they propose to make, and that disabled people or the organisations representing them will be given a voice when future accessibility interventions are planned.
New clause 23 tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) would
“require relevant authorities to publish annual reports on the accessibility standards of bus services in their geographical boundaries, including statements on whether those standards are satisfactory or unsatisfactory.”
The Government are clear that we need to improve accessibility of our transport network, and I support the spirit of the new clause, which is designed to incentivise local authorities to take responsibility for driving up accessibility standards in their areas. However, clause 21 already places a requirement on local transport authorities to publish a bus network accessibility plan, which must include details of the accessibility provision that already exists in their area and an assessment of the extent to which the current provision enables disabled people to travel independently, in safety and reasonable comfort, and must set out future plans to improve accessibility. I therefore believe that the proposed measure is unnecessary and urge the hon. Member for Wimbledon not to press the new clause.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister did a good job of précising the contents of the clause, so I will not repeat that—I know everybody will breathe a big sigh of relief. However, there are some issues; essentially, clause 21 requires a bus network accessibility plan to be created, but it does not then tell us what to do with it. My questions are around the theme of: “So what?” It is all very well to create a plan that just describes the status quo, but there is no requirement to improve. The current effect is to create cost and bureaucratic process with no outcome for passengers.
This is a real problem with both this legislation and legislation more widely: we think process is very important—because we are policy people—so we focus on all the hoops that organisations need to jump through. Too often, however, we forget to take the next step and understand the practical impact of the process on our constituents, in particular those who use buses. There appears to be no positive benefit from the clause as drafted, other than having another document collecting dust on a shelf somewhere.
What is the point of the requirement? It identifies need and describes what the LTA is planning to do about it, but that is it. It feels a bit like virtue signalling without funding, since improvements are expensive, particularly provisions for those with additional needs and disabilities, and do not add significantly to the fare box. What is the practical application of the clause? It applies a significant additional burden on local transport authorities, which have to jump through the hoops that we are creating, but what is the benefit?
New clause 23 in the name of the Liberal Democrats is a different version of the same thing, but I look forward to the explanation and advocacy of it by the hon. Member for Wimbledon. The only difference is that the plan would be annual rather than triennial, which would triple the amount of bureaucracy and cost associated with the provision. The new clause would include proposals to improve bus route accessibility but, again, with no requirement actually to change anything. I know that is not the intention of the hon. Member, but both the clause and the new clause are entirely useless without funding attached. Since no reference to such funding appears anywhere in the Bill, that does beg the question, what is the point of the clause and the new clause?
Mr Kohler
In answer to the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham, our new clause 23 addresses the weaknesses in the existing clause 21. According to research by the National Centre for Accessible Transport, 90% of disabled bus users report facing barriers to using the bus network. Those include space constraints, poorly designed bus stops, the lack of step-free access when boarding or alighting, and the continuing absence of induction loops. Buses are not a luxury for many disabled people; they are a vital connection to work, services, friends and family. Putting accessibility front and centre is not optional; it is essential.
The clause is therefore a step in the right direction. It rightly requires authorities to consider how to make bus services more accessible. However, if we are serious about delivering meaningful progress, we must go further. That is why we have tabled new clause 23, to build on the work started in clause 21 by introducing a requirement for annual reporting on accessibility progress.
The existing clause requires the accessibility plan to be reviewed only every three years. We believe that is too long; three years is a long time in which to do nothing. I draw Members’ attention to subsection (4) of our new clause 23, which lists practical things that the report would have to report on to draw attention to the public, the Government and voters exactly where there are shortfalls in, problems with and obstacles to addressing the need.
We need to go further than simply having the requirement. Under the Conservatives, the Access for All programme was left to wither and die on the vine. Unless we actually do something more practical, as we are suggesting, that is what will happen again. I agree that none, or not much, of the Bill will work without adequate funding—that is a given—but we have already made that point, and the new clause would give the oxygen of publicity to what is happening. We think that is important.
We do not think that new clause 23 would impose a significant new burden. It would simply require local transport authorities to produce a short annual update, setting out how they are progressing against the goals in their accessibility plan, to allow for regular scrutiny, course correction where needed and, above all, accountability. If we want a bus system that works for everyone, we must ensure that local authorities do not just create plans, but deliver on them, transparently and consistently. For that reason, we support the clause standing part of the Bill, and we urge the Government to adopt new clause 23.
Simon Lightwood
The driving force here is transparency. It is about having the data and about how local areas ensure, for a whole range of reasons—social, economic and moral—that everyone in their community can access our bus services. I remind Members that the clause 21 was inserted following debate in the other place.
The Government believe that all passengers should be able to travel across the country easily, safely and with dignity. We listened carefully to concerns in the other place and brought forward an amendment to support the Government’s ambition for bus services to become more accessible and inclusive for passengers, and particularly for disabled people.
I will address some of the points raised. First, I have already mentioned that clause 21 places consultation requirements on local transport authorities when developing bus network accessibility plans. It also specifies that these plans must be published within one year of the clause coming into force and reviewed following substantial changes to local bus services, or every three years. For example, if a local transport authority decides to adopt a franchising scheme, my Department would expect it to review the plan.
The clause requires a local authority to describe what action it intends to take to enable persons with disabilities to travel on such services independently and in safety and reasonable comfort—not just to identify the issues. Bus network accessibility plans will enable local authorities to be held to account for appropriately understanding the accessibility of networks and for having a plan to resolve and mitigate those issues.
New clause 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would place requirements on a wider range of authorities, including those not responsible for bus services. It would be burdensome and duplicative, and likely to result in areas being captured in multiple reports. I confirm that my Department will provide guidance to help local transport authorities to produce proportionate and effective bus network accessibility plans for the benefit of the authority and disabled passengers alike.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Local government bus companies
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 22, page 16, line 31, at end insert—
“(4A) In relation to the award of a local service contract by one or more franchising authorities pursuant to a franchising scheme, any contract to be awarded pursuant to that franchising scheme shall not be an exempted contract under the Procurement Act 2023 unless awarded to a local government bus company that is an Exempted Local Government Bus Company and Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 shall be construed accordingly.
(4B) An Exempted Local Government Bus Company is a local government bus company as defined by subsection (5) and which was in business providing local services on 17 December 2024.
(4C) In section 3 of the Procurement Act 2023 (public contracts), after subsection (6) insert—
‘(7) Section 18 of the Bus Services (No. 2) Act 2025 restricts the circumstances in which local service contracts awarded to a local government bus company are to be regarded as exempted contracts.’”
This amendment ensures that any contract awarded under a franchising scheme by one or more franchising authorities cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a local government bus company that meets specific criteria - specifically one that was actively providing local services as of December 17 2024, and aligns with the provisions outlined in section 18(5) of the Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 17.
Clause stand part.
New clause 39—Assessment of service potential from publicly owned bus operators—
“(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must conduct an assessment of the ability of publicly owned operators to deliver more cost efficient and reliable bus services than commercial operators.
(2) Within a month of the Secretary of State concluding the assessment specified in subsection (1), a copy of the assessment must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Jerome Mayhew
I will speak to amendment 51 in my name and set it in the context of clause 22. Subsection (1) repeals section 22 of the Bus Services Act 2017, which stated that the relevant authorities listed in that section could not
“in exercise of any of its powers, form a company for the purpose of providing a local service”
in England. Its repeal allows the wide-scale creation of municipal bus companies. That was in the Labour party manifesto, from memory, so I understand why the Government are doing that, and there was also reference in the King’s Speech to encouraging the expansion of the municipal bus company sector. There are currently eight such companies in England and Wales.
It is clearly the Labour party’s ideological position—we should be clear about it—that the state is better placed to run the commercial operations of bus companies than the private sector. That is not about provision, routes, capacity or approach to additional needs; it is the nuts and bolts of how to run a commercial operation—purchasing or leasing, maintaining, training and operating a bus company. Why would a local authority be better at the things that I have just mentioned than a specialist business, the main operation of which is exactly that?
It is a truism that local authorities are not traditionally renowned for their efficiency, and the same could be said of national Government. It is not impossible for them to do a good job—in previous sittings, I have made positive reference to one or two of the existing municipal bus companies that do—and I will not be ideological in the opposite direction, but running commercial operations of this kind is not a natural strength of local authorities. Cost management, customer relations and maintenance and renewal are all natural strengths of the private sector. From my perspective, therefore, this policy change is a very odd decision.
Clause 22 exposes the political approach of Labour, which is more interested in creating the supplier than supporting the passenger. We have seen that theme in clause after clause throughout the Bill. Subsections (2) to (5) create new requirements that mirror existing subsections (1), (2) and (13) of section 74 of the Transport Act 1985, which disqualify directors of existing public transport companies from being members of the local authority that owns the company.
The new requirements will ensure that directors of the new local authority-owned bus companies formed after the repeal of section 22 of the 2017 Act, which I have already referred to, are subject to the same governance requirements. If we are going to do this, that is a sensible safeguard. Subsection (2) provides that a director of a local government bus company who is paid to act in that capacity or is an employee of the company or of a subsidiary is disqualified from being elected or being a member of a relevant authority that controls the company, so there is a degree of separation.
Subsection (6)(b)(ii) disapplies section 73(3)(b) of the 1985 Act, which relates to money borrowed for the purpose of or in connection with a public transport company’s provision of local services. That removes the restriction on existing LABCos in England accessing private borrowing where the money is borrowed for the purpose of or in connection with providing local bus services. I can see why private businesses that have good control of their costs would do that, but allowing additional public sector borrowing by municipal bus companies as well as the very significant commercial risks associated with franchising is another concerning element of the clause.
This is franchising with knobs on. Not only is the local transport authority taking direct commercial responsibility for the provision of services, which has not happened before, it is then, instead of contracting out those services for a fee—which is what franchising is in the majority of cases—going the extra step and being the other side of the charterparty in operating the company to which it is franchising. That is a doubling up of the commercial risk and bets taken by local authorities, and on top of that, they are being allowed to raise debt as part of the operating company. I fear that there may be some trouble ahead as a result of this approach.
What control will be applied to that debt? Who is responsible for the debt on the failure of a LABCo? That is an important question. Does the debt fall with the LABCo or revert to the local authority as the only shareholder? Will it come back to the local transport authority as the ultimate owner? What provisions are in place to protect the public purse? My concern is that this bit has not been properly thought through.
LABCos have an obvious potential conflict of interest. They are owned by the local transport authority, which is the contracting body for the bus services that they supply. Whether true or not, there is a risk of an impression of impropriety if there is not a proper arm’s length approach, so we have to go the extra mile. If we as a Committee decide to support this clause, it is incumbent on us, where we recognise that people will likely think that there is an overly close relationship, to put the safeguards in place now to prevent any indication that that might be the case.
The local authority, as an emanation of the state, should bend over backwards to ensure fair play in the tender process and to ensure that that process is obviously fair—that justice is not just being done, but being seen to be done. It is equally obvious that any contract award process from the local transport authority to a LABCo must be fair.
Coming on to amendment 51, the Procurement Act 2023 sets out a fair process to ensure that no underhand tender activities are being undertaken by a local authority—that is its rationale. Yet although clause 22 takes steps to ensure that directors are at arm’s length from local transport authorities, and cannot be elected members either, it currently does not prevent an exclusion under the Procurement Act for the award of contracts to new—as opposed to existing—LABCo operators. That is a clear lacuna and mistake in the drafting of the clause.
The clause is trying to take account of the transitional processes where there is an existing LABCo—there are eight that we have discussed previously. As it is currently worded, however, it does not prevent local transport authorities from setting up new municipal bus companies. In fact, Labour is encouraging them to do that—or going further than that, as the King’s Speech expressed the desire that there should be many more. Despite that, the clause allows the exclusion of the provisions in the Procurement Act. That cannot be the Government’s intention, or if it is, the Minister needs to tell the Committee that that is the case. That is my first question: is it the Government’s intention to allow the exclusion of the provisions of the Procurement Act in such circumstances—yes or no? If it is, why should those provisions be excluded?
Amendment 51 in my name would fix that oversight. It would ensure that any contract awarded after a franchising scheme by a franchising authority cannot be exempt from the Procurement Act 2023 unless it is awarded to a LABCo that meets the specific criteria that it was already providing services on 17 December 2024. In other words, we accept the transitional need for LABCos that have been operating over the last years, or that are currently operating, to be excluded.
However, any new LABCo should be properly compliant with the Procurement Act 2023. That protects the ability to roll over a transitional contract where the previous provider was a legacy LABCo, and stops the creation of a new loophole that would allow a local transport authority to misuse roll-over clauses to bypass the proper tender process and award to its own bus company.
It cannot be the Government’s intention to allow such an abuse of tendering, so if they will not adopt my amendment, what other effective steps will they take? How will they stand up for fair competition, the taxpayer and the passenger—or is their focus, again, on the supplier?
Simon Lightwood
In my time as a Minister, I have visited a number of municipal bus companies and they have all been absolutely outstanding. That is not just my view; look at the awards they have received in competition with private providers. They are deeply embedded in the local community, and indeed they are seen with some civic pride by the people who effectively own the company—the people of the local area. This is far from being an ideological move by the Labour party; we are removing the ideological ban. We are enabling local areas with the tools that they need to deliver better bus services, whether those services are municipal, through franchising or through enhanced partnership schemes. There is no one-size-fits-all approach.
Jerome Mayhew
I asked the Minister a couple of specific questions about debt management, so I would be grateful if he would answer them before moving on. He will, of course, remember that I asked about the provision of debt, the ability of a LABCo to raise debt, and what happens to that debt if the LABCo should fail. Does it return to the local transport authority, as the ultimate owner? Have the Government thought this through?
Simon Lightwood
As I said, any decisions should be underpinned by a rigorous and prudential approach to financing and resources. All local authorities have a duty to manage public money well. Local authorities cannot take on any borrowing unless it is affordable. That is a statutory requirement, and any local authority-owned bus company should be self-financing, as a minimum. Repealing the ban on establishing new local authority bus companies will give local leaders the freedom and flexibility to scale a bus company to match the needs of their passengers, the aims and ambitions they have for the network, and the available funding.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister was looking at his officials. I do not want to put him on the spot—obviously, I do, but not really—if this is a question to which he does not immediately know the answer. If he will write to me, through his officials, with that answer, or clarify it later in the sitting, I would be grateful.
Simon Lightwood
I will absolutely ensure that the hon. Member receives a full response and gets the reassurances that he seeks.
Amendment 51, moved by the hon. Member, seeks to prevent new LABCos from being able to directly award franchising contracts under what is known as the Teckal exemption in the Procurement Act 2023. Clause 22 will help to support public ownership, where desired, by repealing the ban on establishing new LABCos. Local authorities can consider a range of options for structuring a new bus company. One such option could be the establishment of a new LABCo as a Teckal company.
I understand hon. Members’ concerns about Teckal, and it is important to address them, but to do so we must understand what the exemption is and how it is likely to work in practice. Teckel is part of a much wider landscape of public procurement law, and it has been available to local authorities for the provision of services for some time. Use of the Teckal exemption is a complex undertaking that needs to be followed with care, given that it allows contracts outside the usual controls imposed by the public procurement regime.
Specific and rigorous tests are required to use the Teckal exemption. In addition, the development of any franchising scheme, including for a Teckal LABCo, is subject to checks and balances, as set out in legislation. That includes a thorough assessment of the plan, independent assurance and public consultation. Local authorities must be careful to ensure that companies are within the Teckal parameters if they pursue this option. Any local authority looking at Teckal would need to consider very carefully whether it was appropriate for their local context.
Existing precedent for Teckal LABCos in the UK, although limited, suggests that Teckal is largely used in scenarios where private operators are not interested in operating a service, or where they fail—for example, a Teckal award to an operator of last resort. Teckal is open to all public bodies that own any type of commercial company. Removing it as an option only for new LABCos would be an unusual departure from the status quo for existing procurement legislation. As it stands, there does not appear to be any compelling reason to single out new LABCos as the only type of public company that cannot use Teckal. My officials will publish guidance on LABCos once the Bill has come into force, and that will cover use of the Teckal exemption. We will work very closely with stakeholders when developing and drafting the guidance. That will help to ensure that the exemption is used only where the local transport authority believes it will genuinely improve bus services for local passengers in the area.
I turn now to Government amendment 17, which makes changes to clause 22. It will remove Wales from the scope of subsection (6)(b)(i), which inserts new subsection (5)(c) into section 73 of the Transport Act 1985. The amendment has been tabled to ensure that the public transport companies in Cardiff and Newport are not captured by the clause. Subsection (6)(b)(i) clarifies that there are no geographical restrictions on the operations of existing local authority bus companies in England. The amendment ensures that the subsection will only apply in England. It has been agreed with the Welsh Government and is intended to ensure consistency with the Welsh Government’s policy objectives to promote bus franchising. Clause 22 repeals the ban on the creation of new local authority bus companies, formerly referred to as municipals. The clause also clarifies that there are no geographical restrictions, as I mentioned, and I already touched on it being a local decision.
New clause 39, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), would require the Secretary of State, within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, to conduct an assessment of the potential and efficacy of LABCo service provision compared to private sector operators. I feel it is necessary to reiterate a key point about many of the measures in the Bill: it gives local authorities the choice to decide how best to operate local bus services for their communities. It does not mandate that they establish a particular bus operating model. The number and type of LABCos set up will therefore depend on local decision making and the available resources in each context. Local authorities already set out their objectives in bus service improvement plans and wider local transport policies in local transport plans. For those considering establishing a LABCo, the enhanced partnership variance process or franchising scheme assessment provides a robust way to assess the evidence for choosing one operating model over another.
Jerome Mayhew
I am not persuaded by the Minister’s arguments, valiant though they were. I therefore intend to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Mr Kohler
I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 23, page 18, line 42, at end insert—
“154B Consideration of operator size in grant allocation
(1) When exercising powers under section 154A, a local transport authority in England may have regard to the size of the operator when determining the amount of a grant and the conditions which may be attached to it.
(2) In particular, local transport authorities may—
(a) give priority to small operators for the purposes of ensuring the sustainability and diversity of local transport services,
(b) adopt measures to protect small operators from disproportionate financial burdens or competition, and
(c) take into account the financial and operational capacity of small operators to meet service demands.
(3) When determining what constitutes a small operator, a local transport authority may consider—
(a) the size of the operator’s fleet,
(b) the number of employees employed by the operator, and
(c) the operator’s annual turnover or other financial capacity.”
This amendment would enable local transport authorities to prioritise small transport operators when allocating grants.
Mr Kohler
We welcome the powers in clause 23, which enables local transport authorities to design and deliver grants directly to bus operators in their areas. It is a clear step in the right direction, placing real tools in the hands of local authorities, which know their communities best and are best placed to shape the services that their residents rely on.
Amendment 56 builds on that principle. It would ensure that, when designing grant schemes, local authorities must consider the size of transport operators. Too often, smaller bus companies, many of them deeply embedded in the communities they serve, struggle to compete on an uneven playing field, especially when it comes to accessing capital for improvements or expansion. Our amendment recognises the vital role that those smaller operators play.
By requiring authorities to take those smaller operators’ circumstances into account and, where appropriate, prioritise them in their grant making, we would help to protect local choice, preserve vital routes and foster healthy competition in the sector. In short, this is a modest but meaningful measure to ensure that smaller operators are not squeezed out, and that communities continue to benefit from diverse, responsive and locally rooted bus services. We therefore support amendment 56 and the clause standing part of the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
The Government recognise the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises in driving economic growth. The hon. Members for Wimbledon, for North Norfolk and for South Devon clearly recognise that, too, given the amendment that they have tabled. This Bill aims to support our economic growth mission by giving local transport authorities greater freedom to decide how best to support their local networks.
Amendment 56 is intended to ensure that local transport authorities that choose to use the new powers to design and pay grants to bus operators consider the needs of small operators when designing those grants. The amendment is not needed, however. Clause 23 would do nothing to restrict local transport authorities from choosing to provide greater support to local small bus operators when designing their own grants, provided that those grants comply with competition and subsidy rules. Local transport authorities are already well placed to understand the needs of their small operators, because most are already part of enhanced partnership arrangements with operators in their areas. It will be for local transport authorities to decide the best way to support their local bus networks as a whole.
Finally, local transport authorities, as public authorities disbursing funding, will need to be mindful of the fact that any grants that they design using the powers under the Bill must comply with any relevant legal requirements, such as subsidy controls that ensure they are not distorting the local or national market. I therefore ask that the hon. Member for Wimbledon withdraw the amendment.
Mr Kohler
We remain of the view that without the amendment, the proposals will not give small bus companies the benefits that we are seeking to achieve. We are not convinced that that can be done without the explicit mention of small bus companies, as provided by the amendment.
Simon Lightwood
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 24, page 20, line 41, after “1985” insert
“, in connection with a local service which has one or more stopping places in England,”.
This amendment limits clause [24](4) to local services which have one or more stopping places in England.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 19.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 28, in clause 25, page 21, line 24, after “equipment,” insert
“including accessibility and the provision of wheelchair spaces,”.
This amendment would add accessibility information to the list of information which is to be provided to users of local bus services.
Clauses 25 and 26 stand part.
Simon Lightwood
Government amendments 18 and 19 will have the effect of removing services operating in Wales from the scope of clause 24(4). Amendment 18 will mean that only services that have stopping places in England will be captured. Amendment 19 will mean that, in relation to a cross-border bus service, no information will be captured about any part of that service operating outside England. The changes are necessary because bus registration is a devolved matter.
Clause 24 will give the Secretary of State new powers in respect of the provision of information on the registration, variation and cancellation of bus services from operators and local transport authorities. It will enable information about local bus services to flow to, and be shared between, the traffic commissioner and the Secretary of State. The traffic commissioner will retain overall responsibility for registering local bus services and the Secretary of State will host and administer the new database, which will bring all the information streams together.
Useful information will be available online, including on who operates the route, where services go and any changes or cancellations to services. By bringing that all online, we will modernise the information provision and make it more transparent for passengers. The technical detail will be set out in regulations made under the new powers in the Bill.
I thank the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion for tabling amendment 28, which would add
“accessibility and the provision of wheelchair spaces”
as a specific category of data that the Secretary of State may require from bus operators. I agree that open, transparent information about the accessibility specifications of buses should be available to the public, which is why I am pleased to confirm that we were already intending to use the powers in the clause to request the very same information.
Clause 25 works with clause 24 to enhance oversight, promote data-driven decision making and ensure greater transparency of local bus services. It paves the way to require franchising authorities, which do not have to register services with the traffic commissioners, to provide data about their services to the Secretary of State in order to enable the functioning of the aforementioned database. The clause also adds new categories of data that the Secretary of State may collect about local services and the vehicles used to operate them, and will assist with the monitoring and performance of local services and operators.
Clause 26 works in tandem with clauses 24 and 25 to support greater public transparency and thus accountability over local bus services. It will enable the Department to publish historical data down to the operator level by removing some of the existing restrictions on doing so. That will provide passengers with a baseline from which they can assess the performance of current bus services.
Although the existing data provides a good overview of bus services on the whole, having visibility of the business and operations of a specific identifiable operator will ensure that passengers have trust in their local service and confidence that, if they choose to take the bus, it will meet their needs. Clause 26 achieves that by amending the Statistics of Trade Act 1947 to enable the publication of existing operator-level bus data. It states that the Secretary of State must give notice to the industry prior to the publication of such data.
Section 9 of the 1947 Act sets out rules governing the disclosure and publication of information collected under the Act. In particular, it requires the consent of individual undertakings before information identifying them can be published. Disapplying the requirements in section 9 will allow the Department to publish operator-level information collected during the qualifying period, even in cases where written consent cannot reasonably be obtained from a large number of the individual operators concerned. These provisions will enable the timely and transparent publication of operator-level bus data, improving access to information while maintaining appropriate safeguards.
Jerome Mayhew
We have struggled with some clauses in the Bill, but clause 24 is perhaps the most opaque of all the clauses we have been asked to consider. It takes quite a while to go through all the references to work out what the clause actually means, but once that is done, it becomes clear that it is in fact a tidy-up exercise of the requirement for the registration of local services to the traffic commissioner. It maintains equivalent obligations in Wales as apply to England and ensures that the Transport Act 1985 is read through the lens of subsequent data protections.
The clause also retains the existing power of a traffic commissioner to refuse registration of a scheme if they believe that the applicant has not given them such information as they may reasonably require in connection with the application. The manner and type of such communication will be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations—okay.
The one area that I have some concerns about is clause 24(4), which deals with powers conferred on the Secretary of State, as it appears to go much further than the reasons given in the explanatory notes for why subsection (4) is necessary. I will read a short paragraph from the explanatory notes:
“Subsection (4) enables Traffic Commissioners to share existing registration information with the Secretary of State. It also ensures Traffic Commissioners can provide information about ongoing applications for the registration, variation or cancellation of services received before this clause comes into force”.
That is the rationale behind subsection (4), but its wording gives unfettered power to the Secretary of State to use any information, provided for any purpose, without restriction. The subsection states:
“in which case the information is provided without restrictions on its disclosure or use”.
Why do I care about this, and why is it potentially important? It is simply because the information about a scheme could be deeply commercially sensitive. Not every bus company is a LABCo; there are private sector operators in competition with one another. The commissioner can reasonably require full details of how an operation will be undertaken, including its financial elements. The current drafting of subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to disclose that deeply commercially sensitive information. Operators are required to give that information to the traffic commissioner—without it, the commissioner could refuse to grant an application—and the Secretary of State then gets their hands on it and can do whatever they want with it, without restriction on its disclosure or use. I highlight that point to Minister and, through him, to officials. Why should the Secretary of State have such a wide-ranging power? It is not necessary for the purposes of the Bill, as set out in the explanatory notes, and it just seems to have slipped through the gap. Can the Minister please explain why?
Government amendment 18 makes a technical correction and I have no objection to it. I will also skip over Government amendment 19, in the interest of speed, for the benefit of the Government Whip.
Clause 25 amends section 141A of the Transport Act 2000 to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations that require franchising authorities to provide data about services, akin to registration information, which we have just talked about. The clause also allows the Secretary of State to make regulations authorising the collection and publication of additional categories of information.
The intention of clause 25 is to obtain a better understanding of the nature of the services that are currently being provided, who is providing them and how they are doing so, including an understanding of the vehicles used, the number of staff engaged and the cost. I am developing a bit of theme here, but so what? What will the Government do with this information? Why is it useful? In itself, it does not change behaviour. I am not against the collation of the information, so long as it used to good effect, so I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation of how he intends to use it.
Clause 26 deals with information obtained under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947, which gives powers to competent authorities to require organisations to provide data, for economic forecasting, in essence—the kind of data that is used by the Government Statistical Service. Section 9 of the 1947 Act prevents the disclosure of such information that identifies an individual undertaking without the prior written consent of the provider of the information.
That is obviously very sensible. The Government want to find out what is happening in the economy to inform their policies, so under the 1947 Act they gave themselves power to require businesses to provide interesting information about their operations. As an aside, I used to run a business, which was asked for information by the Bank of England on a quarterly or perhaps six-monthly basis so that it could get a feeling for what was happening in the economy. It did not want the Westminster bubble or the square mile bubble; it looked at the real, lived experience of businesses. Those businesses provide useful data, which informs interest rate decisions and Government policy. But the last thing a businessman wants is for that information to be sent out into the public realm with their name attached to it. If they said, “Oh, isn’t it terrible? Orders have gone through the floor and we’re planning to lay a whole load of people off,” they would not want that information to be in the public domain; they provide it in confidence.
Simon Lightwood
From what I have heard from Committee members, we share the goal of improving bus services for passengers. These clauses are a direct response to a problem with how information on bus services is captured. I believe that solving it is critical to delivering better bus services.
Before I address the shadow Minister’s specific points, let me say that the Government have made transparency and open data a key priority. As I set out in detail in my Department’s transport data strategy, transparency fosters accountability, drives improvements in public services by informing choice, and stimulates innovation and growth. It is simply unacceptable that a passenger is unable to consult a single source of information to get a full picture of the services available in their local area and beyond. That is a result of different ways that service registration has been delegated across the country and the fact that there are multiple bus data streams, including the Bus Open Data Service. In fact, many bus registration processes are still completed using paper applications. That is simply inefficient.
Bringing multiple sources of information together in one place will really help to improve the situation for passengers. The Bill will not change who must register a bus service; it will provide a power to change from paper to electronic the means by which a service must be registered with the traffic commissioner.
The shadow Minister expressed concerns about the implications of the measures for bus operators. My noble Friend the Rail Minister addressed that in the other place, saying that we will be mindful of the commercial sensitivity concerns, and I reiterate that commitment. Having greater visibility of individual bus operators will increase accountability and help to build passengers’ trust, in turn giving them confidence to take the bus.
Amendment 18 agreed to.
Amendment made: 19, in clause 24, page 20, line 43, at end insert—
“(4A) Where a local service is provided both inside and outside England, subsection (4) does not authorise the provision of information which relates to any part of the service which is provided outside England.”—(Simon Lightwood.)
This amendment provides that a traffic commissioner may not provide to the Secretary of State information about cross-border services which relates to any part of the service provided outside England.
Clause 24, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Powers of inspectors
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 67, in clause 28, page 24, line 37, after “nuisance” insert—
“, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance.”
This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.
Clauses 28 and 29 stand part.
Simon Lightwood
The clause supports bus franchising authorities and local transport authorities to deal effectively with fare evasion. That is achieved through amendments to the definition of “inspector” in the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981, to allow local transport authorities and Transport for London to appoint their own transport safety officers, or transport support and enforcement officers, as inspectors, alongside the existing ability for bus operators to do so. That will support the safety of all passengers and enable local authority officers to have the same powers as those who are employed or authorised by a bus operator, ultimately enabling the local transport authority to prevent fare evasion.
On amendment 67 tabled by the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for South Devon, I understand what they are seeking to achieve. The Government are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour, including “headphone dodging” on buses. Clause 28 gives local transport authorities powers to make byelaws on their buses, providing them with scope to tackle a broad range of antisocial behaviours. That could include making byelaws to tackle disruptive forms of behaviour.
The Public Service Vehicles (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 set out the behaviour expected of drivers and passengers travelling on buses. They provide powers for drivers, inspectors and conductors, or the police, to remove a person from a vehicle if they
“play or operate any musical instrument or sound reproducing equipment to the annoyance of any person on the vehicle or in a manner which is likely to cause annoyance”.
Breach of the rules carries a possible fine of up to £1,000 on conviction. As such, amendment 67 is not necessary, and I ask that the hon. Member for Wimbledon does not press it to a vote.
Clause 28 enables local transport authorities to introduce byelaws to tackle antisocial behaviour on vehicles, as well as within and at bus-related infrastructure, such as bus stations. The clause was developed to address the current situation, in which there are no specific powers available to local transport authorities to make byelaws to deal with antisocial behaviour on their bus networks.
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 1st July 2025
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesBus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 1 July 2025 - (1 Jul 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices to silent and to send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We have some visually impaired people in the Gallery who are very welcome. For their benefit and for the benefit of others following the proceedings this afternoon, when I call a Member to speak, I will announce their name and party affiliation. I ask that Members allow me to do so before commencing their speech. For the benefit of those in the Gallery who have not met me yet—you have a different Chair from the one this morning—my name is Dr Rosena Allin-Khan and it is a pleasure to have you here.
Clause 27
Powers of inspectors
Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 67, in clause 28, page 24, line 37, after “nuisance” insert
“, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance.”
This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.
Clauses 28 and 29 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
As I was saying this morning, clause 28 enables local transport authorities to introduce byelaws to tackle antisocial behaviour on vehicles, as well as within and at bus-related infrastructure, such as bus stations. The clause was developed to address the current situation, in which there are no specific powers available to local transport authorities to make byelaws to deal with antisocial behaviour on their bus networks. Certain local transport authorities could use the general powers contained in section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972 for this purpose, but those powers are not available to all local transport authorities, most notably metropolitan combined authorities.
The clause is intended to provide flexibility to local transport authorities to effectively enforce against antisocial behaviour on the transport network and to ensure greater consistency across the country and across public transport modes. Through these byelaws, local transport authorities can provide authorised persons with the power to enforce against antisocial behaviour, including the ability to issue fixed penalty notices where they have reason to believe that an offence has been committed.
Clause 29 ensures that the new byelaw powers being granted to local transport authorities are also available to Transport for London. TfL has requested to be included in this provision. Although TfL officers can deal with antisocial behaviour at bus stops and bus stations under existing byelaws, they cannot easily enforce against nuisance behaviour on the buses themselves. Closing this loophole gives TfL the same powers as other local transport authorities in England and will help to make buses in London safer for passengers and for staff.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
It is good to see you back in your rightful place, Dr Allin-Khan. Clause 23 is not a controversial element of the Bill, so I will not detain the Committee for too long. It gives local transport authorities and Transport for London sensible new powers to enforce against fare evasion.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I think there is some slight confusion among Committee members because my hon. Friend said clause 23 when he meant clause 27.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that intervention; I stand corrected, as I was talking about clause 27. I do not know where clause 23 came from—my subconscious.
Subsection (2) clarifies that regulations can address the powers of an inspector outside of their authority’s area. Subsections (3) and (4) clarify the definition of an inspector. That is all fine.
Clause 28 is the largest clause in the Bill, so although it is not particularly contentious—we are substantially supportive of it—I would not be taking my duty seriously if I totally skipped over it. I will therefore pick and mix and hope that people bear with me while I take a little time to consider how it deals with local transport authority byelaws. It amends the Transport Act 2000, sets out the power of LTAs to make byelaws, and lists the various areas that can be covered.
Proposed new section 144A(1) and (2) of the 2000 Act is relevant to Liberal Democrat amendment 67. The byelaws set out in proposed new subsection (1) relate to travel on services, the maintenance of order and the conduct of persons while using services. Those are the areas of interest about which organisations will have the authority to create byelaws.
Proposed new subsection (2) goes into more detail and states that the byelaws relate to issues including tickets, the evasion of payment of fares, interference with or obstruction of local services, and the prohibition of vaping, smoking and nuisance on local services. I highlight that list, because Liberal Democrat amendment 67 would add “sustained anti-social auditory disturbance” to it.
The two subsections are dealt with differently: proposed new subsection (1) is an exhaustive list setting out the scope for byelaws, but proposed new subsection (2) is a non-exhaustive list of provisions that may be considered. Therefore, proposed new subsection (1) does not allow the consideration of issues relating to noise disturbance and would need to be amended to include that. In my submission, however, proposed new subsection (2) would not need to be amended because it is a non-exhaustive list, so we could go on forever adding things that annoy us on public transport—I would quite like to settle down and consider that. Although I share the Liberal Democrats’ fury and annoyance at antisocial auditory disturbance, I do not think it is necessary to add it to the non-exhaustive list in proposed new subsection (2).
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments on our amendment, but what is the point of including anything in proposed new subsection (2) then? Following his argument, nothing needs to be there.
Jerome Mayhew
As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am not the Government; it is for them to defend their drafting. If he wants to help to change that, I will happily stand on the Government side and give him the answer he is looking for. The essence of any non-exhaustive list is to give examples. It would not be wrong to give another example, but it is up to the Government whether it is necessary to amend the clause and whether they are prepared to add it to the list. As a matter of law, however, that is the difference between an exhaustive and a non-exhaustive list.
Proposed new section 144B sets out the procedures on byelaws. The Minister spoke about them briefly, and the measure is a reasonable approach to the problem that the Government seek to solve. I will just go back, however, and highlight that the byelaws allow for level 3 fines for these offences. Hon. Members will know that, under the current guidelines, a level 3 fine is £1,000, so the byelaws will allow local transport authorities and Transport for London to impose not inconsiderable fines.
Given that these are substantial powers that can address quite wide-ranging behaviours, and that transport authorities can impose fines of up to £1,000, we collectively need to think about the guidance from the Secretary of State that will accompany this legislation. It is important to get that right, and I invite the Minister to elaborate on the guidance’s likely approach to enforcement. A kind of draconian, one-strike-and-you’re-out enforcement would be deeply unpopular, and it would bring in a whole load of people who were just running for the bus. There are good actors and bad actors: people get caught up in behaviours for all sorts of reasons, and we need sensible guidance about enforcement.
Clause 29, on TfL byelaws, is a similar clause that simply seeks to apply a similar approach to TfL. I will not go through it, but the points that I made about clause 28 apply.
Mr Kohler
Clause 28 introduces powers for local authorities to make byelaws for buses. That is welcome, and I agree that the behaviour that the clause already lists should be prohibited. There is, however, a clear omission. With passengers already paying extortionate fares to be packed in like sardines on buses, we should at least ensure that they do not face the added indignity of someone’s blaring TikTok feed. That is why our amendment 67 seeks to add the words
“including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance.”
The amendment would explicitly allow transport authorities to bring in byelaws that ban persistent antisocial noise, such as music or videos played out loud on personal devices. It is a sensible, proportionate response to a problem that has been left unchecked for far too long. Let us be clear: we are not talking about a small inconvenience. The scale of the problem is significant.
Recent polling has found that almost two in five people say that they have experienced others playing music out loud often or sometimes, while only a quarter report experiencing it rarely. Furthermore, a majority of respondents say that they would not feel comfortable asking someone to turn down their music on public transport. Women feel especially unable to challenge such antisocial behaviour; almost two thirds say that they would not feel comfortable doing so.
Furthermore, playing music and other content loudly on public transport is done not only unthinkingly but, on many occasions, in a deliberately intimidatory manner designed to provoke and unsettle others going about their lawful business. The amendment is a sensible step that would ensure local authorities have the tools that they need to combat a growing menace.
Not everyone agrees. I was deeply disappointed when the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), who also happens to be a valued constituent of mine, opposed the measure, dismissing fines for such disruptive and selfish behaviour as “silly”, despite the frustration and discontent that it causes for so many. I find her attitude extraordinary; I would be very surprised if she had not, like so many of my other constituents, experienced the phenomenon on buses across Wimbledon—assuming, of course, that she uses buses.
The right hon. Lady is not alone, however, as I will explore in more detail in a moment. Some have accused me of abandoning my liberal sensibilities in seeking to address the issue. All I would say to such critics is that liberalism is as much about responsibilities as about rights. I do not begin to see how my right to play content loudly on my phone or some other device obviates my responsibility not to cause unnecessary disturbance to others. Whether people are heading to work, taking their kids to school or simply trying to enjoy a moment of peace, they deserve to feel safe and respected on public transport.
Time and again I hear people say that they feel too intimidated to speak up when someone is blasting music or videos from a phone or speaker. The Liberal Democrats want to take tough action on headphone dodgers to ensure that every passenger feels safe and respected, and can travel in peace. We urge all parties to support the amendment and finally bring an end to commutes filled with unnecessary noise, disturbance and frustration.
In what has become a running motif of the Committee, the Minister has said that the amendment, like so many that have perished before it, is unnecessary on two broad grounds. First, he argues that the antisocial playing of music and other content already comes within the term “nuisance” under the Government’s proposed new section of the 2000 Act.
That is clearly open to challenge, however: I have already quoted the reaction of the Leader of the Opposition, who appears not to regard such thoughtless or intimidatory disturbance as a nuisance. Perhaps more significantly, in what has become an increasingly rare experience for the Conservative leader, she appears to still be speaking for most of her parliamentary party—although not, it seems, for the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham on this issue at least—given the jeers and heckling directed at me from the Opposition Benches when I raised headphone dodgers at Prime Minister’s questions recently. I humbly suggest to the Minister that it is worth noting the Prime Minister’s answer to my question. Pointing at the jeering Conservative Benches, he said:
“We take this seriously; the Conservatives laugh about it.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2025; Vol. 766, c. 324.]
Here is the Minister’s chance to prove that the PM is a man of his word by accepting our amendment and showing that the Government do take sustained antisocial auditory disturbance seriously in the face of those who would—bizarrely—argue that it is not a nuisance.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I rise to support the clause, and in particular the elements in proposed new section 144A of the Transport Act 2000 on nuisance and antisocial behaviour. In the community of Hemlington in my constituency, there have recently been disgraceful attacks on bus drivers and buses by young people in the community. I commend the work of Cleveland police, which responded using an innovative so-called Trojan bus filled with plain-clothes police officers who then arrested and apprehended the individuals committing those crimes.
I am asking for clarity on how those provisions in the Bill fit with the broader legislative framework on nuisance and antisocial behaviour, including in relation to people who are not necessarily bus passengers but who are outside and may be disrupting transport. I hope that the Minister can give us some more information on that.
I welcome the provisions in the clause, because we have to address antisocial behaviour and the way that it impacts our public transport system. I support this clause, and I am pleased that we have these provisions in the Bill.
Simon Lightwood
After the Liberal Democrat contribution, I was missing my headphones—[Interruption.] I say that with love. I thank Committee members for their further comments on the powers to make byelaws contained in the Bill.
The Government are focused on tackling antisocial behaviour. Improving the safety of our bus network is one of the Government’s aims in reforming buses, because that is critical to giving passengers, particularly women and girls, the confidence they need to take the bus. Different powers are currently available for different transport modes, and the powers that certain local transport authorities hold for light or heavy rail are not in place for buses. That has created a situation where local transport authorities rely on a patchwork of powers to enforce against poor behaviour, and some authorities are unable to act at all against those committing antisocial behaviour. The Bill remedies that situation by providing powers to create and enforce bus byelaws.
On the question of what constitutes antisocial behaviour, the Bill lists specific behaviours that byelaws can cover, such as vaping, smoking and interfering with or obstructing services and vehicles. My Department plans to issue non-statutory guidance about the content of byelaws that will take the existing railway byelaws as a starting point, which should help to ensure consistency across different transport modes.
Rebecca Smith
Given the Minister is comparing the rail system with buses, and saying that he wants to bring buses into line with the railway, I am intrigued about who will do that enforcement. We have the British Transport police on the railway, and there are signs everywhere and a phone number that someone can call, but at the moment on buses—I have been on ones where antisocial behaviour is taking place—it ultimately falls to the driver to enforce against that. Is that what the Minister is saying will happen as a result of this legislation? Will there be additional powers or will an additional force be created to enable that enforcement to take place—or is that entirely down to LTAs to figure out for themselves?
Simon Lightwood
The hon. Lady will have seen in the Bill that there is an element of ensuring that bus drivers and other persons in bus companies are given training on antisocial behaviour, particularly violence against women and girls, so that when it is safe to act, they can intervene in the interests of public and driver safety.
I talked earlier about the potential for transport safety officers in local transport authority areas, not just among bus providers. Ultimately, the design of that and how it is enforced, depending on the byelaws, will of course be a matter for the local transport authorities themselves, but this is about giving them the powers and allowing them to put those byelaws in place. Obviously, they need to be enforced. Sometimes it is also a matter of communicating this stuff. We have all been on other modes of transport where it is not adhered to.
As I said, my Department plans to issue non-statutory guidance on the content of the byelaws. That guidance will take the form of existing railway byelaws and is expected to emphasise the “educate, engage and enforce” approach. As I said in my opening remarks, I agree with the hon. Member for Wimbledon—despite my jest—on the need to take action against antisocial behaviour, but powers already exist to take action against playing music or videos loudly on buses. The training that I talked about a moment ago will only help to raise awareness of that, both with passengers and with drivers. In relation to enforcement at bus stops and stands, there are areas where divergence is expected in enforcement practices. That is likely to include stops and stands, which by their nature are harder to define than parts of the railway estate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Local transport authority byelaws
Amendment proposed: 67, in clause 28, page 24, line 37, after “nuisance” insert
“, including sustained anti-social auditory disturbance.”—(Mr Kohler.)
This amendment would allow local transport authorities to prohibit disruptive anti-social forms of noise such as from telephones through byelaws.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jerome Mayhew
I beg to move amendment 40, in clause 30, page 32, line 6, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance about stopping places.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 29, in clause 30, page 32, line 9, at end insert—
“including their safety on pavements and crossings on routes to, from and between stopping places in both directions of the routes,
(aa) promoting and facilitating access to toilet facilities for passengers and drivers,
(ab) providing clear and accessible information, including real-time information, about services calling at stopping places and in the wider area,”.
This amendment would require guidance relating to stopping places issued by the Secretary of State to include consideration of the provision of toilet facilities and travel information, as well as to promote the safety of people using pavements and crossings near the stopping places.
Amendment 41, in clause 30, page 32, line 13, after “comfort” insert
“without having to cross a cycle track to board the bus or continue their journey after alighting”.
This amendment would extend the purpose of the guidance issued by the Government to include enabling disabled people to travel without having to cross a cycle track in order to board a bus, or once they have alighted.
Amendment 42, in clause 30, page 32, line 14, delete “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require any guidance issued by the Secretary of State to include the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places, and information on how persons required to have regard to the guidance are to engage with other persons in relation to stopping places.
Amendment 65, in clause 30, page 32, line 16, at end insert—
“(aa) the location, design and maintenance of service information displays at stopping places, including the provision of real time arrival information;”.
This amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places can include guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place.
Amendment 60, in clause 30, page 32, line 30, leave out “have regard to” and insert
“take reasonable steps to implement”.
This amendment would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented.
Amendment 43, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert—
“(6A) The bodies listed in (6) may depart from such guidance only if—
(a) it considers that there are exceptional local circumstances which justify the departure; and
(b) it has obtained the written approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed departure.
(6B) The bodies listed in (6) must pause the construction of any stopping place designed as a floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder, and must not proceed with construction, until the Secretary of State has issued guidance under this section relating specifically to the design and use of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.”
This amendment would ensure that listed bodies would be obliged to follow the guidance except in exceptional circumstances, and would require those bodies to pause construction on new floating bus stops and shared bus-stop boarders until guidance has been published.
Amendment 55, in clause 30, page 32, line 42, at end insert—
“(6A) Guidance issued by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) must include provision for the bodies listed in subsection (6) to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of the guidance issued under subsection (1).
(6B) Guidance and training provided under this section must also be made available to bus operating companies, who must ensure that relevant staff undertake training programmes aligned with the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
This amendment would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State.
Amendment 30, in clause 30, page 33, line 3, after “place” insert
“from the surrounding area and from the nearest stopping place in the opposite direction on any route”.
Amendment 31, in clause 30, page 33, line 4, after “the” insert “information and”.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 44, in clause 31, page 34, line 17, at end insert—
“(9) For the purpose of this section, “floating bus stop” is also to be understood as including “shared bus-stop boarders”.”
This amendment would ensure that the guidance addresses both floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.
Clause 31 stand part.
Amendment 45, in clause 32, page 34, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) An authority which is subject to a duty under section 30(6) or section 31(7) (duties to have regard to guidance) must maintain a record of the location of floating island bus stops and shared bus stop boarders.
(1B) The record required under subsection (1A) must specify the geographic location of each stop; the type of stop (floating bus stop or shared bus stop boarder), and the date on which the stop was installed or modified.”
This amendment would gather data on floating bus stops and shared bus boarders.
Clause 32 stand part.
New clause 11—Equality impact assessment: floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders—
“(1) Within 12 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must undertake a full equality impact assessment of the Act so far as it relates to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders.
(2) Within a month of the assessment being completed, the Secretary of State must lay the equality impact assessment before both Houses of Parliament.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an equality impact assessment on the Act’s provisions, so far as they relate to floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, within 12 months of the Act becoming law.
New clause 12—Prohibition of new floating bus stops—
“(1) Within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament proposals for the prohibition of new floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.
(2) Within a month of the proposals specified in subsection (1) being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must make time available in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a ban on new floating bus stops and shared bus boarders within six months of the Act receiving Royal Assent, and to provide time in both Houses of Parliament for a substantive debate on the proposals.
New clause 13—Duty to commission a safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops—
“(1) Within a year of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must commission an independent safety and accessibility review of floating bus stops and shared-use bus boarders, which route cycle tracks through and on the pavement, in England.
(2) The review specified in subsection (1) must be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared bus boarders, and for the independent review to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England.
New clause 40—Assessment to retrofit floating bus stops—
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish an assessment of all existing floating bus stops for the purposes of—
(a) determining the safety of the bus stops and their compliance with relevant safety and accessibility guidance;
(b) identifying any retrofits necessary to ensure that floating bus stops are fully accessible and designed inclusively.
(2) An assessment under subsection (1) must include a statement of the Secretary of State’s intentions to retrofit existing floating bus stops in accordance with the findings of the assessment and relevant safety and accessibility standards.
(3) Any assessment or retrofit programme under this section must have regard to the need for floating bus stops to allow room for passengers to board and alight directly between the bus and the pavement safely, without accessing a cycle lane.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure they are fully accessible and safe.
New clause 47—Prohibition on new floating bus stops and proposals to retrofit existing stops—
“(1) No local authority may construct any new floating bus stops after the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review all existing floating bus stops to identify changes that need to be made to adapt such stops in line with fully accessible, inclusive-by-design principles.
(3) Following the review, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement which outlines—
(a) the changes which will need to be made to existing floating bus stops;
(b) the steps the Secretary of State will take to make the required changes; and
(c) the guidance which will be provided to local authorities on how to retrofit existing floating bus stops.”
Jerome Mayhew
It is a great shame that the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who tabled amendment 40, is not here to move it herself. This amendment would change one word for another in subsection (1) of clause 30, which is about safety and accessibility of stopping places. This subsection says:
“The Secretary of State may give guidance about stopping places for local services, and facilities in the vicinity of such stopping places, for the purposes of”
and then there is a whole list. Amendment 40 proposes to swap the word “may” for “must” to make that a mandatory requirement.
I will now talk about clause 30 in its entirety, putting amendment 40 in context, because this is a very live issue. Many people are concerned about the current state of stopping places and the urgent necessity to take effective action to remedy what has become an increasingly dangerous situation. Clause 30 will create a new power for the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance concerning
“the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places”
used by public service vehicles providing local services, and the facilities in the vicinity of such stopping places.
The guidance will be provided for the purpose of facilitating disabled persons’ travel on local services, enabling them to do so
“independently, and in safety and reasonable comfort”—
that phrase we have become familiar with—and improving the safety of persons using facilities. The guidance may include “location, design,” and importantly,
“construction and maintenance of stopping places and facilities in the vicinity”.
When publishing, revoking or substantially changing such guidance, the Secretary of State will be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. Local traffic authorities, local transport authorities and National Highways, which are responsible for commissioning new and upgrading or maintaining existing bus stations and stops in England, will be required to have regard to the guidance when commissioning such activity, as set out in subsection (6).
While I welcome the overall aim of the clause—to make travelling on bus networks more accessible, comfortable and inclusive for disabled people—I have significant concerns, and I am not alone. That can be seen by the huge number, relatively speaking, of amendments and new clauses suggested in relation to clause 30.
The clause states that the Secretary of State will be required to consult the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, but there is a risk that one group of people with experience is being chosen to advise the Government, and the wider disabled community is not being consulted. Why has the Minister not consulted more widely with persons with disabilities?
Can the Minister confirm that the anticipated guidance has no statutory power of compulsion? The only sanction I can find is in clause 32(3), which states that the Secretary of State may issue a statement of non-compliance. That is it. The question is: if there is a statement of non-compliance, so what? What actual powers do these two clauses, acting together, give the Secretary of State to enforce change?
In that context, we can see that amendment 40, in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea, is important because it makes the Secretary of State’s guidance on stopping places mandatory. It is a very important issue. There is an established need for guidance, given the current controversy. It should not be in the gift of the Secretary of State—he or she should be getting on with it. Why would the Government object to amendment 40?
The Member who tabled amendment 29 is not here, so I will not respond to it. I will speak to amendment 41, again tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea, which deals fairly and squarely with floating bus stops. Over the next couple of hours, we will be rehearsing a lot of the information that the Committee has received about the dangerous difficulties and problems that partially sighted and blind passengers, in particular, have found with accessing floating bus stops when they have to cross over live cycleways.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
I have just looked at how long floating bus stops have been in use in the UK, and I found that they were first installed in London around 2013. That was clearly under the previous Government, some 12 years ago. I also did a quick search of Hansard to see if the hon. Member had mentioned floating bus stops in the House before. Apparently he has not, so can he tell us what he has done previously to address the issue? He has said that he has long-running concerns about it. Why has he not raised the question of floating bus stops in the House before?
Jerome Mayhew
What a clever, clever intervention. Floating bus stops were introduced in 2013 under the coalition Government; I fully accept that. I was first elected in 2019, so I could not have spoken either in favour of or against the adoption of floating bus stops. This is the first occasion on which legislation has come before us in which floating bus stops have been an issue. The hon. Member is quite right that I have not mentioned it before.
While I have entered the private Member’s Bill ballot, I have not been successful. If I had been, would I have introduced a private Member’s Bill solely about floating bus stops? Perhaps not—I stand guilty as charged. However, with the greatest of respect to the hon. Member, while it is always tempting to throw political brickbats around, there are, even in this room today, people who are living with the consequences of floating bus stops. We should be working collaboratively to find a workable solution that helps real people.
Amendment 42, which is also in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea, makes mandatory something that is simply advisory, as the clause is drafted. The amendment would require such guidance to include:
“the location, design, construction and maintenance of stopping places, and information on how persons required to have regard to the guidance are to engage with other persons in relation to stopping places.”
Can the Minister describe a situation in which the Secretary of State would not wish to provide such guidance? I am sure he would accept that there are some very serious problems here that need to be addressed. Given that the Secretary of State will want to do this in any circumstance that either he or I could envisage, why would he object to making the requirement mandatory?
Amendment 65, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would expand the screen information associated with bus stopping places. The amendment would mean that guidance on the accessibility of stopping places could include—or, if amendment 42 is adopted, must include—guidance relating to the provision of information at the stopping place. Accessibility guidance addresses not just physical infrastructure but information provision, which is equally crucial for enabling disabled people—particularly those with cognitive impairments, who rely on the reassurance of timings, and blind or partially sighted passengers, who require audio information —to travel independently and confidently. Amendment 65 would extend such benefits beyond disabled people to older passengers, tourists and passengers who do not have technology such as smartphones. I support that intention.
As ever, I have concerns about the funding associated with the amendment, because we have to accept that there is a very significant cost to these undoubted improvements. I question whether all local authorities and bus operators have the technical capacity and, most importantly, the funding to install and maintain real-time information displays at every stopping place. I am aware that there is such infrastructure in large metropolitan areas such as London. However, what about rural areas, such as the ones that the hon. Member for North Norfolk and I represent? It is a very different picture there.
Let us not forget that this legislation will apply to every local authority in the country, so some pretty small local transport authorities will be applying whatever comes out of the Bill. Will they have the funds and resources to satisfy the amendment, if it is adopted? I hope that it is adopted, and that the Government say, “This is a very good idea, and we will fund it”, but I am not holding my breath.
Amendment 60, also tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would beef up clause 30 by replacing the words “have regard to” with
“take reasonable steps to implement.”
The amendment would ensure that the authorities listed in subsection (6) took reasonable steps to ensure that disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State was implemented. Members will be aware that “reasonable steps to ensure” is a legal term of art, so it is not just about making a list; it has a degree of compulsion to it. An LTA could be challenged, through the judicial review process, on whether such reasonable steps had been taken.
Again, it all comes down to money. I agree with the ambition behind amendment 60, but change costs money, and the Government are not providing the support. This provision would leave LTAs open to costly challenges by rights groups. I say that it is costly because to mount a successful defence against an argument that reasonable steps had not been taken, the LTA would have to demonstrate in its response that it had done so, taking into account its financial position, resources and ability to raise funds. We already know that, under the Bill, a debt-raising ability is being applied to both bus companies and local authorities.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
The shadow Minister is right to say that legal action is likely to be brought by rights groups, but does he not agree that good, accessible design should not be price-tagged based just on the cost for those who need it? In fact, good, accessible design benefits everyone, and it could be part of the reason why more people use public transport.
Jerome Mayhew
I agree with everything that the hon. Member for North Norfolk said. As I hope I made clear in my opening remarks, this would undoubtedly improve the service provided not just for people with disabilities but for all of us. I will not speak to amendment 43, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea; others may wish to do so.
Amendment 55, tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, would require relevant bodies to support the development of training programmes for relevant staff, which must address the content of disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The training would have to be made available to bus operating companies. I support the intention behind the amendment, as guidance alone will not deliver accessible infrastructure unless staff understand and implement it. Training will help to embed best practice among bus staff and improve disabled passengers’ safety and confidence. There is again a “but”, though.
One reason to hesitate is money, but there is also a lack of detail about training providers and the additional financial burdens on local transport authorities. Where will the money come from to conduct the training in franchise bus systems? We have already seen how costly franchising alone can become, with the Bee Network. I would love to have another crack at those numbers and get the Minister finally to admit that he is wrong and I am right, but I will not, as I have tried it three or four times already. The amendment would add even more financial burden on local transport authorities, with a lack of detail about funding.
Clause after clause, we are seeing, first, how expensive the proposed changes are, and secondly, how financially risky they are. Those are two different things. Something can be expensive but the risk is adopted by another organisation, or it can be expensive and the risk lies with the taxpayer. The Bill as a whole, and these clauses in particular, create more financial risk for the taxpayer, particularly in local transport authorities, and a more expensive process, because all these good things are expensive. We want to achieve all of them, but we are not seeing Government money following their ambition.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for highlighting the cost risk for local authorities. He referred to the greater risk for small local authorities, of which my own Isle of Wight council is a very good example. It is dwarfed by other transport authorities, and on cost risk alone would be unable to make use of the so-called freedoms in the Bill.
Jerome Mayhew
My hon. Friend is quite right, but in partial defence of the Government’s position, they are not requiring a change; they are facilitating a change should a local authority choose to go down the franchising route. None the less, concerns remain, and my hon. Friend is quite right to highlight them. Many local authorities will wish to pull the levers of state, and this looks like a shiny new lever. They are being led by the charismatic mayoral combined authorities—well, charismatic to some; I couldn’t possibly comment. Transport for Greater Manchester is now being followed by Liverpool and Transport for West Midlands. Those are the trailblazers. They are all going for what we have described as full-fat franchising.
I am concerned that for many local authorities, being seduced by this new opportunity, as they might see it, will be a terrible mistake, and they will come an absolute cropper. Think of the cost of running a franchise service: even if a local authority has not created a municipal bus company and is just contracting out the franchise services, the commercial risk stays with the local authority. That could easily bankrupt a local authority of the size of the Isle of Wight. It is a very significant concern, and my hon. Friend is right to raise it.
Amendment 30 was tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion, who is not in her place. The amendment would, in clause 30, after “place” insert
“from the surrounding area and from the nearest stopping place in the opposite direction on any route”.
When we consider the usability of a bus stop, whether it is a floating bus stop or a shared use bus stop boarder, we should have it in mind that that the vast majority of people who take a but journey will want to come back in the opposite direction. The interrelationship between the bus stop on one side of the road and the bus stop on the other is important. The amendment highlights that and includes it in the Bill.
Joe Robertson
Does the shadow Minister agree that it is slightly ridiculous to expect cyclists to be able to recognise that somebody disabled is seeking to cross a cycle lane? That seems to assume that people with disabilities are instantly recognisable, which is a very old-fashioned view of disability. It is plainly ridiculous to expect cyclists to make such a recognition. It is bad for them as well as being plainly bad for people with disabilities.
Jerome Mayhew
I am grateful for that intervention; my hon. Friend is right. I do not want to demonise cyclists. Cyclists are not out there actively trying to mow down pedestrians seeking to cross at floating bus stops; they are doing their best in the vast majority of cases, but we have created, with the best of intentions, a conflict between foot passengers and cyclists. I would submit that we have the balance of convenience wrong, and we should be brave and bold enough to admit where we have made a mistake and should take effective steps to improve the situation.
Floating bus stops are inherently inaccessible and dangerous. They compromise the safety of people with visual impairments, who potentially cannot see or hear cyclists. They confuse wheelchair users and those with mobility impairments, who are put off using public transport. New clause 12 would strengthen democratic oversight by requiring proposals to be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
New clause 13 was also tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea; in her absence I shall set out what it does. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the safety and accessibility of floating bus stops and shared use bus boarders to be undertaken in collaboration with groups representing disabled people in England. I made clear in my earlier remarks the dangers caused by floating bus stops to the safety of disabled, partially sighted, blind and elderly people, and I support the new clause, as it would add further checks and balances to clause 31 and strengthen the Government’s stance on the issue.
The requirement on the Secretary of State to commission an independent safety and accessibility review and to undertake that review in collaboration with groups representing disabled people would not only help to ensure that the Government’s response to floating bus stops was evidence-based and centred specifically on safety concerns and the lived experience of people trying to use such bus stops, but accommodate consulting the wider disabled community, not just the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee.
New clause 40 was tabled by the hon. Member for Wimbledon and he will be delighted to hear that he has my support. I will leave it to him to rehearse all the details of the drafting, if he wishes to; suffice it to say that that the new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of all existing floating bus stops—not future ones, but the ones that are already there—and their level of safety, and to state the Government’s plans to implement necessary retrofits to ensure that they are fully accessible and safe. I welcome any amendments that add checks and balances to the Bill to help to ensure the safety of passengers and nullify the safety issues with floating bus stops. My new clause 47 accommodates the aims of new clause 40(2), but goes one step further by prohibiting any new floating bus stops after the day on which the Bill becomes an Act. I fully support the Liberal Democrat new clause.
Members will be delighted to hear that my new clause 47 is the last clause in this group, so I will sit down in a moment. Were the new clause to be adopted, it would do three important things. Subsection (1) would establish an immediate prohibition on the construction of new floating bus stops by local authorities—so we would stop digging. That is the first thing: we would stop making new floating bus stops. Subsection (2) would compel the Secretary of State to review existing infra-structure to assess compliance with accessibility and inclusive design principles—that is, to see what we have and to analyse it to see whether it is accessible. Subsection (3) would require a clear and public statement to Parliament setting out what changes would be made, what steps the Secretary of State would take to ensure that they were delivered, and what guidance would be issued to local authorities to support that work.
The new clause is designed to be a pragmatic response to persistent and credible concerns raised by the disabled community, charities representing blind people and elderly bus passengers who have to struggle with the safety challenges that persist with these bus stop designs.
Mr Kohler
Is there not a contradiction? Subsection (2) seems to suggest that there are ways of designing out the problem, whereas subsection (1) bans all new floating bus stops. If subsection (1) were offering a moratorium until the design issues had been addressed, we could support it, but subsections (1) and (2) do not sit well with each other.
Jerome Mayhew
Given my criticisms of the hon. Gentleman’s drafting of previous amendments, I am sure he is delighted to raise this drafting concern. I respectfully disagree with him, as new clause 47 takes a sequential approach to stop the problem getting worse, then to identify the cause of the problem, and then to require the Government to set out how to fix it. I will leave it to the hon. Gentleman and his conscience to decide whether he feels able to support the new clause, should it come to a Division.
New clause 47 strikes the right balance between a pragmatic approach towards existing floating bus stops, a requirement for the Secretary of State to review all floating bus stops to identify the changes that are needed, and a firm but necessary stance against the construction of any further floating bus stops. The principle of inclusive design must be a main priority when we think about bus stops, and my new clause would achieve that. I urge the Committee to think carefully about it, and to see if they can find it in their hearts to support it.
Mr Kohler
There is a lot to cover, but I will not take as long as the shadow Minister. Amendments 40 and 42 are sensible, as making guidance mandatory rather than permissible would keep the right balance. This is clearly an issue for many people, and having clear Government guidance on the accessibility of stopping places would be a positive step. As the shadow Minister said, surely the Minister will want to produce guidance, so making it mandatory would not be an onerous obligation.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion is not here to press amendment 29, but my party supports it and will press it. This positive amendment would ensure that there is guidance on toilet facilities—which are clearly an issue, particularly for people with a disability or medical condition—and on travel information in relation to floating bus stops.
Liberal Democrat amendment 65 would mean that accessibility guidance includes guidance relating to the provision of information at a stopping place, and amendment 60 would ensure that authorities listed in subsection (6) take reasonable steps to ensure that the disability guidance issued by the Secretary of State is implemented. Although the Bill makes provision for the publication of new statutory guidance to improve the accessibility of bus stops, service information provision is not mentioned. Up-to-date route and timetable information, as well as real-time arrival boards, are crucial for all passengers, especially those without access to digital tools. It also improves passengers’ feeling of control and security. In Wimbledon, many signs have been removed and not replaced, which is a real issue for older people and the digitally excluded. For those who do not have access to an iPhone, this sort of information is critical.
Amendment 65 would address that need by ensuring that legislation covers both infrastructure and information provision, including up-to-date route maps, timetables and real-time arrival information at bus stops, ensuring accessibility and safety for all users. It would help to prevent people becoming disoriented or isolated, ensuring that disability does not stand in the way of navigating a local bus route.
Amendment 60 would ensure that disability provisions are properly actioned. “Reasonable steps” is a legal term of art, and the shadow Minister’s criticism does not hold because the costs would be part of deciding whether it is reasonable. Having regard to guidance on disability could see many transport authorities fail to implement anything substantive, but this amendment would require them to take reasonable steps to deliver the guidance—that is, they must be reasonable steps.
Accessibility is not a nice-to-have; equal access for all passengers is essential. If disabled people are unable to travel to their doctor’s appointments, to see their friends or to access work because of poor accessibility, the impact on their lives is intolerable. For accessibility, legislation needs to talk in terms of duties and steps that must be implemented rather than just a consideration that can be done away with. However, as I said, the amendment emphasises reasonable steps, not unreasonable ones.
Rebecca Smith
I am intrigued: does the hon. Member agree that we also have an issue where pedestrian crossings land straight on to cycle routes on busy main roads? Although it is outside the scope of the Bill, would his proposed review also look at that? For example, when a visually impaired person or someone using a wheelchair crosses Vauxhall Bridge Road, which is very busy, they are sent straight into a cycle lane that cuts across it. Does he agree that, in an ideal world, it would be nice to address that too?
Mr Kohler
I completely agree with the hon. Member. With the welcome increase in active travel and the number of cyclists, we need to address the conflicts that arise on the road. If one goes to the continent, it is part of their DNA—cyclists, motorists and pedestrians understand their relationship—but the same is not true in this country.
The new clause proposes a review of existing floating bus stops within six months and would require the Secretary of State to come up with a plan. This is a proportionate, evidence-led and pragmatic path forward that puts safety, accessibility and inclusion at its heart. I have been lobbied by eloquent advocates from Guide Dogs and the RNIB, who are concerned that the review of the existing provision that we are proposing will be biased in favour of floating bus stops, so I make it absolutely clear that we would expect the Secretary of State to include representatives of those organisations along with other charities in that review process.
Moving on to new clause 47, I am aware that some think there is no solution to this problem apart from banning floating bus stops. However, from my conversations with visually impaired colleagues, both in Parliament and beyond, I believe that compromise can be achieved. I counsel the Committee to reach a compromise that does not pit the blind and disabled against cyclists.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Kate Dearden.)
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
Business Energy Supply Billing: Regulation
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
If gentlemen, or anybody else, want to take their jackets off, feel free to do so.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered regulatory powers over billing of energy supply to businesses.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. My constituent Samantha Panton opened the Roasters café on the high street more than 35 years ago. Recently, she received a demand from E.ON Next for £10,000, payable within seven days, with threats to disconnect her electricity and close her business, putting 10 jobs at risk. That debt arose because E.ON Next confused her day and night meter readings. Although she had agreed to a £500 weekly payment plan, the company abandoned the arrangement and instead chose to pursue the closure of her business.
Upon thorough investigation, including a review of her accounts dating back to 2017, I discovered that E.ON Next actually owed her £4,433. When I raised concerns about its mishandling of the credit notes and breaches of back-billing regulations, my communications were ignored. Without enforcement or penalties, there is little incentive for companies to change their behaviour. That situation highlights a wider problem: energy companies impose excessive charges on small businesses while routinely engaging in questionable practices under minimal regulation. Small businesses have limited resources when suppliers act unfairly.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. She is raising what sounds like outrageous treatment of a customer and consumer. Does she agree that the Ofgem report was very clear that suppliers should treat domestic and—particularly in this case—non-domestic customers fairly and give them support? It would appear that, in the instance she is outlining and some others that I have had experience of, they are not doing so.
Sarah Edwards
Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, because that is exactly what the report found, yet I will go on to argue that not enough progress has been made to make sure that those business customers are treated fairly.
In response to this issue, I have launched a campaign inviting businesses across the country to share their experiences on my website, aiming to expose these harmful practices. I am confident that straightforward regulatory reforms could reduce energy costs substantially without imposing any cost on the Government. No one likes a bully; I certainly do not, and when I see injustice, I want to fix it. Today, I share not only my constituent’s story, but many others. Colleagues here will have heard similar accounts of energy companies refusing to engage, forcing MPs to intervene or send cases to the ombudsman, often without any resolution.
As a member of the Business and Trade Committee, I have explored this issue through roundtables nationwide. Time and again, we hear that energy costs are the second biggest burden for businesses after staffing, with many driven to bankruptcy by the exploitative practices of energy suppliers. I thank the Committee for supporting today’s debate to shine a light on this problem. This is not just about one café; it is about thousands of businesses that deserve better.
From 2022 to 2024, Ofgem reviewed its non-domestic energy supplier sector. It found that 12% of customers had complained and identified four reform priorities: treat customers fairly; support small businesses; billing on tenancy changes and third-party intermediaries. It updated the supplier licence conditions to enforce fair treatment—but is that working? A freedom of information request shows that only two suppliers have ever been fined for licence breaches; many suppliers do not even report them. In my constituent Sam’s case, E.ON Next breached back-billing rules, but likely never reported it. I ask the Minister when the proposed review of those new licence rules will happen, and whether she can guarantee that it will be rigorous and effective. When will the review of Ofgem itself conclude? There is growing concern that Ofgem is not fit for purpose, acting more like a coach than a regulator. We need an enforcement body with teeth, not one that lets suppliers police themselves.
Returning to Sam’s case, my office referred it to the Energy Ombudsman. We were proved correct; E.ON Next had mishandled her account, and she was awarded £200 in compensation—but really, what does a firm have to do to get a meaningful penalty? Threatening to close a business after making mistakes in meter readings, back billing, failing to issue proper credit notes and threatening legal action are apparently not worth any more than £200.
Compare that with fines for a data breach—up to £17.5 million or 4% of global turnover. That is a real deterrent. Why is it that, when the domestic energy market is regulated far more effectively, a blind eye has been turned to such appalling behaviour in the commercial market? Hon. Members may be interested to know that, until December 2024, the ombudsman could act only for microbusinesses, those with fewer than 10 employees—any bigger, and the business was out of luck. Since December, businesses with up to 50 employees can now be represented; but, again, the fine is only up to £10,000.
I met the Energy Ombudsman to ask how its powers were being used to protect businesses from this wild west of exploitation. Since December, it has dealt with 370 small and medium-sized enterprises in its scope, about half within the terms of reference. Of those cases, most complaints were about suppliers, customer service, billing, sales and back billing. It upheld between 40% and 73% of those complaints.
I have serious concerns, however. The ombudsman has never been out to tender and cannot explain how it decides on the maximum £10,000 fine. It appears to have a lack of resources and expertise to investigate complex commercial contracts effectively. Ofgem expects the ombudsman to do that work, but the extended remit has not come with extended expertise. Instead, the system seems designed for volume and profit, but not for protecting businesses from serious harm.
A Yorkshire packaging manufacturer was scammed by Renewco, which arranged a fraudulent energy deal with Emirati Energy. The business owner paid every invoice on time to his broker, but a year later Pozitive Energy, also known as PE Solutions, demanded tens of thousands in unpaid costs. It turned out that Emirati Energy had signed a fake contract with Pozitive on behalf of the business, pocketing the payments while Pozitive received nothing. Both Pozitive and the manufacturer were victims of fraud.
Who is Pozitive Energy? Its turnover rose by 13% to £1.18 billion in 2024, and its net assets were up nearly 500%. With only 30 employees and £139 million of retained earnings, this is a private company with little transparency. We must therefore assume that it is making around £4.6 million profit per employee. Yet Pozitive went after the small business owner and, despite clear evidence of hundreds of customers billed to one address and mismatched paperwork, it did not investigate until the debts piled up.
When the business owner turned to the Energy Ombudsman, he was told to pay the debt anyway. The ombudsman said it was his problem to chase the fraudster. Why should a small manufacturer pay for Pozitive’s failure to vet its brokers? Ofgem does not regulate third-party intermediaries, instead requiring suppliers such as Pozitive to work only with third-party intermediaries in approved dispute resolution systems, giving customers a route to redress if dissatisfied. Pozitive failed to do that—it failed its licence condition.
That is not an isolated case; the commercial energy market rewards suppliers for ignoring fraud, because it can demand payment from unsuspecting businesses once scams collapse. Meanwhile, the Energy Ombudsman lacks real powers and often fails to protect victims. I have heard multiple stories of these disgraceful tactics destroying livelihoods. One broker firm is tracking more than 1,100 complaints with E.ON Next alone. It is defending 80 of them in court, in what is effectively a group action over dodgy practices on deemed contracts. E.ON sold the debt on when the lawsuits loomed, and 13 cases have already been struck out as unenforceable.
Why is business energy so expensive? When a firm moves into new premises, it is put on a deemed contract until it signs a deal. Legally, those contracts should not carry excessive fees or profits, but in practice suppliers have used them to gouge customers. Some firms were charged £1.60 per kWh during the energy crisis, then locked into multi-year deals with no escape clauses. Even now, some are paying £1 per kWh, when a competitive rate should be around 20p to 25p.
Suppliers know exactly what they are doing. They profit by giving brokers hidden commissions: “You can add 1.5p and keep it, or maybe add 2p and give us back a kickback of 0.25p.” Those kickbacks incentivise brokers to push overpriced deals that hurt customers. One product currently offered by Engie has 5p added to each kWh, which the supplier knows is an incentive for brokers to sell its supply over others. Some brokers only work with two suppliers—hardly a broker business by most people’s definition. Suppliers know; Ofgem knows; but small businesses—left with unaffordable bills, faulty meters and unfair contracts—often do not.
If we want a fair market, we must regulate it properly. That means honest enforcement of billing, fair profiles on deemed meters, transparent broker commissions, and meaningful redress when things go wrong. Until then, small businesses will keep paying the price for a system that is rigged against them.
Suppliers such as npower have taken on small customers and used codes on deemed contract meters to extract higher charges because they knew they could get away with it. They should have chosen not to act for those businesses, but instead they have made huge profits. The Energy Consultants Association estimates that misclassification has generated up to £4.5 billion in excessive, unjustified profits since 2017. Small businesses were locked into unfair contracts from day one, paying inflated rates, with no meaningful correction in sight.
I am calling for urgent reforms to protect businesses and ensure that fairness in energy bills is supported, with stronger regulatory powers for the Energy Ombudsman, including higher fines and a wider remit; outlawing back billing beyond six months for business energy customers and greater protections for small businesses against inaccurate and punitive billing. Energy companies must commit to fair and transparent billing systems. There must be a thorough review of debt collection practices within the sector.
I call for all brokers and third-party intermediaries to be fully regulated, for the adoption of a mandatory code of good practice to raise standards and for all brokers to become members of a dispute resolution mechanism to protect businesses. The Government must empower Ofgem or the Financial Conduct Authority to regulate brokers. That can only be done with regulation—but it must happen fast.
What am I going to do? I do not have those powers, but I have met passionate experts and trade bodies who want change. Together, we will launch a kitemark for responsible brokers, because there are many out there doing good work. It will be fair and transparent. We will publish data on energy rates, so that businesses know what a fair price is when reviewing a contract renewal, and create a directory of brokers who have signed up to a voluntary code of practice, giving power back to businesses.
I welcome the Government’s recent move to lower industrial energy prices for high-usage businesses. However, many smaller businesses—the heart of our communities and high streets—are excluded. Those steps are in the Government’s gift to bring down prices, stop fraud and obscene profits, and protect our small businesses. Added to my asks are simple, cost-free reforms such as capping deemed contract rates to stop bad deals being sold as good ones, and ensuring that SMEs get the correct rates on their market-wide half-hourly meters from day one. This Government must back our businesses and make those reforms now.
Hon. Members will be amused to know that E.ON Next sent me a final bill when I switched office supply. My monthly usage is around £300. The bill it sent me was £18,000—it mixed up the day and night meter readings, and no sense checks were done.
It is time to regulate the sector and to protect and empower businesses, the backbone of our economy. I hope the Minister will have some good news and progress to report on this matter.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, Mr Dowd, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. You are maintaining the wearing of a jacket, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and I have taken advantage of your permission because of the good weather. You have better stamina than me.
I thank the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) for leading today’s debate and setting the scene incredibly well. If I got an £18,000 bill for normal £300-a-month usage, I would be incredibly worried and anxious, too.
I want to speak on behalf of my constituents and the local businesses in my constituency on which we depend for the success of our local high streets. High streets are under pressure; there are more vacancies in Newtownards high street than ever. The squeezing of profit margins means that many people are considering whether to go ahead with their ideas for a new business, but hopefully what the Government and the Minister are doing will enable entrepreneurs to take advantage of the opportunities. There is no doubt that after the effects of covid, some businesses did not make it. We thank the previous Government for stepping in and responding positively to ensure that those businesses are still here today, but it is crucial that we have proper regulation to stop businesses being burned to the ground financially by crippling energy costs.
In Northern Ireland, the Utility Regulator is the key body responsible for overseeing electricity and gas markets. The Minister knows where responsibility lies. I thank her for her interest in matters relating to Northern Ireland. Her visits to Northern Ireland are an indication of her interest in ensuring that Northern Ireland, which has a different system, is kept under the same rules as those that apply in England, Scotland and Wales; I thank her for all her efforts in that regard. If she lets me know the next time she is over, I will introduce her to some of my constituents in Strangford. They are lovely people— I know that because I am one of them. They are generous and kind; they will not give her a hard time, but they will tell her what they think, in as nice a way as possible.
The UK equivalent of the Utility Regulator is Ofgem, the mainland-wide energy regulator. Energy costs are a reality facing commercial and domestic consumers. We have seen an incredible increase in the last couple of years. Businesses and households are struggling and there is a need for greater regulation to ensure that people are not overcharged beyond belief. The example that the hon. Member for Tamworth gave of a bill for £18,000 was a mistake, of course, but none the less it would shock anyone to their shin bones.
Let me give an example of the problems. There has been an increased use of estimates of energy costs. Energy companies bill businesses based on their rough use of gas and electricity. That results in severe overcharges and a months-long back and forth to get the money back. My goodness—they are quick enough to charge you, but they are not as quick to pay you back when they get it wrong.
I experienced that not long ago when I opened my satellite surgery in Ballynahinch. My constituency of Strangford has grown and has moved further south, and as a result it was imperative to have another advice centre in Ballynahinch to give my constituents the representation that they deserve. We moved premises and were being billed extortionate amounts for gas and electricity, based merely on estimated bills. Thankfully, we were able to get that resolved, but staff and business owners do not always have the time to be on the phone when their energy company is open to resolve such issues. We did get it done. My staff are very efficient and certainly able to respond. What we do for ourselves, we do for others.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Many businesses in Northern Ireland query their bills and recognise that they have been overcharged. It is dispute resolution access that is the problem: that is why many businesses come to us, as elected representatives, to resolve it. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be better, clearer dispute resolution access? Does he also agree that the regulator in Northern Ireland needs greater power to force suppliers to resolve the issue when it is brought to them in a timely fashion?
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us about the discussions that she has had with the regulator in Northern Ireland. I know she has been in discussions—I am sure of that. Any tightening of the law such as that referred to by my hon. Friend would be a step in the right direction.
Standing charges are also an issue where businesses have been asked to pay a fee regardless of how much electricity is used. The Ulsterman and Ulsterwoman are renowned for their prudence. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) will confirm that his constituents are similar. We do not want to pay any more than we should. When we get a big bill and we know it is wrong, we question it. My mum and dad brought me up in a certain way. Because we never had much, we looked after what we had. It was a case of “Look after the pennies, and the pounds will look after themselves.”
It is important that we pay only for what we use. The amount that we pay depends on the supplier, on how we pay for our energy and on where we live, which already seems an unfair process. Additional costs are the norm, as many are aware. In the long term, I look to the smaller family-run businesses, like those in Ards in my constituency. Ards is renowned for the family businesses on the high street, on Frances Street and on Regent Street. They have been there for generations, but if they cannot sustain the energy costs they will be forced to close, so we have pressures building on all of our businesses.
There are certainly benefits to greater regulation of energy costs. I reiterate that for smaller businesses the costs of utilities are massive and should be charged correctly. Northern Ireland’s electricity prices are often slightly higher than the United Kingdom average, owing to grid infrastructure and generation mix. We know from our constituents about the pressures on businesses in Strangford, Upper Bann, East Londonderry and across all of Northern Ireland. More must be put in place to make businesses more energy-efficient, to reduce costs and to encourage long-term affordability
I look to the Minister, who is a genuine lady and has a good heart for these issues. I am hopeful for a response to the questions that colleagues and I have asked, and hopeful that in Northern Ireland we can feel the benefits of the good that has been done on the UK mainland. I look to the Minister for a commitment to business stability in future.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Dowd. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing today’s debate and on leading such an important campaign that matters not just to her constituents, but to so many of our constituents and the businesses that they run or use around the country. I also want to recognise the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as ever a champion for his residents, for outlining the experiences they are going through. I am sure that there is a consensus on this pertinent issue not just in this room, but across the House.
I would like the Minister to focus on the issue of uncapped energy billing for businesses. As we all know, household energy in the UK is capped by Ofgem. However, this protection is not afforded to businesses suffering under the rising gas and electricity prices that we have heard about. The issue has most impact on small to medium-sized businesses, as they often need to use large amounts of electricity, and the strain of rising cost is subsequently felt by the consumers as businesses are forced to find ways to counteract their costly energy bills. The escalating price of energy for businesses discourages those with an entrepreneurial mindset, as their goals appear unattainable because of the cost of running a business.
I have seen that at first hand in my constituency of Stevenage. Brand-new lunch spots receive high praise from residents, both online and through word of mouth, yet they end up closing after a few short months because of struggles with money. Those struggles are substantially attributable to the rapidly growing cost of running vital café equipment: temperature-controlled food display cases, display refrigerators, fridges and much more. I have spoken to restaurant owners in Stevenage, and the detrimental effects of rising costs are clear. For example, the owners of Pitta Hub, a relatively new lunch spot in the centre of our town, have shared information with me on its other overheads, in addition to its rising energy bills.
According to Utility Bidder, a well-regarded comparison and switching service, the average small restaurant uses between 15,000 kWh and 25,000 kWh of electricity per year. The lowered profit margins for our beloved small businesses affect the growth and prosperity of towns like Stevenage across the country.
I ask the Minister the following questions. Will the Government consider capping energy prices for businesses, as they do for household energy? What are the Government planning to do to support small and medium-sized businesses, such as those in Stevenage that I have mentioned, in the face of rising energy prices? Businesses are crying out because of these rising prices, and we in this House must heed that call. Today’s debate has shown the importance of protecting independently run enterprises. They are the heart of our towns. Ensuring a semblance of stability for their entrepreneurial owners is vital, both to residents and to the economy of towns like Stevenage across our country.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. It is customary to congratulate the hon. Member who secured the debate, but I would like to go further: the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) is an outstanding champion not only for her constituents—through the Select Committee on Business and Trade, on which I also serve—but for the public more widely, with her expert nose for unfairness.
Many businesses and homes in my rural constituency of Dumfries and Galloway are not on the gas grid and, like so many across the UK that are outwith the urban centres, are reliant on such things as tanker-delivered liquefied petroleum gas or kerosene for heating. But almost without exception, everyone is on the electricity grid and so gets a bill for at least this one utility. Given that ubiquity, people might expect the energy market to be the best regulated, and yet, as we have heard this morning, the regime is less the quiet and precise order that one might expect of an old-fashioned provincial bank and more the rough-house of a wild west saloon. Is there an MP in the House who does not have an example of blundering over bills or of sharp practice?
A small business in my constituency struggled with an electricity bill for an astonishing £18,000—that figure again. It was of such magnitude that it would have sunk a much-loved high street fixture and an important employer. Queries—pleas, indeed—went unheeded. I am pleased to say that, following intervention from my team, the bill was waived when it transpired that the issue was a convoluted tale involving a disconnected smart meter and wildly inaccurate estimated bills. There was a happy ending, but that is surely indicative of a wider problem.
Energy firms are increasingly a law unto themselves and are judge, jury and executioner over bills, billing and the recovery of debts, both real and imagined. Too often, they hide behind automated “computer says no” responses and infuriating call centres whose hold muzak should be the Cuckoo waltz: you hang on for an eternity, despite your call apparently being “very important” to them, although of course they are experiencing a “very high volume of calls” 24/7, 365.
I am a huge fan of the free market. I think it delivers competition, which gives consumers choice, which in turn drives down bills. However, it falls to us in this place to regulate that market: not to put the dead hand of Government on the tiller, to proscribe the private sector or fence it in, but to create an environment that is fair to both sides—industry and public—and is delineated, transparent and responsive.
And so the spotlight shifts from the energy firms to the regulator. Ofgem seems to be the victim of an overly wide remit: it has to deal with networks plus retail, and has ended up being criticised by the industry and consumers alike. It is difficult not to agree that it has lost its way when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) raised at the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, it spent taxpayers’ cash on irrelevances such as courses called “Pride in intersectionality” and “Perspectives from Rainbow Regulators”.
Regulators rest on three pillars: deterrence, detection and enforcement. The first two are intertwined, because if there is no prospect of getting caught, there is no deterrent. Many regulators fail on the third pillar: they talk a good game and threaten all sorts of dire retribution, yet they deliver little enforcement. Ofgem writing to suppliers demanding to know why they have not ended sharp practice such as back billing does not look like a regulatory crackdown; it looks like regulatory breakdown. The Government have been consulting on Ofgem, and the conclusion must surely be that the regulator is having a shocker when it comes to billing.
I hope that the Minister can assure us today that the Government are getting wired right into the fuse box of this vital, but apparently overwhelmed, regulator. Of deterrence, detection and enforcement, the greatest is enforcement. When will the Government apply a bit of that to the regulator itself, so that my constituents can have some faith that the bills piling up on their doormats, and increasingly in their inboxes, are at least accurate?
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing the debate and on her fantastic laying out of the situation. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy: they are 99% of UK businesses and over 5.5 million strong. My constituency has one of the highest concentrations of SMEs in the country. They really matter. They are essential to our communities and our growth.
Almost 45% of nearly 1,300 businesses surveyed by the Federation of Small Businesses at the end of 2024 reported increased costs due to a rise in utility costs. Our small businesses are really struggling and they are being failed by an energy system that lacks due fairness, transparency and accountability. SMEs have been left behind. When the energy bill relief scheme was replaced, support was slashed by 85%, and then it was removed altogether by March 2024. Liberal Democrat analysis estimates that 3.1 million SMEs saw bills rise by £7.6 billion. Today, the average small business electricity bill stands at £240 a month and 92% of SMEs plan to raise their prices due to energy volatility. That is unsustainable.
Domestic customers are protected to some extent by the energy price cap, and larger energy-intensive firms benefit from the brand-new British industrial competitiveness scheme. Is the Minister considering bringing in caps on energy costs for small businesses? In the meantime, owners of SMEs are encouraged to do it alone—independently explore the market and switch to a better deal. Yet we know, and we have heard today, that many small businesses do not have the capacity to undertake the work necessary to find the best energy deal and are vulnerable to exploitation, increasing, rather than decreasing, overall costs. That is where regulation of the energy market for small businesses is so important.
This debate is timely, but this is not a new issue. A 2023 report by Octopus revealed a disturbing picture of the impact on small businesses of a lack of regulation, unscrupulous practices and unfairness in the energy market. Some 3.2 million had had a negative experience with energy brokers and 78% of small businesses demanded that broker commissions be made clearer.
That same year, thousands of small businesses—manufacturers, high street stores, pubs, community organisations, faith groups and charities—joined a £2 billion class action lawsuit to seek compensation for having overpaid for tariffs with energy giants brokered by third-party brokers. That showed that undisclosed broker commissions were being added to the unit cost of gas and electricity, falsely inflating energy prices for up to 2 million businesses and organisations in the UK.
Ofgem’s own data showed that around 37% of non-domestic energy consumers had contracted such third-party intermediaries, and there was evidence of unscrupulous practice by some of those TPIs. We therefore welcomed Ofgem’s December 2024 move to allow microbusinesses with up to 50 employees to access the Energy Ombudsman for alternative dispute resolution, but that left small businesses over the threshold locked out of that recourse to redress and recompense. Ofgem later expanded that offer to small businesses and required the energy giants to be transparent about commissions they were paying to brokers and where they were adding the cost on to consumers’ bills.
However, Ofgem still does not have direct regulatory powers over third-party intermediaries. A consultation on regulation closed nine months ago, so will the Minister set out what the Government will do to introduce a mandatory authorisation regime with standards, registration and enforcement, and when? Businesses deserve transparency and protection. It was encouraging to hear of the kitemarking system that the hon. Member for Tamworth is championing, together with businesses. That shows that there are third-party brokers that are doing this well and want to help businesses, and we need to celebrate that where it is happening.
There are also systemic problems that need to be addressed. They include overcharging, about which we have heard distressing stories from all hon. Members. In May, Ofgem confirmed that 10 suppliers paid out more than £7 million in compensation for overcharging errors. That alone should be cause for alarm. Ofgem data shows that 23% of claims from non-domestic consumers were about billing, and nearly half of all complaints were unresolved. They include incorrect meter readings, inflated charges and poor customer service. Ofgem has now extended its standards of conduct to all business customers, not just microbusinesses. That is welcome, but guidance is not enough, as has been said. We need enforcement and a cultural shift among suppliers. They treat businesses as easy revenue sources, not valued customers.
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is currently reviewing Ofgem’s powers, remit and effectiveness, and rightly so. The Department has a big hill to climb, because trust in the energy sector is really low. The non-domestic market in particular has long been the wild west of energy regulation. Ofgem must be equipped not only to set standards but to enforce them, to act swiftly against abuses and to be accountable for the outcome it delivers. I therefore ask the Minister again to tell us about the response to the review. Businesses deserve more than warm words; they need action.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
I am pleased to respond to the debate on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on securing it. She gave a serious and passionate speech about the injustices experienced by too many businesses, and I commend her campaign and encourage all small businesses to visit her website so that they can tell their stories and give their evidence.
Every Member’s speech confirmed what a significant problem this is. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded us of the effects on our high streets. With his usual journalistic flair for arresting language, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) questioned Ofgem’s wide remit, which ranges from regulating careless errors, such as mix-ups between night and day meter readings leading to intimidating demands for bills as high as £18,000, to systemic failures and cynical malpractice. We need the Government to act.
Even apparently innocent mistakes come with a terrible burden for small businesses. We all know the pain and stress of the bureaucracy we have to handle when there is a problem, and sometimes that bureaucracy feels like a deliberate hurdle that has been constructed by the businesses in question. Small firms have to contend not just with high costs, but with lost time, which is a highly precious commodity for them.
We must also consider the systemic problems. The hon. Member for Tamworth mentioned kickbacks for brokers who push more expensive contracts, and she rightly asked about the powers available to deal with errant companies. I thought her comparison with fines for breaches of data laws was apposite. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect the review of Ofgem to conclude? Can we expect increases in the fines levied against companies when they fall short?
As the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) suggested, high energy costs themselves are a huge problem. It is not just about the conduct of businesses; we must explore the effects of wider Government policy, too, because no country in history has ever made itself richer by making energy more expensive. First fossil fuels and then nuclear powered the industrial and technological revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries, and yet it is the policy of our Government to increase the price of energy and make its supply less reliable. They are defying common sense by pushing up demand for electricity with their ideological targets for decarbonising the grid and rolling out heat pumps and electric vehicles. Large-scale electrification is pushing the grid to its limits; it is already struggling to supply new homes, factories and data centres. We can clearly see the effect on energy bills for businesses.
The Climate Change Committee—an unelected and unaccountable quango against which Ministers offer little or no resistance—says the cost of electrification must be shifted on to bills for gas and oil. For years the climate lobby insisted that renewables were cheaper than gas, but now that they have to put their money where their mouth is, they want to put the public’s money where their mouth is—now that the world can see the truth, they want to transfer the massive cost of renewables on to gas bills.
The renewables obligation, feed-in tariffs and the capacity market are all direct costs to business. Environmental levies are already projected by the Office for Budget Responsibility to increase from £9.9 billion last year to £14.8 billion by 2030. Those hidden costs support the complex web of public subsidies that prop up wind and solar. Wind and solar generators are given billions of pounds in subsidies paid through green levies. Without those subsidies, most of them would not be commercially viable. The levies are not the only costs created by a dependence on unreliable renewables; customers also bear the balancing costs that are paid to generators to switch their power on and off. As wind and solar expand, those costs will triple to £8 billion by 2030.
Grid decarbonisation will create a carbon price of £147 per tonne of CO2, which is 2.7 times higher than the current level. Ever-rising carbon prices will be locked in under the EU reset deal, which will keep us aligned with the EU emissions trading system. We already have the highest industrial energy prices in Europe. Our energy consumption fell last year by 0.1%—we were the only G7 country where that happened, apart from Japan and Germany. Despite global energy demand getting ever higher, our energy supply fell by an average of 2.1% per year between 2014 and 2024. Output from energy-intensive industries has fallen to its lowest level since the 1990s.
Decarbonisation is undoubtedly fuelling deindustrialisation. Just last week, it was announced that a facility in Teesside, one of the largest chemical plants in the country, will be permanently closed. The Grangemouth oil refinery stopped processing crude oil last April. British Steel has been brought to its knees. Yesterday, we heard the sad news about the Prax Lindsey oil refinery.
The Energy Secretary wants to blame international gas prices for our insane energy prices, when he has been throwing policy costs on to British industry to subsidise expensive and unreliable renewables. Now he says he will subsidise heavy industry to counter the cost of the renewable subsidies he is making it pay. There are countries, such as the United States, that rely much more on fossil fuels and have lower energy costs than we do. Labour is trying to con the public by blaming global prices, when it is the one that is piling on policy costs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) for introducing this important debate, and all hon. Members for their insightful contributions. I assure them all that the Government are taking this issue seriously, and we are working at pace to respond to it.
The experience of Roasters reflects the issues that consumers face in an energy market that, quite frankly, is not working for them. Let me be clear that reforming the energy market so that it works for consumers and is fair is a key priority for this Government. We have made progress already, which I will set out, but we must do more.
I was extremely disappointed to learn of another example of a customer receiving incorrect bills and back-billing requests. Ofgem supply licence conditions are very clear: suppliers must take all reasonable steps to reflect accurate meter readings in bills or statements where these have been provided by a customer or taken by a supplier. Suppliers must also take all reasonable steps to obtain meter readings at least twice annually. They must provide historical consumption information to all customers upon request and explain how a customer’s bill was worked out.
Sarah Edwards
I thank the Minister for giving us lots of information on challenges and things that companies should be doing. Roasters café had four different smart meters fitted, none of which worked. When my constituent raised the alarm 12 months in and said she did not feel that the final meter was working, she was told, “It’s absolutely fine—it works. There’s no problem.” As we know, there was a problem; it was not making the readings, and it was certainly not smart. Can the Minister speak about the fact that energy companies are imposing these meters, charging for the privilege of going to check them and then claiming that they still work?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We know we have a challenge with smart meters. The majority of smart meters work, but there are far too many cases where they do not. We are working with the DCC and suppliers to make sure that we have connection across the piece and that there is a clear obligation on suppliers to respond to meters that are not working. Ofgem is reviewing this at the moment, and we will set out what we will do to introduce further obligations and ensure compliance on the specific issue of smart meters.
On the wider question about back billing, let me be clear: suppliers cannot back-bill domestic or microbusiness consumers for energy use more than 12 months ago. A company is classed as a microbusiness when it has fewer than 10 employees and turnover of less than £2 million, or where it falls under certain energy-usage thresholds. In February, the Secretary of State wrote to the chief executive officer of Ofgem, asking him to accelerate the regulator’s work on reviewing the back-billing rules as part of its ongoing consumer confidence reforms. Ofgem is in the process of doing that.
The Secretary of State and I have constant meetings with the regulator to make sure that this matter is proceeding with the pace and urgency it requires. It is very clear that suppliers can back-bill consumers only in very specific circumstances; we need to clarify what those circumstances are and ensure far tighter compliance and enforcement on this issue.
My hon. Friend raised a point about the Energy Ombudsman, and what it should do to support businesses such as those in her constituency. We announced an expansion of the ombudsman’s service in December so that small and medium-sized enterprises with fewer than 50 employees can now access it. That means that 99% of businesses in this country can now access that important service. In recognition of the impact on businesses when things go wrong, the maximum award for new business disputes that go through the ombudsman has been doubled to £20,000.
We know that much more must be done to ensure that the ombudsman and the redress service are working for all customers. We have committed to consulting on a range of issues that would strengthen the ombudsman, including introducing automatic referrals to it rather than consumers having to do that themselves. We think that will speed up the process.
We are also looking to reduce the referral waiting time from eight weeks to four weeks so that customers are not waiting in a long and frustrating process before their issue gets redress. Critically, as part of that, we are looking to increase the value of the compensation that is paid to customers when things go wrong and the ombudsman has clearly put in place a judgment that suppliers are not responding to. We also want to make compensation automatic, because that is how we can expand and drive deterrence in the system.
We will look to see how, in instances of, for example, excessively long call waiting times, which consumers find desperately frustrating, unacceptably high bills when suppliers fail to adjust their direct debits, and suppliers not responding to complaints in time or not complying with the Energy Ombudsman, there can be automatic compensation so that consumers get the redress without having to go through the hassle.
Sarah Edwards
I thank the Minister for all the additional details and information on where we are hoping to get to. One thing I learned about was the problem of deemed contracts. When a business moves into a premises, they are put on an assumptive contract, but that has caused lots of problems. The ombudsman and Ofgem have decided that they cannot make any rulings on deemed contracts and when a deemed contract becomes an actual contract, and the issues around the money that is then made. Does the Minister have anything to say about deemed contracts, which contribute to a lot of complaints?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will raise the issue of deemed contracts with the regulator and the ombudsman. More broadly, my hon. Friend has raised specific concerns about the ombudsman’s approach. There is a clear complaints procedure, so if constituents feel that they have not had the service that they require, there is a process to escalate their complaint up the hierarchy of the ombudsman and consumers should use it.
My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of the Ofgem review, as did other Members. I could not agree more; we need a regulator with teeth that is on the side of consumers. As part of our manifesto, we promised to strengthen Ofgem, to ensure that it can hold companies to account for wrongdoing and require higher standards of performance, and to make sure that customers receive automatic customer compensation for poor service. To address that, in December, we launched a comprehensive review of Ofgem. We are in the weeds of that review, which will conclude in the autumn. Critically for me, the review will establish Ofgem as a strong consumer regulator. It will ensure that Ofgem is equipped to address unacceptable instances of customer failing and, importantly, we want it to reset consumers’ confidence in a system that, quite frankly, they have lost confidence in.
In response to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the review will specifically look at whether Ofgem has the right remit, mandate, tools and powers to do the job that consumers expect. We want to ensure that all the examples are represented, so we have done a big call for evidence. We are doing huge amounts of engagement to make sure that all the evidence informs the final conclusions of the review. Critically, it will also look at redress, because we know that we need to get that right. The point has been made over and over again that it is about setting in place the right regulatory framework, but also about making sure that there are repercussions when compliance does not happen, and that there are clear enforcement mechanisms. We want to ensure that the regulator has all that.
We know that the cost of energy is a massive issue for businesses across the country, particularly small businesses. This issue, and the question of whether we cap energy bills for non-domestic customers, was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings). We have taken the judgment that the way that we respond to energy bills that are too high is to sprint in order to deliver clean power and break our dependence on fossil fuel markets so that we can drive down costs and bills for consumers. The shadow Minister is wrong: this is not and never was ideological. We have seen the worst energy crisis in a generation and our dependence on fossil fuels was at the root of that. That crisis, not on our shores, meant that businesses and consumers across the country were paying the price. That is why diversifying our energy mix, whether Members believe in net zero or not, and generating home-grown clean energy that we control are the routes out of this bind and out of volatility. That will deliver energy security for families and fundamentally secure family and business finances.
Nick Timothy
The Minister, as Ministers do, made a point about the volatility of gas prices. When wholesale gas prices fell and the price cap was lowered, the Labour party put out posters saying, “Labour have just cut your energy bills.” Will she accept that it was wrong for the Labour party to do that, when that fall was because of the reduction in wholesale prices and nothing to do with policy costs, which were actually increasing?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My words were very clear. We welcome the reductions in energy prices, but we were very clear that we are on a rollercoaster: prices go up and prices go down. We must get off the rollercoaster so that we deliver energy security. That will deliver price stability and fundamentally secure family finances.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will make some progress.
I want to end by addressing the issue of energy brokers, which has been raised. We know that many energy brokers can help businesses to save money on their bills with contracts tailored to their needs. However, we have also seen evidence of opaque charging structures and unfair sales practices. We are hugely conscious of that, and last year the Government launched a consultation on introducing regulation of third party intermediaries such as energy brokers, aimed at enhancing consumer protection, particularly for non-domestic consumers, where we have recognised that there is an issue that must be addressed. The consultation has now closed, and I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth that the Government are working through the huge volume of responses that we received and will respond in due course.
Finally, to the hon. Members—
Jim Shannon
Forgive me for pushing on this matter, but I did ask about the Utility Regulator in Northern Ireland.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
That was my concluding point, to hon. Members from Northern Ireland, who have raised a really important issue: we are working closely with the Northern Ireland Government to ensure that the improvements we make in the UK market are aligned and that lessons are learnt to ensure that, where we develop stronger and better practice, it is shared with the regulator and the Northern Irish Government. In the end, we must ensure that we have a system that works for all consumers across these isles.
Let me conclude by again saying a huge thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth for raising this important issue, and by offering, if she wishes, to meet to talk in more detail about some of the issues she has raised. I am clear that, without a fair, functioning energy market, our clean power mission will not succeed, energy bills will not come down and consumers will not get justice or access to a system that works for them. That is an absolute imperative for us; that is the priority; that is the thing that drives everything we do. We look forward to working with all hon. Members to achieve that outcome.
Sarah Edwards
I am so pleased to have had the support of hon. Members; I remark on the stories that highlight some of the regulatory differences across the Irish sea.
Caps for business energy, or some kind of cap on deemed contracts, could help to bring prices down without costing the Government and would help to get the market into some kind of equilibrium. The attempt to enforce estimated bills is causing absolute havoc. Enforcement must be a priority for the Government, so I welcome what the Minister said about its being front and centre of the reviews and particularly the recognition that more must be done. We must ensure that there are incentives for energy suppliers to businesses to behave appropriately and stop their malpractice.
It is so disappointing that no action has been taken yet to tackle the sector, with no punishment for that poor practice or for the dodgy brokers who are making businesses pay. Those costs get passed on to consumers, and they have made our businesses uncompetitive. It is an abuse of a lax system that is failing every day to protect our valued businesses, so I again call on businesses to fill in my survey and share their stories, and say to them: “Don’t answer unsolicited phone calls; question whether the deal is really a good deal, and help me to call on our Government to continue with the commitments they have made to supporting our SMEs.”
This is no time for half-measures and empty promises. Small businesses, the backbone of our communities, deserve protection, fairness and transparency in their energy dealings. The Government have known about this issue since 2013, so I call on this Government to urgently strengthen the powers of the Energy Ombudsman and outlaw back billing beyond six months. I highlight the abuse of deemed energy rates and half-hourly settlement meters, which are causing all kinds of issues for SMEs, which cannot get the appropriate rate even when they have switched to smart meters. Brokers and third party intermediaries must be fully regulated and held to a strict code of conduct. Many people are calling for fraudsters and excessive bad brokers to be driven out of the sector.
We need more dispute resolution schemes, particularly for brokers. I also urge immediate empowerment to regulate the sector effectively, whether through Ofgem or the Financial Conduct Authority. I call on energy companies to commit to fair and transparent billing and responsible practices. While the industry waits for stronger regulation, I am committed to working with experts, trade bodies and businesses to launch a trusted kitemark, and to publishing fair energy data.
Good brokers typically make between 1p and 1.5p per kWh. We need to create a directory of those reputable brokers that give power back to businesses. Let us act now, before more businesses suffer, before more fraud occurs and before more jobs are lost. One example of excessive profits can be read in law. Expert Tooling had its broker take a 35% profit margin. It paid £125,000 for energy, but the law said that was okay. That is not okay; the future of our high streets, towns and communities depends on decisive action today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered regulatory powers over billing of energy supply to businesses.
ADHD: Impact on Prison Rehabilitation and Reoffending
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. I understand that there will be interventions, but I exhort Members to keep them very tight. The Minister has kindly and charitably said that he will take 10 minutes, which gives us until 11.20 am for other Members, who should bear that in mind with good faith. As is the convention, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of ADHD on rehabilitation and reoffending in the prison system.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I think we all accept that our prison system faces significant challenges, including poor rehabilitation, high reoffending rates, overcrowding, limited resources and prisoner numbers that have doubled over the last 30 years and now exceed 87,000. The Minister will know that recent estimates suggest that prisoner numbers could surge to almost 100,000 by the end of next year.
In preparing for this debate, I drew on a number of publications with which the Minister will be familiar, but it is noteworthy that many of the studies were undertaken by those with links not only to justice but to the Home Office, the police, health and social care, planning, education, social equality and good government.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I have spoken to people who found out in prison that they have neurodiverse conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, which I also have. If they had been supported at school, things would have been different. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to roll out universal screening for all neurodiverse conditions at primary school level?
Tessa Munt
I could not agree more; that might help us to understand the interaction between behaviour and authority.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate, and she is right to raise this issue, which is very prevalent in Northern Ireland. There is a lack of specialist staff and training in adult ADHD, which is becoming a bigger part of the conversation. More needs to be done to rehabilitate in a certain way to ensure that prisoners are in a position to learn. Does the hon. Lady agree that, specifically for adult ADHD, the Government need to allocate more to training to ensure that prison staff are equipped to support people in prison settings who have ADHD?
Tessa Munt
I agree with the hon. Gentleman and will come to that in a moment.
The impact of ADHD on rehabilitation and reoffending sits at the junction of many different interests. It seems likely that supporting people with ADHD could be a critical part of delivering the Government’s aim of rebuilding confidence in the criminal justice system. There is a clear link between ADHD and contact with the criminal justice system, and ADHD is significantly over-represented in prisons. While just 3% to 4% of people in the general population are currently identified as living with ADHD, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimates that the proportion is up to 25% in the prison population. Up to a quarter of people in prison are living with ADHD, but studies show that 41% of women in UK prisons meet the criteria for an ADHD diagnosis.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Prisoners often leave the prison system with just one week’s worth of medication, and they then have difficulty getting back into the healthcare system. Does the hon. Member agree that we need a holistic approach to the Probation Service that co-ordinates the health and social care system to act as a bridge between the criminal justice system and wider community services?
Tessa Munt
Indeed, I do agree. Our interaction with the NHS needs to be far better. I will come to that later.
In December 2020, the then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice took the important step of commissioning an independent review into neurodiversity in the criminal justice system. The review was led by the chief inspector of prisons, Charlie Taylor; the chief inspector of probation, Justin Russell; and the chief inspector of constabulary and fire and rescue services, Sir Thomas Winsor. The resultant report concluded that when ADHD goes unrecognised or unsupported, the cycle of
“crime, arrest, court, prison, probation and reoffending”
will repeat itself. That is likely to be because the root cause driving that cycle of constant repetition is not currently being addressed in a structured or uniform way in the criminal justice system.
According to the report, the identification, support and management of neurodiverse individuals, including those with ADHD, is “patchy, inconsistent and uncoordinated”. It exposed
“serious gaps, failings and missed opportunities at every stage of the system.”
To put it simply, the report identified that the system was not adequately supporting neurodiverse individuals.
There are many elements of the prison environment that can cause distress to neurodiverse people, including busy and noisy wings, cell-sharing and frequent changes in daily routine. There is no consistent approach to screening for ADHD across prison services, and no single screening tool is used as a standard across the system. The lack of consistent screening means that people who come into the system with ADHD are not identified in a timely manner, or indeed at all.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the hon. Member agree that there is also a real problem with data collection, which means that the extent of the problem in our prison service is not known? We experience that problem in Northern Ireland, and I am sure it is the same across the United Kingdom.
Tessa Munt
Indeed, there is no consistent data collection. That is a problem not only in Northern Ireland, but in England and Wales, which the debate is primarily about. If someone is identified and diagnosed, it can be hard for them to access the right care and support due to fragmented care pathways. That is compounded by limited awareness and understanding of ADHD in the prison services.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I think all Members present will have heard from desperate parents whose children cannot get the ADHD medication that they need. Does my hon. Friend agree that the scandalous failure to provide care sets those children up to fail and that, tragically, the consequences are that some end up as the offenders we are discussing, instead of fulfilling their full potential?
Tessa Munt
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. His point is similar to the one made by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance): the earlier we screen, the better we will be able to understand how people learn. In the long run, if life is not education, I do not know what it is—I am sure the Minister will have some sympathy with that point, because he and I both served on the Education Committee between 2010 and 2015. We need to make sure we have far better screening so that people can understand how both young and older people learn. We should never finish learning.
The report observed that only 24% of prison staff had received some level of training about neurodiversity. I accept that that was back in 2021, but I doubt it is much different now. A basic level of awareness of neurodiversity and the needs of neurodiverse people was lacking among frontline staff. The lack of training, combined with staff shortages in prisons, can impact the management of neurodiverse prisoners. Those working in prisons must be able to recognise that the behaviour of some prisoners may be linked to ADHD, and a lack of training for those in mental health teams can result in misdiagnoses or suboptimal treatment. There is an ongoing need to better embed training for prison officers and extend the establishment of neurodiversity support managers across prisons in England and Wales, as mentioned earlier.
The structural changes that are taking place in NHS England, which has commissioning responsibility for offender health services, might provide an important opportunity to consider some of the challenges, and to develop new models for supporting people with health and care needs to access the right care and treatment in the community. That is particularly important where an unmet need has the potential to have a direct impact on an ex-offender’s likelihood of reoffending. Will the Minister outline the measures that are currently in place, and what he plans to offer, in the way of support and continuity of care for neurodiverse prisoners after their release, particularly in healthcare settings?
The Ministry of Justice’s cross-Government neurodiversity action plan, published in 2022 in response to the independent review, was a step forward in the official recognition of the unmet need around neurodiversity in the criminal justice system. Some promising steps were taken to advance the commitments in the plan, such as the recruitment of more than 100 neurodiversity support managers in prisons and the roll-out of neurodiversity training in some settings. But data remains insufficient and fragmented, as the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said, and that poses challenges to the effective assessment of the impact of interventions. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to monitor the number and availability of neurodiversity support managers in prisons across the country, and what measurements are being used to assess the impact of their work?
It is important to keep up the momentum behind the neurodiversity action plan. However, the 18-month review and update committed to under the action plan, which was due in early 2024, has not been published. I would be grateful for further details from the Minister on his plans to continue the implementation of the neurodiversity action plan. Will he outline what steps were taken last year and will be taken to implement the plan? When will the 18-month review, which was due in early 2024, be published?
The ADHD taskforce was established in 2024 and recently published an interim report on the state of play in ADHD care, with its final report due this summer. The taskforce has taken a cross-Government approach, rightly recognising criminal justice as a key focus. The taskforce interim report highlights a number of important and pressing issues, particularly the need for better data to understand where and how people with ADHD are interacting with public services; the relationship between education, health and wider support in relation to outcomes for people with ADHD, including contact with the criminal justice system; and the value of earlier intervention.
What steps have the Government taken and will they take to engage with the ADHD taskforce and wider stakeholders to address the barriers and implement the recommendations highlighted in its interim report and forthcoming final report? Many reports show us that people with ADHD are more likely to struggle with impulse control, emotional regulation and memory recall. We understand that those behaviours can lead to early school expulsions, unstable employment and contact with the criminal justice system.
Once someone is in the system, ADHD can affect how they interact with the police, legal advisers, the judiciary, court staff and probation officers. That can increase exponentially the risks around unreliable statements, misunderstood behaviours and disproportionate sentences. Responses to their environment can lead neurodiverse people to exhibit challenging behaviour that could result in their being disciplined or sanctioned, and affect their engagement or consideration for rehabilitation programmes.
Other reports, such as that published in December 2024 by Takeda, on reforming justice and tackling the unseen challenge of neurodiversity in the criminal justice system, have concluded that there is a need to reassess our approach to managing offenders and consider more innovative ways to interrupt the cycle of reoffending. That includes better approaches to addressing the unmet needs of neurodiverse individuals, where conditions such as ADHD may have a direct impact on offending. Does the Minister agree that, in the light of the challenges, criminal justice services should adjust the way people with ADHD are managed, to improve rehabilitation and reoffending outcomes?
Will the Minister address the matter of women who meet the criteria for ADHD in prisons? ADHD in women is often misdiagnosed or missed altogether. Women are more likely to mask symptoms, presenting as anxious, depressed, having eating disorders or as emotionally distressed. That means that for many women and girls their ADHD is often diagnosed late or not at all. More work is needed to understand the experience of women in the criminal justice system who have ADHD. They are likely to experience multiple barriers and may be impacted by co-occurring mental health issues or other disadvantages. For example, one in three women in prison self-harms—the rate is eight times higher than that on the men’s estate—and there is a strong correlation between ADHD in women and self-harming.
These issues are directly relevant to the Government’s wider ambition to reform the way female offenders are managed in England and Wales, including the intention to close one women’s prison and increase the management of female offenders in the community. That in part recognises that many women are imprisoned for lower-level offences. For example, in 2023, theft from shops was cited as the most frequent offence committed by female offenders, accounting for 40% of women’s prison sentences shorter than six months.
Evidence also demonstrates that the incarceration of women can have a broader impact on families and children. Many women are primary carers, and their imprisonment can result in children being displaced, amplifying cycles of trauma and disadvantage over the generations.
The establishment of the Women’s Justice Board presents an opportunity to address these issues, so will the Minister outline whether the board is currently considering neurodiversity and the impact of ADHD on women in prison within its remit? Will the Minister commit to ensuring that ADHD is meaningfully embedded and accounted for in the work of the board in order to ensure that the experiences of women with ADHD in the criminal justice system are a priority? The Government have stated an ambition to address the challenges of prison capacity and to shift the approach taken to women offenders. It is important to recognise that ADHD screening, a coherent care pathway and improved awareness and training in prisons could play a part in achieving that ambition.
In summary, my current membership of the Justice Committee and my membership of the Education Committee during my service here between 2010 and 2015, along with my meeting experts in ADHD and criminal justice more recently, has emphasised to me the need to take a different approach to identifying and supporting neurodiverse prisoners to help those individuals to make new lives and thereby to help the Government to make sure that prison is effective and efficient at turning prisoners’ lives around.
A new campaign focusing on the unique experience of neurodiverse individuals with ADHD in the criminal justice system explores evidence-based opportunities to improve support and outcomes. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of that campaign to discuss the challenges facing individuals with ADHD in the criminal justice system and the steps that might be taken to meet people’s needs and improve outcomes in relation to rehabilitation and reoffending? I have asked a number of questions, which I provided to the Minister and his team. I recognise that he will not necessarily be able to answer eight questions right now, but would he possibly give me the honour, first, of a meeting and, secondly, of a response to my questions?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
It is a complete joy to serve when you chair, Mr Dowd, and a pleasure to respond to the contribution made by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) to set out this very important matter. I will do my best to answer her eight questions.
I thank all Members, on both sides of the Chamber, for their considered contributions to today’s debate. This has been a measured and helpful discussion underscoring the importance of recognising and responding to the needs of neurodivergent offenders, including those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. There is a huge prevalence of neurodiversity in our prisons: studies have estimated that at least half of the offenders in our jails have some kind of neurodivergent need, though the figure is likely to be even higher, with about a quarter of prisoners thought to meet the ADHD diagnostic criteria. As the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills said, NICE calculates that figure as up to 25%, including 41% of women. As the inspectorates have highlighted, for these offenders prison can be particularly difficult and distressing, leading to challenging behaviour that could result in their being unnecessarily sanctioned or disciplined.
Prison is rightly first and foremost a punishment, but it must also reduce reoffending. Offenders deserve the opportunity to turn their lives around so that they can play their full part in society on release. We need to make better citizens, not better criminals. Above all, we want to ensure that every offender gets the rehabilitation they need to protect the public. That relies on ADHD and other neurodivergent needs being picked up quickly, and on offenders getting the support that they need so that they can engage with support, treatment and education. There is a great deal of good work already under way.
I will answer the questions asked by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills. On what measures are currently in place and what we plan to offer in way of support and continuity of care to neurodiverse prisoners on their release, my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) rightly identified the key role of probation. There is guidance and training for probation staff to help them to understand ADHD, how needs can look different for different individuals, and that some needs are not visible. Probation staff are skilled at taking a strength-based approach in assessments for pre-sentence reports and sentence plans. Together, that can help our practitioners to adapt the work they do with offenders, whether that is in a one-to-one context, such as supervision appointments, in group settings in a behaviour programme, or in unpaid work placements.
In addition, the Probation Service has commissioned neurodiversity specialists in five probation regions: Yorkshire and the Humber, the north-west, the west midlands, the south-west, and Wales. Those services offer direct support to people who are diagnosed with or suspected to have a neurodivergent condition; supporting engagement with their orders or licences, they provide briefings to probation staff designed to help them to identify factors that may be related to neurodivergent conditions, and give guidance on how best to support the rehabilitation of these individuals.
The hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills asked about neurodiversity support managers. We have neurodiversity support managers in all our public prisons, and they have a whole-prison approach to neurodiversity. That includes: improving processes to identify and support prisoners with neurodivergent needs; providing training and guidance for prison staff; and ensuring that neurodivergent prisoners can access education, skills and work opportunities within the prison.
Neurodiversity support managers also ensure that reasonable adjustments are made to prison environments to make them more supportive of neurodivergent needs. They are frequently recognised in His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons reports for their positive impact in prisons, with recent reports from HMP Kirklevington Grange and HMP Warren Hill highlighting their support for prisoners as an example of good practice.
The 2021 joint inspectorate neurodiversity review of evidence, which the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills cited in detail, suggested that at least 50% of prisoners have a neurodivergent need, although many will not be diagnosed. In response to the review, the previous Government published a cross-Government neurodiversity action plan in July 2022, with updates in the January and September of 2023. I am pleased to tell hon. Members that we will publish a final update to the action plan later this year, which will respond directly to the joint inspectorate’s report and set out a cross-system strategy to further improve outcomes for neurodivergent people, building on the vital work of the ADHD taskforce.
I welcome the publication of the ADHD taskforce’s interim report. It is a timely and important piece of work that outlines the systemic challenges in ADHD services across the country and sets out both short and long-term recommendations to improve support for people with ADHD. Many contributions made by Members highlighted the issues in other services, which is why the report is important. I am grateful to colleagues across Departments who have worked collaboratively to shape the recommendations.
The report rightly makes clear that no single Department can resolve the challenges alone. ADHD, when left unsupported, can lead to a cascade of negative outcomes: school exclusion, unemployment, substance misuse, involvement in crime, and, tragically, sometimes suicide. We will continue to work with the taskforce and together across Government to achieve the report’s aims.
In youth justice, youth offending teams are increasingly tailoring interventions to children’s specific needs, including those with neurodiverse conditions, with 95% of practitioners reporting that assessments and planning now take into account individual vulnerabilities. Where children are detained in youth custody, all children receive a comprehensive health assessment that screens for a range of needs, including mental health and neurodiversity when they first arrive. All education providers across the three public young offender institutions also have a special educational needs co-ordinator who, in collaboration with NHS England, conducts assessments for children who may have undiagnosed needs, including ADHD. We are having a roundtable later today with education providers to look at alternative education providers outside of the youth justice estate to look at ways of bringing their expertise into the youth custody system so that we can learn from others and improve the way we do business in the youth custody service.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) drew attention to focusing on and analysing needs. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service takes a needs-led approach to supporting people in prison, including those with ADHD. This ensures that needs are identified as early as possible so that appropriate reasonable adjustments and support are provided throughout custody. To improve current screening processes, HMPPS is procuring a new needs assessment tool. I am pleased to confirm that Do-IT Solutions has been awarded the contract for this tool, which will be introduced as part of the new prisoner education service. The tool will identify individual strengths and additional learning needs, including those associated with autism spectrum conditions and ADHD.
Tessa Munt
Will the tool be used for every entrant to the prison estate or is it for those who might be suspected of having some sort of neurodiversity?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
My understanding is that it will be, but I will write to the hon. Lady to confirm the details.
To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart), data on prisoners with ADHD may be held locally by prison healthcare providers, but is not held centrally by NHS England. Where it is known, 55% of prisoners who took an initial assessment via the prison education service and then enrolled on a course had a learning difficulty or disability. We continue to work to improve our data collection and information sharing. This includes plans to integrate screening results and any information relating to additional need into digital learning and work plans to support prisoners’ education, skills and work progress through custody. But this area needs more work.
On the issue of women, the Prisons Minister in the other place, Lord Timpson, leads on the Women’s Justice Board—indeed, he chairs it. It is a passionate area of interest for him and the Lord Chancellor. I will write to Lord Timpson to flag the issue of ADHD, but I am sure it is already on his radar and in his work plan. If it is not, it will be soon. There is a neurodiversity support manager in every female prison and they have all had specific training on women with ADHD.
Mr Speaker, I am grateful once again to the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, particularly the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, who led it. I am very happy to meet her at a later date to further explore the matter. As the ADHD taskforce has rightly pointed out in its interim report,
“ADHD, when unsupported, is a potent route into educational failure, long-term unemployment, crime, substance misuse, suicide, mental and physical illness.”
We have made significant progress to support neurodiverse people in the criminal justice system, including those with ADHD, but there is still much more to do, which is why this debate and the interest and commitment of the hon. Lady and other hon. Members is so valuable and helpful to all of us. I look forward to continuing to work with the taskforce and colleagues across Government to ensure that neurodiverse offenders are given the support they need to turn their backs on crime for good.
Peter Dowd (in the Chair)
I thank the Minister for his largesse and for promoting me to Speaker.
Question put and agreed to.
Hospitality Sector
(4 days, 4 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
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the hospitality sector.
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I have also received hospitality from UKHospitality and from the British Beer and Pub Association that falls below the registrable threshold.
I am pleased to open this debate on a subject of national and local importance: the future of our hospitality sector. From pubs and restaurants to hotels and leisure centres, hospitality is more than just a convenience; it is the beating heart of our communities. It provides first jobs, second chances, career ladders and gathering places. It employs 3.5 million people and contributes £140 billion in economic activity and £54 billion in tax receipts to the Exchequer each year. Yet the sector faces an existential threat—not from a lack of demand, but from deliberate political choices made in last autumn’s Budget and the spring statement.
Those choices have hit hospitality harder than any other part of the economy. The Government’s 2024 Budget, far from being fair or progressive, has dealt a brutal blow to our high streets and local economies. The cumulative effect of increased employer national insurance contributions and cuts to business rate relief, alongside the increases in the national living wage, has added £3.4 billion to the sector’s annual cost base. Let us be clear: those numbers are not abstract. They represent shifts that businesses feel every single week and to which they are taking action in response.
Early Government figures show that 100,000 jobs were lost in just one month. That is not a warning sign —that is a siren. Part-time and entry-level workers have been the hardest hit; not highly paid City graduates, but bar staff, kitchen porters and hotel receptionists in every village, town and city across our country. The problem is even more damaging because it flies in the face of the Government’s own stated missions. The Government claim to want regional growth and better living standards across the UK, but the Budget has cancelled investment, reduced hours and led to closures in exactly the communities that need regeneration the most. The hospitality sector has outgrown the wider economy in recent years, yet it barely even features in the Government’s new industrial strategy. There are just three mentions of hospitality in the whole strategy, and one of those was because the Government had mis-spelled “hospitals”.
Hospitality is a proven route to social mobility and opportunity, accessible to everyone, not just a privileged few. Yet the Government’s actions directly contradict their levelling-up agenda. They talk about growth, but strangle the sectors that deliver it. They talk about fairness, but penalise the poorest workers. They talk about opportunity, but crush the businesses that provide it. They have forgotten that enterprise is not just about spreadsheets—it is about people, purpose and pride.
Even before the Budget, hospitality businesses were paying twice as much tax as financial services relative to their profits. That is an astonishing imbalance. Of course, hospitality was particularly hard hit by the pandemic and by lockdowns. Many hospitality businesses are still carrying the burden of covid debts, with repayments that have taken them from being thriving businesses to ones that barely break even.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I held a pub and hospitality roundtable in my constituency, where publicans stated that the changes in the Budget had been worse than covid for their balance books and the viability of their businesses, because at least during covid the then Conservative Government gave relief and help to them; this time, they have received nothing.
Mike Wood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The changes to employer national insurance contributions have meant that 774,000 workers, many of them on lower incomes or working part time, are caught in a net that punishes job creation. The cut in business rate relief from 75% to 40% has driven otherwise viable businesses into the red, hitting pubs such as the Green Man in my constituency, which has seen its business rates bills rise from about £140 a month to nearly £350 a month—before a single customer has been served or a single pint pulled. A third of hospitality businesses now operate at a loss. That is not sustainable, and it is not fair.
According to UKHospitality, the Government’s measures will cost the sector at least £3.4 billion, including a £1 billion cost from the national insurance contribution increases alone. Of course, those tax rises came in at exactly the same time as the increase in the national living wage, adding even more pressure to small business employers such as the tea room at Ashwood Nurseries, in my constituency, which already operate on tight margins.
Let me be clear: no one opposes fair pay. I am proud that the previous Government introduced the national living wage, and increased it to give workers’ incomes a boost. However, if the Government want sustainable wage increases, they cannot also pile on non-wage costs at the same time—and that is before the impact of their employment rights package, which comes into force next year. The data already shows the consequences starkly. The Office for National Statistics confirms that since the October Budget, the hospitality sector has shed 69,000 jobs, even before the latest figures from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That is 3.2% of all hospitality jobs. To put that in context, the overall economy lost 1.2% of jobs in the same period, so hospitality’s job losses were 266% higher than the national average.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I too remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. In Orkney and Shetland, the food and drink sector is an integral part of our local visitor economy, as is the hospitality sector, but neither is part of the Government’s industrial strategy. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we were to bring food and drink and hospitality into the industrial strategy, we would not suffer the salami slicing of over-regulation that we are seeing, especially in Scotland, where the self-catering industry is now being hit with another round of regulatory burdens?
Mike Wood
The right hon. Gentleman is clearly correct. One of the dangers of trying to pick winners is that those that do not make the priority list are, almost by definition, left behind. Major sectors such as hospitality and food and drink employ so many people, in every constituency, right across the age groups and in every demographic possible; leaving them out sends a very unfortunate signal, at the very least, and could be very damaging, if not corrected quickly.
A third of hospitality businesses report that they operate at a loss, with jobs lost, hours cut, investment cancelled and, sadly, many businesses closing. The Office for Budget Responsibility warns that 60% of the national insurance contributions burden will be passed on through lower wages, hitting workers despite the Chancellor’s promises. These are not abstract statistics; they are real people’s lives. Overwhelmingly, young, part-time, ethnic minority and lower-income workers are disproportionately represented among those hit, despite those being the very groups that the Government claim they want to support. The Government’s policies are deeply regressive.
It does not have to be this way. Hospitality is not asking for handouts, but for a level playing field. The sector is resilient. After the 2008 crash and during covid, it helped to revive communities and restore confidence and, within the right framework, it can do so again. It has the potential to grow six times faster than the wider economy, to create half a million jobs by 2030, and to breathe life into areas across the country, not just in the overheating south-east.
In order for the sector to do that, however, the brakes must be taken off, and there are simple, targeted steps that the Government could take now. They could protect the high streets by quickly introducing a proper reform of business rates, with a maximum discount for venues under £500,000 rateable value. They could scrap the proposed additional levy on larger hospitality businesses, which are so important to many of our communities and provide so many jobs. They could create a new lower rate of national insurance contributions for those earning between £5,000 and £9,100, to reverse April’s job losses and make it easier to hire again.
The Government could also extend the differential duty rate introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), to help to put pubs, bars and clubs on a level playing field with supermarkets by charging lower duty on draft beer in cask and kegs than is charged on bottles and cans. They could look at ways to reschedule those covid-19 loans, to give firms some breathing space to increase the chance of them actually being able to repay those debts as successful businesses. Each of those measures would stimulate growth, protect jobs, and help every region of the UK to thrive.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is perhaps a pity that one particular political party in Scotland is not represented in this debate today, because this summer, in the village of Achiltibuie in north-west Ross and Cromarty, I spoke to a barman who could not stay for the rest of the year because he had nowhere to live. Accommodation is a critical problem in the remote parts of the highlands. The SNP Government should address that; I dearly hope that this debate will be looked at, read up and acted upon, because this is a critical issue.
Mike Wood
Hospitality, as I have said, is so important in every part of the United Kingdom. We need Governments in every part of the United Kingdom to recognise that and to take the appropriate action, although I hope the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if my focus is primarily on those decisions that can be taken in Westminster and by the Government at a national level.
My challenge to the Minister today is simple: will he listen, if not to me, then to representatives from across the hospitality sector who are clear that the Government are getting this wrong? Will he support a sector that contributes £54 billion in tax receipts— far more than it gets back? Will he stand by his Government’s own missions of fairness, opportunity and growth, or will he continue policies that undermine them at every turn?
Hospitality is being taxed out of existence, and that is a political choice. We need a change of course not just for the sector, but for every community that depends on it. We need policies that reflect the value that hospitality brings—economically, socially and culturally—and we need action now.
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they would like to contribute to the debate. Informally, speech times should be around four minutes.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for leading today’s debate on a subject that is important for all regions in the UK, but particularly for mine. For Cornwall, the visitor sector is still an important core industry. Cornwall is a top UK tourist destination, with tourism providing 15% of Cornwall’s economy. Tourism and hospitality account for one in five jobs in the Duchy and well over 90% of our visitors come from within the UK.
In my constituency alone, there are 1,761 hospitality businesses—placing us 21st out of all UK constituencies—with a turnover of more than £4.5 million. Cornwall is a national landscape. People come from far and wide to visit our beautiful beaches and dramatic coastline. They stay in our hotels, B&Bs and holiday lets, drink in our pubs and eat in our array of brilliant cafes and restaurants. The hospitality sector in Cornwall is dynamic, creative, and one of the mainstays of our economy. However, our reliance on what is often still a seasonal sector can make us vulnerable. After the post-covid boom, Cornwall really suffered and by summer 2024 Tim Jones, chairman of South West Business Council, argued that tourism in the south-west as a whole was at its lowest for 10 years.
During the peak season, the Cornish population grows fivefold, putting strain on local NHS, water, roads and policing. To give an example, around 700 people turned up to A&E in Cornwall on August bank holiday Monday. Fair Funding for Cornwall is a campaign that Cornish politicians of all stripes have been pushing for years. I am very pleased that this Government have recognised visitor numbers, coastal areas and sparsity in the recent local government funding review and in the review of the Carr-Hill formula for NHS GP funding. I hope that follows through into more support for our services and infrastructure.
I have spoken to many businesses since I was elected a year ago, and I know that some of them have been struggling. Rising costs, high energy bills, staff shortages and pandemic debts have forced some to close up, or to consider doing so. That will have a knock-on effect on the number of employment and apprenticeship opportunities available to our young people, who have already suffered from years of broken education and isolation during covid, and a lack of special educational needs and disabilities support in schools over the last decade. The businesses themselves are often family-run, close-knit and the centres of their communities, so their loss is felt greatly.
The Government have taken some steps to support hospitality. I served on the Bill Committee for the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Act 2025 last year, and I welcome the provisions it contained to introduce permanently lower rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses with rateable values below £500,000 from 2026-27.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
When the hon. Lady was on that Bill Committee, did she consider the fact that a large part of the hospitality sector in Scotland would have no business rate relief, even though businesses in the south could get it? It was a favour done for England and Wales, but did not help Scotland.
Jayne Kirkham
As I recall it, we did not specifically consider Scotland—or I certainly did not. The Government did prevent a business rates cliff edge in April 2025 in England by extending business rate relief at a rate of 40% for 2025-26. I would welcome the Minister’s confirmation that those permanently lower rates will compare to current rates, rather than the pre-pandemic ones.
I look forward to the launch of the Government’s holiday let registration scheme later this year. If that includes registration of safety check documents and, potentially, inspection, it will ensure safety and quality standards, levelling the playing field between hotels, B&Bs and short-term lets. There are more holiday lets and second homes in Cornwall than there are people on the housing waiting list, which stands at more than 25,000. The industry in Cornwall is supportive of a scheme where safety checks are required for holiday lets, as the good providers are doing those anyway. Registration would also show us where the gluts of holiday let properties are.
For people working in the hospitality sector to live in the communities in which they work, we need investment in public transport and to tackle the housing crisis. Measures on second homes and the Government’s pledge to build more council and affordable homes on stuck sites, such as the Pydar development in Truro in my constituency, are welcome. I look forward to a strategic place partnership with Homes England to make that happen for Cornwall.
Cornwall’s chamber of commerce has said that better transport connectivity is the No. 1 priority for the businesses it represents, so I welcome the Government’s transport funding announcements. Recent upgrades to the A30 were helpful, but protection of our airport public service obligations and upgrades to our rail service —upgrading to electric power or batteries, and providing better wi-fi to make the journey of more than five hours from London to Falmouth more bearable—would be very welcome. Improved bus services are obviously very important. I welcome the commitment to the £3 fare cap, but in rural areas, getting to work and back home is often difficult, particularly after 6 pm, and that needs tackling.
There are many opportunities and challenges facing Cornwall and its tourism industry. The challenges include wages and secure working hours, as many jobs in hospitality are insecure. The Government’s new commitment to end zero-hours contracts if—crucially—the employee does not want them, and to provide average-hours contracts, will help. Cornwall has been awarded accreditation as a living wage place, and many firms are very proud of that. The rises in the minimum wage over the years, along with the increase in training needs after the pandemic, have made life difficult for hospitality businesses, but they recognise that paying good wages is crucial for the retention of staff.
The potential of a tourism tax—how it could be levied and collected in a way that was not detrimental to our hotels, B&Bs and holiday parks, and that would encompass direct booking websites—has been discussed for a long time in Cornwall. The continuation of funding for local visitor economy partnership programmes, such as Visit Cornwall and the Tourism Industry Council, is important to enable our hospitality sector to market itself at home and abroad. Our hospitality sector in Cornwall has the potential to thrive, but it needs the right conditions and support to do so.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
At the start, I declare an interest, as my children and I own a cinema, restaurant and big visitor centre in Fort William, employing more than 100 people. I was brought up in a rural inn and my brother has a brewery. I am steeped in the hospitality sector.
At the autumn Budget, the Government increased the rate of NIC by 8.7%, which, added to other measures, resulted in an increase of 12.4% in payroll for hospitality businesses like mine. That is four times the rate of inflation. The hospitality sector in my constituency and other remote areas faces additional challenges, particularly the cost of energy. Businesses that cannot access mains gas often have to use electricity, which is four times the price of mains gas. A hotel in rural Britain, whether it be in Cornwall or the highlands, would need to pay £100,000 to heat itself using electricity; using mains gas, the cost would be £25,000, and if it were in America, heating would cost £10,000.
Environmental tariffs are on the wrong energy source. They are on renewable energy and not on imported carbon fuel mains gas. That is just so wrong. The Government declared that they are a growth Government; we now know that they meant growth in costs rather than growth in revenue. The impact of the autumn Budget was a 2% increase in the cost of the public sector and a 2% reduction in the private sector. It seems that the hospitality sector is bearing the brunt of that.
I would say that the hospitality sector in rural Britain has not struggled more in my lifetime. Both the last two Governments have plucked the golden goose of hospitality so often that it no longer has any feathers.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for securing this important debate.
For many in this Chamber, I imagine that the first thing that comes to mind when I mention Cornwall is our world-leading beaches, our coastal villages and our incredible hotels and restaurants. Tourism is a key part of our local economy, and our wide range of hospitality venues, powered by hard-working, often local staff, are what make that offer possible. In South East Cornwall, hospitality supports many local families and households, but the work is often seasonal, unreliable and involves unsociable hours. It can be a difficult way to make a living and the difficulty is compounded by an affordable housing crisis in Cornwall. I welcome the Government’s efforts to fix that.
We need more first homes for local families. Alongside my Cornish colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), I look forward to a strategic place partnership for homes in Cornwall. That is why I welcome the Government’s efforts to improve employment rights in the hospitality sector. The Employment Rights Bill, currently progressing through the other place, tackles exploitative zero-hours contracts and one-sided flexibility, and ensures day one rights.
There is more we can do to support a modern, vibrant hospitality sector—one that reflects Cornwall’s rich heritage and unique position. Our venues celebrate Cornish-grown and Cornish-made products through local food, local art and Cornish talent. That helps our communities, strengthens our economy and builds pride in place, but we need more year-round employment, as residents need that security and are often left struggling in the off-season, and align education and training with actual local job opportunities. Cornwall has so much to offer, which is reflected in the number of visitors we attract each year, but we need a strong system that supports and improves our communities and welcomes visitors.
We have so many brilliant local businesses, such as the Finnygook Inn in Crafthole. The pub, which I know well, employs local people, supports regional producers and offers a warm welcome to all. Like many other pubs, the Finny plays an essential role in the fabric of my local community but, like others in the sector, it is struggling under the pressure of high VAT rates, and the UK’s hospitality rate is higher than that in many other countries. For venues that focus on fresh, home-cooked meals, VAT recovery is limited, which creates a real financial strain. That issue was raised during the pandemic.
I ask the Minister: what support is available for vital businesses like the Finnygook Inn, and how are the Government working to deliver more sustainable solutions that reflect the value that these venues bring to our economy, and to the life and wellbeing of our communities? I know just how important this topic is to businesses and communities across South East Cornwall.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler, and a privilege to take part in these proceedings under your guidance. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) on setting out his case—our case—so comprehensively and compellingly.
It is a shame that hospitality does not make the cut as a growth sector for the Government’s industrial strategy, for it is a huge part of this country’s economy and employment. We must never forget that there are relatively few power sectors in employment, and principal among them are hospitality, retail and personal care. In my constituency, hospitality accounts for about 200 outlets, and about 2,000 people are employed in the sector. As in retail, employment in that sector really does go throughout the entire country.
As it happens, hospitality was my career before I came to this place. We used to define the term “hospitality” a bit more narrowly—it really used to mean hotels. That was the business that I worked in, and latterly I worked a little in the licensed trade. In my time as a Member of Parliament and a Minister, I have worked very strongly with the sector, particularly on employment opportunities, as it is foremost in getting young people into work. There is a debate going on in the main Chamber that is very relevant to this issue. Hospitality helps people who are furthest from the labour market to come back into work, and it also supports a lot of people in part-time work.
The sector has just withstood two very big blows: first, the cut in business rates relief, which has a major effect on the fixed cost of businesses even before a pint has been poured, as a number of Members said; and, secondly, the enormous increase in national insurance contributions. We often talk about the rate going up from 13.8% to 15%, which does not sound very much, but the bringing down of the threshold has a huge effect. As I said, the sector employs a lot of part-time people, and it is with those people in particular, and of course with younger people coming into the workforce for the first time, that that is felt.
There are many things that we could talk about, but time is short and colleagues are many, so I will concentrate on one issue: the Employment Rights Bill, which the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) talked about, and specifically zero-hours contracts. I am afraid that that type of contract has a totemic significance for Labour politicians, way beyond the number of people affected or involved. It dates back to the time when the last leader of the Labour party, who now sits as an independent, made bringing down the number of people on zero-hours contracts one of his great crusades. When I was at the Department for Work and Pensions, we looked a bit more deeply at how many people are on such contracts, and it turns out that fewer than 3% of people rely on a zero-hours contract for their primary job; on average, they worked not zero hours but 25 hours a week, and most were not seeking more hours. They also—this came as the greatest shock to people in general—had higher average job satisfaction than people not on zero-hours contracts.
Gregory Stafford
In Farnham, the Nelson Arms pub uses zero-hours contracts, and it needs them. I spoke to a staff member who said that the reason he was so keen on them is that he is actually a paramedic, and between his shifts he worked at the pub. That worked for him and the pub, because it gave them both flexibility.
Damian Hinds
And the national health service—sorry, I am coming back to hospitality, Ms Butler. As it turns out, one of the biggest users of zero-hours contracts in the country is the national health service.
Jayne Kirkham
I think that the right hon. Gentleman may not have heard that I said in my speech that, on the zero-hours contract provisions in the Employment Rights Bill, there is a choice. If the employee chooses to work under a zero-hours contract, that is fine. The right is to be offered after four weeks.
Damian Hinds
I am coming on to that; the hon. Lady must give me space. These are forms of employment that have existed for a long time. At a certain point, I realised that my own first job in the hospitality sector was on a zero-hours contract; it is just that nobody had coined the term at that point. It is a very common type of employment. In my case, it was collecting glasses and washing dishes. Everybody who worked in that way did so on a zero-hours contract.
These kinds of contracts can work in any sector where there is fluctuation in demand and in the need for labour, and principal among those is the hospitality sector. The thing that some people struggle with—I am not saying the hon. Lady does—is the idea that they also work for individuals. It is not necessarily something that people do only because there is nothing else available. Some people choose; supply teachers choose to be supply teachers rather than full-time employed teachers. I hear from businesses, pubs and restaurants in my constituency that students whose home is in the constituency work when they are at home and can stay on the books when they go away to university or college. They might want to reduce the amount of time that they give to work when their exams are on, but they stay on the books.
I do not think that the proposals in the Employment Rights Bill are very helpful, but if the Government insist on keeping them, they could make two important changes. The first change is to the length of the 12-week reference period, which does not work in a hospitality business that has significant seasonality. It should be much longer. Secondly, they could change the requirement to make repeated offers of a guaranteed-hours contract, and instead state, as the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth rightly said—she may even be sort of nodding in agreement—that it should be up to the individual. If the individual wants to opt in, fine, but the Government should not create the additional bureaucracy, dead-weight and cost of having to make those repeated offers if that individual does not seek them.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) on securing this debate. I declare that I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality, events, major food and drink businesses in Wales, and a member of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism.
A report from the Wales Tourism Alliance found that tourism and hospitality contribute £3.8 billion to the Welsh economy and employ more than 11% of people in Wales, rising to up to 20% in areas such as my constituency of Ynys Môn, where alternative employment is scarce. Recent decisions taken by this Government have hit the sector hard. The increase in national insurance has pushed up costs for local hospitality businesses in my constituency. Will the Government now look at supporting small hospitality businesses that can only afford to employ people on lower wages, by reducing the rate on earnings between £5,000 and £9,100?
Another cost to the hospitality sector has come from the changes to inheritance tax. Family-run caravan parks such as Kingsbridge, in Beaumaris on Ynys Môn, have expressed to me their concerns that these changes will have a dramatic impact on their viability. I call on the Government to listen and change course, to ensure that local businesses are protected from the damaging effects of the changes.
The current business rates system is also unfair and needs to be reviewed. At present, local hospitality businesses pay far more than major chains on the outskirts of towns. The Welsh Government recently announced a review of the business rates system, but hospitality businesses were left out. I call on the Welsh Government to go further and include this crucial sector in the review. Businesses such as pubs, restaurants and hotels have not only an economic, but a social value. They are places that unite communities and breathe life into our towns and villages. That should be reflected in the business rates system by rebalancing it in a fair way to support local bricks and mortar businesses over major retailers.
The last five years have been incredibly difficult for hospitality businesses. Food and drink inflation has been consistently higher than the main rate. The peak of food inflation was 19.2% in October 2022, while the peak of overall inflation was 11.1% in the same month. Large retailers have been much better placed to withstand these pressures than smaller businesses. For example, during covid-19, when pubs had to close their doors to keep communities safe, large retailers benefited from increased alcohol sales.
North Wales also pays some of the highest energy bills in the United Kingdom. Businesses in north Wales pay £161,000 a year for electricity—8% higher than the UK average and 13% higher than those in London, at £142,000 a year. This is because third-party charges on Welsh energy bills are higher, including grid costs. The Government’s industrial strategy said nothing about ending that disparity. We need action to address this wholly unfair situation, to ensure that Welsh businesses pay the same amount for their energy as businesses elsewhere in the UK.
Support for hospitality, which is a key sector on Ynys Môn, is vital if we want our communities to remain vibrant and work opportunities to be available to local people. I urge the Government to listen to the calls to back the industry with the support it needs to thrive.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for applying for the debate and setting the scene so well. I also thank all those who have contributed.
The Northern Ireland perspective on the hospitality sector is coming up, as it always does from me and other colleagues from Northern Ireland. Hon. Members will have heard me speak repeatedly about the hospitality industry in Northern Ireland, which I am incredibly proud of. The reputation for hospitality ensures that as soon as someone comes to Northern Ireland, they feel they have come home from home. That is what we do in Northern Ireland; we make people welcome, wherever they come from, so that they want to come back again.
That is why many refer to hospitality as the backbone of our tourism industry. Hospitality Ulster outlined in recent communications that it is not widely known that in Northern Ireland, four out of five jobs in tourism-related industries are in the hospitality sector. The strategic value of the hospitality sector in Northern Ireland cannot be ignored. It supports 77,500 jobs and gives £1.9 billion to the economy. To understand that, information and communication brings in £1.6 billion, and agriculture and fisheries account for £1.3 billion. The hospitality sector makes up almost one in 10 regional jobs.
Although the increases in employer national insurance contributions and the living wage are solely under the control of Westminster, the Northern Ireland Assembly cannot escape the consequences of the refusal to pass on the Barnett consequential moneys that come to Northern Ireland, when English hospitality and retail businesses were given a rates reduction due to the cost of living crisis. That has left the Northern Ireland hospitality industry in an even worse position to deal with the fallout of the Budget.
I will explain what that means. The changes to employer NICs and the national living wage will add an additional £2,500 per person employed in the sector, based on a staff member earning the national living wage and working 38 hours a week. In Northern Ireland, 63% of jobs in accommodation and food are part time, the highest share across all sectors by a considerable margin. It is important to focus quickly on the fact that those are significant additional cost burdens on a sector that is already under huge pressure from costs, sales and profitability.
Staying in business is very challenging, as the fallout from covid continues for the sector, plus huge additional costs. Heaping on additional completely unexpected costs only fuels the journey towards crisis point for many in the hospitality sector. I say that with respect to the Minister, and reassure him that he is not responsible for all the ills of the world, but I want to outline this issue.
The UK Budget has made Northern Ireland a more expensive place than our neighbour the Republic of Ireland to employ staff. With a further reduction of VAT likely, the Republic of Ireland has a competitive advantage over Northern Ireland. That will not only drive investment from north to south but also consumers, as our hospitality businesses will not be able to compete with Republic of Ireland counterparts.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My hon. Friend is right that the hospitality sector is important to Northern Ireland. It is probably one of the most difficult sectors, with long hours, high costs and low margins. Does he agree that one of the most challenging things is the VAT disparity with the Republic of Ireland? Does he therefore agree that, if the UK Government were to do something about VAT for the hospitality sector, it would be a silver bullet?
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend and colleague is right. I mentioned the clear VAT imbalance. To put it in simple equations, to explain the issue and understand it better: in the simplest example, a couple getting married in Enniskillen would find that a significantly cheaper wedding reception is just a few miles away across the border. I hope that explains the matter a wee bit better.
There is a vital need for the introduction of a reduced rate of VAT for the hospitality and tourism sector. Hospitality Ulster has flagged the creation of a new employer national insurance contribution band from £5,000 to £9,000, with a lower rate of 5%, or the implementation of an exception for lower-band taxpayers working fewer than 20 hours a week. The difference and the tight margin between viability and closure is right there for us in Northern Ireland. I look to the Minister for consideration of these proposals.
Businesses can and will thrive if supported to do so. Every pound of support sees a direct benefit for local economies. I know that support for the hospitality industry will help businesses in every corner of the UK. I know that that is the desire of every person who has contributed to this debate and of the Minister, who is an honourable person. However, we really need to take steps to ensure that all of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can thrive. The Minister can make it happen, and I look forward to his contribution.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler.
With the weather we are experiencing at the moment, topping out at 33°C here today in London, who needs to travel abroad? We can head to our bars, restaurants, tourist attractions and have a staycation in the beautiful UK. South Northamptonshire has more than 220 hospitality businesses, which employ around 3,000 people. We will experience much focus this weekend because we have the grand prix at Silverstone and I declare I am looking forward to seeing some of that racing. However, the focus goes far beyond that, because we have to think about our smaller hospitality businesses, whether that is the Plough at Shutlanger, the Red Lion in Brackley, the Red Lion in Bozeat, the White Hart in Hackleton or the Rose and Crown in Yardley Hastings—I literally have too many to name, but they are vital to our sector—
Sarah Bool
There would be at least 95 to name.
We ask all those who run these businesses to take a risk. We ask them to keep our communities together and to offer jobs, but we do not give them the environment in which to flourish. They are working so very hard, but it is a real struggle with employer national insurance increases, business energy costs remaining incredibly high and the national minimum wage increase of about 17% in little over a year. Nationally since April, 220 pubs have had to shut and more than 1,000 have shut in the last year. What are the Government going to do to turn this around? I ask the Minister to consider the measures proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood).
We must remember—this is a word of warning—that in rural areas, we do not have the luxury, as we do in cities such as London, of being able to go to a pub or restaurant in another street. The loss of a pub, restaurant or hotel leaves a vast desert. Covid, when we all had to isolate, reminded us of the importance of social interaction and contact. I say to the Minister, “Please do not deny rural communities these opportunities through poor policy.”
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) on securing this debate. It is unusually cruelly timed, as I feel that I have not stopped sweating in about three days and quite frankly I can think of nowhere I would rather be than on a beach in West Dorset.
I am not alone in that. Our Jurassic coast, our rivers and fields, our chocolate box villages and historical market towns attract millions of visitors each year. This landscape underpins a vital part of our economy: hospitality. Our pubs, cafés, hotels, holiday parks and B&Bs support thousands of jobs and provide livelihoods for families across West Dorset.
In West Dorset, 85% of local businesses are micro-enterprises. Those small businesses are the backbone of our tourism industry. They create jobs, keep high streets alive, and provide essential services. Rising costs driven by inflation, energy, staffing and tax are now threatening their survival.
In 2024, West Dorset recorded more than 4,200 sewage spills discharged into our rivers and seas for more than 48,000 hours. Tourists are now checking pollution alerts before they swim. In an area where tourism brings in more than £320 million and supports more than 5,000 jobs, it is unacceptable that inaction by the Government is putting our hospitality businesses at risk.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
It is fascinating that the vast majority of the tourism businesses in West Dorset are microbusinesses. Can my hon. Friend think of a worse policy for those businesses than reducing the NI threshold to the level it was reduced to in the Budget? Can he think of a policy that would do more economic damage to the hospitality sector in his constituency?
Edward Morello
I would struggle to think of a policy that would be worse for microbusinesses.
Meanwhile, transport and parking infrastructure across rural West Dorset is stretched to breaking point, something made worse by the 42% surge in population during peak season. If visitors cannot reach our businesses or cannot park, it is local traders that will lose out. As my hon. Friend just mentioned, in April we saw a rise in national insurance contributions and an increase in business rates—that was the other thing I was struggling to think of that might be worse for small businesses. Since then, more than 220 pubs have shut down. I heard directly from The George in West Bay in my constituency, which has seen its business rates increase from £8,000 to £27,000 a year. That is basically its entire operating profit margin.
UKHospitality reports that a third of businesses in the sector are now operating at a loss. Most have had to raise prices, cut hours, lay off staff or cancel investment. As I am sure the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), will outline, we would replace business rates with a commercial landlord levy. We would keep the 75% business rate relief for hospitality and freeze the small business multiplier until the new system is in place.
We are also calling for a dedicated Minister of State for tourism and hospitality to give those sectors the leadership and support that they desperately need. In places such as West Dorset, hospitality is the economy. For every small business that closes, we lose part of our community. We need action. We need to stand up for hospitality businesses, because when they thrive, all of West Dorset thrives.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Ms Butler. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for leading this debate so incredibly well.
It is my great honour to stand here on behalf of the communities of Westmorland and Lonsdale, a huge chunk of the Lake district, much of the western part of the Yorkshire dales, beautiful parts of the Eden valley—Kirkby Stephen, Appleby and so on—that are not in the national park, and Grange and the Cartmel peninsula, which likewise are beautiful places not in a national park. The hospitality and tourism sector is the fourth biggest employer in the United Kingdom, but in Cumbria it is comfortably the biggest, with 29% of the entire workforce of our county earning their living through hospitality and tourism—some 60,000 people, with 46,000 full-time equivalents, and a value to the economy of £4.7 billion a year. Every single year, 20 million people visit the lakes and dales of Cumbria. We think that, after London, that makes us Britain’s biggest visitor destination.
Before I talk specifically about hospitality and tourism, let me say a word about the backdrop to that industry. People come to the lakes and the dales not only because our hotels and our hospitality provision are awesome, but because the backdrop is quite awesome. The Lake district has world heritage site status. It is worth pointing out that when UNESCO granted that status, it gave as much credit to the farmers for creating that landscape over the last several hundred years as it did to the glaciers that gouged them out in the first place. Let me say a word to this Government and the Minister: we need to work tirelessly to protect family farmers, so that they maintain the backdrop to that stunning environment that underpins that important industry.
We have a wonderful relationship with Cumbria Tourism, the representative body that speaks for our industry across the whole of the county. It speaks with great concern about the impact of inheritance tax changes not only on farmers, but on other small businesses. One in four people in the workforce in my constituency work for themselves, and small family businesses are the backbone of our economy. National insurance rises have negatively impacted 73% of Cumbrian tourism businesses. We have already heard about the impact of the business rates changes. In reality, we have seen businesses going from paying 25% of the business rate to 60%—more than a doubling in real terms. It is a reminder that this Government need to get their act together on business rates—and quickly—and rightly shift the burden on to the big online retailers, which pay next to nothing despite taking advantage of Britain’s public services.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
Hospitality has also been hit by the apprenticeship levy. We used to have entry-level jobs in hospitality and tourism that gave our young people a chance to skill up, but those are now gone because of decisions on national insurance and the levy. Does the hon. Member agree that that needs to change?
Tim Farron
I totally agree that we need to be really careful about piling extra costs, including the apprenticeship levy, on to businesses. I understand why the Government felt that they needed to make the national insurance rise, to increase the tax take to plug the hole that they inherited, whatever size it may be. But if economic activity is reduced, that reduces the tax yield. It is basic economics. Not only have the Government harmed our businesses in the lakes and the dales, and I am sure in Northern Ireland as well, but they have harmed the Exchequer’s take and damaged the economy in the process. The increased costs on our businesses are undoubtedly a major issue, as is the impact of a workforce that is too small for the job it needs to do in the lakes and the dales. Some 34% of Cumbrian tourism businesses say that their inability to recruit staff is undermining their viability.
Jamie Stone
My hon. Friend has an honourable and proud record of talking about affordable housing in his part of the United Kingdom. Without housing for workers, hospitality businesses are in real trouble. That must be taken very seriously indeed, and not just in the rural parts of the highlands. It is extremely difficult in many parts of the UK, including perhaps in the west country. Without housing, people will not come or, like the barman I spoke about in Achiltibuie, they will leave and not come back.
Tim Farron
I completely agree. Given that time is running out, I will restrict my remaining remarks to the topic that my hon. Friend referred to. I have one last stat: 66% of hospitality tourism businesses in the Lake district are operating below capacity because they cannot find enough staff. The demand is there, but they are not meeting it. What a waste of potential growth.
The staff are not available for a number of reasons. The first is that it is just not a very populated part of the world: 80% of the working-age population who live in the Lake district are already working in hospitality and tourism, so there is no great reservoir of staff. A lot of that is down to the collapse of the long-term private rented sector into Airbnbs and the absolute scourge of excessive second home ownership that runs through our communities. The Government have failed to tackle that issue. They had the opportunity to bring in a change of use for short-term lets and for second homes; they failed to do either, and that is shameful. They should do that right now. They should provide more affordable housing backed with more housing grant in communities such as ours and provide socially rented homes for local people, helping them to work in all the parts of our local industries, including hospitality and tourism.
The other thing that the Government ought to do is to recognise that communities such as mine need migrant labour. They should get on with agreeing and delivering the youth mobility scheme visa, to help our young people to travel and to bring in the people who underpin our tourism economy. My final ask is simply this: the Minister should listen to the British tourism and hospitality industry. It has so much to contribute, yet it seems so rarely to be listened to.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) for his work in securing this important debate. It has been a real pleasure to hear from so many of my Liberal Democrat colleagues about their constituencies. That underlines the fact that Liberal Democrats represent all the best places in the UK, and that is why tourism and hospitality is a very important sector for us.
I was lucky enough last summer to do a little tour through the constituencies of Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire; Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross; and Orkney and Shetland, so I can very much confirm that all three constituencies have excellent hospitality businesses that are very welcoming to visitors. This Easter, I was lucky enough to spend a few days in West Dorset in the wonderful town of Lyme Regis, and I have spent many happy family holidays in Westmorland and Lonsdale.
There are also many hospitality businesses in my constituency of Richmond Park. Just last Friday, I hosted a representative of VisitBritain, who came to see me because Kew Gardens in my constituency is second only to the Tower of London in this year’s list of the most-visited paid attractions in the UK. We had a long conversation about the issues affecting the tourism sector, and I was very interested to find that the Government have recently cut funding for efforts to promote domestic tourism. Those who are not as lucky as I am in having many colleagues who represent constituencies in such wonderful parts of the UK do not know enough about domestic tourism. I would like the Minister to comment on that.
As my many wonderful colleagues have already alluded to, the current economic landscape is really challenging for many businesses and industries. Years of dire economic mismanagement by the last Conservative Government have led to businesses facing huge challenges, ranging from recruiting and retaining good staff to soaring energy costs and the increase of trading obstacles following their botched trade agreement with the EU. However, many of those challenges are now being compounded by decisions taken by this Government.
Last autumn’s Budget hit the hospitality sector with an extra £3.4 billion of annual costs through the cumulative impact of changes to employer NICs, increases in the national living wage, and the near halving of business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. A recent survey conducted by UKHospitality of its members found that, since the autumn Budget, a third of hospitality businesses are now operating at a loss, with 75% having increased prices, two thirds reducing hours available to staff and six in 10 cutting jobs. Those cuts are a last-ditch attempt by many businesses to stay afloat, as they are crying out for support.
The Liberal Democrats welcomed many aspects of last week’s industrial strategy, but very little in it will alleviate the heavy burdens imposed on the hospitality sector by Labour’s tax reforms. The Liberal Democrats have called for the hospitality industry to be exempt from the hikes in NICs announced in the Budget, as we recognise the difficult position that many business owners have been in since the pandemic.
Small businesses are the beating heart of our economy and at the centre of our communities, and they create the jobs that we all rely on. We are glad that raising the employment allowance will shield the very smallest employers, but thousands of local businesses, including many in the hospitality sector, will still feel the damaging impact of many of the changes. That is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have voted against the changes to employer NICs at every opportunity, and I once again urge the Government to scrap these measures.
More broadly, we will continue to call on the Government to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. In 2019, the previous Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of the business rates system, but failed to deliver it. Meanwhile, the current Government pledged in their manifesto to replace the system, but still no action has been taken. The Liberal Democrats have called for a complete overhaul of the unfair business rates system, replacing it with a commercial landowner levy, which would shift the burden of taxation from tenants to landowners.
The current system penalises manufacturers when they invest to become more productive and energy efficient. It leaves pubs and restaurants with disproportionately high tax bills and puts our high street businesses at an unfair disadvantage compared with online retail giants. In too many places, pubs, restaurants and shops are being forced to close, taking with them jobs, opportunities and treasured community spaces.
More broadly, this outdated system inhibits business investment, job creation and economic growth, holding back our national economy. It has existed for too long, and it is time that the Government took action. Our proposals for fair reform would cut tax bills, breathe new life into local economies and spur growth. Equally, they would provide long-term certainty for businesses, which is what the economy across the UK needs.
With regard to long-term planning, I am glad that the Government introduced the industrial strategy last week. I welcome this commitment to stability, and I am pleased that it will allow businesses to look and plan for the future with more certainty. As the Government unveil their strategies to bring together skills development plans and a long-term industrial strategy to ease the pressures that so many employers face, we have reservations about the cohesion between these schemes. What steps are the Government taking to ensure effective collaboration and transparency across different strategies and public bodies?
We welcome last week’s announcement in the industrial strategy that we will see a funding boost for skills and training. However, the announcement stops well short of the fundamental reform that we need to address the workforce shortages that many industries are facing. British businesses must be able to hire the people they need with the skills they need.
A key cause of workforce shortages is ill health, and to tackle the problem, the Government must invest in our NHS and social care so that people can get the healthcare they need to rejoin the workforce more quickly. We have called on the Government to fix NHS backlogs, cut ambulance waiting times and raise the minimum wage for care workers by £2 an hour to boost our social care system and get people out of hospital quicker.
Any business will tell us that the apprenticeship levy does not work. They cannot get the funding they need to train staff, and hundreds of millions of pounds go unspent. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for the apprenticeship levy to be replaced with a wider skills and training levy that will give businesses more flexibility over how they spend money to train their staff. Will the Minister accelerate the reform of apprenticeships and empower Skills England to act as a properly independent body, with employers at its heart?
Finally, as we look more broadly at factors impacting workforce shortages, I once again urge the Government to act with much more urgency in introducing their youth mobility scheme. The changes to the immigration system implemented in April 2024, increasing the minimum salary threshold for skilled worker visas, shrank the talent pool from which hospitality businesses can recruit, contributing to greater staff shortages. Around three quarters of the hospitality workforce is filled by UK citizens, but international talent has always been attracted to work in the UK due to our pedigree for hospitality and developing careers.
A 2024 survey of 1,650 employers from across a range of sectors, including hospitality, adult social care and manufacturing, found that 49% of employers with hard-to-fill vacancies said that a reduction in the availability of migrant workers was one of the main causes. At a time when recent Government decisions in the Budget have added to the overall tax burden on hospitality businesses, with many considering whether their business remains viable, we must provide the tools that hospitality needs to help businesses grow so that it can boost the wider economy, including ensuring access to global talent.
I have heard from stakeholders in the hospitality sector, including business owners and supply chain managers, who have said that they would welcome proposals that would bring more stability to the sector, allowing them to make longer-term plans as part of a more predictable and robust regulatory framework. Again, will the Minister set out a timeline for the introduction of a youth mobility experience, which would be good for our economy, easing some of the burdens that the hospitality sector is facing?
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. As we have heard, the hospitality sector forms a cornerstone of not only our economy, but our society and community. In my beautiful Arundel and South Downs constituency—I beg to differ with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney)—it binds together communities, as we come together in cafés, pubs, restaurants, hotels and even garden centres.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), hospitality plays a disproportionate role in providing the next generation with their first step on the career ladder, offering rewarding employment and what has always been a fair and balanced offering of flexible work. It gives many people their second chance in life, as well as many people a chance to supplement their retirement.
The industry employees 3.5 million people, with the vast majority of those jobs in small and medium-sized businesses that any Government should be on the side of, and we heard wonderful examples of that from my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool). My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) discussed its impact on employment and the flexible nature of the working, and he gave his insights about the higher job satisfaction, which we also heard from others.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to the debate, and how it will no doubt obfuscate around the frankly hostile environment that this Government have created for the hospitality industry. Colleagues should listen attentively, because what it does not mention will be as revealing as that which it does. Last summer—in fact, this time last year—prospective Labour MPs toured their constituencies and the airwaves, and they promised anyone who would listen that they would not raise taxes. Just a few short months later, the Chancellor slapped a jobs tax on every single employer across the land.
Pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels now face the £3.4 billion extra cost. It was a political choice, imposed by this Government, that has almost uniquely ravaged the hospitality industry—it was a perfect storm for the industry —particularly, as we heard from many Members, through the change in the threshold from £9,100 to £5,000 a year. Apparently, that change was made capriciously by the Treasury at the last moment, when its Chancellor once again failed to get her sums to add up.
One of the UK’s leading hospitality entrepreneurs, Luke Johnson, put it best:
“It is heartbreaking that Britain’s proud record of innovation, flexibility and business success is being thrown away thanks to that old knee-jerk Labour instinct of taxing success.”
The reality is that one third of hospitality businesses are now operating at a loss because of the Chancellor’s tax on jobs. Unemployment is already rising; in fact, it is up in every one of the nine months for which Labour has been in office. Six out of 10 hospitality businesses report that they have had to take the decision that no business owner ever wants to take. We should remember that many of these are family businesses that provide employment to the local people they live and work alongside. However, 63% say they have no alternative but to reduce the hours available for staff. Kate Nicholls, the chief executive officer of UKHospitality, said that these measures
“will simply force businesses to cut jobs, freeze recruitment, cancel planned investment, reduce trading hours and, in the worst-case scenario”—
as we heard about with pubs today—
“close their doors for good.”
It is difficult to overstate the catastrophic impact that this Government are having on the hospitality industry.
Once again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire for securing this important debate, to which there have been contributions from across the House. But as some Members have said, there is another iceberg on the way that this Government and this Chancellor are steering us straight towards: the trade-union written, 1970s-inspired Employment Rights Bill. No Labour Minister has ever been able to name a real business that supports it—imagine that—and I invite this Minister perhaps to do so when he winds up. The reality is that very few employers in the hospitality sector will actually be aware of the perils facing them. They will be so focused on running their business, rather than wading through 300 pages of tightly typed Whitehall speak. It is available in the Table Office right now, should anyone feel difficulty sleeping on these hot summer nights.
The Bill, just like the Chancellor’s tax measures, disproportionately impacts on the hospitality industry. It will remove the valued freedom that employers and employees have to adjust their hours flexibly. What sort of business do we think that will hit? It will hit seasonal businesses, and most hospitality businesses have a strong element of seasonality. This will force young people, the vulnerable and sometimes those with a chequered employment record out of employment.
Once again, it is even worse for pubs, because the Bill reserves a special measure for the fact that landlords, hotel owners and restaurant managers will be forced to act as banter bouncers, asking punters whose private conversations may conceivably cause any unknown offence to their staff to leave their premises. By the way, that is nothing to do with sexual harassment, which is dealt with in a separate clause, and is rightly already illegal. The outcome will be a £5 billion bill for business under the Government’s impact assessment and countless—literally tens of thousands—of job losses.
Let me be clear: even Tony Blair or Gordon Brown, a socialist in office, saw it as wise to give this sort of economic self-harm a wide berth. On top of that, if someone’s business is still surviving, and they have the temerity for it to be a private, family-owned business, they will face the family business death tax.
I do not want to pre-empt the Minister, who is a decent man. I suspect we will hear a little go a very long way. He will talk about the 40% business rate relief coming to the aid of hospitality, despite the reality that the Government have in practice more than doubled business rates bills for businesses in the sector, compared with the 75% relief on offer under the previous Government.
We may also hear about the 1p cut on beer duty—that old trope that Governments of all flavours, if we are being honest, like to trot out. But the reality—the hard truth—is that the average pub would have to sell an additional 850,000 pints a year for that 1p cut to offset the additional costs imposed on them by the Chancellor’s job tax. I do not necessarily believe that most of us are equal to that particular challenge.
We may hear of the Government’s unequivocal support for hospitality, but words are cheap. It is difficult to reconcile that premise with the Government’s actions this time last week, when they left this sector, which employs millions of people and keeps our communities and high streets alive, entirely missing in action from their industrial strategy.
The truth is that the Government have done nothing to support our hospitality businesses, which have been entirely let down and treated as cash cows by the Chancellor at No. 11. I think the Minister knows that, but he is a loyal man who is keen to keep his job at a time of rising unemployment, and it is probably being offered to many of his colleagues who are thinking of rebelling this afternoon. The truth is that the Government have removed incentives, laid out insurmountable burdens, and over-taxed our hospitality sector at every opportunity. It is a great regret, but I am glad that we have the chance, on behalf of the sector, to debate that this afternoon.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler, for I think the first time, and I hope it is the first of many. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) on securing this important debate. I recognise that he has long been an enthusiast for hospitality businesses in his constituency, and I welcome the opportunity to consider the important contribution that all hospitality businesses make to our communities up and down the country. Indeed, I think of some of the great hospitality businesses in Harrow, in my constituency, such as the great Trinity pub or the wonderful Battels café.
As well as the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, we heard from the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), and the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Llinos Medi), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).
We also heard particularly important and strong contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd). They referenced the significance of the visitor economy for hospitality businesses, and I am sure that they will welcome the fact that, this autumn, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will publish a new visitor economy strategy. That has been co-designed with the new Visitor Economy Advisory Council, which includes UKHospitality. They referenced the dynamic and creative hospitality sector in Cornwall, and I was grateful to have the chance to personally sample some of those opportunities recently. My hon. Friends also referenced the case for fair funding for Cornwall, and the significance of a partnership between Cornwall and Homes England. I will make sure that their points are heard by colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The hospitality sector contributes over £50 billion to the UK economy, spread across all corners of the UK, and employs millions of people. The sector makes not just a significant economic contribution, but an important social one because, as one or two hon. Members referenced, hospitality is also an opportunity for people. Working in pubs, restaurants and bars is often a key entry point, particularly for young people who need to gain essential skills and experience to progress in life. It is also often an entry point for those being given a second chance in life. For example, the excellent Greene King is working with 65 prisons across the UK to provide inmates with hospitality training. The company aims to hire 400 prison leavers by the end of this year. The Pret Foundation does fantastic work with homeless people, and has an ambition to get 500 people who face homelessness into jobs in their stores by 2028. The hospitality sector’s unique ability to employ and train people from all walks of life makes its economic contribution so much more than just that.
Hospitality is also crucial to our communities and personal lives. Hospitality businesses such as pubs support community cohesion. They provide welcoming spaces for those who feel isolated and alone to enjoy the company of others. In short, hospitality is the backbone of our high streets, towns and villages; it is the lifeblood of all our communities.
I fully understand the significant challenges that the sector faces, many of which are a hangover from the pandemic lockdown restrictions and the cost of living crisis. Depleted cash reserves and increased debt levels have hampered the ability of many hospitality businesses to invest and grow. These challenges are sometimes not helped by a regulatory landscape that does not always function as effectively as it could, holding back growth from many hospitality operators, which simply want to grow and invest in their local communities.
Let us not forget that this Government inherited a very challenging fiscal situation, which meant the Chancellor had to take difficult decisions in relation to tax and spending. Schools, police and local hospitals in all our constituencies are set to be better funded because of the difficult decisions she had to take in the Budget last year. The investment in infrastructure, or in social and affordable housing, that all our constituents need would not be happening without the decisions the Chancellor made last October. I know that many hospitality businesses have been impacted by those tough choices, but they are important for delivering the long-term stability and growth that our country needs and that our hospitality businesses, as well as the rest of the economy, will benefit from in the long run.
We will deliver on our manifesto commitment to create a fairer business rate system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. The Chancellor has committed to reforming business rates from 2026-27, with a permanently lower multiplier for retail, leisure and hospitality businesses. For many years the hospitality sector has asked for that, and we will deliver it.
I recognise the contributions from a number of hon. Members about the situation in Scotland, where—despite having had their biggest ever increase in funding as a result of the decisions the Chancellor took last October—the Scottish Government have not chosen to extend hospitality relief in the fullest way to all hospitality businesses.
Jamie Stone
I am a fair-minded person, and I would not dream of laying responsibility for the lack of affordable housing at the Minister’s feet. But does he agree that a message should be sent to the Scottish Government to get going on this one? I have just seen some terrifying statistics for north-west Sutherland about young people leaving. The old monster of highland depopulation is staring us in the face in that part of the highlands.
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Gentleman is right to make his point. One would hope that the Scottish Government would be as committed to taking action as the Government here in the UK. I hope he and other Scottish colleagues will see a change of heart and approach from the Scottish Government.
I understand the sector’s concerns about employers’ national insurance contributions. We are protecting the smallest businesses by increasing the employment allowance to £10,500. That means 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance contributions at all, and more than half of employers will see no change or gain from the package. The majority of hospitality businesses are micro-sized, so many will benefit from the increase.
We are also committed to reducing the regulatory burdens facing the hospitality sector. We recently launched a licensing taskforce to come up with recommendations for cutting red tape and removing barriers to business growth. We have received a report from the licensing taskforce containing many extremely interesting and thoughtful proposals, and we will make an announcement on our response to the taskforce work shortly.
We have also introduced a hospitality support scheme to co-fund projects, aligned with the priorities of the Department for Business and Trade and the Hospitality Sector Council. That includes support initiatives such as Pub is the Hub, to encourage local investment in rural communities—the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire made a point about that. In addition, we are extending the growth guarantee scheme, where Government will help smaller businesses to access loans and other kinds of finance up to £2 million, by covering 70% of the potential losses for lenders.
Later this summer, we will publish our strategy to support SMEs over the long term. The paper will focus on boosting scale-ups across key policy areas, such as creating thriving high streets, making it easier to access finance, opening up overseas and domestic markets, building business capabilities and providing a strong business environment.
The SME strategy will complement the industrial strategy in helping to create the conditions for further economic growth. The industrial strategy will support the whole economy by creating an improved operating environment to create long-term stability and generate greater dynamism for new start-ups to emerge. Supporting industrial strategy sectors will have spillover benefits for the rest of the economy—from innovation pull-through to technology diffusion. As an example, growth in the creative industries will create spillover opportunities for hospitality businesses.
As we look ahead, we will continue to work closely with the hospitality industry to co-create solutions to ensure that we generate growth together. In particular, we will work with the sector to iron out the issues that are of most concern. For example, we understand the current challenges relating to dual-use packaging under the extended producer responsibility scheme. We are therefore working with hospitality businesses to develop exemptions for waste disposed of commercially through the use of agreed evidence to show that that would be highly unlikely to end up in household waste streams.
Also, as we set out our ambitious plan to raise the minimum floor of employment rights, we will strike the right balance between fairness for workers and business investment and growth. Improving employment conditions benefits economic growth. It helps to put more money in employees’ pockets, which will help all businesses, including hospitality businesses, in the long term. We will do this by working in partnership with business, including the hospitality industry, to deliver our plan to make work pay, and we will consult on key proposals such as zero-hours contract reform in the autumn.
We will of course continue to work closely with the Hospitality Sector Council to co-create solutions and achieve growth in collaboration with the industry. That includes identifying regulatory barriers to investment and growth, and addressing skills shortages. We have established Skills England. We are reforming the existing apprenticeship offer into a growth and skills levy that allows more flexibility for both employers and learners wanting to pursue the apprenticeship route. The Department for Education has said that it will explore one of the key asks of the hospitality sector—the idea of foundation apprenticeships for hospitality. We are determined to help the hospitality sector to continue to unlock innovations and improve sustainability, and in that way bring down its costs. We will also look at how the Hospitality Sector Council can help us to deliver on our priorities for wider investment and growth, and support work to reinvigorate our high streets.
We all know that hospitality businesses are fundamental. They are crucial to our economy, crucial to our communities and fundamental to our high streets. And they matter to all of us individually, to our friends and to our families. The Government recognise the role of hospitality in creating places that people want to live, to work and to invest in, and we will continue to work in partnership with the industry to deliver growth and to break down barriers to opportunity.
Mike Wood
I thank the Minister for his response, even if there was little in it that will bring much comfort to the hospitality businesses that are struggling as a result of the Chancellor’s choices. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members from across the Chamber who have made such effective contributions, underlining the importance of hospitality in all our constituencies.
This is more than an economic issue. Hospitality offers the first rung on the ladder for millions of young people, and second chances to those rebuilding their lives. It brings people together across classes, backgrounds and regions. It is the ultimate vehicle for social mobility. It gives people a chance to run their own million-pound turnover business, even if they do not have the start-up capital or the right connections. For example, the Streets Ahead programme run by McCain, one of the largest employers in my constituency, supports dozens of hospitality start-ups and trains hundreds from disadvantaged backgrounds in the hospitality sector, and the charity Only A Pavement Away helps people who are facing homelessness by offering opportunities in hospitality. That is what real social mobility looks like—not a press release, but a purpose.
Hospitality can do so much in return for so little, but it can do so only if it is given the right framework and a tax system that does not hit labour-intensive businesses disproportionately hard. Hospitality can drive the growth that we all want to see. It can create high-quality jobs and offer good opportunities in every one of our constituencies, but it needs and deserves our support. I thank hon. Members for supporting this debate, and for their continuing work to push the Government to increase their support and understanding towards this important sector.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for the hospitality sector.
Waterloo-Reading Line: Class 701 Trains
(4 days, 4 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
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
I will call Clive Jones to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members—one Member—that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the introduction of Class 701 trains on the Waterloo-Reading line.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I am honoured to have secured this debate on a matter close to the hearts and frayed nerves of many in my Wokingham constituency.
Imagine, Ms Butler, that you are one of my constituents commuting to London or Reading. You spot your train on the horizon—the all-too-familiar blue face and red shell of the class 455 train, built in 1983 and rattling along for 42 years. That sight will produce an inevitable sigh of despair from all at the train station: it will not be a comfortable journey. Hon. Members might wonder what is so bad about that rolling relic. For starters, on a day like today, when we have 34 degrees of heat, if they step inside the train, they will be treated to a delightful 45°C sauna, courtesy of no air conditioning and poor ventilation.
Despite the journey from Wokingham to Waterloo taking an hour and 12 minutes, there are no toilet facilities on board. Speed restrictions apply exclusively to the 455 on the Waterloo to Reading route, which means slower journeys and greater delays. That is why the class 455 is being replaced by the new, sleek class 701, also known as the Arterio. The Arterio train will mean air conditioning, real-time passenger information, more seating and actual toilets. However, the journey to introduce the new trains has encountered unacceptable delays, setbacks and uncertainty that go unresolved to this very day, despite the fact that they were promised nearly eight years ago.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Many feel that the railway services in Yeovil are not good enough. Does my hon. Friend agree that in rural areas we need to replace the old trains that we rely on, some of which are more than 40 years old—a lot older than I am—and improve access and staffing at railway stations so that constituents with disabilities can use trains in a safe manner?
Clive Jones
I completely agree with my hon. Friend; we do need to improve rolling stock. Part of our problem on the South Western Railway line, Wokingham to Waterloo, is that it is old rolling stock, which is what this debate is about. He also mentioned better access for disabled people, and I 100% agree that that is absolutely needed.
Although I am aware of a few Arterio trains running on the South Western Railway network, that is still not the case on the Waterloo to Reading line, which my constituents use every day. Numerous promises have been made by South Western Railway and the Department for Transport, but almost all of them have been broken. In 2019, the Department for Transport claimed that in the coming months new trains would be introduced on the South Western Railway network, but what has happened? Nothing. In 2020, the Arterio was destined to be first rolled out on the Waterloo to Reading line. In 2022, the South Western Railway business plan stated that SWR would
“introduce the new Arterio fleet as soon as possible”.
Two years ago, the Department for Transport stated that the trains would be in service as soon as possible in 2023. Last year, SWR stated that the roll-out of the full fleet would take up to 18 months from January 2024, and I was informed that the trains would be ready for me to travel in to Parliament by June 2025. Now, in 2025, SWR still does not have a final timeline for when my constituents will get to benefit from the new trains. Every year promises have been made, and every year promises have been broken.
With SWR nationalised, the Department for Transport must scrutinise the project relentlessly until it is properly delivered. I ask the Minister: when will the Arterio trains be in service on the Waterloo to Reading line? I would also be grateful if he would set out in detail what steps are being taken to ensure that the Department for Transport does not allow the delays to be extended any further.
I remind Members that the previous Conservative Government were completely complacent on this matter. No contractual penalties were imposed on the owning company of SWR, despite its failure to deliver with taxpayers’ cash. Did the Department for Transport consider imposing penalties when Labour was elected in July 2024? If not, why not?
On 9 June 2025, in response to a written parliamentary question tabled on 30 May 2025, the Minister stated:
“The new Managing Director of SWR is now developing a detailed plan”
for introducing the Arterio fleet. Did such a plan not exist under the previous, privatised version of SWR? When can we expect the plan to be completed, and will it be available for scrutiny by Members of this House? Finally, will the Minister extend an invitation from me to meet the Minister of State for Rail to discuss these issues in more detail?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is of course a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) on raising this issue.
The Department is keen to provide the significant improvements to the passenger experience and capacity that travellers on the South Western Railway network deserve, and we are working with SWR to ensure the continued roll-out of the 701 Arterio trains as soon as possible. The Government are determined to turn this situation around, but we inherited, frankly, an abject mess from the previous train operating company, which, over six years, failed to get the new fleet of trains into service.
SWR entered into the class 701 rolling stock lease contracts with Alstom in 2017, and the new class 701 fleet was due to be delivered between 2019 and 2021. The delays were initially caused by manufacturing and software issues, and later by the operator seeking to agree a safe plan for driver training and platform infrastructure readiness. Prior to transfer to public ownership, the Secretary of State invited FirstGroup and MTR, the then owning groups of SWR, to an urgent meeting to discuss the issues affecting the 701’s introduction, their plans to resolve the issues, the robustness of the roll-out plan and the factors that led to such a material delay in the introduction of the fleet. At the time, officials requested an urgent plan for SWR to resolve the issues, and held SWR to account for those plans to introduce further units as soon as possible.
SWR successfully transferred into public ownership on 25 May under the leadership of the new managing director, Lawrence Bowman. This was a watershed moment in our work to return the railways to the service of passengers. Mr Bowman has written to the hon. Member for Wokingham offering a meeting, and would welcome the opportunity to expand on his emerging plans and to hear the hon. Member’s concerns.
Adam Dance
Will the Minister and the Government agree that it is vital to try to get more electric trains across the south-west? After meeting with the railways, I know they are concerned that they will find it hard to replace the diesel stock with electric stock down in Somerset. Can we urge them to push and look at getting more investment into electric trains?
Simon Lightwood
I am sure that the Rail Minister will have heard that comment.
The new managing director of the publicly owned SWR has been tasked with producing a plan to introduce the 701 fleet as quickly as possible. The delays to its introduction have happened under what I would say is a flawed franchising system, not under public ownership. While there have been significant delays as a result of manufacturing and software issues, those long-standing issues are not related to public ownership.
Out of a total of 90 units, 11 are now running daily in passenger service, and the 12th service will be introduced in the week commencing 7 July. A total of 181 drivers have also been trained. Positively, since day one of public ownership, four further 701s have been brought into passenger service. That compares to only one additional unit being introduced in the six months prior to the transfer. Passengers on the Waterloo to Reading line should hope to see class 701s gradually entering service shortly.
The 701 fleet will significantly improve performance by reducing cancellations and short formations. Other benefits of the new fleet include a 50% increased capacity compared with the 455 fleet; accessible toilets—the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) quite rightly referenced accessibility—air conditioning, something that we can all appreciate today; charging points at every seat; real-time information screens; onboard wi-fi and walk-through carriages. Customer feedback on the 701s has been positive, with people welcoming improved on-train information screens—a 21% improved score—and a 22% improved score on cleanliness compared with the current 455 fleet in use.
The Government are pushing ahead with an ambitious programme of transfers into public ownership. Three operators’ services will have transferred by the end of 2025, at which point seven of the 14 operators for which the DFT is responsible will be publicly owned, and we expect all currently franchised services to have transferred by the end of 2027.
This Government’s bold vision for railways will see a unified and simplified rail system that relentlessly focuses on improved services for passengers and freight customers, and better value for money for taxpayers, ending years of fragmentation and waste. The Government will put passengers back at the heart of our railways and introduce new measures to protect their interests. That includes paving the way for a powerful new passenger watchdog, which will give passengers an independent voice and hold train operators to account.
The railways Bill will enable the biggest overhaul of the rail sector in a generation. It will streamline the current fragmented system by establishing Great British Railways—GBR—as a new directing mind for the industry, unifying track and train under a single public body to deliver better services for passengers and customers and, crucially, better value for money for taxpayers.
The Bill will also ensure that the benefits of a streamlined, integrated network are felt right across communities at a local level by establishing a new statutory role in governing, managing, planning and developing the rail network for devolved Governments and mayors. That means that local communities will be at the heart of decision making, ensuring that the railways work to meet their needs, connecting them to jobs and opportunities across the country.
I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham once again for securing this debate, and the hon. Member for Yeovil for attending in support.
Question put and agreed to.
Refugee Citizenship Rights
(4 days, 4 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
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
I beg to move.
That this House has considered refugee citizenship rights.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. Refugees should not be reduced to statistics. After all, refugees are human beings, and every human being deserves to be treated with dignity, respect and compassion, and with empathy for their vulnerability and their need for safety. How we treat each other is a basic measurement of us as people and of the kind of society that we live in. Every day we see prejudice, oppression and war. It would be easy to consider those issues as mere news items, but they demand a co-ordinated international response of co-operation based on humanity, social inclusion and integration.
On 10 February, the Home Office introduced significant amendments to the good character requirement guidance for British citizenship, which will have profound and lasting impacts on thousands of people who are already here in the UK and have been granted protection status following a well-founded fear of persecution or violence. They will likely be denied citizenship just because of the way in which they came to the UK, and that will include people who travelled by small boat or in other ways. We should bear in mind that those are people who have made their new home and life here, and they have been working and contributing to our economy and culture. The change was made in the back of a document, without any significant parliamentary scrutiny, and today’s debate, over five months later, will be the first time that it has been substantively discussed in this place. Given that we are elected officials and legislators, that is simply not good enough.
Under the policy, anyone who arrived in the UK via a dangerous journey or entered irregularly will normally be refused British citizenship. It will not matter how long they have lived here or how they have integrated into our society. Although there may be exceptional situations in which applications are approved, the Government have not provided clarity on how that discretion will be applied. It is understood that most applications will be rejected. Will the Minister provide clarity on how discretion will be applied?
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making good and valid points. He is not entirely right, as I tabled a series of amendments on this very issue in Committee on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which were supported by the Liberals, of course. I am grateful that he has been able to bring the issue to Westminster Hall today, but the situation is worse than he says. With a lack of safe and legal routes to access the UK, migrants have no other option but to arrive irregularly, such as in the small boats that the hon. Gentleman describes. What is happening as a result of these measures is a disenfranchisement of practically everybody who comes to the UK. Surely he agrees that cannot ever be right.
Brian Leishman
The hon. Gentleman is a champion on this topic, and his parliamentary record stands up there with the very best—although I did not vote for him to be my MP. I thank him very much for his contribution, and I agree with him.
It looks as though refugees will have to argue for an exemption to the blanket denial of citizenship. It would make for much fairer and effective policy if all cases were treated on a case-by-case basis, rather than a blanket ban being introduced, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could also address that point in her response.
I want to talk about people’s personal experiences of the policy, and I acknowledge the Scottish Refugee Council and Together with Refugees for supplying case studies for the debate. Sabir Zazai, the chief executive officer of the Scottish Refugee Council, would not be eligible for citizenship if he were applying now. Sabir has three honorary doctorates and an OBE; it is difficult to imagine a more compelling example of integration. But because he arrived here in the back of a lorry from Afghanistan, this Government would exclude him from ever being a British citizen.
The policy does not discriminate between refugees, victims of trafficking and children. It does not consider the unique vulnerabilities and complex backgrounds of people seeking protection, many of whom have fled circumstances that we could only imagine. For example, Gulan, a refugee from Iraq, shared how she escaped torture with her young children, risking death to survive. Despite years of integration and contributing to her local community, she feels like this policy makes her a second-class member of society.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and making such a great speech. He is absolutely right that treating people differently based on how they arrived in this country affects community cohesion, which has a detrimental effect on our society. What we need are safe routes that allow people to come here legally rather than risk coming via irregular routes, which is why the policy was introduced in the first place.
Brian Leishman
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. Absolutely: more safe routes are a necessity, in the name of human decency.
British citizenship is a key building block of integration, but there are also significant pragmatic considerations. Without it, people do not have the right to vote, to stand for election to this place or to work in many government jobs, nor do they have the freedom to live in, or travel in and out of the UK without restriction. If they do manage to travel, they require access to consular services; but worst of all, they remain at risk of detention or, worse, deportation.
One example is Mohammad, a refugee from Sudan. He said that he feels like a perpetual outsider, being vulnerable to deportation despite years building his life here. We saw an extremely laissez-faire attitude to international law and obligations from the previous Government. It was damaging to the UK’s international standing and to our relationships with countries all over the world. Continuing in the same manner would be the wrong approach for the Government to take.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Forgive me for interrupting the hon. Member’s excellent speech, but he will note the complete absence of Members from the official Opposition party, apart from the shadow Minister, and of Members from the Reform party. My inbox is flooded with queries about various aspects of immigration. Does the hon. Member agree that the aspect of policy to which he is referring—which affects, for example, family members disunited from the rest of their family, asylum seekers, refugees and students—demonstrates that his own party is now following a cold-house policy? Does he accept that specific and special circumstances apply in Scotland, as distinct from the rest of these islands?
Brian Leishman
I thank the hon. Member for his contribution; I can appreciate the political nature of what he has said. Yes, Scotland is a nation, and it has its own unique needs. This is something that both Governments need to collaborate on, to try to thrash out something for the benefit of Scotland.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has expressed serious concerns about the UK’s updated guidance on the good character requirement for citizenship. It has been clear that the policy risks breaching article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention, which prohibits penalising refugees for irregular entry when fleeing persecution. The lack of clarity from the Government and the presumption of refusal may deter eligible refugees and stateless individuals from even applying for citizenship, especially given the exorbitant cost of applying—British citizenship applications are non-refundable and cost £1,630.
The refugee convention also explicitly requires states to facilitate, as far as possible, the naturalisation of refugees and stateless persons. That is a particularly interesting article, because not only is the UK a signatory to the treaty, but the British Government of the day are widely credited with incorporating the article into the convention. Not only are we abandoning our international obligations; we are abandoning the very international obligations for which the UK historically advocated.
This policy change undermines the very values of cohesion, unity and fairness that the UK aspires to uphold. It denies people who have sought protection from us the dignity and security of citizenship. I want to see a system that welcomes refugees not as second-class residents but as full members of our society, with the rights and recognition they deserve as human beings. Before my final questions to the Minister, here are the thoughts and feelings of a young man with refugee status in Glasgow:
“I have lived in Glasgow since 2017, after gaining refugee status the same year. I work and study civil and environmental engineering full time at Strathclyde University. I’ve had indefinite leave to remain since 2022 and was about to apply for citizenship, having already passed the UK life test and English language assessment. These are my thoughts:
Denying people the right to gain British citizenship after waiting for the legally required amount of time and upon gaining indefinite leave to remain is modern-day segregation. It splits people into different classes by keeping some stuck as second-class citizens. Not having the right to be a UK citizen stops me from being equal with my local community. People who have already the UK had no idea that they one day would not be allowed to become a citizen because they were claiming asylum—it feels like you have been targeted.
Throughout my journey, other countries rejected me—Italy gave 48 hours to leave the country, France gave 72 hours to leave the country. Coming to the UK is not necessarily something you can control yourself; it was my only option. However, fulfilling the good character requirements, which are things you can control yourself after entering the UK, should remain important.
This policy completely erases the point of people showing they have good character, and instead rejects us based only on something that I could not control. This new guidance does not encourage contribution to the community, if you are not one day going to be a proper part of the community by being a full and equal citizen.”
I put it to the Government that they should reconsider their stance, in the light of Lords amendment 186 to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. First, it would ensure that the good character requirement is not applied in a manner contrary to the UK’s international legal obligations. Secondly, it would uphold the best interests of children by prohibiting the consideration of a child’s irregular entry or arrival. Thirdly, it would remove retrospectivity, to further uphold the rule of law.
An adult’s irregular entry or arrival may be taken into account only to the extent specified in guidance that was published when they entered or arrived in the UK. Previously, the guidance permitted a person to acquire citizenship so long as 10 years had passed since their irregular entry. At present, the guidance applies to someone whether they arrive two months or two decades ago. It cannot serve as a deterrent to people who are already here. It serves only as a penalty and a scarlet letter.
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to speak.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your guidance again this afternoon, Ms Butler, and a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who made a stunning and impressive speech on a matter he clearly cares about, as do I. I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, for the support I get from the Refugee, Asylum, Migration and Policy Project for a part-time member of staff in my office. I take that support because I care passionately about this issue.
To give the Government some credit, in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, they are repealing the legislative ban imposed by the previous Government on people applying for and gaining citizenship if they arrived irregularly. I commend the use of the word “irregular” rather than “illegal”. No one is an illegal asylum seeker; they have a right to do it.
Although I commend the Government for that, that is as far as I can get. The guidance mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, which was issued in February, creates a situation where we change the good character requirement, so that someone who arrives here irregularly
“will typically be refused citizenship regardless of the time elapsed since entry.”
That is wrong; the guidance contains no clear exception for refugees, stateless persons, victims of trafficking or children. It applies retrospectively, to people who arrived in the United Kingdom before the change was introduced. The Government say that people can apply for citizenship; indeed, they are encouraged to test to see whether the policy applies to them. However, for a family of four there is a non-refundable charge of £5,898 for that test—a rather expensive, cruel and prohibitive one.
I can think of one man I met in Barrow not long ago who was being processed—he had been an interpreter for UK and US forces in Afghanistan. We had left him behind. He found his way, by hook or by crook and through appalling personal experiences, to this country by an irregular route. He would not be allowed now: he would not get through. He could test whether the rules or guidance applied to him, but it is extremely unlikely that it would. He would be left outside.
I can think of so many other people, as other hon. Members could as well, whose lives will be affected by this deeply and unjustly. It is not a deterrent, either. The possibility of being denied citizenship and maintained on indefinite leave to remain is hardly a calculation that a 17-year-old young man in Eritrea makes when deciding to flee in the middle of the night, knowing that within the next 48 hours he will otherwise be conscripted to murder his own people. That is not the kind of calculation anyone would make—it is a far-off, future consideration. It will not be any kind of deterrent, but instead will simply be a penalty based on the means by which someone got here.
There would be a case for this—maybe, just maybe—if the Government allowed safe routes for these people, but in real terms there are no safe routes for people from Iran, Eritrea or Sudan. People will do dangerous things in order to escape despicable, awful experiences. I would say that competence is the best deterrent. I commend this Government for doing better than their predecessor when it comes to removing people who have not been successful through the asylum process, but the people we are talking about here have been successful. This Government have decided that they are refugees, so why are we denying them the ability to settle here as full citizens?
This is all part of, and a consequence of, an awful, toxic debate. It feels like this Government are not the generators of that toxicity, but are scared of it, and cannot stand up to those who would demonise people who have fled from persecution, in fear of their lives. We know that 85% of refugees stay in the place next door to the one from which they fled. We know that, if we were to be put back into the European Union—if we were, we would be able to control our borders a whole lot better—we would be the 17th out of 28 in the league table of countries taking refugees.
It is a dishonest debate we are having nationally, and in this place we should be honest. We should not be scared of being vaguely humane and decent. This guidance works against integration and creates a divided society. Encouraging citizenship is a good thing, because it creates stability, a sense of belonging and inclusion. It offers hope to those who come to us for sanctuary. It is a decent thing for us to do—we should do it. This guidance should be scrapped.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for securing this important debate.
I speak today as a member of the Citizenship Network, which was launched by Citizens UK last year. It is a cross-party group that brings together parliamentarians, policy experts and those with lived experience of the citizenship and settlement process, with the shared goal of exploring how we can improve our pathway to citizenship to ensure fairness and efficiency.
Last week, I co-hosted an event in Parliament alongside the Citizenship Network, where we were joined by my constituents from Wolverhampton West and community leaders from across the country. It was so inspiring to see those passionate individuals come to this place and speak about how they have benefited from our immigration system.
I was not born in this country; I was born in east Africa and came to Wolverhampton at the age of four. I believe that, by being a citizen of this country, I have been able to contribute to it in the way that I hope others will be able to as well. We heard stories from people who, although entitled to be in this country, are now facing barriers in their journeys to citizenship. The stories they told brought home the human cost of our current system and the urgent need for reform.
The reality is that, instead of helping people to thrive, our current system too often creates unnecessary barriers to opportunity and to a sense of belonging and a dignity, which is so needed by those who are entitled to be in this country. Many people in my constituency of Wolverhampton West have called the UK their home for years. They have worked here, raised their families here, and have contributed to our economy and society. Despite that and their deep ties to this country, they continue to face challenges in securing British citizenship, often spending huge amounts of money and time and then waiting for years just to be able to get citizenship.
Let me be clear: border security is important. Every country has the right, and indeed the responsibility, to protect its borders and ensure the integrity of its immigration system. However, this must not come at the expense of fairness, compassion or humanity. A truly effective system is one that balances security with justice, ensuring that we treat people not just as cases or numbers, but as human beings who bring their own stories about their families and futures. We must move away from a system that is overly complex, prohibitively expensive and riddled with delays and inconsistencies. The current system is not only failing individuals but is failing our country.
I accept that settlement is a privilege and not a right, but we must have an immigration system that offers real protection to those who are fleeing persecution. We must have a clear, achievable and affordable pathway to settlement and citizenship for those who have chosen to make the UK their home, so that they can enrich not only their lives but the lives of others and properly contribute to our country as citizens.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler, for what I think is the second time today. It is, and always will be, a pleasure.
I thank the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). In the short time that he has been here, he has made a reputation for himself as a fighter and a person who speaks up for his constituents. I sit straight across the Chamber from him and I am always impressed by him. We do not agree on everything but today, on this subject matter, he and I agree. This is one thing we can definitely agree on, and well done to him.
I am grateful to address this House on an issue that tests not only our policies but our principles, and that is how we treat those who come seeking refuge and hope. Today I speak on refugee and citizen rights in the United Kingdom, a subject of both legal importance and moral imperative. This March, the Government imposed a blanket ban on citizenship for individuals who entered the UK irregularly, even if they have been granted asylum and have lived here for years. The Refugee Council estimates that some 71,000 refugees who have already been granted asylum may now be blocked from ever obtaining British citizenship. I ask the Minister, who as she knows I respect immensely, to answer the question of those 71,000 who have lived here for a number of years: will they have the opportunity of getting British citizenship?
This week, Parliament will be considering crucial legislation, including the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill and the ongoing Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill. This moment offers a real opportunity to safeguard the future of those who have made the UK their home. I love the diversity that I have in Newtownards. It is not as big as in London, but there are people from Nigeria, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ukraine and all over eastern Europe. They bring history, culture, friendship and social engagement and they enrich us as a society. I believe we should try to maintain that.
The UK has a long history of standing shoulder to shoulder with those fleeing conflict, persecution and violence. We have honoured our international obligations under the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights. Yet recent policy changes may have the unintended consequence—I believe it would be unintended; I do not believe it is a policy of Government—of leaving some recognised refugees without a clear pathway to fully participate in society. I want to see them having that right. It is vital that we ensure that those who have been granted asylum are not left in long-term uncertainty.
A clear and fair pathway to citizenship is an important part of helping individuals to put down roots, contribute fully and feel a genuine sense of belonging in the communities that they now call home. Citizenship is more than just paperwork; it represents civic responsibility, stability and inclusion. As Parliament continues to examine the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we must be mindful of our humanitarian responsibilities. That includes ensuring timely decisions on asylum claims, restoring service standards that offer clarity and dignity, and protecting the right to family reunion, which means so much to all of us here. Such steps are not just compassionate; they are also practical and necessary for social cohesion.
Furthermore, we must take care to ensure that assessments of good character do not rest solely on whether someone arrived through irregular routes, which is often a last resort for those fleeing persecution. Each case should be looked at individually, with a recognition of context and care, not with a one-size-fits-all approach that risks deepening hardship for those already in vulnerable situations.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, I see the consequences of exclusion every day—not because I am better than anybody else, but because I focus on that and I see more of it happening. That is why it is important to me. Forced statelessness or permanent limbo adversely affect mental health, community cohesion and integration. We must speak not with condemnation, but with compassion and reason. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and I share those personal beliefs.
I always try to leave these things with a Bible quotation. The Bible reminds us in Hebrews 13:2:
“Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”
That verse speaks to the heart of our shared humanity. It is a reminder that how we treat the stranger, the refugee and the vulnerable reflects the depth of our national character as individuals. This House has long stood as a voice for those in need, and we must continue in that tradition. Let us show leadership not only in lawmaking, but in compassion. Let us ensure that our policies uphold both justice and mercy, and let us do so with humility, conviction and care. In defending the rights of refugees, we reaffirm the values that have long made the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a place of refuge, opportunity and hope.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) for bringing this important debate to the House; I am sure his constituents are very proud of the powerful speech that he made here today. I know that there are brilliant grassroots charities in his constituency offering sanctuary and support to new Scots from Syria, South Sudan and Ukraine.
Our constituencies are hundreds of miles apart from each other, but we are united in the belief that we have to give refugees our compassion and support. I wanted to speak in today’s debate because my constituency of Hampstead and Highgate has had a proud history of supporting refugees for years and years. During the first world war, 250,000 Belgians fled to England to escape the invading Germans. It was in Kilburn in my constituency that synagogues, churches and homes opened their doors to families who faced persecution.
I should say that Kilburn—or County Kilburn, as it is often called—was also a place of refuge for those fleeing the Irish famine in the mid-1800s. I am delighted to say that in Kilburn we now have the largest Irish community living in London. In Highgate, a new part of my constituency, Camden council provided refuge to families escaping the Taliban in Afghanistan. These are people who risked their lives and are now in Camden—our doctors, nurses, translators and civil servants.
My constituency of Hampstead and Highgate has a proud legacy of welcoming refugees, and I intend to continue supporting that legacy. For many of us in this room, watching what is happening in Gaza, the war in Ukraine, and of course the violence between Israel and Iran, it feels like the world is in disarray. The unfortunate truth is that it is innocent civilians who often suffer the consequences of conflict.
Of course we have to have an immigration system that is controlled, well managed and fair. I think everyone in this room would want that. However, we cannot lose the compassion that our country and my party prides itself on, and has done for many years. I am proud to represent constituents who made that dangerous journey to Britain, who claimed asylum and are now British citizens. I know they are of good character: they have made an incredible contribution to our country, to the constituency, to public life and to culture. One does not have to look too far to find them in my constituency.
I want to talk about my friend Camron Aref-Adib, who you may know, Ms Butler. His family was forced to flee from Iran on foot in the dead of night after an arrest warrant was issued for his father because of his political affiliations. Their journey to Camden was marked by constant distress, fear and uncertainty, as they were smuggled from Turkey to Yugoslavia and eventually western Europe.
Throughout that time, no safe and legal routes were available, but since reaching the UK Camron, his parents and sisters have given back more than 100 years of combined service to the NHS. I am pleased to say that Camron now serves as a Labour party councillor in Camden as well. These are the kinds of characters who have made Britain their home and who give so much back to our community.
I wrote to the Immigration Minister about my concerns and was assured that, when assessing good character, immigration breaches are likely to be disregarded if the journey was outside the applicant’s control. That is likely to be the case if, for example, they were a child when they made the dangerous crossing to the UK. I thank the Department for that assurance. However, I believe that a person’s access to safe and legal rules is also out of the applicant’s control.
Given the recent escalation of conflict in the middle east, Camron’s family story feels more pertinent than ever. I have heard directly from the Iranian community in Hampstead. They told me that they are frightened for their family members who are still in their country of origin. They also told me that they feel forgotten about and dehumanised by the lack of asylum routes available to them.
On behalf of families such as Camron’s, I ask the Minister: when the Department is assessing asylum applications on a case-by-case basis, will the insufficient provision of safe and legal routes be considered as a compelling or mitigating circumstance? I thank the Minister in advance for her response and the time she will take to address this debate. As a House and a country, we need to think deeply about the fact that these refugees are people; they are not just statistics.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on securing this really important debate. Before we begin, I declare an interest: my office receives support from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project, or RAMP.
I would like to make a couple of points about refugee citizenship. First, it is important to set out that there has been no concrete change in the way we treat refugees. The change was made because the Government repealed sections of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. Those are two of the most regressive and pernicious pieces of immigration legislation. They totally distorted—indeed, almost collapsed—the asylum and refugee system in this country. Good riddance to them.
It was right that one of the first things that the Government did on immigration policy when elected was to get rid of those two pieces of legislation. That meant that the citizenship rules had to be altered to align them with the status quo ante, which is what happened, but that does not mean that we should not have a wider debate about citizenship for refugees, as well as all migrants. I was pleased to see that the Government’s White Paper on immigration has kicked that discussion off.
It is also great to hear many Members extol the virtues of refugees and champion them in their communities. I add my name to that list: Edinburgh has a long history of welcoming people, whether they are Ukrainians recently or English refugees hundreds of years ago—although it has been a while since then.
I also want to make a couple of points about citizenship specifically, and the actual concrete meaning of “citizenship” in Britain today. Our citizenship rules developed haphazardly and organically, basically from the empire onwards. There are four pathways to British citizenship: Commonwealth, European, refugee and for people from the rest of the world. In each pathway, people acquire rights and entitlements at various points in the process.
We need to be clear that there is no bright, clear line of distinction between the rights of a citizen and the rights of a settled person in Britain, refugee or not. The rights to benefits, to work, to integrate and even to vote, are not contingent on citizenship. People make full contributions to our society long before they naturalise, and some choose not to naturalise at all—whether because their home country forbids dual citizenship or because they simply do not want to. People who are not citizens are still full, participating members of British society, and refugees with settled status are fully within that category.
Of course, that is not to say that citizenship does not have value. Obviously, it has very specific benefits: it gives a person a passport, protects them from deportation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth said, and gives them consular protection. But it is not a prerequisite for a meaningful life in Britain. Citizenship has political and social value—it shows that a person is one of us, and that they have made a commitment to the country—but I would argue that we have essentially erased the distinction between citizenship and settlement. The distinction now is simply one of time, as the person has to wait a year or two after settlement, and of money, as they have to pay a whopping great fee. Those are the only distinctions in people’s lived reality.
Pete Wishart
I think the hon. Gentleman is sort of saying that citizenship is a good thing and a bad thing, but it is a central aspect of life within our society—an entitlement to so many things that he and I take for granted. If his citizenship were ever taken away from him, God forbid, he would feel it in a minute. Another thing: this is perhaps the most profound change to the good character requirement that I have ever seen—it has gone from lapsing after 10 years to not at all. He should recognise that that is an appalling new change to our immigration system.
Chris Murray
The hon. Gentleman and I have debated this issue a lot. I was not debating whether citizenship is a good or a bad thing—I fully believe it is a good thing. My point was that citizens do not get many more rights and entitlements in Britain today than people who are settled. We could have a wider debate about whether that is fine—I think we should—but a lot of things, such as applying to institutions, colleges or universities, or entitlement to benefits, to housing or to vote, are contingent not on citizenship, but on settlement. The distinction on voting depends on whether the person is a Commonwealth citizen or not. My argument is that in Britain, unlike other countries, we do not make a clear distinction between settlement and citizenship. The distinction between citizenship and indefinite leave to remain—settlement—makes little material difference for refugees living in our communities.
That brings me to my second point. There is clearly a case for citizenship reform in this country. It has been decades since we seriously looked at the issue. I welcome the fact that we are having the debate and that the immigration White Paper has kicked off a discussion about the distinction. The system should be managed, controlled and fair. As I said, the real distinction with citizenship is whether the person has been here an extra year or two and whether they can pay the fee. That is how they get citizenship.
However, some people come to this country and work hard, obey the rules, pay loads of tax, volunteer, do good in their communities and make a huge contribution. Some go on to score goals and win medals for us. Other people come here and do not do any of those things. They do not commit a huge offence, but they do not do any of those things. Is it right that the system treats those people just the same? I would argue that we should differentiate between them.
Madeleine Albright’s family fled the Nazis. They came first to Britain, and the question they were asked was, “Okay, you are refugees and are welcome here, but how long until you leave?” Then they went to the US—
Dawn Butler (in the Chair)
Order. I would also like to give Brian Leishman two minutes to wind up.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I start by complimenting the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) not only on securing the debate but on how he introduced it; his speech was excellent.
I am proud to represent Woking for many reasons, and one is our long history as a constituency of supporting and welcoming refugees. Ockenden International, originally Ockenden Venture, one of the first refugee organisations set up after the second world war, started in Woking. I used to live on the road where it once existed. We have since welcomed Afghans, Syrians and Ukrainians. One of the former MPs for Woking, a Conservative, set up the immigration advice service that a lot of my constituents, and I imagine others, have used. Where has that moderate, compassionate conservatism gone? I fear that the Labour party is going the same way.
The Liberal Democrats are strongly critical of the Government’s move to permanently bar refugees who have arrived here by irregular routes from ever obtaining British citizenship. Giving a hard, bureaucratic “no” to people in such situations, which are incredibly varied and complex, is wrong. It means, in effect, that refugees who have fled persecution and sought sanctuary are condemned to live as second-class citizens for the rest of their lives—never truly able to belong, assimilate or become British.
Earlier this year, the Liberal Democrats tabled a new clause to the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill that would have required the Home Secretary to change the Home Office guidance. That guidance currently states that anyone who entered the UK illegally, no matter how long ago or what the circumstances, will normally be refused citizenship if they apply after 10 February 2025. Our amendment would have ensured that illegal entry was disregarded as a factor when assessing whether someone meets the so-called good character requirement for naturalisation. We believe that to be fair and reasonable: human beings should be judged on their merit, not their status. Refugees are not criminals because of the way they arrive. They are often in desperate situations, fleeing torture, conflict or persecution. Many are fleeing death.
We have heard that this new Government wish to preserve the rule of international law in making policy decisions. That is why, they say, they made the Chagos Islands decision: to uphold such claims. Let us acknowledge that international law is fundamental to refugees. Those seeking asylum who have no choice but to enter a country irregularly should not be punished: that is what the 1951 refugee convention says. We are at risk of falling foul of that international law.
Many refugees who have been granted citizenship describe it as one of the proudest moments of their lives—a hugely amazing moment that they share with their friends and family. Yet we risk depriving them of that opportunity. If we strip away that possibility, we risk deepening divisions in our society, effectively telling thousands of our newest residents and constituents that they do not and will never fully belong. That is not the Britain that I know and love or the one I want to represent in Parliament.
Instead, we should have a fair and effective asylum system that upholds our obligations and treats people with dignity. Banning refugees from citizenship is not one of those things. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to think again, change their approach and show that Britain is still great at standing up for the values of compassion, fairness and the rule of law.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on bringing forward his interesting debate, although I am sure it will come as no surprise that my view is very different from his.
Britain is a compassionate and caring country. We have shown support and welcomed those from Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong as well as others in desperate need. In fact, our compassion and care are without limits. But the reality is that our resources are limited, as we have seen from the pressure on housing, public services, public finances and, yes, our criminal justice system.
The promise of citizenship for those who arrive illegally will only incentivise yet more people to cross by small boat. Uncontrolled migration has real consequences. What would Members proposing such a promise say to the youngster struggling to get on the housing ladder, to the person who has been waiting months for an operation or to the victim of crime who has just seen their attacker released from prison early? What is being discussed today is not those who have been welcomed, but those who have come to this country illegally.
Citizenship is a privilege, and we should not grant it to those who have broken our laws to enter the country. I listened to the proposals of the SNP and the Liberal Democrats in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill Committee, and I have listened to those of the comrades of the Socialist Campaign Group in this debate, and the idea of disregarding that restriction is simply preposterous. How can we possibly say that lawbreaking should not be considered when assessing whether someone is of good character? The problem with the Government is that they fall between two stools: they want to appease the madness within their own party, but they also recognise the public’s desire to secure our borders.
The consequences of the Government’s inability to take strong action have been clearly demonstrated. Before the election, progress was being made on reducing the number of crossings, the number staying in hotels was going down and the proportion of those being removed was going up, but everyone understood that much, much more needed to be done. However, since the election, we have seen the number of arrivals increase by more than 38%. Yes, we are only in July, but already we have reached a record level of small boat arrivals this year. The number staying in hotels is up, and the number of those who have arrived illegally and been removed is at a record low. However it is measured, that is a failure on the part of the Government. It has left the Government’s pledge to “smash the gangs” in tatters, exposing it as the façade it always was.
We can all see that the problem is greater than the gangs. The heinous criminals who organise the crossings are responding to demand. There is a market for people wanting to cross the channel from a safe third country. A truly compassionate response would be to put in place a system that completely deters crossings by removing those who have come here illegally, yet the Government cancelled that plan before it even began. To deport anyone who comes to this country illegally is the fair option, and it would send a clear message. It is the right thing for those who go on the boats in extreme danger, it is the fair thing for the women and children refugees whom we cannot help while we lack control of our borders, and it is the fair thing for the British people who are picking up the tab, yet the Government baulk at such proposals.
Now it appears that the Government’s policy rests on the French Government riding out to the rescue. Relying on the French to save Britain seems about as likely to succeed as relying on them to look out for the interests of our British fishermen—it is technically possible but characteristically implausible. Ultimately, the Government are right to keep the guidance. However, the best approach would be to reverse the failures, implement a proper policy that ensures that those who come here illegally do not remain here and avoid the conversation about citizenship for illegal immigrants altogether.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler, and to respond to the debate.
First, I will respond to some of the points made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers). I feel as though, once again, the Conservative party is in a state of amnesia. The Conservatives completely avoid talking about their own record, yet they know—we all know—that there were 800 people arriving by boats in 2018. The Conservative Government completely lost control of our immigration and borders system and allowed criminal gangs to get embedded across our border. They should apologise for that rather than continuing to pass the buck.
Seema Malhotra
I will not, actually, because I want to respond to all the points that have been made in the debate. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that, of the 30,000 returns made between the election and the middle of May, almost 8,000 were enforced returns. That is a staggering 23% increase in enforced returns compared with the same period 12 months previously.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) on securing this important debate. We have had a number of discussions on this issue in the House, but, notwithstanding that, I know that this is an important debate here and in the other place and I am grateful for the opportunity to make these remarks.
My hon. Friend and other Members spoke about our long and proud history of offering sanctuary to those who are fleeing persecution, conflict and tyranny, as well as our responsibility towards refugees, which we must take very seriously. Our country is an interconnected and outward-facing nation, and I am incredibly proud of that. Our history and geography mean that for generations British people have travelled overseas to live and work, but also that people have come to the UK to work, study, invest, join families or seek sanctuary. British citizens draw on heritage from all over the world, and that has made us the country that we are today.
However, there is another backdrop to the debate, which is that immigration must be controlled and managed. I think we all know that the last Government completely lost control of our borders and we saw net migration reach record highs. It is important, for public confidence and our nation’s security, that we are able to control our borders and who comes to our country.
We have heard about the importance of making sure that we continue our compassion and support for those who are fleeing persecution, war or other risks to their lives. We should be incredibly proud of the support that we provide to refugees and displaced people, whether it is through our UK resettlement scheme, the Afghan resettlement programme, our route for Hong Kong British nationals or our Homes for Ukraine sponsorship scheme. It is testament to those efforts that the UK is the sixth largest recipient of refugees referred from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and the third largest in Europe.
Since 2015, some 674,000 individuals have been offered a route into the UK, with just under 30,000 resettled through resettlement schemes and over 34,000 through our Afghan schemes. The invasion of Ukraine, in particular, is an issue close to the hearts of people up and down our country, and I acknowledge the particular welcome that people from Ukraine have received in Scotland, which has its super sponsor scheme, which I was able to discuss on my visit to Scotland in February.
The Government recognise the contribution that people arriving through such schemes make to our economy and our society. The immigration White Paper sets out our intention to review resettlement and community sponsorship models, allowing businesses, universities and communities to sponsor refugees to live, work and study in the UK. Those schemes deliver better outcomes for both refugees and the communities that welcome them. We are taking this approach because we believe in supporting refugees to integrate into British society fully, and we have been clear that every active working-age person with the right to work in our country should be able to work and contribute to the growth of our economy. It is not just the right thing to do; it is in our national interest.
Refugees and displaced people who have had to leave their home country because of persecution often lack the opportunities to apply for jobs or to work in the UK, even where they have the talent and the training to do so. That is why, in the immigration White Paper, we talk about looking to new safe and legal routes—for example, drawing on the experience of the displaced talent mobility pilot—and we will be exploring reforms to allow a limited pool of UNHCR-recognised refugees and displaced people overseas to apply to come to the UK through skilled worker visas and existing sponsor routes where they have the skills to do so, giving them an opportunity to contribute to the UK and rebuild their lives.
In the few minutes remaining, I want to address some of the questions that have been raised, in particular regarding the changes to strengthen the good character guidance. There are already rules that can prevent those who arrive illegally from gaining citizenship. Indeed, from 10 February 2025, anyone who enters the UK illegally, including via dangerous journeys such as small boat crossings, faces having their citizenship application refused. As I have said, the UK must always play its part in supporting those fleeing persecution, but we are also clear that we must do all we can to prevent people from making dangerous small boat crossings, risking their lives as criminal gangs with no thought for their safety profit.
As has been mentioned, British citizenship is a privilege and not a right. The requirement for an individual to be of good character is a statutory one—one that is considered reasonable and proportionate when assessing whether to grant them British citizenship. The good character policy is compliant with our international obligations, including those under the refugee convention. It is important to note that the guidance on the policy is clear that decision makers have the ability to exercise discretion on a case-by-case basis. That includes the ability to disregard immigration breaches if it is accepted that they were outside the applicant’s control—for example, if the person was a victim of modern slavery or trafficking, or if they entered illegally when they were a child.
It is important to say in response, in particular, to the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) that we will be looking at new thinking and new models around earned settlement and earned citizenship in the consultation that we will launch later this year.
It is important to recognise that these issues concerning those who come to our country via irregular routes are an international problem, and they require an international solution. Any UK Government—it is disappointing that the previous Government did not do this enough—must work with our international partners to make sure that we have solutions and alternatives for those who seek to come to the UK in this way. The Government are determined to restore order to the immigration system so that every part of it—border security, case processing, appeals and returns—operates swiftly and effectively. That is a necessity for our national security and also a moral imperative.
Brian Leishman
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response and many hon. Members present for their wonderful contributions. Refugees are victims of war, famine, oppression and environmental catastrophes. The previous Government failed in their international obligations to refugees, and to allow people to exercise their right to seek asylum. I have to say that I found the speech by the Conservative shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), equal parts insulting, distasteful, xenophobic and, frankly, classist. However, I respect his right to air his views—that is free speech, after all.
I also respect my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray) and have a lot of time for him personally, but I fundamentally disagree with this sort of hierarchy of humanity. Personally, I do not care whether someone is an Olympic athlete or does a perceived lesser job—or, in fact, no job at all. As the Labour party in government, we have to combat the 14 years of austerity, division and classism that have ripped this country apart. Now that we are in government, we have to do better on a whole raft of issues, and everything that we do should always have basic, core humanity at its heart.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered refugee citizenship rights.
Employment Rights Bill: Implementation Road Map
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I am notifying Parliament today of the publication of the Employment Rights Bill implementation road map. The road map will provide clarity for workers and businesses, as well as parliamentarians, on how and when the Government will consult on the implementation of the Bill measures, and when they should expect these measures to come into effect.
The plan to make work pay is the Government’s ambitious package of reforms that will upgrade our employment rights framework, ensuring it is fit for a modern economy, empowers working people and contributes to economic growth. It will support the delivery of the Government’s plan for change by tackling the low pay, poor working conditions and poor job security that has been holding the UK economy back. The Bill is a crucial step in delivering these reforms.
We will continue to engage and consult comprehensively on the implementation of the measures in the Bill to make sure these changes work for all. While the Bill sets out the policy in primary legislation, key details of how many of the individual measures will work in practice will be consulted on, agreed, and then set out in secondary legislation and regulations, subject to the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
The road map will allow employers, unions and workers to plan ahead to ensure that they can prepare for these important reforms. By engaging closely with our stakeholders, we will ensure our changes work for all.
[HCWS764]
Parental Leave Review
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I wish to make a statement on the parental leave review.
The plan to make work pay
This Government are committed to making life better for families. The current parental leave and pay system does not work as well as it could. We have already taken action to improve the system by legislating, in our landmark Employment Rights Bill, to make paternity leave and unpaid parental leave “day one” rights. The Bill will also put in place legislation that makes it unlawful to dismiss pregnant women, mothers on maternity leave, and mothers who come back to work for a six-month period after they return—except in specific circumstances.
We committed to a review of the parental leave system in the plan to make work pay, and through this launch today we are delivering on this commitment.
Review: context
The review will form part of delivering the plan for change, linking to two of the Government missions: to kickstart economic growth and break down barriers to opportunity. The work of this review will support our ongoing work to raise living standards, give children the best start in life and alleviate child poverty.
This review presents a much-needed opportunity to consider our approach to the system of parental leave and pay, giving due consideration to balancing costs and benefits to both businesses and the Exchequer. All current and upcoming parental leave and pay entitlements will be in scope of the review.
Review: lead Departments
This review will be co-led by the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Work and Pensions—the two Departments that have the main responsibility for the current parental leave framework. These Departments will work closely with other Government Departments on this cross-cutting and important policy.
Review: objectives
The current system does not have an overarching set of objectives and has grown gradually over time. This review presents an opportunity to reset our approach and the understanding of parental leave and pay and what we want the system to achieve.
We will assess the current system against the following objectives:
Our first objective is to support the physical and mental health of women during pregnancy and after giving birth to a child.
Our second objective is to support economic growth by enabling more parents to stay in work and advance in their careers after starting a family. This will particularly focus on improving both women’s labour market outcomes and the gender pay gap.
Our third objective is to ensure that there are sufficient resources and time away from work to support new and expectant parents’ wellbeing. This will also include facilitating the best start in life for babies and young children, supporting health and development outcomes.
Our fourth objective is to support parents to make balanced childcare choices that work for their families, including enabling co-parenting, and providing flexibility to reflect the realities of modern work and childcare needs.
Review: engagement
This will be an evidence-based review that reflects and considers the perspectives and experiences of those who engage with the parental leave and pay system.
There will be opportunities for stakeholders to contribute views and expertise throughout the review, including through a call for evidence that also launches today. This call for evidence seeks initial evidence specifically in relation to the objectives that will set the foundation for what we want our system to deliver.
Review: timeline
We expect the review to run for a period of 18 months. The Government will conclude the review with a set of findings and a road map and will set out next steps for taking any reforms forward to implementation.
[HCWS757]
UK Defence Innovation and Cyber & Specialist Operations Command
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
Today this Government are outlining two major developments in our commitment to reform defence and the delivery of our strategic defence review. The establishment of the new UK Defence Innovation organisation and the renaming of the UK Strategic Command to become the “Cyber & Specialist Operations Command (CSOC)”, reflecting the command’s evolved role and enhanced responsibilities.
UKDI is a new body which will harness and exploit technology for our armed forces. It will be the focal point for innovation within the Ministry of Defence, backed by a ringfenced annual budget of £400 million, supporting the Government’s plan for change by driving defence as an engine for UK growth and creating highly skilled jobs in the dual-use technology sector.
It will consolidate and streamline the existing MOD landscape into a single coherent system, as demanded by the SDR, with the mandate to bring innovative technology to the hands of frontline troops faster and to foster a thriving and world-leading UK defence tech sector. The UKDI will be in the new National Armaments Director Group within the MOD as part of the new operating model being established through Defence Reform.
The SDR highlighted the rapidly evolving threat landscape and the critical need for the UK to maintain its technological edge. UKDI will play a pivotal role in implementing the review’s recommendations by breaking down barriers between defence and commercial innovation, ensuring that game-changing technologies can be identified, developed, and deployed to the frontline at pace.
It will take a new approach by moving quickly and decisively, using different ways of contracting, to enable UK companies to scale up innovative prototypes rapidly, by setting out a clear pathway to growth, working with the rest of Government, from initial production to manufacturing at scale.
And will make the UK a defence innovation leader through funding and supporting firms of all sizes to take state-of-the-art technology from the drawing board to the production line.
The UKDI has been formally established today, with further design, transition and implementation work to be developed over the next 12 months. UKDI will be fully operational by July 2026.
This comes alongside another significant development within the Military Strategic Headquarters, under the command of the Chief of Defence Staff, with UK Strategic Command being renamed as the Cyber & Specialist Operations Command. This change reflects the command’s changed role and reinforces its responsibilities following the SDR, particularly its leadership of the cyber domain, which the SDR demanded a greater focus on across defence and Government as a whole. It follows the MOD, and Government partners, having to protect UK military networks against more than 90,000 “sub-threshold” attacks in the last two years.
The new name firmly places leadership of this crucial domain for defence and the armed forces with the new command. It also better represents CSOC’s “Lead Command” responsibilities for those specialist capabilities critical to operational success, ranging from intelligence, special forces, through to deployed medical capabilities and command and control as well as the permanent joint headquarters. CSOC, through Commander CSOC—General Sir Jim Hockenhull—will continue to be under the command of the Chief of the Defence Staff and the newly formed Military Strategic Headquarters, created under Defence Reform.
These are part of the far-reaching changes that will ensure we get cutting-edge innovations to our armed forces faster, enhancing military capability while driving economic growth in every corner of the UK.
[HCWS762]
Afghan Resettlement Schemes
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
For two decades, more than 150,000 UK armed forces personnel served with great courage and distinction in a bid to bring stability and security to the people of Afghanistan. They were helped in this difficult mission by thousands of equally brave Afghans performing in a variety of supporting roles. We can be proud as a nation that, following the Taliban’s seizure of power in 2021, we have honoured our obligation to those who put their personal safety at considerable risk by offering one of the most generous Afghan resettlement programmes in the world. We can be equally proud of what that programme has accomplished.
Today I want to provide an update on the latest progress of the Afghan Resettlement Programme. The ARP was announced by the Defence Secretary on 18 December 2024 as a means of bringing together different resettlement schemes across Government—including the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy and the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme—to drive efficiency and improve outcomes for UK taxpayers and our Afghan friends and allies. Through the ARP, the Government are continuing to honour our commitment to all Afghans eligible to come to Britain. So far, over 34,000 Afghans have successfully relocated to the UK and started rebuilding their lives in this country. This is an incredible achievement, and I would like to thank Members across the House for their support, as well as former Ministers.
While the Government will continue to support the ARP, we have said all along that these schemes cannot continue indefinitely. When announcing the launch of the ARP last year, the Defence Secretary told the House that we would update colleagues when the time came to stop taking on new applicants. I repeated that commitment to the House in May. That time has now come.
Throughout the past year, we have regularly assessed progress, and carefully considered the right time to stop taking on new applications. Four years on from the ARAP scheme’s launch we have now reached the right point. We are currently finding over 95% of first-time applications to be ineligible. This shows that we have honoured our obligation and commitment that we set out to repay when the scheme was established.
As of today, the Home Office has laid the necessary immigration rule changes where ARAP will no longer take on new principal applications.
To be clear, all applications received to date will continue to be processed. Those who are found eligible will still have their immediate family members—such as one spouse and children under 18—automatically considered for relocation. They will also still have 30 days from accepting their ARAP offer to make an application to relocate any additional family members to the UK.
We expect the current pace of arrivals to remain at the same level for the duration of this Parliament as we clear applications, process requests for an additional family member, and complete relocations. There remains a lot of work to be done, but it is our intention to finish the process and honour our obligation in full by the end of this Parliament.
As I stated in my written ministerial statement in May, we will also continue to progress phase 2 of the Triples review, and I will continue to keep the House updated on this.
Those within scope of phase 2 of the Triples review are not affected by this change. All of the cases within scope have already applied for ARAP and will in due course receive a new eligibility decision or a confirmation they remain ineligible.
Despite the programme’s achievements, however, I am also conscious that some ARAP cases have waited a long time for decisions. We inherited a large backlog of cases from the previous Administration, and colleagues across the House have contacted the Department raising ARAP cases over the years that have faced long waits for decisions. I share their concern, and I am determined to address every outstanding case as quickly as possible, while ensuring that each application is individually assessed. From the autumn, we will introduce key performance indicators for our ARAP caseload. This will help people understand where they stand in the process—and when they should receive a decision.
I am also announcing, on behalf of the Home Secretary, the closure of the Home Office-run Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme. This means that the Government will not launch any further pathways nor accept any further referrals. Over 12,800 people have been successfully resettled under the ACRS since 2021. More than half of arrivals have been children, and a quarter women.
To reassure those who have made a referral under the Separated Families Pathway but have not yet received a decision, the Home Office will continue to consider those referrals and issue decisions. Once again, we will honour our commitments to anyone found eligible. We will also honour our commitments to those who have already been found eligible for ACRS but are not yet in the UK.
Relocating over 34,000 eligible Afghans is no small feat and would not have been possible without the support of our partners both at home and abroad.
We are grateful to the local authorities and devolved Governments who continue to help deliver the ARP successfully. Working hand in hand with local government, we will continue our efforts to implement a fair approach to the dispersal of Afghan arrivals across the UK and to empower regions to ensure arrivals are placed in areas that best support their integration. We are also grateful for our international partners. The majority of those eligible have travelled via Pakistan, so I would like to thank the Government of Pakistan for their ongoing co-operation and support.
Finally, I would like to thank all those civil servants and military personnel who continue to work tirelessly to relocate eligible Afghans and to help them rebuild their lives in the UK.
Without the contribution of our Afghan friends and allies, UK personnel who served in Afghanistan would have had an even tougher and certainly a more dangerous job. The Government’s goal remains, by the end of this Parliament, to have safely relocated those eligible and honour in full our moral obligation to those who supported our mission in Afghanistan.
[HCWS763]
Prax Lindsey Oil Refinery: Contingent Liabilities
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Today I am notifying the House of the steps taken by the Government with regard to the insolvency of Prax Lindsey oil refinery and related subsidiaries.
We know that this will be incredibly worrying news for workers at the refinery, as well as the wider community in Lincolnshire. The Government stand with the workers, their families and the community at this difficult time. Given the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee’s interest in this, we are updating on the action that the Government are taking.
There have been long-standing issues at the company since it was acquired in 2021. Prax Lindsey oil refinery’s financial reports indicated that it has recorded losses of around £75 million up to the financial year ending February 2024 since its acquisition in 2021.
At the end of April, the Government were informed of ongoing commercial difficulties. We repeatedly asked the company what the financial gap was, to work out whether the Government could help bridge that gap, but the company was unable to share that basic information.
As a result of today’s decision by the company, an official receiver and an administrator have been appointed to take over different parts of the business. The Government will ensure supplies are maintained, protect our energy security, and do everything we can to support workers.
The company has left the Government with very little time to act. The Government are supporting the official receiver to carry out his statutory duties, including managing the situation on the Prax Lindsey site to determine next steps. This will include urgently reporting back on all potential uses of the site, prior to a wind-down of the refinery.
As to the wider business, there are extensive operational and financing interdependencies within the Prax Group which mean that the refinery’s parent company, State Oil Ltd, has also been placed into administration today along with a small number of other group entities.
However, other parts of the group—including the group’s retail business in the UK, which provides oil trucks, logistics and forecourt services at a number of filling stations—have not gone into administration. The retail business is profitable, and is not solely supplied with fuels from the Lindsey refinery. This means that alternative supplies for the group’s retail network can be sourced as necessary and the administrators will seek to do that and trade the business as normal while they look to secure a prompt sale of the retail operation in due course.
The Energy Secretary has written to the Insolvency Service to demand an immediate investigation into the conduct of the directors and the circumstances surrounding this insolvency.
The Government’s immediate priority is to ensure that affected workers are supported through this difficult time. We will urgently work with the company and trade unions to explore what further support can be offered for workers.
I have laid a departmental minute today notifying the House of two contingent liabilities associated with the Government’s intervention. I regret that, due to compressed timings and the rapid response the Government have had to prepare, I have not been able to follow the usual notice period of 14 parliamentary sitting days. These liabilities relate to:
Legal indemnity
A legal indemnity has been offered to the official receiver to protect it against financial loss or legal claims incurred in the course of carrying out its statutory functions. The indemnity is a standard mechanism in high-risk or complex insolvencies where appointees are expected to act in the national interest without undue risk to the appointees. Crystallisation is expected to be limited.
Operating cost support
The Government will provide short-term funding to cover the essential operating costs of the refinery. This is required to maintain safe site operations to ensure our energy security during the initial phase of liquidation and to facilitate a controlled shut down or potential sale as a going concern. The funding acts as working capital to ensure the secure transition of the site as well as allowing the fuel sector enough time to adapt supply chains and commercial arrangements so that fuel remains available to end users. The final operating cost support will depend on market conditions and the strategy adopted by the official receiver, and this will be subject to close scrutiny and governance by the Government and the insolvency office holders.
Together, these contingent liabilities are necessary to provide the official receiver and special manager with the necessary tools to fulfil their duties in a beneficial way for creditors and taxpayers. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure. The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle.
I will update Parliament on any developments in this contingent liability.
[HCWS761]
Armenia and Azerbaijan: Arms Embargo
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
This statement supersedes the written ministerial statement of 2 July 2014 on the “Arms Embargo (Azerbaijan and Armenia)” —[Official Report, 2 July 2014; Vol. 583, c. 60WS.]
The UK regularly reviews export policy to embargoed destinations in light of our international obligations and the situation on the ground, to ensure that implementation continues to be legally robust, diligent and consistent with the terms of the sanctions in place.
The Government will apply the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe arms embargo to weapons, ammunition and munitions that might be used on the land border between Armenia and Azerbaijan by military, police, security forces and related Government entities. Weapons, ammunition and munitions are those items specified in entries ML1, 2, 3 and 4 of the UK Military List of the Export Control Order 2008. Supplies of such equipment to other end users, such as humanitarian, peacekeeping, research or media organisations, will not be considered subject to the embargo unless there is a risk of diversion to the land border for use by the military, police, security forces and related Government entities of either state.
This is a change from the 2 July 2014 UK interpretation of the arms embargo, which included the supply of all military list equipment to military, police and security forces and related governmental entities, where this equipment could be used in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, or on the land border between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
This revision is consistent with the precursor to the OSCE, the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe’s declaration of 1992, which requested an embargo on
“all deliveries of weapons and munitions to forces engaged in combat in the Nagorno-Karabakh area”.
Export and trade licence applications for Armenia and Azerbaijan will continue to be assessed on a case-by-case basis against the UK strategic export licensing criteria, and the Government will not issue a licence where to do so would be inconsistent with any of the criteria. The UK will continue to monitor the situation on the ground and keep the arms embargo under review.
We strongly support the efforts of both parties to find a lasting peace.
[HCWS760]
NHS Pensions: McCloud Remedy Implementation
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
On 31 March 2025, I issued a written statement on the delivery of remediable service statements to NHS pension scheme members affected by the discrimination identified by the McCloud judgment. In it, I set out the extended deadlines by which the NHS Business Services Authority, which acts for the Secretary of State as the administrator of the NHS pension scheme, must provide affected members with remediable service statements.
Those deadlines were informed by a delivery plan put forward by the authority. However, as statements have been produced, it has become clear that the resource required to implement that plan was significantly underestimated.
I regret to inform the House that the NHS Business Services Authority will not be able to meet a number of these deadlines, including for those members who were due to receive a statement by 1 July 2025. The authority has begun issuing these statements, and enacting members’ consequential decisions, and as of 27 June 2025, 1,359 have been issued.
I stated on 31 March 2025 that I will hold NHS Business Services Authority to account against those extended deadlines for the delivery of remediable service statements. I will be meeting with the chief executive of the NHS Business Services Authority this week to express my disappointment with the progress that has been made and will be asking the recently-appointed independent chair of the NHS Pension Board to review the capacity, capability and delivery plans of the authority’s McCloud remedy functions and report to me before recess. The NHS pension scheme is a key part of the reward package for NHS staff who should expect an excellent service.
When I have agreed a revised delivery plan with the authority, one which is endorsed by the authority’s board, I intend to set new deadlines, including for those members who were expecting a statement by 1 July 2025, and will update the House as soon as possible. It is important to me that members have realistic timeframes for when they will receive their statements, and that the Government fulfil their obligations to them at the very earliest possible opportunity.
I know this will be disappointing news to affected members and the organisations that represent them. I want to assure them that we will continue to prioritise members based on their likelihood of facing financial detriment, that the authority are continuing to issue statements while a revised delivery plan is developed, and that they will receive 8% interest on pension arrears they are owed following receipt of their statement and enactment of their choice.
[HCWS766]
Immigration Rule Changes
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.
Changes to the skilled worker and other work routes as set out in the immigration White Paper
These changes implement the first phase of reforms to work visas set out in the immigration White Paper, “Restoring Control over the Immigration System”, published on 12 May 2025.
The key change is raising the threshold for skilled worker visas from occupations at regulated qualifications framework level 3 and above (approximately A-level skills) to occupations at RQF level 6 and above (mainly graduate professions).
Salary requirements for work visas are being raised in line with the latest Office for National Statistics data, ahead of an upcoming thorough review of salary requirements (including discounts) by the independent Migration Advisory Committee.
The immigration salary list and a new, interim temporary shortage list provide time-limited and conditional access to the skilled worker route for occupations below the new RQF level 6 threshold, but with no ability for applicants to bring dependants. The ISL will be phased out in future and the TSL will be reviewed by the MAC.
Skilled worker entry clearance applications for care workers and senior care workers are being closed, while maintaining in-country switching applications for a transition period until 22 July 2028.
The changes include transitional arrangements, allowing existing skilled worker visa holders to continue to extend their visas, bring dependants, change employment and take supplementary employment in occupations below RQF level 6, while applying the new rules to applicants from overseas and those applying to switch from other routes.
The changes to the immigration rules are being laid on 1 July 2025.
The changes relating to the skilled worker and other work routes will come into effect, as detailed in the statement of changes, from 22 July 2025.
An additional change is also included in this package of rules changes that will close the Afghan relocations and assistance policy to new principal applications. Detail of that change is being announced today in a statement by the Minister for the Armed Forces from the Ministry of Defence.
Alongside the closure of ARAP, we will also be closing the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. This means that HMG will not launch any further pathways nor accept any further referrals. Over 12,800 people have been successfully resettled under the ACRS since 2021 and over half of these arrivals have been children and a quarter women.
The Home Office will continue to consider those referrals that were made under the ACRS separated families pathway, but that have not yet received a decision. This Government will honour our commitments to anyone found eligible, and to those who have already been found eligible for the ACRS but are not yet in the UK.
[HCWS759]
Hague 2019 Judgments Convention
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) has today made the following statement:
“Today, 1 July 2025, the Hague convention of 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters—hereafter: ‘Hague 2019’; ‘the Convention’ —enters into force for the UK.
The convention will provide greater certainty and predictability for citizens and businesses dealing in cross-border civil and commercial disputes, allowing for easier recognition and enforcement of judgments between the UK and other contracting parties. This will reduce the costs for litigants of determining whether a judgment obtained in one contracting state is enforceable in another. The convention will help increase confidence in the UK legal system, support international trade, investment and cross-border mobility, and enhance access to justice. It is also a significant step in improving recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments between UK and EU businesses, as this is the first new agreement in this area of law to apply between the UK and the EU since EU exit.
The UK signed the convention on 12 January 2024 following an overwhelmingly positive public consultation and ratified on 27 June 2024. In accordance with its provisions, the convention enters into force for the UK on 1 July 2025. This is a significant step in strengthening the UK’s co-operation with our international partners, enhancing our position as a global hub for dispute resolution, reaffirming the UK’s position as a leader in private international law and boosting our legal services sector. It will apply to judgments given in proceedings that commence on or after 1 July 2025 across the whole of the UK or in other participating countries.
While the decision to join Hague 2019 is a reserved matter, the implementation of the convention is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Officials in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland ensured the swift implementation of court rule amendments necessary to bring Hague 2019 into force simultaneously across the UK.
Concluded under the Hague conference on private international law, the convention has a potentially global reach. There are currently 30 contracting parties to Hague 2019 —the 27 EU member states, the EU, Ukraine, Uruguay and now of course the UK. The convention is also set to enter into force for both Albania and Montenegro on 1 March 2026 and for Andorra on 1 June 2026. There are also six signatories—Costa Rica, Kosovo, Israel, North Macedonia, the Russian Federation, the USA—who have not yet ratified. The UK can decide by way of declaration not to operate the convention with any country that joins in the future. Such declarations may be subsequently modified or withdrawn at any time.
A copy of the UK Government’s implementing legislation for Hague 2019, the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2024, is available online.” https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2024/9780348260960
[HCWS765]
NATS Technical Failure of August 2023: CAA Report
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
The Civil Aviation Authority has today published a report on the progress made in relation to the 34 recommendations that were made in the independent review’s final report into the NATS technical IT failure of August 2023.
I would like to express my gratitude to the CAA, NATS, airlines and airports for the progress they have made in responding to the recommendations that were made by the independent panel. Today’s report confirms the positive approach that has been made in responding to the recommendations by all stakeholders.
NATS has delivered its recommendations, with many of these already having been confirmed as completed by the CAA. The CAA expects to have completed validation of all recommendations made to NATS during the summer. Airlines and airports have committed to reviewing their practices for communicating and assisting their passengers during periods of disruption. The CAA is reviewing these plans and will monitor compliance through an extended compliance programme, along with establishing an industry code of conduct. The CAA will continue to hold airlines and airports to account for how they meet their obligations to consumers.
The CAA is making good progress in responding to its recommendations. In particular, it has focused its efforts in response to the panel’s recommendations relating to the expansion of its work on improving industry compliance and the rights of aviation consumers. The CAA will commence a programme of work related to the next price control review period for NATS (NR28), which will directly address a number of the recommendations made by the panel.
My Department remains steadfast in our commitment to delivering on the recommendations that the panel has made for Government, and we will make the required legislative reforms on which this is dependent when parliamentary time allows, to ensure that air passengers have the highest level of protection possible.
The CAA will provide a further report on progress with the recommendations towards the end of the year. The expectation is that most of the recommendations made by the panel will have been validated and completed by the end of 2026.
[HCWS758]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be here today to bring forward these regulations, which are enabled by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, during the passage of which some nine years ago I recall sitting for many hours. The IPA provides a framework designed to protect the public by giving law enforcement and the intelligence services the tools they need to prevent, detect and prosecute crime. It also safeguards the privacy of individuals by setting out stringent controls over the way the IPA powers are used.
Communications data reveals the who, where, when and how of a communication but not, I emphasise, its content, such as what was written or said. CD is routinely relied on as evidence in 95% of serious organised crime investigations and has played a significant role in every major terrorism investigation over the past decade.
These regulations will update the public authorities listed in Schedule 4. Only those public authorities listed in the schedule are permitted to use the CD powers in the Act and therefore have the authority to compel communications data from telecommunications or postal operators. In addition to this safeguard, Part 3 of the IPA sets out the specific statutory purposes for which the communications data may be acquired by the relevant public authorities. The Communications Data Code of Practice provides guidance on the process of making a Part 3 application under the Act, which ensures that the power is used only when it is both necessary and proportionate. The IPA requires public authorities to have regard to the code in the exercise of their functions.
These regulations add 11 new entries to the schedule: the Intellectual Property Office, an executive agency sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology; the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency, an executive agency sponsored by the Department for Transport; the Security Industry Authority, an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by my department, the Home Office; Counter Fraud Services Wales, an organisation hosted by the Velindre University NHS Trust; the integrated corporate services counter fraud expert services team—a bit of a mouthful—situated within the Department for Business and Trade; the integrated corporate services counter fraud expert services team situated within the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; the counter fraud and investigation team situated within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and the South East Coast Ambulance Service, the North West Ambulance Service, the West Midlands Ambulance Service and the East Midlands Ambulance Service.
Except for the four ambulance trusts, the public authorities to be added are all new entrants to the schedule and to CD powers. Following their addition to Schedule 4, the seven newly added public authorities will be able to apply for an independently approved authorisation via the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, which, if granted, can be used to compel tele- communications or postal operators to disclose CD for the purposes set out within their designation in Schedule 4. They will not be given the power to internally authorise CD applications.
The four entries relating to the English ambulance trusts retain their CD powers and the ability to internally authorise applications. The umbrella definition of “an ambulance trust in England”, which included a total of 10 English ambulance trusts, has therefore been removed and replaced with the four named individual ambulance trusts. Therefore, six English ambulance trusts will be removed from the schedule because they have confirmed to us that they no longer require those CD powers. The Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust and the Scottish Ambulance Service board will also be removed from the schedule, having confirmed that they no longer need to retain their CD powers.
This SI makes no change to the ambulance service in Northern Ireland and its designation in the schedule. The regulations will amend the Insolvency Service’s designation to include the Department for Business and Trade following the machinery of government changes. There is no change to the Insolvency Service’s ability to acquire CD for the purposes already listed in Schedule 4.
In summary, communications data is vital for evidence in criminal and national security investigations. These changes will enable the aforementioned public authorities —I have mentioned them in this introduction—to carry out and fully work through their essential statutory duties in order to safeguard the public from threats. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain noble Lords for long. I have three questions for the Minister. First, I want a little detail on the process that is undertaken by the department. Who triggers the review into which organisations have these powers, whether that is as a result of requests from organisations that currently do not have powers but require them or whether it is a periodic review that the department will undertake? It would be helpful to know a bit more about the process.
Secondly, I have a question on the powers that are now given to the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency, which is an executive agency of the Department for Transport. I have looked at those powers and at the other parts of the Department for Transport that have similar powers. They all seem very sensible, so I support the change that is being made. My question is on the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency, which is another executive agency of the Department for Transport. As far as I can tell, it does not have these powers, but I would have thought that the same arguments that apply to the DVSA—around public safety and the criminality involved in, for example, forging driving licences, which are important identity documents—would also require the use of communications data. Why has the DVSA been given these powers and not the DVLA? Surely the arguments for one are also true in the case of the other.
The other area is that provoked by the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on the arguments around the ambulance trusts. It makes a reasonably coherent argument that there seems to be some inconsistency. I understand that organisations that require these powers must demonstrate that they have a compelling need and that they have appropriate compliance activities in place. It seems a little odd, therefore, that the powers are being removed from all the ambulance trusts in England. They are being restored for four of them but I do not understand, because there is no detail set out, what it is about those four that means that there are compelling needs that do not apply to the others. Also, of the four that are kept, only one had requested to keep the powers; the others had not expressed a preference. Given that organisations are supposed to have a compelling need in order for them to have these powers—I remember the debate when, as the Minister set out, the Investigatory Powers Bill was going through both Houses of Parliament; I was Chief Whip at the time—it seems to me that, in the case of three of those ambulance trusts, the compelling need case cannot have been made because they did not respond to say that they needed the powers. The powers appear to have been left with them only because they had not specifically said that they did not want them, but that does not appear to be the legal and policy test applied by the department. I would be grateful if the Minister could set that out.
I have a final point on resourcing. The instrument and its Explanatory Memorandum say that there is going to be an increase in requests made to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office because all these organisations will need approval to use these powers. The assessment by the department says that it expects those requests to be minimal, but it does not set out the basis on which it has reached that conclusion. Obviously, there are resourcing requirements that will flow from that, so it would be helpful if the Minister could set out the basis on which that conclusion was reached.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his informed and expert introduction to these timely regulations. When he and I were serving in another place, we were contiguous neighbours; I saw how he was ubiquitous, conscientious, much liked and very successful as an elected Member.
Like the Minister, I spent many years as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The committee saw a lot of the security services and high-ranking police officers—understandably so. In all this, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner was, justifiably, for ever lurking in the background. He was very much a wise, reflective, independent person of stature, as the committee thought. Paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to Lucy Montgomery-Pott, a deputy director for the investigatory powers unit. They are truly an important person in all this.
Not so long ago, as members of a Joint Committee, we crossed south of the river for a briefing by the then commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Alongside him was a future commissioner of the Met. The commissioner had assembled the very people who, under direction, exercised those then new powers. We talked to them and noted professionalism and reassuring ordinariness. It was police and Parliament at work together for the common good.
I support these regulations and wish the professionals well, though I think, in all seriousness, that a parliamentary democracy and its security services need always to consider each other very seriously. Arguably they will never sit together easily, because we are a democracy. I speak today as a matter of principle to formally challenge the Executive, in the person of the Minister, who propose orders and regulations. Time is of the essence and the temperature is high, but my formal questions are these. Who is the Investigatory Powers Commissioner? What is the length of his service and what might be his contract? Will you declare the annual money or fees he draws for his most honourable services? Presumably he is from the field of law, but what is his expertise and how many staff serve in his office? Again, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we on this side recognise the Government’s intention to update the Investigatory Powers Act introduced by the previous Government, and we are supportive of introducing measures that protect the public by giving law enforcement the tools they need to prevent and prosecute crime.
As noble Lords across the Committee are aware, technology is a fast-moving space. As society’s use of technology changes, it is essential that we adapt and it is imperative that our public authorities are fully equipped with capabilities to prevent criminals exploiting technology features, hiding their identity, evading detection and putting the public at risk.
This statutory instrument amends the Investigatory Powers Act by providing 11 new public authorities with the power to obtain communications data. Seven of the new public authorities listed will have the power to apply for an independently approved authorisation to compel telecommunications and postal operators to disclose communication data. The remaining four entries are English ambulance trust services that were previously designated under the definition of an ambulance trust in England, which included a total of 10 ambulance services in England. Under the changes, this definition has been removed and replaced with individual entries, as six of these ambulance services have confirmed they no longer require the communication data powers.
Following the Home Office’s review of Schedule 4, this instrument ensures that only public authorities with a need to acquire communications data will be able to request access. While we on these Benches do not oppose the amendments being made, we must question why certain ambulance services will hold the ability to retain this power over other ambulance services.
We recognise that some ambulance services should retain these powers, which may help in preventing serious injury or death, but we must consider whether the inconsistent treatment of ambulance services presents any future risks. We understand that access to communications data is useful for some ambulance services, but we must not rule out that others might require access in future. Can the Minister assure us that services requiring access in future will not be unduly limited or delayed if judged to be in the pursuit of legitimate public interest?
We recognise that these powers are necessary, but they need to be complemented by adequate resources if they are to be wielded effectively. Can the Minister therefore update us on what consultations his department has undertaken with the public authorities empowered by the regulations? Can he confirm that those authorities have adequate resources and legal advice on the use of the new powers?
We recognise that the addition of entries to Schedule 4 increases the demand and strain on the resources of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. This concern has been raised in Brian Leveson’s annual report on the use of communications data. It is essential that the Government consider ways to reduce pressures on the operational effectiveness of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. Can the Minister set out what steps will be taken to address this?
In conclusion, while we do not oppose the measures being introduced, we would like some reassurance that those ambulance services that have been excluded will not be disadvantaged in the pursuit of preventing injury or death. We urge the Minister to recognise the impact of the amendments on the resources of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office and ask for further clarification on how these authorities will be supported in exercising these powers in the interests of the public.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for the short and useful debate. As my noble friend Lord Jones, who I have known for a very long time, said, it is useful to challenge the Executive on a number of matters to date.
If I may, I will start with my noble friend Lord Jones, who made an all-encompassing comment regarding the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The current IPC is Sir Brian Leveson. He will be well known to Members of this House and has served in a number of capacities, including as a High Court judge. The commissioner is assisted by a team of 13 commissioners, who must all have held senior judicial office. Together they are responsible for the use of investigatory powers by public authorities. They are supported by a body of civil servants, known as the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, which includes authorising officers and inspectors. Self-evidently, as I mentioned earlier, they were put in place by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Their responsibilities include a statutory obligation to inspect the use of certain investigatory powers and to exercise delegated functions, as part of which they independently review communications data under Section 60A applications submitted by public authorities.
My noble friend touched on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on the budget. In the financial year 2023-24, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office operated within a budget of £15.74 million, of which it spent only £13.06 million. That was confirmed in the IPCO annual report 2023, which was published in May of this year. I hope that helps my noble friend.
I am grateful for his service, not just in both Houses but on the Intelligence and Security Committee, and for his kind words about my service. I hope that also answers in part the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harper—who I will come back to in a moment—and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.
The noble Lord, Lord Harper, made a very valid point about what the process is for a public authority to be added to Schedule 4. Public authorities can be added to Schedule 4 either through primary legislation or by the use of a delegated power provided at Section 71. The delegated power provided at Section 71 provides that we have an enhanced affirmative procedure, which includes the requirement for a 12-week statutory consultation with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
The changes being made here are, in a sense, the result of the bodies themselves asking either to be included or removed from the Act. If they wanted to be added to Schedule 4, they had to supply a very comprehensive business case that officials in the Home Office have examined and evaluated in some detail. The Home Office has then had to include a 12-week consultation process with public authorities and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. In this case, the consultation period for the new additions began on 23 October 2024 and completed on 17 January 2025. The IPC agreed that the seven public authorities had made a clear case for access, and the IPC response informed the Home Secretary’s policy assessment to include the amendments in the regulations that we have put before the Grand Committee today.
Lord Harper (Con)
I would be grateful if the Minister would allow me to probe this a bit further. To be clear, on the ambulance trust, given that the wide-ranging power for all ambulance trusts in England already existed in the schedule, what exactly was the trigger for a consultation? These trusts already had the power; this just changes the way the power has been described in the legislation. Further, if there was some kind of interaction between the trusts and the department and some trusts specifically asked for this, for those that did not, given that there was a conversation and a consultation process and there is supposed to be a compelling need, why has the power been left in place for those ambulance trusts that did not say they needed it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord puts his finger on the point that, originally, all ambulance trusts were included in the schedule. As part of their general reflection, the six English ambulance trusts that are being removed by the regulations today specifically said they do not need those powers anymore. That left Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales equally said they do not want the power, so they are being removed, and Northern Ireland has not requested removal and therefore is in the schedule.
Of the four remaining trusts, one of them determined that it wanted to retain the powers under the Act. Again, as part of the consultation, that went through the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, which agreed. Three of the trusts did not respond to the Home Office in relation to the consultation and discussion that we had. They had not requested to be removed. We asked them if they wanted to stay on, and they have not responded. For the safety of the Home Office’s reputation and for the security of reducing risks, we have left them on, but we will continue to press them to ensure that, if they wish to be removed, they can be.
I have discussed already with officials that I think we should be going back to those trusts again. We can bring a further instrument forward, but I do not think it is appropriate that we take them off because they have not responded. There is an argument about whether they should have responded—that is a legitimate challenge to put to me and to the Home Office, and I am having discussions on it internally—but I do not want to take them off in case that decision was just a slip between cup and lip.
Lord Harper (Con)
I am grateful for that answer. I can certainly understand—and do not necessarily disagree with—a safety-first approach from the Minister. I have one further question: given that ambulance trusts broadly all do the same thing, has the Home Office or the health service undertaken any work to understand for what reasons those trusts that have wanted to keep the powers are using those powers, to test whether they are actually necessary? If they are necessary, for what reason do those trusts that do not want the powers, or have not asked for them, not need them? It does not seem entirely obvious why some ambulance trusts would need the powers and some would not.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a fairly valid challenge. The decision to apply is for the ambulance trusts. They were initially all included. Some have determined that they have not used this power, and therefore they do not wish to have it any more. One trust has maintained the power because it wishes to use it, and three have not responded, so we have kept them on just in case because we do not want to risk operational errors.
The type of purpose that they could use it for may well be, for example, that an individual who comes into contact with the ambulance trust is in the middle of a mental health episode, is disorientated, does not know who they are and is not aware of where they are, what they have done or where they have been. There could be individuals who are involved in alcohol intoxication. There is a range of reasons why there might need to be access. As it happens, the vast majority of trusts have said they do not need or want this power. If one trust has said it wants to retain the power, it is reasonable that we assess that further downstream. But the determination is that the trusts themselves decide whether they want that power. Therefore, we are making sure that there are no operational risks in that.
On removing the authorities that did not respond, I am not particularly pleased that we did not have a response from three authorities—I will put that on the record. They should respond accordingly. But there is always the danger that, if we took them off now, they may end up using their powers without realising they do not have them any more. They may find themselves in a litigious position, and I do not want to see that either.
For the moment, that is a very valid challenge and this should be kept under review, but that is the logic behind it—if that helps the noble Lord.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
In case it may help, I was involved in the original RIPA 2000 and discussions about this. I remember the whole thing about ambulances. The reason it was thought of then was vexatious 999 calls to the ambulance service. Obviously, that had happened somewhere, but, clearly, it does not happen in many areas, so they do not need this training. But, if it does happen in some areas, it is quite reasonable that it should be retained somewhere just in case, because it may need tidying up. It will probably depend on whether there are particular individuals in certain areas, and you may need to give the powers and take them away again. I seem to remember that that was one of the main reasons we gave it in the first place.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for that intervention. The decision that the Home Office has taken is that it is for organisations to apply. With the ambulance trusts, once we have determined that we will remove the general exemption—because organisations have requested removal—we are then in a position to allow them to do that. Both noble Lords have made fair challenges on the assessment and oversight of that. Ultimately, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is the determinant of that matter, and I am facilitating that process today.
Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA Women’s European Football Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2025
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA Women’s European Football Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2025.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I move seamlessly from investigatory powers to the European football championships, as is the wont of the Home Office. This order was laid before Parliament on 15 May.
The summer brings with it the UEFA European Women’s Championship 2025, or the women’s Euros, as we like to call it. It will be held in Switzerland and, happily, both the women’s football team of England and of Wales have qualified and will be competing in this important tournament.
Accordingly, I bring before your Lordships a proposal to allow the extension of licensing hours in the event—as we very much hope—that one or both teams progress to the semi-finals, scheduled for 22 and 23 July, or the final, scheduled for 27 July. Do not ask me to choose between England, where I was born, or Wales, where I live and have represented in Parliament. Section 172 of the Licensing Act empowers the Secretary of State to make an order permitting the relaxation of licensing hours to mark occasions of exceptional international, national and local significance. I hope that, in the event of a semi-final place or a final place, or both, for the home nations in this major international competition, that would constitute such an occasion.
There will be interest in and excitement around the tournament, and fans will want to congregate to support and, I hope, give a cheer to—verbally and in a glass—the English and Welsh participation in the semi-finals and/or final. The decision to lay this draft order follows a public consultation that the Home Office undertook earlier this year. A majority of respondents—87%—supported the proposed extension of licensing hours for the semi-final, and 3% fewer, for reasons unbeknown to me, said that the final should also have that extension.
Respondents agreed with the proposed duration of the extension—until 1 am—and supported its application to both England and Wales. There was also consensus that the extension should apply only to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. Therefore, establishments that serve on the premises will be permitted to remain open until 1 am on the evenings of the semi-finals, which are scheduled for 22 and 23 July, and on the evening of the final, on 27 July, without—this is the important thing—the need to submit a temporary event notice. This will reduce the administrative burden on both businesses and local councils, saving time and resources for all involved but reaching the same conclusion where extensions can be made.
It is important to note that this extension applies solely to the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption after 11 pm. It does not extend to premises licensed only for off-sales, such as supermarkets and off-licences. Furthermore, establishments that provide late-night refreshment—this is defined as the supply of hot food or drink to the public between 11 pm and 5 am—but do not hold a licence to sell alcohol for on-site consumption will not be covered by this order. Such premises may continue to provide late-night refreshment until 1 am only if their existing licence already permits them to do so.
It is important that we recognise that police representatives are always concerned about the potential for increased crime and disorder. Operational decisions on deployment and resourcing are matters for individual forces. I am confident that the appropriate measures will be taken to mitigate any risks, as has been the case during previous tournaments. There have not been any significant incidents of large-scale disorder linked to licensing extensions, and this is testament to the licensees, the police service and the Great British public, who manage these things in a responsible way.
The noted changes in this order include a modest, time-limited extension of two hours, which is, I think, proportionate. Should neither of the England or Wales women’s teams reach the semi-finals—and therefore not reach the final either—the normal licensing hours will remain in effect on 27 July.
The forthcoming tournament will generate significant interest and excitement. I hope for success for England and Wales. It is for that reason that we have brought this order forward, to allow the Great British public to enjoy an extra glass, should they wish to do so, in a licensed premises. I wish both teams the best of luck and commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this order, but I should go over the background from which I speak.
I was the chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association at the time of the then Licensing Bill. I spent many happy hours debating the Bill with the then Minister, Kim Howells, and with somebody called Vernon Coaker, who was at the time the Home Office Minister responsible for law and order in relation to licensing. I have therefore been through this whole process. I was party to the original legal application before the High Court to change the law in relation to licensing hours and the whole question of TENs as it related to the men’s World Cup in Japan and South Korea. At that point, the then Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, changed the law and made it possible for licensed premises to change their hours with a degree of flexibility.
However, the issue has always remained a problem because the police and the licensing authorities were given powers—one might almost describe them as delayed powers—so that they could object to certain licensed premises if they were concerned about some form of order being maintained at that particular premise. Of course, given the development of major sporting events concurrently with the development of modern technology, what was relatively new for the men’s football World Cup in Japan and South Korea some 20-plus years ago is now absolutely part of our lives. People respond quickly to major sporting events; this order is specifically intended to address that issue.
It is probably appropriate that it should apply to just the semi-finals and the final, but I have my doubts, as I say, because of the rise in interest in international sporting events, particularly women’s sporting events. Interest in and attendance levels at women’s football matches are rising at an incredible speed, so I have some doubts as to whether it should be for just the semi-finals and the final, but we will have to wait and see.
There is another major sporting event this summer, of which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I will be deeply conscious. An indication of the growth of interest in women’s sport is that I am sure he and I will be tomorrow at the launch of the Women’s Rugby World Cup with the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Women’s Rugby World Cup is taking place from 22 August through to its conclusion on 27 September. We wish all the relevant teams the best success in that.
The RFU has the objective of filling Twickenham on 27 September for the largest attendance ever at a female rugby match. Given that that event takes place partly during our recess and that the police and licensing authorities will need to be responsive, have the Government and the department given serious consideration to what action needs to be taken with an order should similar circumstances arise only a few days or weeks after the Summer Recess? As the Minister indicated, part of the problem that arose last time was that some licensing authorities were not as speedy in responding to the requests of the public. Ministers had to make appeals asking them to please be helpful; some were and some were not, but we do not want to go through that process again.
It is specifically for that reason that we have this order today. That makes sense, but I am concerned that, only a few weeks after this event, we will have another major sporting event and, in this case, it will take place all over this country—unlike the football tournament that we are discussing, which is taking place in another part of Europe. Could the Minister please clarify, either today or imminently, that there will not be a need for a similar order in similar circumstances only a few weeks away? If there is, we should bring that forward before the Summer Recess.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my friend the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has made all the points that I was going to make, except with more technical details, so I shall not delay the Committee very long. The fact is that these major women’s events have proven that they can attract large crowds. They are slightly different crowds with a slightly different dynamic—one is probably slightly politer and better behaved—but whether that is positive or negative I will let others judge.
There is one basic point behind this: will there be set criteria to get this extension through? Getting it through is important, and this would mean that the political establishment is a little more ready to respond and able to put pressure on the Government to make sure that it happens. When we have these events, particularly when we are enjoying success, how are we getting ready to celebrate? The growth of women’s sport is a huge bonus to our country, and women’s sport on television seems to encourage grass-roots participation. The great failure of the Olympics—a major, wonderful event—is that it did not affect the grass roots. Women’s team games have encouraged growth in both association and rugby union football, both of which have enjoyed success. In both tournaments, the seeding means that we should have British teams in the finals or later stages.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this instrument. In the coming weeks, we will be preparing to support our home nations in what will be a proud moment for Britain. The 2025 UEFA European Women’s Championship will be held in Switzerland. I am delighted that, this year, both the England and Wales women’s national teams have qualified for this prestigious moment. For Wales, this monumental occasion will mark the first time they have qualified at the European Women’s Championship. For our defending champions, England, this will be their 10th appearance at the competition. If I may say so, in the spirit of good internation relationships, I wish both teams well, and both are to be congratulated on having the opportunity to appear there.
We must recognise the symbolic significance of historical moments such as this for future generations of female footballers and athletes. Last year, the Football Association reported a 56% increase in the number of women and girls playing football. Between 2020 and 2024 alone, the number of female coaches rose by 88% and the number of referees increased by 113%. That is why it is essential for us to support the statutory instrument introduced today, which proposes a temporary extension of licensing hours across England and Wales should either or both teams progress to the semi-finals or the final.
The extension of the licensing hours comes after overwhelming support from a Home Office consultation. Under the instrument, the normal licensing requirements of submitting a temporary event notice application and the £21 fee to the local authority will not apply. The extension will apply only to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, such as bars and pubs, but will not be applicable to off-trade premises, including supermarkets and off licences.
We must recognise that this occasion is one that can help support local pubs in England and Wales, many of which have faced challenges over recent years, with an unprecedented number of closures. During the Lioness’s 2022 triumph, a peak of 17.4 million viewers tuned into the BBC1 programme, making it the most watched women’s football game on UK television. An additional 5.9 million viewers streamed the game online to watch on the BBC iPlayer and the BBC Sport website and app.
Not only will the extension of licensing hours help boost business for pubs and bars but it will allow them to accommodate the increase in demand during these key tournament dates. Fundamentally, this is an opportunity for us to come together and cheer on our national teams, who have done so much to inspire people across the country. I am sure that both sides of the Committee will agree with the positive benefits of the statutory instrument raised in today’s debate, from inspiring the next generation of footballers to boosting our local businesses. We have lots to celebrate over the coming weeks, and I am sure noble Lords will join me in wishing the very best to both Wales and England for the tournament.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the three noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lords, Lord Hayward and Lord Addington, have moved the goalposts slightly, in the sense that this was a women’s football order. It has had a full consultation, which has given the support to date that I have mentioned. Noble Lords have made a very compelling case for the Women’s Rugby World Cup based in the United Kingdom to be considered. I will certainly consider those representations, and I will get back to both noble Lords. At the moment, there are no plans in the Home Office for such an order, but that does not mean that we cannot consider it. However, there needs to be a public consultation, because we have to do that. I will have to reflect on whether that would fit in with the timescales for the event that both noble Lords mentioned.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I appreciate the clarification that the Minister is giving. I referred to previous events where requests were made of licensing authorities to extend hours on the grounds of good reason rather than waiting for the law—namely, waiting for the police authorities and the licensing authorities to respond. Under those circumstances, that request came from the Minister without any consultation. So, although I understand that best practice would require consultation, conscious of the timing that we are up against, I do not want that to be imposed as a barrier where, if you do not have consultation, you cannot produce an order.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I appreciate that, but I hope that both noble Lords will recognise that that was not an item that I expected to debate today. It seems eminently sensible to examine that, but I cannot give the noble Lord final chapter and verse on that proposal based on the helpful discussion that we have had. The case has been made very ably and strongly for the encouragement and recognition of that World Cup being held in the United Kingdom, for the reasons that both noble Lords have mentioned. So, if they will let me, I will take away that proposal.
Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003—which the noble Lord remembers vividly, even 22 years on, and the discussions that he had—empowers the Secretary of State to make an order. The criteria mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, are the relaxation of licensing hours to mark occasions of
“exceptional international, national, or local significance”.
A Women’s World Cup held in the United Kingdom potentially has the merit of being included under those criteria, but this is not an issue on which I can give the noble Lord a definitive answer today. I will reflect on that outside the Committee and hopefully be able to write to him and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, in due course.
Lord Addington (LD)
The noble Lord is being very helpful. We are asking to get into thinking that this is a normal, sensible thing to do. The noble Lord has said, “Yes, we’ll have a look at it. That is a good idea”, but making sure that that becomes normalised is what we might take as a bonus from this sensible order.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Essentially—this goes back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made—the power in the Licensing Act for the Secretary of State was never designed to be a blanket power; it was designed to cover, as has been mentioned,
“exceptional international, national, or local significance”.
The Secretary of State has to consider that the celebration period in relation to the order—which would be given either by executive power or by formal order—marks an occasion of exceptional national significance. Both noble Lords have mentioned the Women’s World Cup as a whole. If they reflect on today’s order, they will see that it is not about the UEFA Women’s Championship in Switzerland as a whole; it is specifically targeted at the semi-finals on 23 and 24 July and the final on 27 July.
I need to take away from today whether or not the Home Secretary, in this case, will reflect on the semi-final and final of the competition that both noble Lords have referred to, or the whole competition. This order, which is tangential to the issues that have been raised, features only the semi-final and final, and therefore that was the proposal that the Government brought forward.
I very much welcome the support for the order by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the points he made. There is an opportunity here to celebrate both England and Wales, should they make the semi-finals and final, and to help boost businesses in the hospitality sector and provide much-needed income and refreshment to those businesses. That is why I fervently hope that England and Wales make the semi-finals and final, and fight it out in an appropriate way in whichever Swiss football stadium they are playing in on 27 July.
This has been a useful debate and, if noble Lords will allow, I will reflect on those two matters and respond in writing. But, for the reasons that I have mentioned, this is for a specific event on a specific date, not for blanket Secretary of State coverage. But noble Lords have made a very strong case. If I may return to football —the round rather than the oval ball—for women, I commend this order to the Committee.
Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Leong
That the Grand Committee do consider the Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 14 May and form part of the programme to implement the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. This Government remain committed to fighting economic crime while ensuring that our country maintains its reputation as a place where legitimate businesses can thrive. These objectives are supported by the reforms within the 2023 Act. Much progress on these reforms has already been made, and implementation of the Act continues at pace. This instrument forms part of the next phase of reforms.
It remains a key principle that those who are running and controlling companies should have their details publicly registered. This ensures that it is transparent to the public who those people are and that they can be held accountable for the company’s affairs. However, having personal information on the public companies register can put individuals at increased risk of harm, including fraud and identity theft and for other reasons such as in cases of domestic abuse. This instrument therefore aims to strike the right balance between transparency and privacy, ensuring that the register does not become a tool for wrongdoing. At the moment, individuals can already apply in certain limited cases to protect their residential address from the public register. Protection means that the registrar cannot display the address publicly. However, Companies House still retains the address and can share it with law enforcement and others who have functions of a public nature, if appropriate.
This instrument delivers the second of several reforms to enhance the protection of personal information on the register. It builds on regulations that came into force on 27 January. Members of this House might recall that this previous statutory instrument expanded the circumstances in which an individual can apply to protect their residential address from the public register. This new instrument will further expand the protection regime, allowing individuals to apply to protect their signature, business occupation and date of birth. It will also allow applications to protect a residential address where it is not already possible to do so, with the exception of certain charge-related filings and company names. The exceptions here reflect the consequential impacts that protecting information from those filings would have, given that their transparency is key for due diligence purposes. The Government will keep this under review.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as the author of company law textbooks and the occasional lecture on company law. I thank the Minister for setting out the intent of these regulations with notable clarity. I should say at the outset that I have no problem with these regulations except that, I would argue, they probably do not go far enough. Surely it is right and consistent with the intention of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act that we enact these regulations.
I wholly approve of the protection of the residential addresses of those people who may be the subject of fraud and identity theft; that seems very sensible. My questions to the Minister are twofold. In what limited circumstances will it be thought necessary to display the residential address, based on the points made by the Minister? Also, given that they are so few—if, indeed, there are any—should it not be the case that we simply do not show residential addresses? Based on the fact that Companies House will hold them anyway, the default position should therefore be that they are not shown, rather than that they are shown, and it should not depend on individuals applying through this process for them not to be shown. Natural inertia means that some people just will not do it. It seems to me that the reverse presumption would be sensible.
I have just two further brief points. The first relates to how Companies House will publicise this procedure so that people are aware of it if we are to go down this route. Secondly, how long is the application procedure likely to take? In the meantime, the address will be there, and the potential for corporate fraud and identity theft will be present.
With that, I am otherwise happy with these regulations.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for introducing this statutory instrument, which is part of a secondary legislation programme implementing the reforms of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Combating economic crimes is a top priority for all noble Lords, and it is essential that we support our UK businesses to thrive and contribute to economic growth.
His Majesty’s Official Opposition recognise that registering personal information of individuals, including their residential addresses, can lead to them being subject to an increased risk of fraud, identity theft and stalking. Currently, a director of a UK company or members of a UK limited liability partnership are able to apply to Companies House to prevent their residential address being displayed on the public register or disclosed to credit reference agencies. Aside from that, it is possible for an individual to protect their residential address from the public only in certain limited circumstances.
The statutory instrument introduced today will bring in additional measures to enhance the protection of personal information on the register. It builds on regulations that came into force earlier this year and will expand the circumstances in which an individual can protect their residential address. This instrument also adds to the existing address protection regime by allowing for the protection of an individual’s signature, business occupation and date of birth.
Under the legislation, any individual would be able to apply to suppress their residential address from public view, unless it is also the registered office address of an active company or part of the company’s name. The instrument will also remove the requirement for certain community interest company documents and statements of solvency to be signed, and the requirement for directors of overseas companies to provide a business occupation. It expands the grounds on which people with significant control can make an application to request the registrar to refrain from disclosing their residential address to a credit reference agency, as well as making other minor amendments to secondary legislation relating to PSCs, which are applied to limited liability partnerships and eligible Scottish partnerships.
His Majesty’s Official Opposition support the measures being introduced. We recognise that having personal information on the company’s register brings an increased risk to exposed individuals, and we are pleased that today’s reforms will bring in protections for personal information on the public registers held by Companies House.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for their contributions. I will respond to some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and I need to declare an interest: I was the publisher of his major textbook, Bourne on Company Law, and I have known the noble Lord for several decades now. I can say with great pride that his book sold many copies.
The noble Lord’s point about residential addresses is very important. We need to address two points here. When a company is live, it needs a registered address. If the registered address is the residential address of the director, it has to be shown unless an alternative address is shown as the registered address. That is something of which directors need to be mindful when they use their residential address as the registered address.
Secondly, where there is a charge on a company, the director’s residential address may appear on the public record so that people know what property is being held as security for the charge. It is important that we ensure transparency in what is being displayed publicly. At the same time, we have to be mindful that we need certain protections, and these regulations support that as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, also asked how Companies House is sharing or marketing what it is doing. Since the last regulations, Companies House has been emailing every director on its register to inform them of the new regulations coming into place. The last one is on identification, verification and all that, and it has tremendous support. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but Companies House has cleaned up a lot of the register and removed hundreds of thousands of names, as well as “fraudulent” companies, from the register.
This is the next step in cleaning up the Companies House data. This is an ongoing process and there will be further regulations to clean up the database. Eventually, within the allocated five-year clean-up period, we hope that what we will have on the database will be up to date and relevant.
In summary, today’s debate has once more showed that it is vital that we get the reforms within the 2023 Act right. These regulations are another step towards that goal and ensure the right balance between transparency and privacy.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Grand Committee do consider the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, this draft order extends provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 that enable criminal trials to continue to be conducted without a jury in Northern Ireland, where certain conditions are met, for a further two-year period until 31 July 2027. Otherwise, these provisions would expire on 31 July this year. The non- jury trial provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, which apply only in Northern Ireland, provide for a non-jury trial in exceptional cases where certain conditions are met that create a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired if the trial were to be conducted by a jury.
The decision to proceed with a non-jury trial is made by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, following a request from the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the Public Prosecution Service. In a non-jury trial, a single judge sits alone to hear the case and must give reasons for a conviction. Any person convicted before a non-jury trial has a right of appeal on either sentence or conviction without leave.
Following a 12-week public consultation and consideration of the indicators previously identified by the working group on non-jury trials, as well as wider information about the security situation in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State has determined that these non-jury trial provisions continue to be necessary to uphold the fair and effective administration of justice in Northern Ireland.
I reassure noble Lords that in Northern Ireland today there is a strong presumption of a jury trial in all criminal cases. In 2024, less than 1% of all Crown Court cases in Northern Ireland were conducted without a jury. However, in the small proportion of cases in which they are exercised, the non-jury trial provisions not only protect potential jurors from threat of intimidation but offer certain defendants protection from the possibility of a hostile or fearful jury.
To further reassure your Lordships’ Committee, the Government ran a 12-week public consultation from 9 December 2024 to 3 March 2025. Only 17 responses were received through the public consultation: nine were in favour of extending the NJT provisions for a further two years, three were opposed and five neither clearly supported nor objected. The responses in favour typically cited the continued presence of paramilitary control and coercion in Northern Ireland communities, meaning that victims and families fear participating in the criminal justice system and that there is continued risk of jury intimidation.
Some of the responses against extending the provision suggested that the alternative non-jury trial provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 could instead be relied upon in Northern Ireland. However, as pointed out by some responses in favour of the extension, the threshold for the use of these provisions is much higher than under the 2007 Act. This makes it unsuited to deal with the unique challenges associated with Northern Ireland, as it would expose jurors to an unacceptable risk of intimidation and potentially undermine the administration of justice. In addition, while the 2003 Act includes provisions for a non-jury trial where there is jury tampering, it does not mitigate against the risk of jury bias, which the consultation responses have demonstrated is an ongoing risk in Northern Ireland. The full details of these responses were published in the Government’s consultation response document, which can be found on the NIO pages on GOV.UK. This was published on 6 May, the day on which this draft order was laid before the House.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I have two principal reasons for speaking to this instrument. The first is that I currently chair the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee of this House, and therefore am very sensitive to issues that affect the communities in Northern Ireland. One of the issues that is absolutely of the greatest importance is the way in which the justice system operates.
My second, more particular reason is that I was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the Independent Reviewer of National Security Arrangements in Northern Ireland in 2007. I prepared a report that led to the amendment of what were, at that stage, called the Diplock courts—and often still are—in 2007. I recommended that the system should have some instrumental changes made to it but that, in principle, the courts should continue. Critics rather wryly called them the “I can’t believe it’s not Diplock” courts after I made my recommendations. I have been following those courts, which have held non-jury-trials ever since, for the past 18 years, in some detail. I have spoken to lawyers practising in those courts and to some judges who have worked in them, and obviously I have tried to form my own judgments.
I absolutely agree with the Minister that, unfortunately, at the present time, it is not yet possible to say that there should be only jury trials for offences involving sectarian issues and aspects of terrorism or paramilitary activity. However, that is not to say that I believe that this system should continue indefinitely into the future; happily, the Minister has not suggested that today. It is notable that the number of non-jury trials has been reduced in recent years. I had hoped that that would happen; it has taken rather longer than I had hoped, but I am pleased to see that that has now occurred.
There have been some recent disturbances in Northern Ireland, which reaffirm my belief that there are still difficult sectarian issues, including bullying within communities and intimidation in some parts of them. That said—it will not surprise your Lordships to hear this from someone who has been at the Bar for over 50 years doing criminal cases—I believe that part of what is sometimes called the holy grail of our criminal justice system is jury trial. There may be changes in the jury trial system in England and Wales shortly; we await the Leveson report. I am sure that many of us lawyers in your Lordships’ House will view them with all of our critical faculties—but, of course, objectively at all times.
In this situation, it is right to extend these courts on the basis of need. Therefore, I empirically support what is proposed by the Government this afternoon.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the chairman of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I thank my noble friend the Minister for her presentation of this statutory instrument. I should indicate that I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in your Lordships’ House.
Following on from the noble Lord, I also renounce and reject violence from all paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. It is wrong now as it was wrong over all the years of the Troubles; that point cannot be overemphasised. The murder and terrorism were wrong. They took the lives of innocent civilians in many instances and robbed families of loved ones. Those scars remain—that is a fact of life.
However, 27 years after the Good Friday agreement of 1998, 19 years after the St Andrews agreement of October 2006 when the decision was taken to devolve policing and justice—I well remember being there—and 15 years after when, in 2010, the legislative position on policing and justice was enacted and the first Minister for Justice was appointed, I get a sense of déjà vu. We debated this issue back in 2021. When will actual normalisation take place so that we no longer require non-jury trials? As a democrat, I do not feel happy about or sit comfortably on non-jury trials. I was brought up and reared in Northern Ireland and come from the democratic Irish nationalist community. There were many rigours in all such jury systems. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether, from the Government’s research, they can provide a guesstimate of when we can move to normalisation?
I note, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, that such trials are not in total use any more in Northern Ireland. There were 12 non-jury trials in the Crown Court in 2023, in comparison to a total of 1,423, so they are not used readily. However, I am conscious of the fact that there is still evidence of paramilitarism; this was clearly demonstrated some weeks ago when people in certain communities were bullied by paramilitarism and paramilitaries, because you could translate sectarianism in this instance into racism. Several people involved in that were, it was suggested, also involved in other acts of terrorism, threats and intimidation.
I ask my noble friend the Minister: when is normalisation likely? This is all related to the legacy issue. Currently, the Secretary of State is considering the repeal of the legacy Act. When will the new legacy legislation come forward? I know that that is circumscribed by certain legal instruments in certain courts because, yesterday, I had the opportunity here to meet two daughters of Sean Brown, who was brutally murdered in March 1997 in Bellaghy. There is a need for a full investigation and inquiry because there are lots of twists in the tale of why he was murdered. His family need to know that; they need truth and justice.
With that, I understand the reasons for the extension. It is not something that I sit happily beside, but I hope that we are moving to full normalisation and that we will not see an extension for another two years in two years’ time.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I support this draft order extending the provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, which will, for a further two years until 31 July 2027, enable criminal trials to continue to be concluded without a jury in Northern Ireland if certain conditions are met. The provisions are there to protect potential jurors from intimidation and offer defendants protection from potentially biased jurors in specific cases. The extension is also informed by the security situation in Northern Ireland, including the fact that the threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorists has remained at “substantial” since March 2024.
As we know, non-jury trials take place only in exceptional circumstances. Under the old Diplock scheme, the default was a non-jury trial for certain offences. I entirely understand the Government’s reasons for wanting to extend the measures, given the circumstances in Northern Ireland; those have already been touched on. We know that, in the past weeks, we have witnessed serious violence across Northern Ireland. Police officers were seriously injured, property was attacked and were people attacked in their own homes. Let me say this clearly: the violence that we have witnessed on our streets in recent days cannot be justified and must be condemned. We have people in Northern Ireland who want to take us back to those days but we, as democrats, must resist that.
The other issue I want to raise—the Minister will be aware of it—is the resourcing and funding of the PSNI. It has continued to fall over a number of years. In fact, the current budget is simply inadequate and the pressures on the service are unsustainable, certainly in the long term. The PSNI is currently running at an estimated deficit of £34 million, which is a huge amount of money, and the force requires significant financial investment over the next number of years. We know that the chief constable has touched on this issue many times because, at this moment in time, we have 3,300 police officers in Northern Ireland; the chief constable is saying that, for the police in Northern Ireland to do the job that they need to do, that figure needs to be raised to over 7,000. This can be done only by the proper resourcing of policing in Northern Ireland but that has not been the case. I appeal to the Minister and this Labour Government: if they seriously want good, effective policing across Northern Ireland, it is important that the PSNI is properly resourced.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her presentation. I am pleased to support the order. We all have a responsibility to ensure that peace, stability and justice are protected and long-lasting. It is important to acknowledge that good progress regarding the security situation in Northern Ireland has been made and that the threat to jurors has, in some instances, been reduced.
However, recently collected evidence confirms that there remains concern about the potential for jury intimidation and bias, particularly in cases with paramilitary connections. Although, as we have heard, there are only a small number of cases where a non-jury trial is necessary, it remains my view that the current provision, though far from perfect, should continue to serve Northern Ireland as a necessary function in supporting the effective delivery of the criminal justice process. Naturally, there is a certain reluctance to renew such exceptional provisions—like others, I wish that such measures were a thing of the past—but, given Northern Ireland’s exceptional security complexity and the spectre of the threat of intimidation from dissident paramilitaries and other criminal elements, the renewal of the non-jury provisions is necessary.
Of course, it is important that we have safeguards. These are built into this, in that decisions for non-jury trials are made on a case-by-case basis. Of course, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland must suspect that one or more of the four safeguard conditions are met. Another protection is that any person convicted before a non-jury court has the right of appeal against sentence or conviction without leave and has the opportunity to have the judgment against them explained; of course, that is not available if they are convicted by a jury.
It is my hope that the day will come when measures such as those before us today are unnecessary, but, unfortunately, the consultation and evidence clearly show that that stage has not been reached. The onus is on all of us to continue to work maturely in order to work out practical ways forward towards achieving a more normalised society in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, we will not be back here in two years’ time to renew this order.
One point of concern that I have regarding non-jury trials is that it appears that they are sometimes subject to considerable delay. I believe that this should be investigated. Of course, jury trials in Northern Ireland are also delayed sometimes, which is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Finally, almost 26 years after the signing of the Belfast agreement, we still have the curse of paramilitary organisations operating across Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that it is time that these paramilitary organisations left the stage without being offered more financial incentives?
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the instrument before the Committee, as this is a Northern Ireland debate and it is 1 July, I want to take a moment to reflect that today marks the 109th anniversary of the first day of the Battle of the Somme. We remember the heroic sacrifice of the men of the 36th (Ulster) Division at Thiepval on that day in 1916 and, later in September, that of the 16th (Irish) Division at Guillemont and Ginchy. I had the honour of representing His Majesty’s Government at the Somme on a number of occasions, including in my last official engagement as a Minister on this day last year; there was never a more solemn, moving or poignant duty.
I turn to the instrument before the Committee. The Opposition support the ninth extension, under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, for a further two years of non-jury trials in a small number of cases. As the Minister who extended these measures in your Lordships’ House in 2023, I could probably repeat almost word for word what I said a little over two years ago; I am sure that the Committee will be relieved if I do not do so.
As has been pointed out, a non-jury trial may be permitted if the defendant is associated with a proscribed organisation or if the offence being tried is in connection with religious or political hostility. Such cases are high-profile and continue to provoke strong opinion across the community in Northern Ireland. In such circumstances, the risks of jury intimidation and juror bias remain very real probabilities. As such, I agree with the Minister that these measures are both necessary and proportionate.
With that said, it is also worth considering the very real progress that has been made. As the Minister pointed out, and as was recognised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the number of non-jury trials is now around 0.7% of the total number of trials in Northern Ireland and has been at that level for the past few years. To put that into further perspective, that is a total of 10 cases out of some 1,500 in the Crown Court in 2024; this compares to around 300 a year during the peak of the old Diplock system in the 1980s.
I noted with interest the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who is a distinguished former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and, now, the chair of the scrutiny committee. I, probably like him, have lost count of the number of times I have sat in rooms in Washington and New York and had to explain to Irish-American audiences the difference between the old Diplock system and the system that we have had since 2007. We all look forward to the day when all trials will be conducted in front of juries and these measures can lapse, but we remain some way from that today.
The fact that these measures are required reminds us that, although life in Northern Ireland has in many respects been transformed over the past 30 years since the ceasefires and the subsequent Belfast agreement of 1998, there remains a potent terrorist threat. Although the threat level went down from “severe” to “substantial” in March 2024, there can be absolutely no room for complacency. I am always conscious that the difference between those two threat levels of “substantial” and “severe” is one word—“highly”—because “substantial” means that an attack is likely while “severe” means that an attack is highly likely. So we cannot be complacent.
There persist in Northern Ireland small numbers of people determined to pursue their political agenda through acts of terrorism. Although their actions will always ultimately fail in their objectives, they retain both lethal intent and capability. However, they will never succeed because the future of Northern Ireland will only ever be decided by democracy and consent—never by violence. That has been the determination of successive Governments over many years, including the ones in which I served, and I believe that it is the determination of His Majesty’s current Government today.
The reason why there are not more successful—if I can use that word—national security attacks in Northern Ireland is down to the skill, professionalism and bravery of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and our other security agencies, which do so much to thwart them. Like the Minister, I place on the record once again our unstinting support for them, along with our admiration and thanks; we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for the superb job that they do.
In that context, I genuinely welcome the additional security funding for the PSNI that was announced by the Government in the recent spending review. The need for that additional security funding was recognised and delivered by the then coalition Government in 2010 and continued by its Conservative successors. I am pleased that it has been maintained by the current Government; it is of huge importance for the PSNI in its efforts to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe and secure.
In conclusion, the extension of these measures, though regrettable, remains necessary in certain cases to ensure that the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland continues to function. I was struck by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, on the delays in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. It seems that it can take an interminable time for cases to come to trial; every effort really does need to be made to try to speed up the process.
I agree with the Minister that no Government in the United Kingdom treat this issue of the dispensing of juries in criminal trials lightly. We all share the hope that, sooner rather than later, the day will come when we can dispense with these measures. Until that day comes, however, we have a duty to extend them; the Opposition therefore support the order before the Committee today.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
First, I thank all noble Lords—and the noble Baroness—for their support for the extension of the non-jury trial provisions.
Before I move on to the substance of what we have been talking about, I want to reference something that the noble Lord, Lord Caine, rightly raised: today is the anniversary of the Somme. Unfortunately, due to parliamentary time and business in both Houses, no Minister is able to go to Northern Ireland today, but the Secretary of State laid a wreath at the Cenotaph to recognise the service of and remember those who lost their lives and fought to give us everything that we are discussing today around our access to a fair justice system.
I also thank the noble Lord for making sure that every anniversary is always referenced in the House. He taught me well when I took over his former role on Northern Ireland. His first piece of advice was to make sure that I always know which anniversary it is; I am grateful for both that advice and his ongoing support.
We are using an exceptional system that is used only in very limited circumstances. There is rightly a presumption for a jury trial in all cases. As I have said, and as we have touched on, non-jury trials account for less than 1% of all Crown Court cases in Northern Ireland. The Government are committed to ending the non-jury trial system under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, but now is not the right time to do so; I am very pleased that noble Lords recognise this.
This Government are committed to tackling the threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism, as the previous Government were, and to supporting the Northern Ireland Executive’s programme to tackle paramilitarism. However, we believe that further progress on the security situation is required before we can be confident that these non-jury trials are no longer required. I want to touch on some of the points made by noble Lords; I hope to answer all their questions but, if I do not, I will reflect on them in Hansard and write to noble Lords.
It is incredibly important that we touch on the current situation with regard to paramilitarism in Northern Ireland. As has been said very eloquently in your Lordships’ House, not only was it was never justified; it is not justified today. It requires a concerted effort, from those of us who believe in democracy and peace, to keep fighting the good fight. Perhaps that is not the appropriate language to have used. Violence and criminality have no place in Northern Ireland. They serve only to hold us back from decades of progress as we move forwards towards a peaceful and prosperous future in Northern Ireland.
I turn to some of the specific points. My noble friend Lady Ritchie touched on the number of non-jury trial cases in 2023. As the noble Lord, Lord Caine, stated, it was 10 cases out of 1,501 last year, or 0.7%. There has been a clear trajectory downwards in those numbers.
On ending the temporary provisions, which I think all noble Lords agree is where we need to end up—as was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Caine, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie—none of us wants to see this system of non-jury trials in place for longer than needed, but much depends on the security situation. While I wish I could tell my noble friend when the security situation will be resolved, that is unfortunately beyond my gift. I wish I could resolve it tomorrow. The Government will keep the provisions under constant review and continue to ask the independent reviewer of the justice and security Act to review the operation of non-jury trials in their annual report. As I said in opening, without prejudging any future consultation, the Secretary of State has asked officials to examine, over the next two years, how Northern Ireland can move away from these provisions when the time is right.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My noble friend will recall that I and others discussed with her in the last few weeks trying to ring-fence funding in the Cabinet Office and Downing Street specifically for policing in Northern Ireland and to transfer it to the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that it is used not by other government departments but simply for policing. Has there been any progress on that?
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
I do not know where I got 3,000 from—I meant to say 6,000. I apologise to the Committee and ask for correction.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his correction. He did worry me a little that something had happened within the PSNI that I had missed. I have my own slight correction to make, which is more of a technicality: the £200 million I announced for police recruitment has been approved by the Department of Finance but needs executive approval, which it is yet to receive. I wanted to clarify that before I got myself in trouble.
Regarding the very genuine question from my noble friend and many others on the ring-fencing of the PSNI grant, I understand why this is such an issue. We increased the budget during the SR to £19.3 billion, which is the highest amount on record. However, we must be clear on what devolution is and is not. The money has been sent to Northern Ireland; it is there, and it is now up to the politicians in Northern Ireland to prioritise funding. However, as noble Lords will be aware, we have ensured that there is ring-fencing for the additional security fund, and we continue to work daily with the Executive to secure additional funding.
On the delay in trials raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, while the Justice Minister for England is here and definitely heard that request, I will clarify for the record that the issue of delays in the projection of non-jury trials was raised by two respondents to the consultation on how long this was taking. One respondent who objected to the extension of the provisions in particular raised the concern that a judge sitting alone could adjourn the case for a longer period of time than would be possible if a jury had been sitting. However, this should be seen against the backdrop of the wider criminal justice system being subject to delay.
The justice system is devolved, and it is for the Department of Justice to lead. It has work under way to address some of the causes, including work to reform committal processes. PSNI is also progressing work to improve the timeliness of case file submissions to tackle delay. In March 2025, the devolved Minister of Justice welcomed the allocation of additional funding to progress reforms within the justice system, and £20.45 million has been allocated to help speed up and transform the criminal justice system.
Lord Caine (Con)
I do not wish to detain the Committee for much longer. The noble Baroness rightly said that the criminal justice system is devolved in Northern Ireland, but these are cases that involve national security issues, which are, of course, a responsibility of His Majesty’s Government and the Secretary of State. In former times it was very common practice for the Secretary of State and the Justice Minister to have frequent meetings at which they would discuss these matters. Could she assure me that these are continuing and that the Secretary of State regularly engages with the Justice Minister to try to speed up these delays in the criminal justice system?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Like magic, a piece of paper has arrived that confirms that the Secretary of State—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My officials are absolutely brilliant. It confirms that the Secretary of State engages with the Justice Minister regularly on issues of shared interest and concern, and this obviously includes issues pertaining to national security and will continue to do so. I will endeavour to get an update on anything else that is going on and write to the noble Lord.
I think I have answered most of the substantive points, but there are a couple of others that I want to touch on. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his previous work on counterterrorism and the work that he is doing with the Northern Ireland committee. That is a step towards normalisation, which has been a theme as we talk about some of these issues. Making sure that normalisation happens, in terms of both counterterrorism and the operation of our communities, is key because we are democrats. Making sure that we are being held to account is key.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked when legacy legislation will come forward. She knows me well as a Whip, and I am adamant and clear that we will definitely bring forward such legislation when parliamentary time allows. All noble Lords will be aware that this was a manifesto commitment and was in the King’s Speech, and I expect to spend many hours in Committee debating it with all of you.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister, and I appreciate that she cannot give a time commitment on the introduction of legislation, but can she confirm whether the Government intend to set out the next steps on legacy before the Summer Recess?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I can assure the noble Lord that he and I are likely to be in correspondence before Summer Recess.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
On the £200 million that has been allocated to policing, have the Executive received that amount? There is some confusion on the £200 million. We are getting information that, until now, they have received only £5 million. Clarity on the £200 million would be important, especially when it comes to policing. Has it been approved by the Executive?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
I believe it is still waiting to be approved by the Executive. But in terms of the block grant, one of the things that we have been able to reassure the Executive on is what their funding is going to be over the next three years, and that gives them a level of confidence to move forward.
I have received another clever bit of paper. Yesterday’s June monitoring round announcement confirmed that the Executive have agreed to give the Northern Ireland Department of Justice first call on up to £7 million in future monitoring rounds in the current financial year, towards the first year of the PSNI workforce recovery business case. That is the £7 million, not the £200 million. But I want to reassure noble Lords before I sit down or give way that this is a devolved matter, and how they are allocating their money is a matter for colleagues in Belfast.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
As a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, I say that the Minister will appreciate that that sort of commitment from the June monitoring process is not really a commitment because I know personally that these sorts of commitments were made to me as Housing Minister and they never necessarily materialised. I ask whether it is possible for her, as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, to impress upon the Northern Ireland Executive the importance of the definite allocation of funding for policing because the chief constable needs it in order to deal with current policing pressures in advance of dealing with those issues to do with legacy that are pre devolution.
Lord Hay of Ballyore
Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, there is confusion about this £200 million, where it has gone, who is allocating it and so on. We need clarification around the allocation of future funding for police.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
My Lords, what I can say is that this is a good first step to getting police on the streets. The very fact that we are having this discussion about how we are going to spend more money that the UK Government have allocated to the Northern Ireland Executive is a good step. I think all noble Lords would agree that John Boutcher is an extraordinary public servant and has made an effective argument as to why he needs additional resourcing. The onus is therefore on the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure that they are communicating clearly with him about next steps. On that note, I think I have answered all questions from noble Lords, and I hope that they will continue to support the adoption of the SI.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson
That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. The previous Government added just 500 net spaces to our prison estate, while at the same time sentence lengths rose. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year and outstripping supply.
When we took office, we were left no option but to introduce a temporary change to the law that allows prisoners serving an eligible standard determinate sentence to be released on licence after serving 40%, rather than 50%, of their sentence in custody. This enabled the end of the dysfunctional and unmanageable end of custody supervised licence scheme. But we knew this was a first step.
Since taking office, this Government have delivered almost 2,500 prison places. In the most recent spending review, we committed a further £4.7 billion to open 14,000 more by 2031. This is the largest prison expansion since the Victorian era. That longer-term investment is necessary, but not sufficient in itself, to avoid the capacity issues that we have faced in the criminal justice system for many months. In May, the Lord Chancellor announced that the adult male custodial estate across England and Wales was forecast to run out of places by November this year. Alongside the Government’s long-term building strategy and sentencing reform, this grave projection requires immediate action, particularly in respect of the current use of recall.
Last October, we commissioned the independent sentencing review, led by the former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, to find sustainable policy solutions and ensure that no future Government are ever again in a position where we have more prisoners than prison places, and are forced to rely on emergency release. This review suggests that recall should be rare and a last resort, replacing standard and short-term recalls for those on standard determinate sentences with a 56-day fixed-term recall. The Government have in principle accepted this recommendation, which requires primary legislation to implement.
A Bill will soon be introduced to implement many of the review’s recommendations. However, it will take time to take effect. The impact of sentencing reforms will not be felt before spring next year. We therefore remain in a critical position until then. Our custodial estate stands as a reservoir filled to the brim. Any further influx risks overflow, with serious consequences for the system and society alike. That is why we are taking targeted action on recall, which remains a significant driver of prison demand.
The recall population has more than doubled since 2018, from 6,000 to 13,600 prisoners in March this year, without a corresponding growth in offending rates. With more people in prison and under community supervision serving longer sentences, recall rates have naturally increased. When recalled, offenders serving standard determinate sentences can currently receive either a standard or a fixed-term recall. The length of a fixed-term recall is set out in primary legislation. It is set at 28 days if the sentence is 12 months or more, or 14 days if the sentence is under 12 months. During this time, the Probation Service will put in place robust risk management plans and stringent licence conditions for their release. After this period, they are automatically re-released. Those not suitable for a fixed-term recall may currently receive a standard recall, under which they remain in custody until the end of their sentence, unless re-released earlier by the Secretary of State or the Parole Board. Our latest data shows that at least 48% of all recalls are fixed term rather than standard.
This order provides for the mandatory use of fixed-term recall in specified circumstances. We estimate that this will be able to create an additional 1,400 prison places. It shall apply to adult offenders serving standard determinate sentences of fewer than 48 months, except where they are under the age of 18 at the point of recall, are convicted of terrorist or national security offences or pose a terrorist risk, are managed at MAPPA levels 2 or 3—which includes certain violent and sexual offenders—or are recalled in connection with being charged with an offence. These offenders can continue to receive a standard-term recall, with release subject to Parole Board or Secretary of State decision. In all other applicable cases, a fixed-term recall must now be imposed.
It remains the case that the Probation Service will undertake an individualised risk assessment before any offender is released under this measure, regardless of the offence they commit, including the risk of physical, emotional, psychological or sexual harm, to inform their risk management plan and licence conditions. Offenders face re-recall to prison if they breach licence conditions or their risk escalates.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for outlining this SI. Both the Prison Service and the Probation Service are in a mess. There is no point in wasting time apportioning blame. My family motto, ar bwy mae’r bai—who can we blame? —is used far too much in modern situations.
The criminal justice system is out of kilter. There are not enough judges. There is no money to fund the number of sitting days for which the Lord Chief Justice has called. There are not enough prosecutors to man the courts that do sit and it is no longer profitable for barristers to appear for the defence. The simple consequence is that there are 17,000 remand prisoners sitting idly in cells awaiting trial. That is nearly 20% of the prison population. Compare that to the 1,300 new prison places that this measure envisages.
The next problem is the length of sentences. There is no God-given standard for the amount of time a person should spend in prison for an offence. An eye for an eye is about as far as the Bible ever took us, along with a lot about forgiveness and redemption. Henry VIII made himself head of the Church, but 72,000 people were executed in his time, 75% of them for theft. In Elizabethan times, the death penalty was imposed for theft of more than a shilling. There were no problems of an excessive prison population at that time, but neither did it solve the crime problem.
When I was in mid-flow in my practice in the 1980s, sentences were probably a half to two-thirds of what they are currently, but political competition created a demand for longer sentences. Which party could be tougher on crime? They were fully aided by the media in this, and public pressure to increase sentences was the result. I discussed this with the late Lord Judge, when he was Lord Chief Justice. The gist of his reply was that you must expect the judiciary to react to and follow what the public want. The recent battle between the Lord Chancellor and the Sentencing Council was deeply depressing; they should really be on the same side.
Fuelling the demand for longer sentences is a perception that the country is going to pot, and that crime is more and more rampant. But, if you look at the statistics, you get a different picture. In 1982, there were 620 homicides. It grows to just over 1,000 at the beginning of this millennium, after which there was a decline. In the year ending last December, the number reduced to 535 homicides, as recorded by the police.
By way of comparison, I have some knowledge of Trinidad where I visited death row. In the early 2000s, it held about 150 inmates as part of the royal prison. In the most recent comparable year, 2024, there were 624 homicides in Trinidad—more than the UK, but in a population of 1.5 million as opposed to the 70 million in this country. Crime is not rampant.
The next problem is the recruitment and retention of prison and probation staff. I have spoken many times about the problems at Berwyn prison near my home in Wrexham—the largest prison in Britain. In May this year, His Majesty’s Inspectorate found that a new governor had indeed injected some energy into dealing with its problems, but it reported that
“too many prisoners … did not have enough to occupy their time, with 25% unemployed and 27%”—
only 27%—
“in part-time work or education”.
I am sure that these figures will not impress the Minister.
There has always been a severe shortage of experienced prison officers at this prison. It was explained to me by an experienced and senior prison officer from Parkhurst on the Isle of Wight that prison officers look to their fellows to protect their backs, and they will not apply for positions in new prisons with rookie prison officers. In the last statistics that I saw, something like 80% at Berwyn prison had not served three years in the job.
This SI asks a lot of the Probation Service to prop up all these failures elsewhere in the criminal justice system. The Probation Service has very similar problems of retention and recruitment. The Minister referred to being one on one with a probation officer. I was told of one incident where one probation officer was looking after a group of a dozen or so, whose day’s task was painting a wall. One youth complained of vertigo after climbing a ladder and demanded that he be taken home. The sole probation officer, who drove the van, had no option but to pile all his charges into the back of the van to take the unfortunate individual to his place of abode. When they returned to the painting job later, someone had nicked all the paint tins. The system is broken.
So what is the lesson from all this? This SI will not solve a single part of the structural problems that I outlined. It is a stopgap, a thumb in the hole of the dam. If the Minister leaves this Room with his officials thinking that they have solved the problem and skinned this instrument through—despite the excellent report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, whose criticisms I entirely support—they will fail the people of this country. It is more than a battle for funds with the Treasury. It is more than for the Ministry of Justice to become a protected department. I hope that this Minister will have the vision and energy to drive wholesale reform through. He will earn his place in history if he does.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest: I was the lead non-executive director of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service from 2018 to 2025. I support the proposal that the Minister has put before us. I note the noble Lord’s family motto, but am nevertheless compelled to observe that many of these short-term fixes that are being put in place to deal with the capacity crisis could have been addressed by the last Government much sooner.
I think I am right to say that the recall population is growing faster than the overall prison population as a whole—no doubt, if that is not correct, the Minister’s officials will correct me. Nevertheless, we should have addressed the growing recall population long before we were forced to by the capacity crisis. Too many offenders are recalled with little benefit and much disruption. This reform, small though its impact is—the noble Lord is quite correct about that—will put a brake on the length of recalls but not reduce substantially the number of offenders recalled. As the Minister said, we will have to wait until the implementation of the sentencing reforms proposed by David Gauke to make long-term reform to the numbers of people being recalled. I hope we will address that problem robustly. As I say, I support this reform, but we really need to put an end to these short-term fixes and get a grip on the whole sentencing issue. We will have the chance to do that before long.
I have two caveats of concern in this proposal. First, I quite understand the concerns that people have about the public protection safeguards, particularly for offenders who have committed offences involving domestic violence. The Minister referred to those and I know from my experience in HMPPS that the safeguards are robust and I hope that they will protect those victims appropriately.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the order. We must, of course, recognise the extent of the pressures facing our prison services. Prison spaces have reached capacity and recalled prisoners are a significant driver of prison place demand. Recall is a measure available to His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to bring an offender managed in the community, following release from prison, back into custody. That is a point to which I will return. Under current legislation, recall is used when offenders breach their licence conditions, no matter how minor the breach of licence conditions may be, even in the case of a non-violent offender. It will also apply where their risk is elevated.
As indicated, at the end of March this year, 13,583 prisoners had been recalled into custody, together with a further 17 mentioned by the Minister. That is an increase of 10% since the year before and more than double the recall population in 2018. These figures are a matter for concern, and we recognise the Government’s intention to address the challenges through interventions of various kinds, but we have several concerns with the approach taken in this order.
First, we must recognise that if a prisoner is sent to prison for four years, re-releasing him back into the community after 28 days poses significant risks to victims and the wider public. The reforms introduced by the Government create considerable risk to the public and are required to be reconsidered.
Secondly, there are 10,500 foreign criminals in our jails and 17,000 people in prison awaiting trial—on remand—which, together account for almost one-third of the prison population. It is essential for the Government to reconsider the judiciary’s offer of extra court sitting days as a means of reducing prisoner numbers and to address the whole issue of remand and how it is approached.
Thirdly, we know that there is not one solution to fix the current prison population pressures, but we must be acute to the threat of re-releasing high-risk violent offenders to the public when they have a track record of poor compliance. Probation services are already struggling with unprecedented demands, and it is essential that the Government reconsider the implications of these reforms on both the victims of crime and the issue of wider public safety.
Fourthly, I quote Dame Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales, who said that she could not stress enough,
“the lack of consideration for victims’ safety and how many lives are being put in danger because of this proposed change”.
We must be responsive to the warnings made by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. These reforms cannot safely exempt perpetrators of domestic abuse from the proposal, because they do not know how many domestic abusers are serving time in prison or currently being monitored by probation.
In conclusion, we recognise that the Government have difficult decisions to make, but they must do so with a rational approach, not one that proposes changes that further endanger lives. We urge the Government to reconsider their plans for recalling prisoners and choose the safety of the public over pressure on prison spaces. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on this. I do not expect him to respond to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that somehow the death penalty could be a solution; clearly, that was not his intended meaning. But I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lemos: the number of recalls as well as the period of recall is critical here. As I indicated in a previous debate in the Chamber, it respectfully appears to me that one ought to address whether minor licence breaches should, in the case of non-violent offenders, result in recall at all. There are alternative means of dealing with this.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions this afternoon. I will write if I miss any answers to specific questions, but I will try to answer them all here.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made some important and interesting points around the Prison and Probation Service being in a mess and blame. I am not in the blame game—I am in the “fix it” game—but we all recognise the complex problems that we have across the whole justice system. It needs a thoughtful, long-term vision.
On the issues in the courts, the Leveson review will be published shortly. The Government are going through this important process to address the problems that the noble Lord raised, but, in the meantime, a record number of sitting days have now been funded in the Crown Court. That is still not enough, though; we need a sustainable system.
The Gauke review has been published and will, I hope, soon lead to legislation. We talk about sentence length. The progression model described in this review is very interesting. It is aligned with the Texas model: if you behave well, you have a certain release point, but, if you behave badly, you stay in prison for longer. I am interested in how incentives work in prison because the model is well proven in other jurisdictions.
It is not just about the Leveson review and the Gauke review; it is also about the spending review. The Treasury has given us a substantial amount of money to build new prison places, so that by the end of this Parliament we will have more people in prison than ever before. There is also investment in probation, with an extra £700 million for more staff, accommodation, tags and technology. We need these three reviews, but we also need long-term culture change and a sustainable plan.
I am glad the noble Lord talks about HMP Berwyn— I can also see it from my house. I know quite a lot about what is going on there, because a foster child who used to live with our family is a prison officer there and tells us regularly about what is going on. The noble Lord is correct that there are still recruitment gaps at HMP Berwyn; the retention rates and the average length of service of a prison officer there, and in other prisons as well, are too low. That is why I am implementing the prison officer training review, which I carried out before I came into Government, to make sure that we recruit great officers who learn the skills quickly, alongside the more complex skills required, and who stay. One of the things that we have lost over the years is the long- term skills base that the service had for many years.
I think I am one of the few Ministers who has visited HMP Parkhurst recently. It has a full complement of officers, with a very different employment set up—it makes a big difference when you have enough staff; that is very clear. When a prison has enough staff, we can get enough prisoners into activities, education and so on.
The ask of probation is significant, and noble Lords and noble and learned Lords are 100% correct that this is where the heavy lifting needs to be done. It is about investing in recruitment, training and technology. If we do not get this right, we will keep having problems in our prisons as well. I agree that we need long-term reform to solve this problem. In the short term, it is important that we do not run out of space. We need a sustainable justice system. I am sure the noble Lord will be pleased to know that I certainly have the vision and energy to get this done. The satisfaction is not for me but for the officers and probation staff, so that they can be enabled to do the job they came into the service to do.
My noble friend Lord Lemos raises some very important points around short-term measures. They just prove that the system is unsustainable, and this has been going on and on. We need to make sure that the staff who work in the Prison and Probation Service have far more consistent leadership and policy-making from us so they know what they need to do, rather than it changing all the time. We need to make sure that capacity is sustainable, and that we have enough probation and prison staff to do the job.
The organisation needs a strong vision, but within that vision, victims need to come first. That is why the role of victim liaison officers and the victim contact scheme is really important, but we need the resources. The noble Lord is quite right that we need to invest in probation. That is why the 45% increase in funding to £700 million is really important.
What is happening with technology? This morning, I was a dragon: we had our first technology “Dragon’s Den”, where I sat in on seven presentations from some of the most developed technology companies in the world. We had someone from New Zealand and someone from America, as well as UK-based technology companies, presenting their solutions to some of our problems. Some of those were about what we can do to improve what happens in a prison, but most of them were about probation, and that is exactly where we need to invest in our technology.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, raised very important points around the concerns about the 28-day recall and what happens when someone is released after that. It is better than the emergency releases, which were less controlled, and 28 or 14 days give us time, hopefully, to find accommodation and the medical support that people need. However, we do not want to have as many recalls as we have now; he is completely right about that. Public safety has to be our priority, but we also need to ensure that probation staff are focused on those at highest risk, because they are probably more likely to be recalled. I agree that we need rational thinking, but we need space in our prisons to ensure that the reforms coming down the track can take effect, so we cannot run out of space before then.
Recalls have doubled since 2018. The noble and learned Lord is completely right that the number is far too high, but I believe we have high levels because too many people are leaving our prison system addicted, homeless, mentally unwell and unemployed. Having been on the employment side of this work for more than 20 years, I know that it is incredibly difficult to employ someone who may be very talented but is ill and homeless. It is about having a sustainable system and reducing the number of recalls over time, but we will do that most appropriately by setting people up when they leave prison to succeed rather than to fail.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I do not want to be difficult, but why should we not pursue the suggestion, even in advance of the Gauke review, of not recalling? Is it completely impossible not to recall people for minor breaches of a sentence for a minor offence? Why can we not get on with that?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
This recall works by using MAPPA levels 2 and 3, terrorist offences and so on, but, in the longer term, recall will form part of the discussions around the Gauke review and the sentencing Bill. However, it is important that we have recall as a tool for victims of domestic violence whose perpetrators are ignoring orders against them.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I intervene to emphasise the point that I and the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, have made. In the case of offenders who commit a minor breach of their licence and have not been sentenced for a violent offence, there is surely a compelling case for not recalling them at all—there are other means of dealing with them through the Probation Service—so that we do not have a situation in which someone who has been in prison for fraud, for example, is stopped for a road traffic offence and sent back because they have breached the terms of their licence. It does not seem to make any sense in this context, and this could be done more or less immediately.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
I support the noble and learned Lord in that. There are recalls for failure to keep appointments, such as tagging appointments. If the Minister were to lay down a rule that people were to be tagged before they left prison and not wander around the countryside until they fail to make an appointment for that purpose, it would do a great deal of service.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Our probation officers are experts in managing risk and their decisions determine whether someone is recalled, but it is important that we look into examples where it seems that someone should not be recalled. We need to have diversion options available too; the breaches may be minor, but they might not be from the victim’s point of view and may be part of other offending behaviour. IPP offenders, for example, can sometimes be recalled if their behaviour is similar to their original offence.
I hope noble Lords agree that this order is necessary to address the critical capacity issues faced by our prisons in the immediate future and is an appropriate bridging measure to avert a crisis before longer-term solutions are implemented. This draft instrument is a critical part of the Ministry of Justice’s approach to ensuring that our criminal justice system can continue to operate effectively. I trust that your Lordships will recognise its necessity, and I therefore commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Migrants: Hotel Accommodation
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Evans of Rainow
To ask His Majesty’s Government what standard of hotel accommodation they provide to migrants who have entered the United Kingdom in small boats from France.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my noble friend’s name on the Order Paper.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I thought I was going to get a “two for” there. All accommodation meets relevant legal requirements, as well as contractual standards, to be safe, fit for purpose and properly equipped. The contractual standards are contained in the Asylum Accommodation and Support Contracts.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
I thank the Minister for that Answer and apologise for not being my noble friend Lord Evans. He has a contact who runs a series of hostels for backpackers, many of whom are young men who must, in the course of things, share facilities. But when my noble friend’s contact applied to the Home Office to take illegal migrants in his hostels, he was told this was impossible because not all the facilities are en suite. So my noble friend would like to know why shared facilities are suitable for young male legal backpackers but not for young male illegal migrants.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Perhaps the noble Lord could ask the previous Home Office Ministers under the last Administration, because all the contracts with the current asylum accommodation were signed by the previous Ministers. I am very happy to look at the issue, but I repeat, for the avoidance of doubt, that all the contracts were signed by previous Ministers under the last Administration.
Lord German (LD)
The accommodation is not suitable for either the community or the asylum seekers. Given that there are two main ways in which the Government could improve this situation dramatically, can the noble Lord tell us how they are getting on with reducing the backlog of cases being heard, and whether they will allow people to work so they can pay for their own accommodation?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are getting on quite well, actually. If noble Lords will bear with me, the supported accommodation as of 31 March 2025 is 15% lower than at the end of 2024 and 42% lower than at the end of September 2023. We are moving people through supported accommodation, and we are trying to get the backlog down. We have used money saved from the wasteful Rwanda scheme to put into people examining asylum claims and processing them quickly. I note again the noble Lord’s helpful suggestion that we look at how people can work. That is a pull factor, and we should have an honest debate on that issue, but again, we keep all options on the table.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, report after report has documented what one described as the “cruel, unsafe and degrading” treatment experienced by many asylum seekers living in hotels, especially LGBTQ people, women and children. What steps are the Home Office taking to strengthen safeguarding procedures so long as hotels—usually of low quality—continue to be used to house asylum seekers?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. Safeguarding is extremely important, and it is the Government’s ambition to remove all asylum seekers from hotels as soon as is practical. We have reduced the number of hotels: in fact, we have fewer hotels now, in the week of the general election anniversary, than we had last year when the Conservative Party left office. It is our ambition to further reduce that. When the Conservatives were in office, hotel costs peaked at £9 million per day. This time last year they were £8.5 million per day, and this year they are £6 million per day. That is still too high, but it is on the right, downward trajectory, and we will continue to safeguard in doing that.
Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)
My Lords, I have a pal who has a fairly good-grade job. Many months ahead, he had booked four-star accommodation two days a week at a well-known hotel chain. He had a phone call out of the blue and was told, “I’m very sorry but your months-ahead booked accommodation in our four-star hotel has now been cancelled because the hotel of 150 rooms has been taken over for migrant accommodation”. Does the Minister agree with me that the pull factors of good accommodation are clear and obvious? The pull factor of the ability to get a delivery job in this country is very clear, and we can see illegal working on every high street. Until we get a grip on this issue, I am afraid that it will not get any better. We need rather more than “let’s smash the gangs”.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I would be grateful if he could write to me with the details of his friend’s hotel, because that is a great surprise to me. We are not opening new hotels; we are trying to reduce the number of such hotels and reducing the bill, under his Government, of £9 million a day to the current £6 million a day that I mentioned.
If the noble Lord wants to tackle illegal working, I recommend that he supports the Bill on employment rights currently before this House, which is about reducing the pull factors of illegal working and cracking down on illegal employers. As I recall, the Opposition have voted against that Bill on several occasions and plan to do so again.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, according to a report by Migrant Voice, in 2023 the Home Office received 1,500 complaints about migrant hotels. They included lack of privacy; having to share rooms and sometimes even beds with strangers; overcrowding; dirty rooms, bathrooms and toilets; little access to healthcare; sexual harassment; intimidation; racism; out-of-date food and so on. These conditions are dehumanising. Are the Government aware of the conditions in these hotels?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend. He mentioned a report, which was from 2023. This Government have been very clear that, as I said in my original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman of Wycombe, we need to provide accommodation that meets all contractual standards and is safe, fit for purpose and properly equipped. The contractual standards, which are in the Asylum Accommodation and Support Contracts, must meet decency levels and be maintained. That is the objective of this Government. As I say, the details my noble friend gave are from 2023.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, if the Minister wants to talk about voting against the Government, perhaps he might like to recall that his party voted more than 130 times against our Bill designed to avoid this situation. Under the Conservatives, the number of asylum seekers being housed in hotels decreased in three consecutive quarters prior to Labour coming into office. Since Labour gained power, the number of asylum seekers housed in hotels has risen by some 29%. At what point does the Minister think his Government will honour their manifesto, given that small boat arrivals are now over 20,000, which is an increase of around 50% on this time last year?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government set a clear direction of travel on reducing hotels, tackling the asylum backlog, trying to prevent people coming to this country unfairly in the first place and, when they do claim asylum, processing those claims much quicker. I point the noble Lord to one figure, which I hope is helpful to him. That figure is 9,208, which is the number of people who have been removed from the United Kingdom up to the end of 2024, since the general election. This compares with an average figure of around 2,000 for the previous Government during their term of office. The noble Lord and his Government got us into the position of a rise in hotel numbers to a maximum of 400, a rising cost to £9 million, a record number of people coming to this country, a failure to remove people who are being denied asylum, and a failure to process asylum claims in a speedy and effective way. We are clearing up his mess and doing the best we can to achieve that.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, can the noble Lord bring us up to date on the position of unaccompanied migrant children who are in hotels, and is he satisfied that their safety and safeguarding are being properly addressed?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. We took an early decision, as he knows, to work with the local authority, Kent, to ensure that safeguarding was in place, and that is in place now. There are still a number of unaccounted migrant children, who precede this Government’s responsibilities, and we are making efforts to track them down as best we can. I assure him that we are taking every step we can to make sure that that situation does not occur again.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
Are the Government making any progress in their search for safe third countries where applicants for asylum could have their case processed before being admitted to this country at all? That is the only policy they have that would avoid the need for hotel accommodation almost completely in future. Is this still the Government’s policy? Is there any prospect of progress being made in the near future?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government, as the noble Lord knows, have been discussing a number of matters with a number of countries. I cannot bring him up to date today on the final details of those projects. We have scrapped the Rwanda scheme, which was costly, ineffective and did not remove people. We are continuing to work with our French, Dutch and Belgian colleagues to look at how we can stem the flow of people coming here through irregular migration, so that we can look at proper asylum assessments and proper removals, in conjunction with those European countries most impacted in the European community.
Plastic Pollution
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Parminter
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to secure agreement to a global treaty to counter plastic pollution.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK Government are committed to securing agreement to a global treaty on plastic pollution when the negotiations resume in August 2025. At the UN Ocean Conference in June, the UK joined over 95 signatories of the Nice wake-up call statement to demonstrate support for an ambitious treaty. We are working with other countries, including allies in the High Ambition Coalition, to develop text options to facilitate an agreement.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
In the last 20 years, global plastic production and plastic waste have doubled, despite national and voluntary initiatives, so it is fantastic that the Government have signed up to the Nice declaration. Can I press the Minister to ask exactly what conversations and discussions are being had to ensure that the minority of low-ambition countries and narrow interests do not derail the opportunity for a legally binding, ambitious plastics treaty in Geneva?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is a really important question. We are high ambition, but we are working closely with low-ambition countries—some are developed countries, and there are others such as the Gulf states. We made progress previously, and it is important that we continue to do so. We are doing a number of things, particularly Minister Hardy as the leader on this. She is working closely with others to develop a shared position on how we can finance the treaty and take the lead on engaging with the private sector, for example. We are doing some co-leading work with Chile to progress discussions on product design. We are co-leading work with Panama on releases and leakages of plastic. Minister Hardy co-hosted a ministerial event at the UN Ocean Conference to bring together Ministers from a range of countries with different positions and ambition levels to look at how we can move forward. She hosted an interesting round table last week attended by His Excellency Ambassador Vayas, who is the INC chair. There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes to ensure we get the best possible result out of next month’s conference.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, plastic pollution starts with packaging. Will the Minister therefore join me in commending the British retail sector, which has done so much, particularly recently, to produce packaging of a better environmental nature for recycling and to draw to the attention of all customers who visit retail outlets the benefits of these improvements?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very happy to commend any producer or retailer that wants to reduce the amount of damaging plastic that goes into our environment. The noble Lord is right: a lot of work has been done in recent years by some very forward-looking companies. However, there is still far too much plastic going into our environment. We have to do more to progress this. Others have to come on board, which is why I am really pleased that the UK has been absolutely clear that the treaty should address the full cycle of plastic, including sustainable production and consumption.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, a large amount of British plastic waste is not recycled because it is too complex to sort. What steps are the Government taking to encourage innovative research which will allow for new ways of recycling complex plastics and ensure that more plastic is recycled and less ends up in incinerators?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Of course, we need to do more to ensure that less plastic ends up in incinerators. Research is not just about what you do with complex plastics but about ensuring that the plastics produced are recyclable in the first place. We should also ensure that that then happens and that they do not get dumped somewhere. The work that Defra is carrying out on the circular economy is really important and will look at exactly these sorts of issues.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister indicate whether the Government have any plans to restrict the export of plastics through powers under the Environment Act to encourage recycling at home, rather than offshoring the problem?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
As I have said, we really need to move away from this. Many members of the public, me included, put their plastic into recycling bins in very good faith and expect it to be recycled—I buy things made out of recycled plastic—but we have to look at how we can stop plastic that should be recycled just being offshored and dumped. We have seen too many photographs of the appalling outcomes of that. That is why we want to get this treaty finalised, why we are really determined to move forward and why we are also concentrating on having a genuinely effective circular economy strategy within Defra.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Minister on the work being done on plastics. One other major threat to marine life is illegal and unauthorised fishing around the world. What steps are being taken by the international community to address that problem?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Absolutely. I think that anyone who has been to a beach will have seen abandoned fishing gear on the beach, particularly the rope stuff—the blue twine that fishermen use. Rope stuff is the technical term; you can tell that I am not a fisherman. Abandoned, lost and otherwise discarded fishing gear is one form of plastic that causes the greatest harm to the environment. The UK has been looking at ways that we can use alternatives—alternatives are being explored—so that we do not constantly end up with blue bits of plastic scattered over every single beach that we see in this country.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, I want to move the agenda on to microplastics, which are endemic in our water systems, in our bodies and now in our soils. A lot of research is showing that crop fertility—in other words, crop yield—will go down quite dramatically in the next 10 years because of microplastics in the water system. While I do not expect an answer directly, I would love to know what the Government are doing in the way of researching this, working with people such as at the John Innes Centre, which is looking at what on earth we do about this, because it is pretty difficult to get rid of.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes an extremely good point. We were probably all quite shocked recently at the figures showing how endemic these tiny pieces of plastic are in our drinking water and, indeed, in ourselves. It is extremely worrying, and it is incredibly important that research is carried out. I know that the John Innes Centre does great work. I am not involved with that, but my colleague Minister Hardy is. I will go back to her, find out exactly what work we are doing and then get back to the noble Baroness, if that is okay.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, the UK throws away more plastic per person than every other country in the world except the US, with 81% of that plastic consisting of food and drink packaging from supermarkets. It is evident that effective measures must be taken to reduce this waste, an opinion shared by 74% of the British public. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government are taking to prevent further delays to the Government’s proposed deposit return scheme?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
First, I am very pleased that we have announced that we are doing a deposit return scheme. It is something that was discussed for many years by the previous Government, so I am pleased that we have acted quickly to announce that we are bringing that in. However, it needs to be brought in effectively and to work properly; we are doing it in a way that we think will have the greatest results. It is also part of our bigger picture around the circular economy. It is part of our commitment to reducing plastic, which comes right back to the initial question from the noble Baroness about our support for the treaty, because, although we want our own ambitious plans for reducing plastic waste in this country, this is a global problem, and we have to work globally.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, to return to the plastics treaty, at the last round of talks, fossil fuel interests sent 220 lobbyists. They are known to be the people who are fighting very hard against any targets for putting less plastic into the soils, into the water and into our bodies. What are the Government going to do to block the influence of those fossil fuel interests? Could we not do as the WHO has done with tobacco and ban people with fossil fuel interests, who should have no place in these talks?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are trying to move forward on a global scale while bringing people with us. This treaty will have more impact if every country is signed up to it. Because of that, we were very disappointed that we were not able to conclude negotiations last time around. However, behind the scenes, a lot of work has been going on to try to move forward. My understanding is that the countries that the noble Baroness refers to are more concerned about including methods of production in the treaty, and that is something we are looking very hard at resolving. We want to see the ambitious treaty that we and other high ambition countries want to achieve. We are working very closely with middle to low-income countries to get there.
UK Weapons Systems
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Empey
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they have complete control over the use of all UK weapons systems without needing to consult, or seek approval from, other governments or third parties.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
His Majesty’s Government have complete control over the operational use of all the United Kingdom’s weapons systems, without needing to consult or gain approval from other Governments or third parties. This includes the nuclear deterrent.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I expected the Minister to say that he had operational control over all weapons systems, but all weapons systems require maintenance, and require to be renewed. It is my understanding that not all of that process takes place in the United Kingdom. Therefore, third parties or other Governments must have an influence over the maintenance of our weapons. Therefore, the question is: how independent is “independent”?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Well, “independent” means what it says. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the House, that we have complete operational use in terms of independence. We can use all our weapons systems in the way that His Majesty’s Government choose to. Of course there are arrangements about how you maintain that and what you do, but independence means independence and we work to ensure that we maintain all our capabilities to the standard that the noble Lord and this House would expect.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, when the Conservative Government announced in 1957 that we had again an independent deterrent, they meant independent of the United States—a British warhead and a British weapons delivery system. Since then, we have compromised the delivery system with dependence on American missiles, and the recently announced airbase delivery will also have an American warhead. If I understand it correctly, some of those warheads will be stored on US bases in Britain. How far does that mean we can depend on the next American Administration, let alone this one, to give us permission when needed, in what might be a prolonged war rather than an immediate crisis?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We need to unpick that. It is a very good question the noble Lord asks, but no Government will comment on the storage of nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons. The strategic nuclear deterrent is completely operationally independent. It cannot be used without the agreement of the United Kingdom Prime Minister. As for the F35A, which I presume he referenced with respect to the Government’s announcement, that forms part of the nuclear mission of NATO. For that capability to be used for a nuclear mission, it will require the agreement through the nuclear planning group of the United Kingdom Prime Minister. So both the strategic deterrent and the fighter deterrent of the 12 F35As will require the authorisation of the United Kingdom Prime Minister.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Given the answer that the Minister has just given, can he clarify that, while it may very well be the case that at NATO level the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would be required to give consent, is it conceivable that the United States in that scenario might refuse consent?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Let us deal with this, and I apologise to the House if this takes some time. The strategic deterrent, CASD, remains, as we have always had it, operationally independent and a UK weapon. As for the 12 F35As that the Government have announced, that forms part of NATO’s nuclear mission. The F35As are UK jets and they are dual-capable aircraft, so they can be used normally or, in a particular crisis or a particular sense in which we felt and NATO felt that they should be used, they would become part of the nuclear mission. At that time, they would be armed with American nuclear missiles.
Of course, that means that the authorisation of the use of those missiles remains US-controlled, because, in the same way that we control our UK nuclear weapons, US nuclear weapons remain subject to US approval. The point I was making to the noble Lord is important. Of course, the authorisation for the use of those weapons within the context of a NATO mission has to be agreed by the NATO planning group and the UK is part of that. In that sense, the Prime Minister would have to authorise those UK planes being used to deliver that nuclear capability. I hope that is clear to the House and to the noble Baroness, because it is an important point for us to make with respect to the nuclear shield and the nuclear capability that this country has, and how it will work in practice.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that, along with my noble friend Lord Robertson, we got rid of gravity nuclear bombs back in 1997. That was in a particular context, and I fully accept that the world has changed, so I have no objection to now maintaining or restoring that capacity. However, since we are getting the F35As, what is the implication of that for any offset arrangement in the previously considered demand for F35Bs?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am going to either pass or fail this exam. As it stands, we have 41 F35Bs, and by March 2026 we should have 48. That is what is called the first procurement phase. The F35As will be brought within the second procurement phase, which will take the whole F35 programme from 48 to 75. That is an additional 27 aircraft, of which 12 will be F35As and 15 will be F35Bs. I will give a further answer in response to the noble Lord, Lord West, by saying that they will form part of an operational group. The F35As will go to that group, which will free up the F35Bs that are currently doing that training exercise with them. So the carrier and others will always have the full complement of F35Bs that they need.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the security of this country against major threats in high-intensity warfare is based on our membership of NATO, and that within NATO we rely upon many of our partners to provide crucial capabilities —not least, for example, a number of strategic capabilities that at the moment only the Americans provide? So, in terms of warfighting, to be too nice on the point of purely national capabilities does not make sense.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I agree with what the noble and gallant Lord has just said. It is an important point to make, and I should have made it to the noble Lord from the Liberal Benches: of course our alliances matter and are important. We have a shared interest in the geopolitical threats that we face, and the noble and gallant Lord is quite right to point that out. I say again, as I often do from this Dispatch Box, that the US is our prime ally. The US is our most important ally. It is the ally that we depend on to work with to guarantee our security in Europe and across the globe. We should celebrate the closeness of that relationship, as we should celebrate the closeness of our relationships with all our friends and allies in Europe and beyond.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
Anything to do with nuclear does not have time for planning discussions. It is almost immediate. It can take place in hours. The military have to make a decision in minutes as to what they are going to do. What do we do then?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Whether it is nuclear or any other capability, but particularly with nuclear, you have to be calm, rational and reasonable about it. One of the successes of our strategic deterrent has been the fact that it exists. People know about it and understand the situation and the context that we have for it. As I say, the decision to go ahead with the F35A, with its dual capability, is in light of the changed strategic geopolitical context in which we operate. As such, it is a perfectly rational and reasonable decision for us to take with respect to our NATO colleagues in order to ensure that we can defend our country and the things that we stand for.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am not sure whether in this context the SNP can be described as a Government or a third party. To be generous, its policy in this area is best described as “flexible”. I wonder whether the Minister could help by explaining what it actually is.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I would like to think I had been able to answer most of the questions that have been asked so far, but I am not sure about this one from my noble friend. I will have a go. First, what the SNP stands for is completely and utterly incoherent. I remember the time a few years ago—I think it was 2012—when SNP members debated nuclear weapons but also, along- side that, whether they should be members of NATO. At that time they agreed to be members of NATO and, if I remember rightly, and others here will know, some SNP MSPs resigned because, they said, you cannot be a member of a nuclear alliance and be against nuclear weapons; that is incoherent. It seems to me that the SNP policy is that it accepts NATO’s nuclear umbrella and the security that that brings but does not want the nuclear weapons themselves to deliver it. In George Orwell’s famous terms, it seems to be “NATO nuclear weapons good, UK nuclear weapons bad”.
F35A and F35B Jets
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether the recently announced procurement of twelve F35A jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons will affect the planned procurement of F35B jets.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I draw noble Lords’ attention, on my noble friend’s very serious point, to the fact that just last week I was in Singapore with the carrier strike group. What a proud moment it was for our country to see the “Prince of Wales” in Singapore harbour at the invitation of the Singapore Government, with F35Bs and helicopters all over it, to see the crew there and to visit the other ships that are part of it. I just wanted to say that but, in answer to my noble friend’s Question, I can confirm that the second procurement phase will consist of 12 F35As and 15 F35Bs, which will enable the stand-up of the third front-line squadron focused on F35Bs. Forty- one of the 48 F35Bs in the first procurement phase have been delivered, with 617 Squadron and 809 Naval Air Squadron both currently deployed on HMS “Prince of Wales” for Operation Highmast. We remain committed to 138 F35s across the life of the programme, and the defence investment programme will examine options on further purchases in the coming months.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply, although my question has been rather shredded of various elements by the previous debate. It is worth remembering that 80 years ago as we speak, the British Pacific fleet was leaving the waters around Okinawa, heading towards the Japanese homeland. It consisted of a mere 21 aircraft carriers, four battleships and dozens of destroyers and frigates, which were in the same waters that the “Prince of Wales” is in now. They were under almost continuous attack by kamikazes, which you could argue are the ultimate drone. Whenever we discuss the military, we ought to remember those who have gone before and what they did to enable us to be here.
As for my question, I now have two bits left after everything that has been discussed. The first one is: does my noble friend believe that now might be time for us to review our nuclear doctrine? One could argue that it goes on all the time, but might it be time to do a proper review of our nuclear doctrine? The other one is: I had understood that major investment decisions—and this is one, bearing in mind the costs of having bases ready to take nuclear weapons and all of this sort of thing—were going to be made in the autumn as part of the defence investment plan to check out the national armaments director and the new strategic headquarters. Does the fact that this decision has been made now, without waiting for the autumn, mean that all the decisions from the SDR that we were expecting in the autumn will be taken piecemeal before then?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his questions. On his very serious and important point about those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the Far East, he will be pleased to know that, on my visit to Singapore, I visited the war grave cemetery there, and that when I was in Jakarta a day or two later, I visited the war grave cemetery there and laid a wreath to remember those who had gone before. I think that is really important.
On the issue of the nuclear doctrine, of course one always reflects on these matters but, as it stands, the nuclear doctrine is as it is. The major investment decisions, in terms of the money and the direction of travel, remain the same. It was felt important, given the serious geopolitical challenges that we face and although the number of planes remains the same, that there should be some movement from F35Bs to F35As. It was important that we made that decision at this particular time in the light of the threat that we face.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the procurement schedule for the F35As, but delivery of the F35Bs has not been free of problems. Does he have confidence in the delivery schedule for the F35As being achieved?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I do. To reiterate and clarify, the procurement phase for the 48 F35Bs should, and will, end by March 2026. For the second procurement phase for the additional 12 F35As and the 15 F35Bs, which will give us 75 in total, our expectation is that they will be procured by 2033. It is important we meet the schedule and I have every confidence that we will be able to do so.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the following precis of programme A activity rings true? The F35As are not additional to the programme; they replace 12 F35Bs. The 12 F35As cost $20 million less per plane than the F35Bs, therefore resulting in a saving to the programme of $240 million. However, we have no sovereign capacity to air-to-air refuel an F35A. Therefore, we will create an allied dependency unless some additional programming action is taken.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The answer is yes to all those points. The F35As come from the F35 schedule, so 12 of the additional 27 will be F35As instead of F35Bs. F35As are some 20% cheaper than F35Bs, so the noble and gallant Lord is right: that creates an additional sum of money which can be used in a way that the Government feel is appropriate and consistent with the SDR. He is right about the refuelling capability; there will need to be allied support for that. Many of our capabilities require allied support and help to function. I do not see a particular problem with that, but he is right to point it out.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the SDR and the national security strategy emphasise the threats to us locally and regionally, as opposed to the global projection of power to Singapore and the South China Sea, which is what the aircraft carriers are for, above all. Are we sure that we still have our priorities right in wanting to stand firm with our prime ally, the United States, in the Indian Ocean and the South China Sea, or should we pay more attention in our defence priorities to the North Sea, eastern Europe, the Baltic and that part of the world which is closest to our insecurity?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I understand the point the noble Lord makes, but I do not agree with it. We, with our allies, simply have to guarantee the security of regions across the world, whether it be the North Sea, the Mediterranean or the Indo-Pacific. Our carrier went through the Red Sea, through the BAM into the Indian Ocean, which is under threat from the Houthis. The sailors and others on the ship had to write a letter home saying what might happen. We should celebrate the fact that we have people with a sense of duty that allows them to put their lives in danger to ensure that trade, communication and all the things we depend on can get through that narrow bit of sea. If that did not happen, our shops would soon be empty and our data would not work. Many of the things on which our standard of living depends would not function.
That is why it is important that we go to the Indo- Pacific and stand alongside the Americans. Let us be clear: we do not go there because only we want to—Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Singapore and Malaysia want us to go there. All those countries ask us to go there because they recognise the importance of ensuring the global trade routes stay open—it is the trade and prosperity on which our nation, and the nations of the world, depend.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches now.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the announcement of the procurement of the F35As. Some 15% of every single F35A will be produced in the UK. Does my noble friend agree that those who are calling for us to limit our involvement in this programme to try to restrict the export of these components would do huge damage to the UK economy and our standing in the world?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As always, my noble friend makes a really important point. He points to UK domestic production of the F35A. Of course, our exports are also really important. With that, and as I know my noble friend would, I welcomed the court’s decision yesterday in the al-Haq judgment, which was really important for our country.
Lord Soames of Fletching (Con)
My Lords, would the Minister confirm that the F35A is capable of being fully marinised?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The F35A has a number of different capabilities, but I just need to check so I do not misinform the noble Lord. It is dual capability in terms of the weapons it can carry, and it normally operates from airfields. If I understand the noble Lord’s question right, I will check it, write to him and put a copy in the Library, because I need to make sure that I do not misinform him and, indeed, the House.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
17:33 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 196 - Amendment 5 agreed.
18:20 - Division on Amendment 8 - Ayes: 253 / Noes: 150 - Amendment 8 agreed.
18:53 - Division on Amendment 21 - Ayes: 230 / Noes: 137 - Amendment 21 agreed.
19:05 - Division on Amendment 23 - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 176 - Amendment 23 disagreed.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we start the debate on the first group, I want to repeat my reminders to the House in Committee on declaring interests. As we set out previously, noble Lords should declare relevant interests at each stage of proceedings on a Bill. That means that in their first contribution on Report, noble Lords must declare any relevant financial interests in a specific but brief way. Declarations do not need to be repeated in subsequent speeches on Report. As my noble friend the Chief Whip reminded the House last week, it is no longer sufficient to say that interests are set out in the register.
Clause 1: Assured tenancies to be periodic with rent period not exceeding a month
Amendment 1
Lord Hacking
“unless the landlord and the tenant mutually agree to have a fixed term during which period the landlord agrees to suspend the ability to seek possession under Ground 1 (Occupation by landlord and family), Ground 1A (Sale of dwelling house), Ground 1B (New ground for possession after rent-to-buy agreement) or Ground 6 (redevelopment) in Schedule 1.(1A) During a fixed term tenancy agreed under subsection (1), the landlord shall not be entitled to increase the rent.”
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I start off with my declaration, which is in the register, that my wife and I own five one-bedroom flats in the next-door house to ours, and we have been renting out those flats for the last 30 years.
As we approach the 126 amendments now tabled for Report, and before I introduce my Amendment 1, I suggest that we take stock of where we are after seven days in Committee. I start by giving praise to my noble friend the Minister. Throughout Committee, she was always very well briefed, and she spoke to every amendment with great politeness, naming and thanking everyone who spoke. She was always available to have meetings and discussions about the Bill. I know, too, from her days as a councillor in Stevenage, about her great concern that landlord and tenant legislation should not make families homeless—she feels that very strongly. I say to her: thank you, Sharon.
However, there has been a big problem. Out of the 300-odd amendments tabled in Committee, the Government did not accept a single one—I think I am right in saying that; if I am wrong, I hope that somebody will correct me. It is true that, in the Minister’s letter of 24 June, the Government, through the Minister, have accepted three amendments. I am very grateful for that, but that is a very small number against the rejection of 300 amendments. By applying normal averages, it cannot be right that the Government were always right in Committee on all these amendments and that the rest of us were always wrong.
Moreover, in Committee, there was considerable expertise in landlord and tenant matters among Members of the House. At least a dozen of us have had that direct experience. At least half a dozen of us were declared landlords of the good and honest variety. When I joined this House 53 years ago, there was good willingness in the House to listen to the expertise of its Members—after all, that is what we are here to provide. It now seems that the Government were not prepared, during the passage of the Bill, to listen to the expertise of the House. To put it bluntly, the rejection of over 300 amendments shows that they are not listening to this House. I do not blame the Minister; I simply do not know who was responsible for the decisions that resulted in those multiple rejections.
The consequence is quite serious. As I will seek to show in relation to Amendments 1 and 41, there have been occasions when the Government have got it plain wrong, because they were not listening. As a Labour Back-Bencher, I want the Government to succeed—and they would do that much better if they were able to listen more. Therefore, on Report, may the Government start listening to us.
The purpose of Amendment 1 is to allow landlords and tenants, if they wish, to agree a fixed-term tenancy. My and my wife’s experience is as follows. We have nearly always let 12-month tenancies to our tenants. Our tenants—currently the whole lot—are couples in their 30s who are planning to own a home of their own. It therefore suits us, as well as our tenants, to agree a 12-month tenancy. After the first 12 months, we meet to discuss whether our tenants want to stay on for another 12 months; they sometimes want to stay on for three or four years or even longer. If any of them want to go early, within the 12-month period, we give full co-operation. We immediately seek new tenants. The outgoing tenants pay their rent as long as they are present in their flat and not thereafter when the new tenant has arrived. Indeed, I do not think that we have ever failed promptly to find new tenants, which is because we let out lovely flats with private use of the garden at the back of the house.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support Amendment 1 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. As mentioned previously, I have an interest as a landlord of over two decades, and as a former renter in the private rented sector for some 16 years, I have a combined experience in the PRS of 40 years.
The amendment before your Lordships’ House would allow a tenant and landlord to mutually agree a fixed term, as we have just heard, while restricting the landlord’s ability to regain possession of a tenanted property. It would further mean that the landlord would not be able to increase the rent over the period of the fixed term. Very many tenants would welcome such agreements and the increased security it would give them. Under the proposed periodic tenancies, after 12 months tenants would have no security as the landlord can seek possession on a number of grounds.
Polls have shown that a majority of tenants and landlords want to have fixed terms, and His Majesty’s Government have given no reason why they think they know best. The arguments against mutually agreed agreements on fixed tenancies are, frankly, unconvincing and threadbare. They result in more, not less, security for tenants, and less chance of familial disruption. The Renters’ Rights Bill rightly cracks down on rogue landlords, improves standards in the PRS and seeks to ensure a fair, workable and sustainable rental market.
Noble Lords may recall my Amendment 173 in Committee, which called for tenants to give notice not earlier than four months after agreeing to an assured tenancy, resulting in a minimum tenancy of six rather than two months. Why are the Government insisting that six months would be a disaster, as under today’s assured shorthold tenancies, but two months will be a panacea? The outcome of exclusively two-month periodic tenancies will be less security for tenants and landlords alike, and higher rents.
While I accept the need for flexibility for tenants, I do not see why an additional four months should be regarded as so unacceptable by the Government. Responsible landlords require the certainty of a minimum period to defray the cost of establishing a new tenancy. Many of these costs are one-off and cannot be passed on to the tenant under the Tenant Fees Act 2019. These cover things such as cleaning, inventories, referencing, credit checks, admin and so forth. A higher turnover of tenancies under periodic tenancies, and the financial risks associated with it, will otherwise put up rents. All long-term tenancies could potentially turn into short tenancies and the landlord will have to factor that into the rent. Another concern of landlords will be if a tenant quits in the middle of winter, when much fewer tenants are seeking rental properties. Rentals are often seasonal, and longer void periods will be the outcome. Again, this will be reflected in higher rents.
Ministers argue that it is highly unlikely that tenants will move in and out of rental properties, in effect turning long-lets into short-let properties. But that is exactly what will happen in many cases, especially in coastal resorts and city centres, already plagued by Airbnb and other short-let platforms. Figures produced by Hamptons show that properties being marketed as short-term lets are advertised at prices on average 49% higher than the same types of property for long-term rent. In the London Borough of Camden, short-lets can cost four times higher than long-lets. Deposits for short-let properties are about the same as those for long-term rent. This would make it cheaper for tenants to just rent a long-term property for two months than secure a short let for the same period.
To suggest that people will not game the system is naive. Why would short-term tenants volunteer to pay up to four times the amount of rent when they can save themselves thousands of pounds taking a property advertised for long-term rental for just two months or even less? On day one of the tenancy, they will have the legal right to give two months’ notice. Two-month period tenancies will open the floodgates to legal backdoor short lets which will be impossible to police. This will have other implications, which we are already witnessing. Landlords will gravitate increasingly to short-let platforms such as Airbnb which are more profitable than long lets and virtually unregulated.
With the associated abolition of upfront payments, which will make vulnerable people, the self-employed, pensioners and students—including foreign students—unable to prove their income, why should many landlords continue to take the risk when there is a more profitable alternative? In any event, only 7% of tenants pay anything up front, so I fail to see why this is also an issue for HMG. Banning upfront payments, which your Lordships will discuss later, was very much a last-minute government amendment in the other place, and I suspect it was badly thought through.
All this will result in fewer long-term rentals being available to tenants, less security and a profound shortage of long lets for local people in tourist hotspots. It is already happening, as people in Cornwall, Devon and Wales will know.
Nothing in the Bill will increase the supply of rental property in the PRS which, by some estimates, needs an extra 50,000 rentals per year just to stand still. A six-month minimum tenancy would underpin the viability of the PRS and ensure that more homes, not fewer, are provided for those tenants who need and want a long- term home.
Those should be where people need homes; those landlords entering the market at the moment tend to chase higher yields in the north, ignoring the south, where buy to let is rapidly becoming unprofitable. A six-month minimum fixed tenancy, if mutually agreed, gives all parties plenty of flexibility. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, mentioned, many tenants prefer to have even a 12-month fixed tenancy to give them added security.
The amendment would also implement a recommendation by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee in its report on reform of the PRS in 2023, chaired by the very knowledgeable Labour MP, Clive Betts. The recommendation was
“that tenants be unable to give two months’ notice to leave until they have been in a property for at least four months”.
It noted:
“This will give landlords the legal certainty of at least six months’ rent at the start of the tenancy”.
After this period, the tenancy agreement could continue on a periodic basis as envisaged by this Bill.
I fear that, unless His Majesty’s Government amend the Bill on fixed terms and upfront payments, it will make the PRS unstable, uncertain, increasingly expensive and less viable, which would be bad for both tenants and landlords. Sadly, His Majesty’s Government are showing no sign of introducing the significant amendments necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, the Government listen but take no notice. As we have seen in the other place, this does not always work out well.
On 28 April, the noble Baroness the Minister, who cannot be accused of not listening, told the Committee:
“We are committed to robustly monitoring and evaluating the impact of our reforms. We retain powers to amend these measures should the evidence arise that they are having a significant impact on a particular group … We maintain the powers to amend, should we need to”.—[Official Report, 28/4/25; col. 1085.]
I hope that His Majesty’s Government bear this very much in mind, before some of the unintended consequences and regrettable flaws in the Bill see the light of day. I was just one of 26 Peers who voted against HS2 in your Lordships’ House, and it gives me very little pleasure to say after the event “I told you so”.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak strongly in favour of Amendment 1. I declare my interests as I rent properties in Norwich and commercial properties in Great Yarmouth through a directorship.
We live in a free-market economy, which is underpinned by the law of contract, a codified agreement between consenting counterparties. Of course, we must have safeguards and regulatory guard-rails to ensure that one party does not hold the other over a barrel, but the freedom of contract so that mutual needs can be codified and agreed is a fundamental part of the way in which we live and is one of the reasons why we have so many learned friends in this place.
I want to give some examples, from my experience as a landlord, of the type of persons who value the ability to customise the standard contract to suit themselves by entering into a fixed term. It is not the majority, but it is a significant proportion that cannot just be wished away. They include: employees on a fixed-term employment contract engaged in a particular project; students, singly or more commonly in groups, who want to secure their ideal house in advance and are able to do so only if the current occupants are sure to vacate in the summer; the busy doctor, who gets passed around the hospitals each August; and the foreign person, who is used to the concept of fixed terms in their own country and cannot understand what business it is of the state to interfere in these private arrangements. Those tenants value contract certainty so that they can focus on their work and generate wealth for our nation.
I like this amendment because it gives an additional benefit to the tenant: not just the fixed tenancy but the fixed rent. That seems a fair compromise, not least because the landlord does not need to price uncertainty into the contract—the uncertainty of a void. As a landlord I value certainty, even at the expense of locking out rent rises, because if I know there will not be a void, I can give a better price and everybody wins. I cannot see what is wrong with that.
The Government boast a commitment to
“transform the experience of private renting”.
They are doing that all right; they are making it harder for a significant minority to meet their reasonable needs. There are so many unintended consequences—the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Truscott, mentioned some of them. For a moment I thought I was going to be on my own, but I am delighted to see that there is cross-party consensus on the importance of this amendment.
I too was thinking about the abuse in holiday hotspots, where it is common ground that we want to encourage year-round occupation of homes in these coastal areas—although not the second council tax that appears to be emerging alongside. I fear the unintended consequences of this Bill. Let us contemplate a tenancy in Cornwall, taking on in June. The proposed tenant says, “Yes, I’m going to stay for a whole year”, but in the event they leave just after the August bank holiday. The problem is that by giving two months’ notice, it is a clear abuse; and to counter that abuse, landlords will factor in the risk of the vacancy. So they will jack up rents, and the person who genuinely does want to stay for the whole year is disadvantaged. Of course, they may wish to show good faith by paying in advance, but that will be discarded as well. I just cannot see how this helps anyone.
I will talk about students in more detail later, but I am concerned that we are going to seriously disrupt the student market, not just for their convenience. Often in freshers’ week—I saw it in my own experience when I was younger—friendship groups get rammed together and pretty quickly decide they want to go into a house together, and why not? Halls do not suit anybody. The purpose of the fixed tenancy is the discipline that binds them all together. They are not related—at least not when they start; I have been in houses where that does happen—but you get a situation where one person may want to quit half way through, and it reverses the obligation. Rather than that person being forced to find another student to take his or her place, it becomes the obligation of all his former friends to undertake that core activity. The responsibility is flipped, and I do not think that is good either.
There are so many other things I could say, but this is a good amendment. It does not wreck the Bill but enhances it. It works with the grain of the way a significant minority of people, consenting adults, wish to conduct their affairs and come to a sensible contract for those it suits. I agree strongly with what the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said. There are limits to where the state should interfere; it should allow free citizens to exercise the choices that they should be entitled to make. This amendment deserves our full support.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I listened almost with shock at what noble Lords were saying because I feel as if I am living in an alternate universe. They live in the cosy one—I smiled when the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, talked about him and his wife as landlords, and I can absolutely believe that his tenants loved him and enjoyed living with him. But sadly, that is not reality—it is not the situation. People say the Government have no right to interfere; if a Government have no right to interfere in making a roof over people’s heads—the basic issue of having a home—part of government business, please tell me what they can interfere in. Defence of the realm, yes, but ensuring that people can have a safe, secure, affordable home certainly has to be the business of government.
This Bill is scarily radical. I am often guilty of saying that the rhetoric does not match up to the reality, but the rhetoric around this Bill—the biggest changes since whenever, radically changing the system—is correct. The system is meant to be changed because it is broken. It is very brave and very bold. His Majesty’s Official Opposition probably think it is very stupid, which they are entitled to think because that is their job. The real issue around this Bill is that we are leaping into the unknown. We do not know what the impact will be. We have been told that Armageddon will happen; we will have to see. We and the Official Opposition do agree that there should be formal reviews in the Bill where its impact can be scrutinised in Parliament in full—because it is that radical.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as vice-president of the Local Government Association. As we begin the first day on Report, I would like to start by thanking the Minister for the meetings she has held with me and my noble friend Lord Jamieson on the Bill—we really appreciate those meetings.
I suspect that, since Committee concluded, few days have passed without Members of your Lordships’ House receiving a steady stream of questions, concerns and comments about the Bill, because despite the Government’s amendments, it remains, in our view, a flawed Bill. It is a Bill that uses the powers of government to tell two consenting adults that it knows best; a Bill that fails to acknowledge the realities of the rental market and the consequences it may bring. We are united in the belief that tenants deserve safe, secure and decent homes at a fair price, but to deliver that, we must ensure a functioning rental market with enough good quality homes to meet growing demand. That means building more homes in the right places and encouraging investment in this sector.
Regrettably, this Bill puts that at risk. Rather than increasing supply, it threatens to drive landlords out of the market, reducing the number of available homes and pushing up rents even higher. If we get this wrong, it will be the renters who pay the price. Balance is essential, and we on these Benches do not believe the Bill strikes the right balance. The Government should have brought forward a Bill that targets rogue landlords—those who break the law, put tenants at risk and undermine the proper functioning of the rental market. Instead, we have this Bill, which risks driving out good landlords while allowing the rogue ones to continue operating completely unchecked.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for leading on this group, and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. Diversity, choice and a range of tenancy contracts all contribute to a housing sector capable of meeting a wide variety of needs, as we have heard. In that context, it is reasonable to ask the Government why they are pursuing a one-size-fits-all approach through the proposed abolition of all fixed-term tenancies. Having listened to the contributions in Committee, it is clear that there is widespread concern about this element of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is right to challenge the blanket removal of fixed-term tenancies and to reintroduce much-needed flexibility into what is currently a very rigid clause.
Industry stakeholders share these concerns. Propertymark has warned that abolishing fixed terms could destabilise the position of tenants with lower incomes or poor credit histories. Many of these individuals rely on guarantors, who, in turn, require the legal certainty of a fixed term. Without that structure, these tenants may find themselves excluded from the market entirely, excluded from finding a home, and excluded from getting on with their lives. These tenants include students without parental support, young adults leaving care, and individuals with health conditions or irregular employment. They often rely on guarantors to access housing, but those guarantors understandably require the legal certainty of a fixed-term contract. Without that assurance, the door to the rental home quietly but firmly closes.
The Government’s rebuttal is by now well-rehearsed. They claim there is no cause for concern because tenants will have the ability to give two months’ notice, thereby shaping the tenancy to their preferred timeframe. But this argument is weak and raises serious questions. How can it be right to require landlords to fundamentally alter the contracts they offer? How is it reasonable to expect a landlord to accept a tenant who cannot demonstrate their ability to pay, particularly in the absence of the legal structure and certainty that fixed-term agreements provide. Equally, why should tenants be denied the option of a fixed-term tenancy if they believe it best serves their interests? Removing that choice is not empowering, it is restricting. Tenants, like landlords, have diverse needs and circumstances. Many actively seek fixed-term arrangements because they offer clarity, stability and peace of mind. For tenants in transitional phases of life, that assurance is vital. A fixed-term tenancy can provide security that their home cannot be taken away, even within the grounds of possession remaining. This is particularly important for those on temporary contracts, such as nurses relocating to hospital placements, families seeking to remain within a particular school catchment area or individuals from overseas who require time-limited accommodation.
To remove fixed-term tenancies is to ignore the lived realities of both tenants and landlords and to strip the sector of the very flexibility it needs to function effectively. For landlords, fixed terms provide the certainty required to plan and manage their properties effectively. Removing that certainty could prompt many to exit the sector, and already is, further reducing the already strained supply of rental housing. Ironically, this supposed flexibility could leave both tenants and landlords facing greater instability.
The proposed abolition of fixed-term tenancies may lead some homeowners who currently let their properties on a fixed-term basis to withdraw from the market altogether. Faced with the uncertainty of an open-ended tenancy, some may even choose to leave their properties empty rather than risk loss of control over future use. Why are the Government not listening to landlords, the very people who maintain the foundations of the private rented sector? They are not just participants in the market; they are the backbone of the market. We on these Benches support choice and the freedom to decide a contract that works for both the tenant and the landlord, and I hope the rest of the House agrees. We will support the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, if he tests the opinion of the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking for his very kind comments and—with slightly less enthusiasm—for this amendment, which would retain a form of fixed term, during which the landlord could not use a number of “landlord circumstance” grounds, including selling. My noble friend referred to his role as a landlord, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill: I am sure he is a very good landlord. Good and honest landlords have nothing to fear from the Bill; it is not them we are dealing with here
The issue of fixed terms is one we have debated at some length and on which I know there is great strength of feeling on both sides of the House. For many noble Lords, this is an issue of free will. They believe that the Government should not interfere in a tenant and landlord’s ability to agree terms between them, and that both parties should have the choice between a periodic or fixed-term tenancy. In my view, however, that argument mischaracterises the balance of power between tenant and landlord in any negotiation. Here, I agree very strongly here with the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill. Landlords have the choice of many tenants, all competing to offer the most favourable terms, while tenants have far less opportunity to choose between properties. Tenants cannot simply walk away if they do not like a landlord’s terms—a choice between homelessness and a fixed term is no choice at all.
To speak to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, it has been symbolic of that imbalance that, until this Bill, landlords have been able to issue a Section 21 eviction notice and remove tenants through no fault of their own. Not only does that cause distress to families; it also places a huge burden on the state as our beleaguered local authorities pick up the cost of over 100,000 families in emergency and temporary accommodation. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to ensure that tenants do not lose out. We must step in to ensure that tenants are not forced into agreeing unfavourable terms that act against their interests and remove fundamental rights to move when needed.
I accept that fixed terms have some benefit for tenants under the current system because they offer some respite from the awful threat of Section 21, which hangs like the sword of Damocles over tenants’ heads. With Section 21 gone, that advantage will be extinguished, so there is even less reason why a tenant would agree voluntarily to a fixed term. Even if freely agreed, there is nothing equal about a fixed term. Under the current system, landlords can rightly seek possession during a fixed term if a tenant breaches the terms of their rental. Possession grounds are available if a tenant misses rent payments, damages the property, commits anti-social behaviour or indeed breaches any term of their tenancy.
Noble Lords would then imagine that, in a fair contract, a tenant could also terminate the tenancy if the landlord failed to fulfil their responsibilities during the term, but in almost all cases tenants do not have this choice. Landlords can allow properties to fall into disrepair, leave properties unsafe to live in, and still tenants must pay rent month after month. This is fundamentally unbalanced. It is critical that we act to reset the scales.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, before I reveal my answer to the question just put to me by the Minister, I will make a few observations. The central one I have already made: under English contract law, parties are entitled to agree what they want to agree, and they are entitled to agree to a fixed-term tenancy. I have illustrated —as has the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, with students—the value to the tenant of having a fixed term. It has been so with our many tenants over the last 30 years; it runs to their benefit.
I thank all those who have taken part—the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott and Lady Thornhill, the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. It would have been a dangerous thing for me to do, with the Chief Whip sitting in front of me, but I was minded to divide the House on this issue. However, I do not have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and that of the Liberals. I am not quite sure about the Cross Benches; the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has not participated, so he has given me no comfort that I will get support from the Cross Benches. Therefore, it is with great regret that I feel I must withdraw the amendment, which I believe was very carefully drafted and provided all the protections necessary on an agreed tenancy. It was, therefore, a good amendment that, alas, is now being lost as I beg leave to withdraw it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
“unless the tenant meets the student test when the tenancy is entered into.(1A) For the purposes of this section, a tenant who meets the student test when a tenancy is entered into has the same meaning as in Ground 4A in Schedule 1.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow student tenancies to remain as fixed tenancies to provide the certainty that both student tenants and student landlords require.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, at the heart of the Bill is a duty to protect young people, because it is primarily young people who rely on the private rented sector. Students are no exception: many are leaving home for the first time, stepping into higher education with courage and ambition. For them, the need for clarity, stability and fairness in housing is especially pressing.
Fixed-term tenancies for students, as proposed in Amendment 2, are not a loophole; they are a solution that works. They have brought order and predictability to a cyclical market. The Government recognise this, having already made concessions for purpose-built student accommodation, but that exemption applies only to the most expensive end of the market. What if the student cannot afford a glossy new block with a gym and a neat working space, and instead shares a modest flat in a converted home? We urge the Government to take a consistent approach and extend this provision across the board, because there is a great student migration and a releasing and re-letting of homes at the end of each academic year. It is a finely balanced cycle, and if we tamper with it blindly, we risk breaking it altogether.
That cycle is already under pressure. Student towns and cities are seeing a decline in student-appropriate housing. If we continue down this road, we will put higher education out of reach for many, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds who rely on affordable shared housing.
That is why my Amendment 5 is so vital. The current restriction on ground 4A, which limited it to properties with three or more bedrooms, is both arbitrary and unfair. Many students, in particular postgraduates, international students and mature students, live in one-bedroom or two-bedroom properties. In Committee, the Minister said:
“Limiting it to HMOs captures the bulk of typical students”.—[Official Report, 22/4/25; col. 589.]
The Minister is right: it captures the bulk, but not all of them. When housing is scarce, we need all available options. When choices are limited, we must protect every viable home. Let us be clear: ground 4A is not about throwing students out of their homes, it is about ensuring that landlords can confidently re-let for the next academic year and that students can confidently plan their lives.
Amendment 6 rightly asks why six months has been chosen as a cut-off point for ground 4A. This blanket time limit could disrupt rental cycles, discourage landlords from letting to students and ultimately shrink the student housing supply even further.
The Government worry that students may rush into housing decisions too early. That may be true for some, but many students want to secure accommodation early to avoid the stress during exams. Many student tenancies begin in late summer, and students typically start looking well in advance. Limiting searches to up to six months before an August move-in means starting in February. Under the current proposals, properties may not be listed until much later in the year, forcing students to house-hunt during their final exams. That is not necessary, fair or workable. The Government should let students decide when they wish to sign the contract.
Without fixed terms and a workable ground 4A, students will face prolonged uncertainty, and it will be harder for them to plan, budget and study. We must also remember that eviction proceedings are exceptionally rare in this market. The problem is not landlords turfing students out but students facing unnecessary delays and stress when trying to secure accommodation. The current proposals simply do not address this reality.
Finally, Amendment 7 seeks to include apprentices in the definition of students. Like university students, they would benefit from a fixed-term tenancy aligned with their training periods, offering much-needed stability. I hope, having listened to the Government’s arguments in Committee, that they have reflected and that we can agree that it is only fair that apprentices and their landlords have access to the same arrangements as university students.
The Government have already made partial concessions, but now we need a principled and wholehearted attempt to preserve a functioning, fair and inclusive student rental market. Amendments 2, 5, 6 and 7 are constructive and proportionate. They reflect what is already working, they address what is currently broken, and they would help ensure that going to university remains a viable choice for young people across the country. I urge the Minister and the House to support these amendments. We would be minded to test the opinion of the House, for the reasons that I have underlined. I beg to move Amendment 2 in my name.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I declare once more my interest as a landlord who rents properties, often to students. Your Lordships will be delighted to know that I will not be jumping up and down on every group today, but I do want to challenge the quite obstinate prevention of fixed tenancies for students—and, importantly, groups of students—many of whom will be moving into their first home outside hall.
I want to outline some of the adverse consequences of this Bill if enacted unamended. It will reduce the supply of rental properties by discriminating against private landlords. The noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, speaking in the earlier group, seemed to fail to understand the dynamic effect: if landlords leave the market and there is lower supply, costs will rise and students will pay more.
It will reduce the choices of property available to students, because this Bill allows student tenancies only in halls of residence. This will not suit everybody. It reduces the choice of landlord. It favours the monopoly supplier—the institutional provider of halls of residence —rather than the private landlord. In my personal experience, my wife has become “mother”, so to speak, in particular to foreign students who have rented with us on their first time overseas. All that will be swept away, because institutional providers of student accommodation do not have that in their ambit.
It will create an overheated market in September, that is for sure, and—guess what?—that will cost more for students. It will also cause massive inconvenience for second-year and third-year students at university. I agree with my noble friend that this should not be just about universities; those with apprenticeships should also benefit from these amendments. But it means that second-year and third-year students will have to fly back. They may have got a work placement overseas. They will have to fly back early to try to secure a home when they could have sorted it out well before, in February or March.
The consequences of this Bill mean that it will be harder for friendship groups to get the certainty of a house with their friends. I have mentioned issues around clearing. The Bill will prefer established students from good backgrounds, with parents with sharp elbows, who understand and are able to transact draft contracts more quickly. It will aggravate the difficulty of getting guarantors lined up at pace.
It introduces protections for the current students— I heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said in the previous group—but we need to balance that against the disadvantage to students one year behind, who also have rights and who also want to secure a place in their following year.
Students will be forced into these new student blocks. Some of them are really luxurious. There are cinema rooms and pizza places—the whole thing—but it is costing a fortune, and not everybody wants to go to that expense when they can make savings in the private market.
I spoke earlier about the importance of the fixed tenancy, which is a discipline that keeps everybody together and protects everybody’s interests. It is important that we dwell on this, particularly for students. Unlike in the wider private rented sector, where family relationships or other stronger forms of relationship exist, friendship groups at university can be more transient. We have spoken a lot already about the balance of power between tenant and landlord, but we should also consider the balance of power when someone in a friendship group in a house wants to cut and run, leaving his former friends high and dry. That is a real perverse situation that runs against natural justice and good order.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I support the excellent amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in particular Amendment 5, which strongly resembles an amendment which had cross-party support at an earlier stage of our deliberations on the Bill and I hope will continue to have that support. It seems to me that the proposals that we have before us will lead to a two-tier system, in which advantaged students who can afford the higher rents will go into the purpose-built accommodation, but the lower-cost, more flexible accommodation—often smaller, private lettings—will be much reduced, and that will be very bad news for access to university.
I do not by and large believe conspiracy theories, but on this occasion I think that the interests of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are very different from the interests of the Department for Education. If students are no longer travelling to university so much, if some students are deterred from this accommodation, and if other types of tenants move in instead, that is not a problem for the department sponsoring this Bill; in fact, it might almost be a help. It will then be able to say that other people have been able to find private rented accommodation and the adjustment has been borne by a particular group of students. Meanwhile, the Department for Education, with its commitment to social mobility and opportunity, will be facing the consequences of fewer students going to university since they cannot afford the high-rent environment which is now being promoted. So, I am concerned that the department steering this Bill is not taking proper account of the legitimate interests from a different perspective of education and social mobility.
I very much regret that the Minister, despite her courtesy in meeting up with myself and others, which we have appreciated, has not been able to make any concessions, even moving from three rooms to two rooms or one room. I hope at least, however, she will be able to flesh out a statement she made a few minutes ago in the debate on the previous amendments, when she said that the Government would “continue to monitor the market”. Will she assure the House that this monitoring of the market will include monitoring student access to the private rented sector as part of their participation in higher education?
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I too offer strong support to Amendment 5. In that context, I declare an interest as an employee of King’s College London.
The profound change, in varying ways, to the rental market that the Bill will introduce is not very well understood outside this Chamber, but some of the people who have become very aware of it, in my experience, are people who currently let to students. I first became aware of this when told by a number of people that they do not see themselves letting to students in future, thank you very much. These are people who have small rental properties. I know that that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, whose amendment I was happy to support in Committee, is also aware of this. He has highlighted the fact that we now have a bifurcated system.
The Government have rightly acknowledged that student housing is a major issue and have introduced some clear provisions that cover purpose-built student accommodation, and indeed student halls, but fail to cover anything that does not have at least three bedrooms and is being let to students. The problem is that a large proportion of the cheaper student housing outside major cities is of exactly that type. What somewhat astonishes me is that we have a situation in which there is not likely to be any harmful impact on the provision of student housing at the expensive top end of the market but a very major impact on smaller, cheaper rental properties at the lower end, which are of course the ones taken by students from lower-income families and people who are not in the major cities but are in other places. I am somewhat puzzled that the Government have been so determined not to extend ground 4A to, at least, properties with two bedrooms. I really do not understand it and I therefore strongly support the amendment.
I would like to lay something for the future about Amendment 7. I notice that it is a probing amendment and, of course, apprentices are not students—they are employees, many of them rather adult employees—but in future, if and when we revisit the issue of making accommodation easily available to people who are, in effect, students, and that will include apprentices, we should pay this considerable attention.
If we look back 200 or 300 years, especially in London, we see that it was full of apprentices who had come from elsewhere in the country. They served their apprenticeships in London and then went back out, and they could do so because part of being an apprentice was that you lived with your master. We do not have that any more, and the result is, again, enormously reduced opportunities for people who live in less economically advantaged places. If you are a low-income school leaver, you will have far fewer apprenticeship opportunities open to you in your hometown, and we are not doing anything to make accommodation easily available to apprentices who might want to be employed in economically more favoured regions.
Apprentices are not students so it is too late for this Bill to do anything about them, and it probably was not possible anyway, but I flag this conundrum as something that—if we ever come back, review the consequences of the Bill and make some changes—I hope the Government might put something on the table about at the same time.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. In Committee I was one of those probing the Government’s intentions on purpose-built student accommodation, houses in multiple occupation—HMOs—and the application of ground 4A to those properties but not to smaller units in the private rented sector that some students might choose to live in.
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s reply in Committee and have thought further. Indeed, I have listened carefully to the debate so far and I am sorry to have to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, although I agree with him that it will be very important for the Government to monitor the impact of the student market on the private rented sector. I will explain why I take that view.
I have reached the conclusion that there is a good reason to restrict the application of ground 4A to purpose-built student accommodation—the very large blocks—and houses in multiple occupation. The danger of not doing so is that some unscrupulous landlords renting smaller units of accommodation which do not qualify for the term HMO might decide to call tenants students when they are not students, to get around the provisions of the Bill. I think that would be a serious defect in the Bill. Indeed, as the Minister said in her reply on this issue in Committee:
“The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and we think it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A”.—[Official Report, 22/4/25; col. 589.]
I have come to the conclusion that the Minister is right on that matter and, for that reason, ground 4A, I submit, should be restricted to purpose-built student accommodation and houses in multiple occupation.
Lord Fuller (Con)
It is quite straightforward that we know who students are. The universities issue certificates and those certificates are handed to the local authority in the case of council tax, so they can get the 100% council tax allowance. It is not difficult to identify who those students are. Does the noble Lord agree? Has he thought whether the existing statutory process for determining who a student is would be sufficient to avoid the jeopardy that he has suggested?
Lord Shipley (LD)
The very point that the noble Lord raises is that I do not think it would be sufficient. Indeed, when I spoke on this issue in Committee, I suggested that the council tax register, because whole-student households do not pay council tax, would potentially be sufficient; I just do not think that is the case. It is not just about university accommodation. it is about students more generally. Indeed, there is an amendment coming up on the Marshalled List to define who is a university student. So I think it is a great deal more complicated than the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has indicated to us.
I have concluded that those students who are in smaller units of accommodation will be protected anyway, as tenants under the Act. I have concluded that, on this matter, the Government should be given the benefit of the doubt, but I hope very much that the Minister will be able to meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, which is that they have to keep this matter under review.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, as this is the first time I have addressed the House at this stage of the Bill, I will just remind your Lordships that I am a chartered surveyor. I think that is probably the only interest I need to declare, other than being the father of three children. They are now long out of university, but I witnessed the process of them living in halls and subsequently in the private rented sector, two of them within the city of Bristol, and I got to know one or two of the people who let to students as a business model. The properties are not necessarily large—some of them are very small; it depends on what model they are using. I am worried about what seems to be an acceptance of what the Minister said will be a process of review.
Review done by government is an incredibly blunt and ponderous instrument. I predict that if there was a review looking at a particular problem, a lot of serious damage would have occurred by the time it had been completed or the matter actioned and put into regulation, or whatever other form it was going to take.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for her amendments on students, and all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. As noble Lords will be aware, the proposals on student accommodation have been subject to great consideration and debate both inside and outside this Chamber and in the other place. I thank all those who have written to me, and I am sure to other noble Lords, on this subject.
Amendment 2 seeks to retain fixed-term tenancies for students living in private rented accommodation. I can only repeat that fixed terms serve only to lock tenants in. They oblige them to pay rent even if the condition of the property is poor, or if their circumstances change and they need to move out as a result. In the current system of fixed-term tenancies, we often hear of students who have dropped out of university but are still obliged to pay rent for their accommodation— I could mention some examples, but it is probably not appropriate to do so. This is not the right approach. We want all tenants, including students, from whichever demographic group they come from, to benefit from the increased security and flexibility that the Renters’ Rights Bill provides.
Students pay the same rent—often higher rents—as other tenants and so should have the same rights as everyone else. We have introduced a new possession ground to allow the cyclical nature of the student market to continue and to provide landlords with confidence. I recognise that the noble Baroness is trying to create parity between students in the private rented sector and those in purpose-built student accommodation, as their tenancies will be exempted from the assured system and landlords will be able to offer fixed-term tenancies. However, we have exempted purpose-built student accommodation from the assured tenancy system due to its unique business model. Often, PBSA cannot be let to non-students due to its location or the services it provides alongside accommodation.
We have also exempted this sector from the protections of the assured tenancy system because we are satisfied that the Unipol codes of management practice provide an alternative route to ensuring that tenancies are at a high standard. There is no such code for private student landlords, and it would be wrong to mirror the exemption.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who asked about monitoring—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt, but does the Minister accept that purpose-built student accommodation is for the more wealthy? Young people who are struggling to go to university will go with the private rented sector and not the expensive specific accommodation. Has she done any work on that, and does she realise that that is what is happening out there?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Students who take up accommodation should have the same rights as anybody else who is taking up accommodation. That is why we do not want to exempt from the benefits of the Renters’ Rights Bill students who want to rent in the private rented sector.
To come on to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, about monitoring, we will monitor this element of the Bill, along with all aspects of it, and I will give noble Lords more detail about that—it comes up under a future set of amendments, but as he has asked the question, it is important to respond to it. We will evaluate the process, impact and value for money of the reforms in line with the department’s published Housing Monitoring and Evaluation Strategy. The evaluation will involve extensive data collection through interviews, surveys and focus groups with a range of stakeholders, as well as trusted data sources. We will talk to tenants, landlords, letting agents, third sector organisations, delivery partners, the court service and government officials. I will say more about the court service later on, because, to some extent, that needs a much more immediate and dynamic monitoring process.
The primary data will be supplemented by monitoring data from existing surveys and new data produced by the reforms. Reports will be produced for publication approximately two and five years after implementation, in line with commitments made in the Bill’s impact assessment to publish findings. Therefore, they will be available for parliamentary scrutiny. It is important to say at this point that we want to make sure there is a process by which we can review the provisions in the Bill.
Lord Willetts (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for that very full explanation of the monitoring. In her long list of organisations that would be consulted, I do not think she had universities. Will she assure the House that they will be included as well?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My apologies to the noble Lord; that was probably my speedy reading rather than an omission on the part of the information I have—so, yes, I agree with him that this is part of the monitoring process.
Amendment 5 seeks to expand ground 4A, which allows students living in HMOs to be evicted in line with the academic year. It seeks to address the concerns of some noble Lords that the scope of the ground needs to be expanded to all student properties. It would remove the HMO restriction and allow students living in self-contained accommodation—one and two-bedroom properties for example—to be evicted each year. We have thought carefully about the design of ground 4A, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for also giving it great thought. We want to ensure the cyclical nature of the typical student market is maintained. We therefore believe limiting it to HMOs achieves this by capturing the bulk of typical students—that is, groups living in a house share. Meanwhile, students who need more security of tenure, such as single parents living with their children, or post-graduate couples living together who have put down roots in the area, will be protected.
The core principle of the Bill is that tenants should have more security in their homes, and it is right that these groups should not be exposed to potential eviction using ground 4A. Self-contained one-bedroom and two-bedroom homes are also easier to let to non-students than student HMOs. I do not agree with the conspiracy theory that the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, spoke about, but if a landlord cannot gain possession in line with the academic year, they are more likely to be able to let the property out to non-student tenants. That gives another way through for landlords.
On Amendment 6, noble Lords may remember that, in the Committee evidence session in the other place, it was highlighted that students are often pressured into signing contracts for the next academic year very early in the term, before they have had a chance to form stable friendships or assess a property’s proper condition and location. To discourage this practice, we amended the Bill to prevent landlords using ground 4A if they had agreed a tenancy more than six months in advance of tenants gaining the right to possession. This amendment seeks to extend this six-month limitation to allow landlords to sign tenancies up to nine months in advance. I am not convinced that this would be the right approach.
As I have highlighted, in many cases students are expected to commit to properties within just months of arriving at university, before having the opportunity to form lasting friendship groups or evaluate whether a property meets their needs in terms of condition or location. The purpose of this measure is to act as a strong disincentive to this practice, while striking the right balance. It avoids pushing students into signing tenancies before Christmas—when students are still settling in—but continues to allow flexibility for students who prefer to secure accommodation in advance of the summer period and does not interfere with typical exam periods. Extending this limit to nine months would undermine that balance and risk reinforcing the practice that this measure is intended to discourage; for example, tenants in a competitive market may be forced to search for tenancies starting in September during their January exam period.
Amendment 7 seeks to expand the student ground for possession, so that it can be used to evict a tenant undertaking an apprenticeship. While I understand the support for apprenticeships and share the noble Baroness’s wish to support people undertaking them, I do not believe that this would be the right approach. Ground 4A was created in recognition of the unique, cyclical nature of accommodation for those in traditional higher education. Those in other types of education, such as apprenticeships, are less likely to live in cyclical accommodation and need the security of tenure that the Bill gives tenants. Those on apprenticeship schemes, for example, earn a wage and tend to hope to stay at their company once the apprenticeship is completed; they live lifestyles much more akin to the working population than to university students. They will therefore benefit from all the increased security of tenure that the Bill will give them. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and all noble Lords who have spoken; they have considerable interest in and knowledge of the sector. Having listened carefully to the debate, and given that the House has rejected the principle of fixed-term tenancies for all, I intend to withdraw Amendment 2.
On Amendment 6, concerning the timing of student tenancies, and Amendment 7, on expanding the definition of students, I recognise that there is sympathy for the concerns I have raised. However, I do not believe that there is enough support in the House to carry them; I will therefore not move those amendments.
Over the past number of months, we have listened to student organisations and universities across this country about the supply of student housing and the types of housing that students—of many different types—want to be made available in the sector. I have listened on the issue of monitoring, but I am worried that, when we eventually find out that it will have a detrimental effect on the sector, a cohort of young people will have suffered during that period of time. We do not think that is correct.
The other issue is around taking out certain types of accommodation from the sector. What will happen then? The rest of the accommodation will become more expensive for the students who need it. That concerns us as well.
There is an issue of capacity and supply in the market, and that remains very pressing. We believe that the Government’s response could have been better; it is pretty unconvincing. Therefore, we will test the opinion of the House on Amendment 5.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain social landlords’ ability to demote tenancies for anti-social behaviour.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a councillor in Central Bedfordshire. Anti-social behaviour is a scourge on our communities, but it is particularly devastating from a housing perspective. It undermines community spirit, leaving tenants feeling trapped and helpless. It strips away the very essence of what makes a house a home. Too often we overlook the consequences. It is not just the cost of repairs, increased security and time-consuming administration of complaints, placing an unsustainable burden on housing associations and local authorities, but the misery and social breakdown it can cause in communities. As currently drafted, the Bill weakens the powers available to local authorities and social landlords to tackle anti-social behaviour. That is why we have sought to bring back Amendment 3 today to preserve the ability of social landlords to demote tenancies in response to such behaviour.
Demotion is not about punishment for its own sake. It is a vital tool—a proportionate deterrent that enables landlords to uphold community stability. Whether it is loud noise, vandalism or intimidation of tenants, those engaging in persistent anti-social behaviour must know there are consequences. Without the option to demote, how are landlords expected to maintain safety and harmony in their communities? Those with experience in local government will know that when a tenant causes disruption, it is often the landlord who receives the enforcement pressure from the council. If landlords are to be held to account, they must also be empowered to act. Amendment 3 would ensure that social landlords retain this power. It is not a radical departure but a practical necessity to deal with real-world situations where one tenant’s behaviour causes misery to many others.
This is about protecting the quiet minority—the families, the elderly and the vulnerable who rely on their home being a place of safety. It is about ensuring that social landlords are not left powerless in the face of persistent disruption. I urge the Government to reflect on the value of demotion as a tool of last resort and the message it sends that anti-social behaviour has consequences and that community cohesion matters. In conclusion, if we are serious about supporting tenants and local authorities, we must ensure they have the tools to act decisively and fairly. I beg to move.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, we say ditto to every single thing that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, said about anti-social behaviour. We all know it blights people’s lives and how difficult it is to stem it. We have arrangements where councils work with their local strategic partnerships to deal with it. Nobody is disputing that.
The reason we have come to the conclusion that demoted tenancies are not needed is really very simple. I contacted the National Housing Federation, whose members are social housing providers. It genuinely does not see a need. It is comfortable enough with the Bill and how it deals with anti-social behaviour. It wants to know that it has effective tools to deal with anti-social behaviour and is concerned about the capacity of the courts to deal with evictions based on anti-social behaviour.
My instinct straightaway was to support the amendment on demoted tenancies, but the National Housing Federation said it did not see the point of it but did want to know that it was going to get the tools to deal with things. Many providers, ones I know personally, feel that they deal effectively with anti-social behaviour, including my own council and I suspect the Minister’s. They were concerned about having those tools and the capacity of the courts to deal with that ground when they choose to use it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook, for this amendment. It seeks to reintroduce social landlords’ ability to apply for a demotion order in response to the anti-social behaviour of a tenant. I can honestly say that one of the most frustrating things I dealt with in 27 years as a councillor was anti-social behaviour. While we all agree with the need for tackling the blight of anti-social behaviour on individuals and communities as a priority, I cannot accept the amendment as a way of dealing with that. It would fundamentally go against one of the core principles of the Renters’ Rights Bill—to improve security of tenure for renters. There is also a technical reason, which I shall come to shortly.
The amendment would seemingly enable landlords to demote social tenants to a less secure form of tenancy. As I said in Committee, as drafted, the amendment would not work: the Renters’ Rights Bill will move tenants to a simpler tenancy structure whereby assured shorthold tenancies and the ability to evict a shorthold tenant via Section 21 are abolished. There will, therefore, no longer be a tenancy with lower security to which one can demote tenants. For the amendment to work, a reversal of measures in the Bill to remove demoted tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies would be required.
Tackling anti-social behaviour is a top priority for our Government and a key part of our safer streets mission. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said, many councils and housing associations already do a great job in tackling this in partnership with each other, but I accept that it can still be an issue.
The Bill will shorten the notice period for the existing mandatory eviction ground, with landlords being able to make a claim to the court immediately in cases of anti-social behaviour. The Bill also amends the matters that judges must consider when deciding whether to award possession under that discretionary ground. This will ensure that judges give particular regard to whether tenants have engaged with efforts to resolve their behaviour and the impact on other tenants within HMOs.
For all those reasons, we feel that the amendment is unworkable and unnecessary, and ask the noble Lord to withdraw it.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments, and I am grateful for the wide recognition of anti-social behaviour and the problems it causes. While we will not press the amendment today, I hope the Government have truly heard the problems that this causes. Evicting someone and going to court is very draconian, and this proposal would provide the opportunity of an interim step without the need for eviction. That is a useful tool, but I recognise the Minister’s comments. I hope that the Government will reflect and consider how the Bill can more robustly support those affected by persistent anti-social behaviour. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jamieson
“(a) the landlord;(b) the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of the landlord;(c) a person who is—(i) a child,(ii) a grandchild,(iii) a parent,(iv) a grandparent,(v) a sibling,(vi) a niece or nephew,(vii) an aunt or uncle, or(viii) a cousin,of the landlord or of the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of the landlord;(d) a person who is the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of a person falling within paragraph (c).For the purposes of this Schedule—(a) one person (C) is the “co-habitee” of another person (P) if P lives with C as if they were married or in a civil partnership;(b) a “niece or nephew” of a person (P) is a child—(i) of a sibling of P, or(ii) of a person who is the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of a sibling of P;(c) an “aunt or uncle” of a person (P) is a sibling of a parent of P;(d) a “cousin” of a person (P) is a child—(i) of an aunt or uncle of P, or(ii) of a person who is the spouse, civil partner or co-habitee of an aunt or uncle of P;(e) “sibling” includes a sibling of the half-blood and a step-sibling.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to apply the same definition of family member which is used in clause 20 of the Act in Schedule 1 to ensure the internal consistency of this Act.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we return to the issue of equalising definitions across the Bill, not just for consistency but for fairness, and ensuring that the definition of “family” is the same when it comes to guarantors and grounds for possession. It is not about expanding the law, but about clarity and equity. We want to place on record and state clearly that we believe the Government are making a mistake in resisting this change.
Amendment 21 is sensible and necessary; possession, for the purpose of housing a carer, is an issue of growing importance. Many families are already making plans for future care needs. With social care under increasing pressure, we believe that this amendment is timely and proportionate. We must allow older or less able people to stay in their own home if that is what they choose. Having a carer close by or even in the annexe next door would enable them to do so. I hope that the Minister understands the value of this ground.
Finally, Amendments 22 and 23, the first in the name of my noble friend Lord Leicester and the second in my own name, speak to the need for a clearer message around redevelopment, not only for commercial purposes but for private regeneration as well. Really good regeneration in urban areas requires a certain scale. When a large site is available, something truly transformational can be achieved, as we have seen with the King’s Cross redevelopment. But large sites like King’s Cross are the exception: they just do not exist. Many forward-thinking investors and developers seek to build up a site of sufficient scale through piecemeal acquisition over many years, continuing to let the housing and commercial properties in the meantime.
We believe that we should support and encourage those seeking to do these high-quality regeneration projects. Are the Government seriously suggesting that the tenancy should be terminated on change of ownership and the home left vacant, potentially for many years, thereby not only reducing the rental housing stock but undermining the viability of such large-scale regeneration projects and blighting the neighbourhood? Would it not be far better to allow property owners to continue to rent their homes until such time as the property is needed for redevelopment? I beg to move.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 21 in my name; I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Neville-Rolfe, for their support. This amendment makes a very small change to the Bill, but it could make a significant difference to the lives of individuals who need long-term full-time care due to their age or disability.
I also thank the Minister for her time in meeting with us to discuss the amendment. We have listened, but still feel strongly that our amendment is important to those who need care. We do not see that it would create a loophole, which was one of the Government’s concerns, or that it treats tenants unfairly when trying to ensure that they have security of tenure and are not moved on unnecessarily from a home that they enjoy and are settled in.
For a loophole to be abused, there must be opportunities in the wording or function of the clause for this happen. We believe we have addressed this, as the property needs to be in close proximity to the landlord’s residence—for example, an annexe or a flat within the same block, or in the same street or village—so that daily and emergency care can be provided to the person who needs care.
Due to the proximity, the tenant would be aware of where the landlord lives. If there were a caring requirement for the landlord or a member of their family and notice was given on the grounds of the need for a carer, they could investigate, ask neighbours or visit the landlord for confirmation. If they were not satisfied that the requirement was met, they could use the provisions in the Bill to challenge the notice.
One of the principles of the Bill is to provide more security of tenure. This amendment would change the Bill in only a very small way as it would apply only to a small number of properties, but for a very important and valued reason for a family.
We have spoken to several national care organisations, which support our amendment. There are many benefits if a long-term carer lives close by, and these were pointed out to me by the National Care Association.
Continuity of care is so important. Carers have private lives, and this separate property would give the carer the opportunity to live their own life in their own space, thereby improving retention and their own mental and physical health. It would also give private space to the family in their own home, which can only help with all the family’s health needs.
During Covid, a lot of live-in carers suffered from loneliness when living in the same property as the person they were caring for. Allowing them their own housing would be a big advantage. Caring is a professional and skilled job, and therefore, when care is provided, it should be done by the most appropriate skilled person. Surely, this could be a professional carer.
If the individual being cared for has a family member living with them who could be the carer, would it not be more appropriate if that individual went out to work and did an appropriate job with the skills they have, rather than doing the job of the carer, when a professional carer might provide better care? Is not one of the Government’s primary objectives to get people into work? Surely, this must involve doing roles that they are most productive in.
Many people of different ages require full-time care, and this can be for many reasons and can come unexpectedly due to age, significant health reasons or sometimes, sadly, an accident. If there is a need for long-term care then surely, if you have a property in proximity, you should be able to gain possession. Is it not reasonable and fair to extend the grounds to allow a professional carer to live at the property, rather than a reluctant family member providing care services?
In terms of care, surely keeping an individual in their own home rather than in a care home or another institution, would benefit not only them but society in general. This amendment achieves this without adding pressure on the already stretched social care sector. We acknowledge that some tenants will suffer disruption by having to leave their property. This is the same as if the landlord wishes to sell the property or move a family member in, but this is for a very specific reason and most tenants would understand why notice has been given.
The amendment is all about family and landlords gaining possession for the use of a property for the family. That is what ground 8 lists. All we seek is to extend the provision for what is an essential service for a family in a time of need. We hope that the Government consider this amendment and make this small change for the benefit of those in care. If they are reluctant to do so, I may need to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment and spoke during previous Bill stages. I declare my interests as a private landlord, in my own right and also as a trustee, and as having a relative who purchased the flat above theirs when a carer was needed, which was going to be the case in due course. That planning is now, of course, in some disarray: they wonder whether they must evict the present tenant and bring forward the employment of a carer, even though that is not yet necessary.
Since the discussion in Committee and since speaking with the Minister, whom I thank for her time, I have spoken to various care organisations, which are all supportive of the amendment. They made some recommendations that lie behind the changes in language since the amendment was tabled in Committee. The care organisations have taught me that there is a very wide way in which carers are used, both in the regulated sector and outside it, on which many people rely for vital tasks, health and personal care. Absent the voluntary sector, a lot more costs would fall on health and social services.
However, it is not always easy to find a family member who can do this. Families are much smaller nowadays—my husband and I were adding up what has happened in our own family and, if we chase it back, 14 at our age level will end up being replaced by far fewer at the grandchild level. With those kinds of circumstances, with many more people working, women not wanting to stay at home and families spreading much further from where they grew up and from where parents or others needing care within the family might be, the care organisations say that the reliance is on what they term “loved ones”. It is a very wide phrase; quite often, it means friends and neighbours whom they have lived close to who have helped one another during their lives. When one of them falls ill or becomes disabled or, in many sad cases, is a survivor of cancer who has been left with life-changing circumstances, they become the carer who helps them. As their condition deteriorates, it may be necessary for the carer to be nearby.
The care organisations that I have spoken to, and which support the amendment, are the Homecare Association, Care England, the National Care Forum, the National Care Association and Carers UK. I thank them for their time and recommendations.
We are quite aware that the Minister does not want to create loopholes—that was the main feature of the discussion that we had. For that purpose, we have provided that regulations can be made to amend the definition of “carer”. In many ways, I would prefer it if we did not have that there, because the Minister could make regulations that took away anything useful, but I am hoping that it would be done only in the light of experience if one found that the term was being somehow abused.
In considering carers, we also need to look at care patterns. Many people who need serious care have several carers, who have to operate in shift systems, whether that be daily, weekly or monthly. Sometimes, the carer may come from overseas and stay for six weeks, and then they go back and somebody else comes in, so there is a rolling pattern. It will be very difficult if they cannot necessarily be conveniently located.
So I ask the Minister to think again. Yes, there may not be a great number of people who would be helped by the amendment in the way that a huge number of renters will be helped by the Bill, but in a civil society being a minority has never been a ground for discrimination. Therefore, I ask the Minister to think about this and to understand that, like her, we do not want cheaters to abuse this; we want people who are in need of this service to be able to avail themselves of properties that, often, they have bought to plan for their care—and, indeed, in order not to be a burden on the state. Should they not be allowed the peace of mind that they will be able to fulfil those plans?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to which I have added my name. I am particularly grateful for the warm words of my noble friend Lord Jamieson and for the support of the various carers organisations which do such an important job in our society.
The Bill will allow a landlord to take possession of a property for a family reason. Our small extension would allow a nearby property to be taken back in hand if it were needed to house a carer. In the meantime, it would be available, for example, as a dwelling for a struggling local couple or an individual seeking a home.
With ever-growing numbers of the aged and disabled, with the move to smaller homes and smaller families, and with a scarcity of care homes and hospices, the provision for short-term housing of professional carers, often changing at short notice, will become more and more important in coping with our ageing population. This is particularly true in rural areas, which are being so battered by other changes the Government have felt it necessary to make.
I declare an interest, recorded in the register, as the owner of such a cottage bought specifically for a carer and generally let to a local on a shorthold tenancy. Such tenancies have expanded the rental market hugely in this country and will be completely swept away by the Bill. So, we need to do what we can together in this House to moderate its perverse consequences—notably in this case to make things better for carers. Fortunately, neither my husband nor I yet need a carer, but we may need one eventually, and my concern, like that of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, is a general one. I can guarantee that I am not alone.
I have no idea how the Government will find the 1 million more rented homes Savills believes we need by 2031 unless they make some sensible technical changes to the Bill, which is being constructively debated by knowledgeable experts here in this House. Our Amendment 21 falls into that category. I hope others will join us in the Lobby and in calling on the Government to think again on this issue.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, I did not intend to speak to this amendment but, since I am, I declare that I do not rent out any residential property, but my children are tenants and rent out property in their own right. There are two sources of potential misery here: one is turning out a tenant, the other is being unable to provide care for a family member. I know how I would feel if I was in a situation where I had to deny a family member professional care despite owning a property that could accommodate a carer. I am interested to hear how the Minister feels about this, what she would do in those circumstances, and what other Members of this House would do if the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, calls a vote on this matter.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to my Amendment 22, I also express my support for Amendment 21 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I declare an interest as a property owner of both commercial land and residential houses. If one acquires planning permission on a parcel of land that might have, to take a brownfield example, a few workmen’s terraced houses or, in a rural setting, perhaps a farmworkers’ cottage that might be in the middle of a proposed development, my amendment seeks to allow the landowner or developer to gain possession of said property or properties.
When I look out of the window of my flat in King’s Cross, which the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, alluded to and which was developed by Argent—a brilliant place-maker that has worked in Manchester, created a marvellous area in Tottenham Hale, and produced a high-quality mix of leisure, retail, high-end accommodation, medium-level accommodation and affordable accommodation, but which takes decades to assemble land—I see commercial property that has been bought by developers and converted into flats. Many of these developments have a high proportion of affordable accommodation, which seems to be the largest amount of development happening in Britain at the moment.
However, this should go both ways. We in this country hear we are losing industry and are only a service economy. We should be doing our utmost to produce jobs. The unemployment figures are already rising. If the examples I have mentioned achieve planning permission and the tenant is removed—the reality is that the developer or landowner would do that by negotiation and try to find suitable alternative accommodation for that person—but the tenant then says, “No, I’m not leaving at all”, then the whole opportunity for growth ceases. Were the development to go ahead then, because of the planning permission it has achieved, a great number of jobs would be created in the short-term in its construction, which might take two to four years, and then in the occupation of those commercial buildings. It is a win-win. The Government say they want growth, but if they do not allow my amendment, nor that of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, then they are not acting in the best interests of growth.
I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, on providing accommodation for a carer, which is very well thought through. We should all support it. It seems that there is a great deal of support around the House for it. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, is somewhat wider than mine—it is on redevelopment and regeneration—but they are effectively the same thing: they are looking for growth.
I have sat in on much of this debate. It is a shame that the Government are not listening. Good Governments listen to differing views and take note. There are many good amendments being put forward. Government through ideology and a large majority does not lead to good law.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 22 from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester. I declare my direct interests in the private rented sector, with lettings of cottages in Buckinghamshire and Lincolnshire, and in direct farming and agricultural lettings in those counties. I said in Committee that a number of Bills, reviews and reports are in motion that cover the whole issue of farm and other diversification in rural areas, which the Government are keen to encourage in the light of falling profitability in farming, as subsidies are withdrawn or concentrated on environmental activities and concerns.
Farmers are therefore looking carefully at their assets to see whether they can be put to a more profitable use. Obviously, this can involve farmstead cottages and buildings, rather than just stand-alone farm buildings. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill is relevant in this context, together with the rural England prosperity fund, which specifically targets facilities and building conversions that help rural businesses to diversify.
This amendment would assist in enabling diversification if the necessary planning permission has been granted or there is a permitted development right. I am thoroughly aware that the Minister is keen to protect all assured tenants from eviction for whatever reason, and keen not to reduce the housing stock. However, in granting that planning permission, the authorities will already have given due consideration to the potential conversion and any loss of residential buildings through change of use. They will have agreed that the merits of the planned development outweigh the retention of the residents. I therefore hope the Minister will include this new ground 8A amendment as a sensible ground for possession, which would assist in the development of the rural economy.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
I will mainly speak to Amendments 4 and 21. It is fairly obvious that we will support Amendment 21 from the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford.
We have a problem with Amendment 4—or we did to start with, but then I took legal advice. The noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, asserted that we needed clarity and consistency across the Bill. I suspect we have more lawyers than any other profession in this House, and guess what: I got slightly different answers. However, the message was quite consistent: we absolutely do not need to have the same definition of family, in this case, across a whole Bill because we are dealing with very specific, different things.
My understanding is—and I am certain that the Minister will correct me if I have this slightly wrong—that the amendment to ground 1 deals with the diversity of the modern family and the kind of things that can happen, but it is about the repossession ground, so it has been drawn fairly tightly for obvious reasons. However, the definition in Clause 20 is clearly broader because it relates to the removal of the guarantor liability for rent after a family member in a joint tenancy dies. It is a sympathetic amendment and a sympathetic broadening, casting the net a little bit more widely, as it seeks to protect bereaved families, whereas we necessarily want to keep the definition in ground 1 fairly tight to avoid abuse. We have resolved our position on that, so we will not support Amendment 4.
I want to hear what the Minister has to say on Amendments 22 and 23, because I believe there are grounds to do what they would do already in the Bill. I am genuinely interested to hear the Minister’s response to those amendments.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, the noble Lords, Lord de Clifford and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for their amendments, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Carrington, for their contributions to the debate.
Amendment 4 seeks to expand the definition of “family member” for the purpose of the moving-in ground, ground 1, to a much wider range of relations. This mandatory possession ground is available if the landlord or their close family member wishes to move into a property. This amendment would allow landlords to evict their tenants in order to house nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles or cousins. It would enable the ground to be used to house the equivalent relatives of their spouse, civil partner or cohabitee. The family members we have chosen who can move in under ground 1 aim to reflect the diversity of modern families, but this is balanced with security of tenure for the existing tenant, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, indicated.
I appreciate that this draws the line short of where some might hope, but to go too far would open up tenants to evictions for a wide range of people, potentially very significant numbers of cousins, nieces and nephews, where families are large. I know that this depends on families—it would certainly be a large number in my family. This would provide more opportunities for ill-intentioned landlords to abuse the system. It is right that the definition used here is narrower than the definition in Clause 20, which removes guarantor liability for rent after a family member in a joint tenancy dies. That is because this is a possession ground, so it results in people losing their homes; whereas Clause 20 protects bereaved families, where the net should be cast more widely.
Amendment 21 aims to introduce a new ground for possession that would permit the landlord to seek possession of their property for the purpose of housing a carer for them or a member of their family who lives with them. This is qualified by the requirement that the property is within sufficient proximity to the landlord’s residence to facilitate emergency callouts. I thank all noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for their considered and passionate engagement on this proposed ground in Committee and when I met Peers to discuss the proposal in the run-up to Report. I recognise the difficulties they highlighted that may be faced by landlords who wish to evict their tenant in order to house a carer. We are all aware of the importance of carers and the remarkable work they do in supporting individuals and families in difficult circumstances. These amendments clearly come from a good place, and I am sympathetic to noble Lords’ concerns.
However, there are some practical considerations that weaken the rationale for this intervention. Adding more possession grounds increases opportunities for abuse by those unscrupulous landlords who, sadly, exist in the market. We are committed to giving renters much greater security and stability so that they can stay in their homes for longer. That is why we have developed very specific grounds. We also think that there are very few landlords who would be in the position of both needing a carer and owning a second property close to their home to accommodate that carer. I appreciate the examples that both noble Baronesses gave. Given the potential risk of abuse and the very narrow group of people who might benefit from this ground, we do not think the additional ground is warranted. Our view is that it is not fair that a tenant should lose their home, with all the disruption that entails, in order for another person to be housed in those circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, talked about supporting people into work, but this amendment might involve another local worker being evicted to house that carer. Indeed, if the evicted tenant were also a carer, it would be likely to deprive one of the very organisations that have been contacting noble Lords of a key member of their staff, so we have to be careful that we do not cause those kinds of circumstances.
Amendment 22 seeks to create a new ground for possession to enable landlords to convert a residential property to non-residential use. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, that I too visited the King’s Cross development when I was looking at the development of the central part of Stevenage. The work that has been done there is fantastic.
As I stated in Committee, in response to a similar amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I do not believe that the proposal in Amendment 22 is the right approach. The Government have thought carefully about where landlords should be able to take possession of their properties, particularly where it would lead to a tenant losing their home through no fault of their own.
Encouraging residential lets to be converted to other uses, at a time of such chronic pressure on housing supply, would not be right. It is for the same reason that the Bill abolishes ground 3, which enables landlords to evict long-term tenants in order to turn the dwelling into a holiday let. Where landlords wish to convert their property to non-residential use, it is right that they should do this as tenants move out, rather than by evicting a tenant who has done nothing wrong.
It is also worth noting—as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, referred to—that the existing redevelopment ground, ground 6, could potentially be used in some circumstances. This is the right approach, not the approach put forward in the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester.
I turn to Amendment 23. This well-intentioned amendment would create a new mandatory possession ground to allow landlords to evict tenants in order to redevelop their property, if they have received planning permission for the works and these works cannot be carried out with the tenant in situ. I am pleased to be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, that landlords will already be able to evict in these circumstances. They can do this by using the existing, broader mandatory redevelopment ground, ground 6. This also does not require the landlord to prove that they have planning permission, which may not be necessary in all circumstances. In effect, this proposed new ground would merely duplicate ground 6, but with additional constraints. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, can she be categorical that anybody seeking to redevelop their property would be able to terminate a tenancy to do so?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
You can use the existing, broader mandatory redevelopment ground, ground 6, when you are redeveloping property.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
In respect of Amendment 21, does the Minister accept that denying someone the ability to move in a carer to look after their family in the way that was outlined will be an enormous temptation for abuse? The best outcome in that context is likely to be that people will simply hold the property empty for very many years in case they might need it. That will not create much help for the rental sector.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will reiterate my comments. When evicting one tenant to put another tenant in, you may well be evicting somebody else’s carer to put your carer in. Of course, we do not want to see properties sitting empty but, if people have a property, that is their choice. The idea that you might evict one carer to put another carer in, for example, is just not acceptable.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
I hear what the Minister is saying about pushing a tenant out to put a carer in, but she is touching on a very specific case, where you are putting out a tenant who happens to be a carer so as to put another carer in. I would submit to her that that is a very tiny example.
The sheer emotional impact of not being able to care for somebody by putting a carer in will simply invite people to abuse the system: to find ways to get around it, or simply to hold the property empty. I wonder how Members of this House would react if they were in the situation of not being able to provide care to a loved one because, despite owning a property, they were unable to put a carer into it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I simply add that it does not have to be another carer; it could be any of the key workers who we talk about so often who are in need of housing. There are other options for people. If landlords are receiving rent for that property, while I appreciate that there may be further shortages making it difficult to find somewhere near enough to the property, but there is the option of using the rent secured on one property to rent alternative accommodation for a carer.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
Those of us who deal with economic matters will have to point out that there would be tax paid on the rent, so there would not be a great deal left to be able to rent the next home. That is not an economically viable solution, even if there were another adjacent property to rent with what was left of the rent after deductions.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am sorry; I can only come back to my point. It does not seem equitable to evict one family to house another family. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. Turning to my first amendment, I recognise that the Minister has given some serious consideration to the definition of family and is satisfied with the Government’s position. We respectfully disagree, but I will not press Amendment 4 and will therefore withdraw it.
We have had an excellent debate on Amendment 21. I thank the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, for introducing it and the many noble Lords who raised issues on it. They have spoken with clarity and conviction. We believe that allowing a property to be used to house a carer in a time of need not only is reasonable but can be vital to the well-being and living standards of the property owner, and on these Benches we are pleased to support this amendment.
Finally, turning to the issue of redevelopment and regeneration, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, for his amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his contribution. Revitalising areas is key to improving living standards and supporting the long-term well-being and development of communities, delivering the growth that this Government have said is their number one priority. It is also crucial to delivering the homes that are so vital, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the Minister said earlier in the debate. I appreciate the Minister’s comment that this may already be covered, but we are not satisfied that it is. The Minister’s comments were not conclusive when I sought clarification. I will therefore test the opinion of the House on Amendment 23.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the restriction of Ground 4A to accommodation of three or more bedrooms only.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of the young people looking for student accommodation in the future at a reasonable rent, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Carrington
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house to house their agricultural worker, who will be working at least 35 hours per week for the landlord, regardless of the worker’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak also on Amendments 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. I apologise that there are so many; I actually tabled only one but the Table Office divided it.
The amendments cover grounds for possession as they relate to self-employed agricultural workers. It is clearly understood that the key aim of government is to provide more security for tenants in the private rented sector—hence the abolition of Section 21 no-fault evictions. I thoroughly support this policy, but reforms must be implemented carefully when it comes to the rural economy to take into account the particular circumstances of the agricultural sector in order to avoid negative impacts, such as the necessary housing of farm workers who are crucial to the nation’s food security, as well as to a thriving rural economy.
Accordingly, special protections specific to agriculture are required. That is already partly recognised in the Bill in ground 5A, but limited to direct employees. Agriculture is unique in terms of tenanted housing, as often agricultural workers are provided with accommodation to enable them to be close to their place of work. A worker can often be required to work long hours during certain seasons, such as lambing or harvest, or unsocial hours, such as early mornings and late evenings, in the case of dairy farming. There are also animal welfare considerations that require workers to be close at hand at all times.
Following Committee in the Lords, I withdrew the original amendments to address the Minister’s concerns. She said then that there were other arrangements that a landlord could use to help their contractors with accommodation when they are working away from their home, such as paying expenses, using licences to occupy or paying for them to be housed in an Airbnb. She is absolutely correct, as contractors can be somewhat different from employed or self-employed farm workers. I have therefore removed contractors from this amendment.
The Minister’s suggestion that the same could be achieved by allowing self-employed workers to occupy a property under licence would not be appropriate for longer-term workers, which this amendment seeks to address. I also point out that licence agreements are generally unsuitable for long-term occupation, and in some instances can actually be considered as a tenancy, especially when the occupant of a dwelling has exclusive occupation of all or part of the dwelling.
I know the Minister was worried that these amendments could open up an exemption for a wider group of workers, and I hope I have reassured her that this specifically covers only genuine full-time agricultural workers. The revised amendments, which add only self-employed agricultural workers to this category, also deem that the nature of the self-employment should be genuine and meaningfully full-time. Hence, reference is made to working a minimum 35-hour week. Furthermore, the revised amendments confirm that there is no intention to alter the security of tenure afforded to assured agricultural occupants. That is because the Bill states that grounds 5A and 5C do not apply to this type of worker.
We believe that the ground for possession should be available where there is a need to house self-employed agricultural workers—for example, a self-employed party to a share-farming arrangement on a farm or a self-employed shepherd. It is increasingly common in the agricultural industry for workers to be self-employed but, given the nature of their work, especially if it is with livestock, they need to live on site. Some examples of workers who might fall into this category are dairymen, sheep shearers, relief milkers or tractor drivers. Currently, ground 5A provides a means of getting possession where the dwelling is required to house someone who will be employed as an agricultural worker. However, it does not cover the situation where that worker is self-employed.
On the same theme of self-employed workers, ground 5C does not adequately provide for possession where a self-employed worker has been provided with a dwelling but the work contract has ended; it applies only where the tenant has been employed by the landlord. In summary, we would like to see extensions to both ground 5A and ground 5C to reflect modern farming employment practices and cover situations where the worker is self-employed as well as employed. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment, which purely reflects current employment practices in farming, is non-political and is not designed to cover non-agricultural workers.
My two other amendments in this group, Amendments 10 and 12, cover the status of service and key workers. Much of the debate, within this Chamber and beyond, is rightly focused on the Bill’s impact on the private rented sector in urban rather than rural areas. These amendments seek to address two critical concerns: first, how we ensure that rural businesses can continue to function effectively and house employees; and, secondly, how to support the housing needs of key workers, in both urban and rural areas.
In many rural communities, landlords have typically also been a major employer in the area, and the convention is that they house employees of their businesses. Traditionally, the most common form of employment was in agriculture, and this is reflected in the specific legislation for agricultural worker tenancies. But, as successive Governments have encouraged rural diversification, we have seen a growing number of businesses beyond farming employing and housing workers. This has become more frequent as affordability challenges have meant that accommodation often needs to be offered as part of an employment package to attract and retain staff. Alongside this, more properties have been let to non-employees under assured shorthold tenancies, which have maintained flexibility. This system has allowed landowners to regain possession at the end of a fixed term, enabling them to house new employees as business needs evolve. Without a clear right to repossess in such cases, we risk seeing vital rental properties in rural areas either being sold or left empty. This is not hypothetical: we have already seen the consequences in Scotland following the ending of its equivalent of Section 21.
These amendments aim to ensure that rural businesses can continue to house the workers they need, while also supporting the broader functioning of rural and urban communities. In Committee, the Minister raised two objections to a similar amendment: first, that ground 5A already covers this issue; and, secondly, that we must protect tenants in critical local jobs. However, ground 5A, while welcome, does not go far enough. As the Minister acknowledged, the agricultural sector has unique needs, hence the inclusion of ground 5A, but 85% of rural businesses do not relate to farming or forestry. Many of these businesses still require staff to live on or near the site to perform their duties effectively. If the logic behind ground 5A works for agriculture, it should also work for these other rural enterprises. These amendments would extend repossession rights to cover incoming service occupancy workers—those who are required to live in a property for the better performance of their duties.
A good example is a rural business that diversified into hosting weddings to remain viable under changing agricultural policies and profitability. It now needs to hire a full-time wedding planner, someone who must be on site at short notice, work irregular hours and take on responsibilities for security and caretaking. However, the business cannot recruit because there is no housing available nearby. One of this rural business’s cottages is currently let to a non-employee. If the business were to seek repossession of this property to house this wedding planner, ground 5A would not apply and it would be unable to obtain possession. Amendments 10 and 12 would allow repossession of this property to protect the viability of the business.
I appreciate that the ambition of the Bill is to protect the security of tenure of more households. However, if we do not strike the right balance and make it more difficult for businesses to employ and house staff, they will simply hold properties vacant for potential future employees or sell them. This will further restrict the availability of private rented housing in rural areas.
I turn to the second point, which is the protection of tenants in vital local roles. The amendment is needed to address the efficient functioning of the rural economy, which includes housing those in vital local roles. The principle has been accepted for housing incoming agricultural workers; this is simply an extension of that. The Government are concerned about housing vital key workers in rural areas, so I have strengthened the amendment to include a provision allowing repossession where the property will be used to house an incoming key worker. Such workers are broadly defined as certain NHS employees; carers, who we have already talked about; teachers; and police and security staff, et cetera. In many rural areas, key workers face long commutes due to a lack of suitable housing. This undermines recruitment and retention and ultimately harms local services. These amendments would allow rural landlords to offer housing to key workers, ensuring the viability of rural areas.
While my focus is primarily rural, the benefits extend to urban landlords, such as NHS trusts or housing providers, and to key workers such as firefighters, on-call carers and others whose proximity to work is essential. In short, these amendments would make the private rented sector more responsive to the needs of both rural businesses and urban communities. They strike a balance between tenant protection and operational necessity and I urge the Minister to support them. I beg to move.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for bringing what is a quite small technical issue, even if there are many amendments related to it, particularly regarding farmers and their tenants. We understand that, technically, Amendments 8, 9, 11 and 13 to 17 relate to one very small, specific, technical issue, which is that if a dairy farmer, say, is on a contract, or is a freelancer but needs to be moved in to the site, then that repossession should be able to happen. So it is about viable businesses and about ensuring that somebody who is highly relevant can live next door to where they are working.
We understand, or we thought we understood, that licence to occupy would cover this. We also worry about the hours relating to this, although we note that one of the amendments specifies a 35-hour week. Therefore, I want to know from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington— I am happy to sit down and make way for him to answer—whether it would be possible to apply a loophole so that someone could work for just one hour and then get through a loophole that has been applied by these amendments.
Lord Carrington (CB)
The answer is “No”. The whole reason for putting 35 hours a week in there is to make sure there is no loophole, and it is drafted as such.
Baroness Grender (LD)
I thank the noble Lord.
On Amendments 10 and 12, we on these Benches are concerned that they technically widen the scope beyond where we are comfortable. However, regarding Amendments 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 16, we hope that the Minister has heard the technical detail that is required for a very specific profession and will look favourably on taking this away and having another look.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the agricultural sector of this country and its workers are without doubt the lifeline of the nation. I therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for his proposed amendments that make provision for agricultural landlords and workers, bringing the welfare of the agricultural sector into overdue consideration.
Today, the British agricultural industry contributes £14 billion to our economy and puts food on our plates three times a day. Agricultural landlords lie at the heart of this. They provide the means for this essential lifeline by providing on-site housing for workers who are required to be at hand to fulfil their duties 24 hours a day. From milking cows daily at three o’clock in the morning to delivering lambs throughout the night in the spring, on-site and proximity housing ultimately facilitates workers’ ability to produce the food on which we all depend. It is therefore crucial that we consider the effects of the Renters’ Rights Bill on these agricultural workers and, in the case of the Bill’s failure to protect their livelihoods, consider proposed amendments so that the Bill does not obstruct one of Britain’s lifelines.
As drafted, the Bill clumsily allows for occupants to remain in a dwelling house even if they no longer work for the landlord, which is usually the requirement for the occupancy of such housing. Similarly, as my noble friend Lord Roborough stated on 12 May, the wording of this Bill also does not allow for the possession of a house dwelling as long as the occupant remains in agricultural employment, with no indication as to the specific type of agricultural work that the occupant carries out, or whether proximity to certain facilities or animals is necessary.
This ultimately risks the deprivation of housing for current full-time workers, who may depend on the occupied dwelling house to be able to fulfil their duties, not to mention simultaneously risking the inability of the agricultural sector to function effectively, due to an inefficient proximity to work that this lack of provision may cause.
Amendments 8, 9 and 11 to 16 therefore ensure that such damage may be averted by allowing an agricultural landlord to possess their property for the use of their own full-time agricultural workers, and thus retain the efficacy that fuels this industry. Amendment 11 is particularly important, because our country’s modern agricultural industry is changing. One of those changes is that many of the employees are self-employed, particularly in jobs in the dairy industry and the sheep industry, where milkers and shepherds are often self-employed. So we will support the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, if he moves his Amendment 11.
As previously emphasised, it goes without saying that the agricultural sector serves to provide for every one of us, and it is in the same vein that proposed Amendments 10 and 12 also serve. In the Bill’s current form, the absence of provision for service occupants overlooks the reality that many agricultural workers’ contracts express: the worker must live in a particular residence where they can better perform their duties. This is of particular relevance to the contracts of agricultural workers who, out of both duty and British custom, are often housed by their employer, who is also the landlord.
By allowing possession to be made for service occupants and key workers, in Amendments 10 and 12 the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, rightly seeks to uphold the implements and customs that facilitate effective and key agricultural operations, and the welfare of agricultural employees. However, with the more comprehensive inclusivity entailed by service occupants and key workers, the amendments also make provision for workers in other vital sectors where similar contracts exist. These include, but are not limited to, the NHS, healthcare, education professionals and emergency service workers. With Amendments 10 and 12 in place, whether one of those key workers needs to rise in the early hours in the lambing season to check the ewes, or provide immediate care for an elderly person, or is putting out a fire, their crucial duties can be carried out only with the due expediency granted by their proximity and not if they are hindered by the limitations put in place by the Bill.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 8 and 9, et cetera, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about treating self-employed agricultural staff as full-time staff members on a farm for the purposes of the Bill. As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill—probably the only time I am going to speak on the Bill—I declare my interest as a farmer and someone who has a dairy, because it is about dairies that I want to speak.
Cows have to be milked twice a day. It is not only from the point of view of the welfare of the farmer, and perhaps his or her bottom line, but from the point of view of the welfare of the cows. The cows have to be milked twice a day or they really suffer. Cows can actually die from not being milked, so it is really important that they are milked twice a day. Most dairy farmers now employ their dairymen or dairywomen— I am pleased to say there is a considerably greater number of women who are dairy farmers these days than in the past—through an agency, because it is the duty of the agency, if the dairyman suffers a heart attack or gets run over, or something terrible happens, to produce a dairyman literally the next day so the cows can continue to be milked. It really is very important for the welfare of the cows and the farm.
These staff, who are self-employed through an agency, are treated on the farm as part of the farm team. Although technically they are self-employed, they must be treated as being employed members of the farm for the purposes of the Bill. They usually occupy a vital house, probably close to the dairy. There is not only milking twice a day; a good dairy person has to spend two or three hours a day, in addition to the milking, watching their cows, seeing that their welfare is okay and they are in full health, and that their feet do not need treatment, and whether they are on heat. It is a really important role.
Although I am only speaking about dairy people, I am sure the same applies to herdsmen in a beef herd, or shepherds looking after a flock. The point is that these people are employed through an agency, therefore they are self-employed. It would really not be at all right—and I am talking about the welfare of the cows, apart from anything else—if these people were excluded from being treated as ordinary members of staff for the purposes of the Bill.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for these considered amendments, which reflect the debate we had around his similar suggestions in Committee, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for speaking in our discussion.
As noble Lords will be aware, we have responded to the needs of the agricultural community and incorporated ground 5A in the Bill. We appreciate that the agricultural sector has distinct requirements, and it is often vital for workers to live on-site to carry out their duties. However, this must be balanced with the needs of the wider rural community. We believe this ground balances both: it allows agricultural employees to be housed while protecting other tenants who may work in critical local jobs.
Widening the ground to include, for example, self-employed workers could open the ground to abuse and decrease rural security of tenure. For example, a landlord could engage someone on a self-employed basis to do a nominal amount of agricultural work and on that basis use the expanded ground to evict a tenant in respect of whom no other grounds are available. Amendment 8 would expand ground 5A, which, as drafted, will allow landlords to evict assured tenants to house an agricultural employee. The amendment would mean that landlords could evict their tenants to house self-employed workers and other types of workers engaged in agriculture.
As we have made clear, a key aim of the Bill is to increase tenants’ security, and the grounds for possession have been designed narrowly to reflect situations in which we think it is right that a tenant could lose their home, often through no fault of their own. Expanding the types of workers a tenant can be evicted in order to house goes against this principle and would reduce the security of tenure in rural areas.
Amendment 9 works with Amendment 8 to ensure that tenants could be evicted only to house workers who would be working for the landlord for at least 35 hours a week. I understand the intent behind this: it aims to address the concerns I expressed in Committee that the similar expansion of the ground that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, proposed then would open up the ground to abuse. However, I am still not convinced that any expansion of the ground is the right approach. Amendment 11 is purely consequential on Amendment 8, removing a reference to “seasonal or permanent employee” which Amendment 8 has moved so that it appears earlier in the text of the ground.
I ask the noble Lord not to push these amendments to a Division for the reasons I have set out. In short, we do not wish to degrade the security of rural tenants to house wider categories of workers. The narrow drafting of the ground proposed by the Government is proportionate, and by focusing on agricultural employees it achieves a fair balance for all.
Amendment 10 seeks to expand the agricultural worker possession ground, 5A. This would permit a landlord to seek eviction of a tenant to house key workers and service occupants as well as agricultural employees which the ground as drafted allows. Ground 5A is designed to allow landlords to house employees working for them in agriculture. This ensures workers who genuinely need to live on-site can be accommodated and recognises that employees may need to live on-site only for a limited period. We have balanced this with the needs of all tenants for security and stability in their homes.
Expanding this ground to other types of workers from different sectors would not be right. It would allow tenants to be evicted through no fault of their own to house a wide range of employees; for example, a teacher or a healthcare worker who is an employee of the landlord. For this wider group of employees, we do not believe that landlords directly provide accommodation on a large scale or that in most cases such individuals need to live on-site. In fact, this might see one key worker being evicted to house another, a point I made under a previous amendment.
Amendment 12 works with Amendment 10 to clarify the definitions for both key workers and service occupants. It also seeks to give power to the Secretary of State to amend the key worker definition by regulations. This would allow a future Government to potentially expand the definition to include many other types of worker without suitable scrutiny, which could significantly degrade tenant security. Employment ground 5C may be available to landlords who need to provide accommodation to tenants as a consequence of their employment. In our view, if a landlord needs to accommodate someone on-site, it is right that housing is kept for this purpose and that other tenants do not see their lives disrupted after a short period in a property.
Amendment 13 works together with the other amendments in this group to expand ground 5C to allow landlords to evict a wider range of workers rather than just tenants who are employees. The amendment would change the condition within the ground that the dwelling was let to a tenant as a result of their employment by expanding it to include “work” as well as “employment”.
I am clear in my view that expanding the ground for possession is not the correct approach. Ground 5C is narrowly drafted to allow employer landlords to evict tenants when the accommodation is no longer required for their employment. Expanding this ground further would reduce security of tenure for a much wider group. I am not persuaded that opening the ground more widely is justified for more informal working arrangements. If a tenant is an employee, it indicates a long-term relationship which could require accommodation, whereas this is much less likely to be the case for other types of worker.
Amendment 14 works together with the others in this group to expand ground 5C, as I have described. The amendment would expand the condition that the tenant has ceased to be employed by the landlord to include circumstances in which they have ceased to work for the landlord—a much broader definition. For the reasons I have explained, I am not convinced and have not been persuaded that any expansion of the ground is the right approach.
Amendment 15 also works with other amendments in the group to expand ground 5C. In parallel to Amendment 14, it would expand the condition that the tenancy was granted for an early period of the employment—for example, to help with relocation—to include circumstances where the tenancy was granted for an earlier period of the tenant’s work, a much broader definition.
Expanding the employment ground to allow landlords to house and evict non-employee workers is not the right approach, as I have explained. Workers who are not employees are also much less likely to require the long-term accommodation a tenancy entails. Other arrangements, such as licence to occupy or service occupation, may be more suitable for shorter-term contractors or self-employed workers.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, on self-employed workers in the agricultural industry, has MHCLG discussed this issue with Defra? Defra would know how the industry has changed over the past years and how critical it is to have self-employed workers on specific jobs in agriculture. It is going to be very difficult for farmers, particularly livestock farmers, to manage in certain circumstances on the farm, as we have heard from the noble Lord opposite.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have not personally discussed the issue with Defra, but I am sure that officials in MHCLG will have done so, and—
Lord Rooker (Lab)
If my noble friend the Minister does discuss it with Defra, she will find that Defra has nothing like the numbers of people with experience of farming that it had 10 years ago. It has been completely denuded and she would not find the answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness opposite.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I was about to say, before the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, intervened, that I am always happy to discuss these important issues further with noble Lords and to refer back to colleagues in Defra and elsewhere. Nevertheless, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Carrington (CB)
I thank the Minister very much. I appreciate her response, but I am afraid that I am somewhat disappointed by it. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the farming industry and the rural economy.
I greatly appreciate the words of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grender and Lady Scott, as well as of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, who brings very practical experience as a dairy farmer, whereas I am only a sheep and arable farmer.
To pick up on what the Minister said about this being a loophole, the whole point of my amendment saying that the person has to be a genuine worker, working 35 hours a week, is surely sufficient to deny that claim. Reluctantly, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that it has been agreed that a number of amendments are regarded as consequential on Amendment 8.
Amendment 9
Lord Carrington
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house to house their agricultural worker, who will be working at least 35 hours per week for the landlord, regardless of the worker’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Lord Carrington
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house to house their agricultural worker, who will be working at least 35 hours per week for the landlord, regardless of the worker’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Lord Carrington
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house when the tenant stops working for the landlord, regardless of the tenant’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house when the tenant stops working for the landlord, regardless of the tenant’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house when the tenant stops working for the landlord, regardless of the tenant’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house when the tenant stops working for the landlord, regardless of the tenant’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and others in the name of Lord Carrington would enable the landlord to gain possession of the dwelling-house when the tenant stops working for the landlord, regardless of the tenant’s employment status (i.e. employee, worker or self-employed person).
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment retains the status quo, allowing landlords to begin recovering rent arrears after eight weeks—rather than thirteen—where rent is payable weekly or fortnightly, helping to reduce the build-up of rental and mortgage arrears.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to group 6 and to Amendments 18 and 19 standing in my name. These amendments concern the point at which rent arrears become a valid ground for possession, an issue of considerable importance to landlords and tenants alike. The most recent English Private Landlord Survey shows that 45% of landlords own a single rental property and a further 38% own between two and four. That means over four-fifths of landlords operate on a very small scale, far from the image of institutional landlords with deep financial reserves. These are individuals and couples, often retirees, who rely on rental income for their own stability. They form the backbone of our rental sector.
With that image in mind, I turn to the amendments in this group. Under the proposals in the Bill, landlords will be prevented from initiating possession proceedings for 13 weeks of arrears in the case of weekly or fortnightly rent, or three months where the rent is paid monthly. That is a significant extension from the current thresholds of eight weeks and two months, respectively. Amendments 18 and 19 in my name are not about undermining tenant protections—far from it; they are about retaining the status quo, which has for many years struck a workable balance between supporting tenants through temporary difficulty and allowing landlords to respond promptly when rent is not being paid. When landlords are prevented from acting until arrears have been built up to such a degree, the financial consequences can be severe, not only for landlords themselves but for tenants too, who may find the ultimate possession proceedings more inevitable and more traumatic as a result. Early intervention can help avoid escalation.
Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, is fundamentally right in principle. Landlords who provide a private service in an open market in exchange for a fee should not be penalised for government failure. If the Government fail to make payments, that is not the fault of the landlord, and they should not be made to suffer as a result. Therefore, if the noble Lord was to test the opinion of the House on this issue, we would support it.
These amendments speak to a broader principle that must underpin this Bill—balance. Yes, we must protect renters from unjust eviction, but we must also enable landlords to operate viably, to maintain confidence in the sector and to continue providing the homes that so many people depend on.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I have Amendment 20 in this group and declare an interest as a former landlord. Amendment 20 was tabled in Committee, but I have retabled it because I do not feel I have had an adequate answer from the Government. The amendment would continue to permit rent arrears which arise from non-payment of universal credit to be taken into account as a ground for possession. Not to do so is unworkable and unfair.
Taking unworkable first, since this is the point which must surely concern the Minister, I suggest that it is unworkable because, unlike in the social sector, private landlords are not allowed to know, under data protection rules, whether a tenant is in receipt of universal credit. The Department for Work and Pensions is not allowed to tell them. As such, the landlord will have no idea whether rent arrears are due to a non-payment of universal credit and, unbeknownst to them, will be legally prevented from taking enforcement action. A landlord might discover that rent arrears were due to a delayed universal credit payment and therefore unenforceable only once the case reaches court, thereby piling yet further quite unnecessary pressure on the justice system. This creates significant uncertainty and risk for responsible landlords, particularly smaller landlords. Disregarding non-payment of universal credit is therefore completely unworkable. It will lead to unnecessary enforcement action, which is surely the last thing this new system needs.
Turning to why it is unfair, I ask why the landlord should be penalised if the non-payment of universal credit is the fault of the universal credit system breaking down in some way. This is especially problematic for landlords renting out just one or two properties who rely on timely payments to meet their own financial obligations. If the Government are serious about sustaining tenancies, then addressing the root causes of delayed benefit payments would be more effective. In other words, protecting tenants from administrative delays should be the job of the welfare system, not landlords. Otherwise, the upshot could well be that landlords will be much more cautious about taking on tenants on universal credit. Is that what Ministers really want?
In response to this amendment in Committee, the Minister told your Lordships on 24 April:
“It is important that tenancies that are otherwise financially sustainable should continue, with tenants protected from one-off financial shocks. For example, it is feasible that a tenant who lost their job and had to apply for universal credit could breach the arrears threshold while waiting for their first payment. Evicting that tenant and potentially making them homeless would not help the situation, whereas giving them chances to resolve the arrears would ensure that the tenancy could continue, benefiting both them and the landlord and ensuring that the landlord was able to claim the arrears once the payments were made”.—[Official Report, 24/4/25; col. 842.]
With great respect to the Minister, I cannot help feeling that this is slightly naive. Is it really of benefit to a landlord to ensure that the tenancy continues when a tenant has accrued three months’ worth of arrears and, in the process, may have seriously damaged the landlord’s financial position—for example, in being unable to support their family or unable to pay the mortgage and forced to take enforcement action? Why should landlords be penalised for the state’s failure to pay universal credit promptly?
Paragraph 24(d) of Schedule 1 should therefore be omitted. It is unworkable and unfair. If, however, the Minister continues to think that paragraph 24(d) is fair on landlords, can she at least give some assurance that they will have a way—notwithstanding the data protection rules—of finding out whether rent arrears are due to delays in payment of universal credit, so as to avoid clogging up the tribunal system with unenforceable claims?
I can help the noble Baroness here, because Section 16 of the Data Protection Act—a Henry VIII power, in fact—enables the Act to be amended so that the list of exemptions in Schedule 2 to that Act is expanded. It could be amended in that way by regulations to enable the landlord to know whether rent arrears are due to delays in universal credit. This would not deal with the fairness points I have made but would deal with the unworkability points. If the Minister were able to give the assurance that the tribunal system will not be clogged up with unenforceable claims, I would not press my amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, much of what we have been debating is about balance. We have heard that word a lot today, and I guess it is fairly obvious to noble Lords by now that when it comes to a balance, we come down in favour of the tenant. We believe the balance has been tilted very much the other way from time immemorial due to the complete lack of supply, the lack of social housing and the beauty parade whereby landlords can choose whom they want to let their properties to.
We feel that the Bill intentionally aims to give tenants more time to address their financial difficulties and therefore avoid eviction. We believe that is the right and the moral thing to do because of the additional cost to society of more homeless and evicted people and more costs to local authorities; it is a nasty, invidious vicious circle. But we do not totally have rose-coloured specs on: we seek reassurances from the Minister that landlords have robust grounds for possession, when necessary, when it comes to arrears. We all know that arrears are painful for landlords, especially if they still have a mortgage, but the good news is that most of them do not. In the situation that the noble Baroness outlined of a couple having one or two houses to rent for their pension—generally properties that were inherited from their parents that they decided to rent out—almost half of landlords do not have a mortgage, and a further 20-something per cent have only small mortgages. More than 70% of landlords are not in a dire financial situation and, as someone rather flamboyantly said, needing to feed their families. I see no evidence of that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for their amendments, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for her comments.
Amendments 18 and 19 seek to decrease the threshold for mandatory eviction under rent arrears, ground 8, from three months to two, or 13 weeks to eight where rent is paid weekly. I do not believe that this is the right approach. We have taken the decision to restore the threshold for mandatory evictions to the levels originally set by the party opposite in the Housing Act 1988 before they were reduced in the 1990s.
Three months, we believe, is the right balance. It gives landlords facing significant arrears certainty of possession, but allows tenants facing one-off financial shocks enough time to get their financial affairs in order and not lose their home if their tenancy is otherwise sustainable. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, that ground 8 is a mandatory ground, but it is worth noting that mandatory eviction is not the landlord’s only route to possession. Landlords facing frequent arrears and late payment of rent that indicate an unsustainable tenancy can also pursue eviction via the discretionary grounds 10 and 11. For these reasons, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 20 seeks to remove a key protection for vulnerable tenants from the Bill. It would allow tenants to face mandatory eviction when they have breached the three-month rent arrears threshold due to not receiving a universal credit payment to which they are entitled. This would not be right. We want to protect those vulnerable tenants who have suffered a change of circumstances, such as redundancy or an accident, by helping them remain in their home. It would not be right for them to face another destabilising event by allowing landlords to evict them, potentially making them homeless because they are waiting to receive universal credit that is due to them. Not being able to pay their rent on time because they have not received universal credit they are entitled to does not mean that they are a bad tenant. It is right that these tenants are given time to resolve their arrears; it is also important that tenancies that are otherwise financially sustainable should continue. That will benefit both the tenant and the landlord.
We have heard concerns that landlords might face uncertainty in pursuing possession claims if they do not realise that arrears are caused by an outstanding benefit payment. That is subsequently used as a defence in possession proceedings. Of course, we would strongly encourage tenants and landlords to communicate; it is clearly in the tenants’ interest to explain their situation before the case reaches court. I note too that there is an element of uncertainty in any possession case, and this requirement is not unusual in that regard.
I have heard the point that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made about data access and I will take that back to the department. I hope he agrees that we are justified in our approach and that he will not move his amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the amendments before us, in particular Amendments 18 and 19, seek to preserve a workable and fair framework that supports both tenants and landlords. The current thresholds, allowing landlords to begin recovery proceedings after eight weeks or two months of arrears, have stood the test of time because they offer a sensible compromise.
Moreover, early intervention is often in the best interests of tenants themselves. Addressing arrears sooner rather than later can prevent problems escalating to the point where eviction becomes unavoidable—a consequence that benefits no one. Our goal must be to craft legislation that is fair and balanced, which ultimately safeguards the rights of renters while ensuring stability for landlords.
Although it is imperative to safeguard tenants from unfair evictions, we must ensure that the protections do not inadvertently place landlords in an untenable position, thereby threatening the very housing supply we all seek. We will not put these amendments to a vote, but we think that Amendment 20, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, represents a very sensible improvement to this part of the Bill, and we will support him if he chooses to divide the House.
Lord Carter of Haslemere
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would continue to permit rent arrears arising from non-payment of universal credit to be used as a ground for possession.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
I am very grateful for all the support that my Amendment 20 has received. This amendment was genuinely meant. I was concerned about fairness, but above all about workability. The tribunal system, which we will come on to in more detail in later amendments, needs to have before it only the cases that absolutely have to be resolved. The last thing I or anybody wants to happen is for the tribunal system to be clogged up with unnecessary cases, which was my principal concern.
However, I listened to what the Minister said, and I am grateful that she will look more carefully at the data protection point, which, frankly, is a better way of dealing with this than relying on tenants and landlords to speak to each other. On that basis, and if she would be so kind as to write to me once she has had those discussions with the department so that the position is on the record, I will not press my amendment.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I just confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that I will respond to him in writing.
Lord de Clifford
“New ground for possession for property which is required for a carer for the landlord or landlord’s family
24A After Ground 8 insert—“Ground 8A
The landlord seeking possession requires the dwelling-house for the purpose of housing a person who is a carer for—(a) the landlord,(b) the landlord’s spouse, or(c) a member of the landlord’s family who is living with the landlord,where the dwelling-house is in sufficiently close proximity to the person requiring care to facilitate emergency callout.For the purposes of this Schedule, “carer” means an adult providing personal care or nursing care to another person, who may be under the age of 18, under a voluntary or contracted arrangement.The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the definition of carer above.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new ground for possession would allow the landlord to seek possession of a dwelling house where it is needed to house a carer for the landlord, or a member of the landlord’s family, and the dwelling-house is in close proximity to the person requiring care.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I thank the many Peers who passionately supported this amendment. I listened to the Minister and feel that a concession with regard to possession of a house for carers is not forthcoming. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Jamieson
“Possession for redevelopment and regeneration of private rented homes
24A After Ground 8 insert—“Ground 8A
The following conditions are met—(a) the private landlord intends to redevelop the dwelling-house for the purpose of regeneration, and the proposed works cannot reasonably be carried out while the property is occupied; (b) the private landlord has complied with all relevant tenancy obligations up to the date of possession;(c) the private landlord has given six months’ notice; (d) a planning application has been made.In this Ground—“Redevelopment” means—(a) demolition or reconstruction of all or a substantial part of the dwelling-house, or(b) substantial works to the dwelling-house or any building of which it forms part;“Regeneration” means the process of improving an area through coordinated measures that either—(a) secure the redevelopment, refurbishment, or enhancement of land, buildings, or infrastructure,(b) promote economic growth, including through the creation of employment opportunities and support for local enterprise, or(c) advance social wellbeing by improving housing, public services, community facilities, and the overall quality of life for residents;“Private landlord” means a landlord who is not a registered provider of social housing.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment creates a new group for possession where a landlord has made a planning application, and the proposed works cannot reasonably be carried out while the property is occupied.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we should be supporting regeneration, enabling more housing and employment, and the renting of property in the meantime. While I appreciate the comment from the Minister, I am not reassured. Therefore, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
G7 and NATO Summits
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I sincerely apologise for the discourtesy to the House. I had not realised that the Statement was not going to be read, so I thought I had better get to my place in case the Deputy Speaker had to adjourn the House during pleasure.
Apart from seeing the Leader of the Opposition arriving late, it can be illuminating when a Statement repeat is delayed—I had better go on because the Clock has started—because the Prime Minister’s Statement began with grand claims about fixing social security. We all know what has happened since. Can the noble Baroness the Leader tell the House where the savings lost in this fix of social security since the Statement will come from? I think we all know that it will be tax and tax and tax again on the owners and savers of Britain: on home owners, farmers and small businesses and on the dividends that pay our pensions. As we heard this week, there may be potentially more controls on ISAs, the nest eggs people put aside from their hard-earned income. Gordon Brown invented the cash ISA; now Rachel Reeves is after it.
The Statement also boasts that Britain has a foreign policy for working people. Sadly, thanks to the Chagos deal, it is the working people of Mauritius who are quids in, not the working people of Britain, whose real disposable income is down 1% this year and who will have to stump up £30 billion in taxes to use what they already own. Amazingly, Diego Garcia was not even mentioned in a big Statement on defence.
The Statement was full of rhetoric on more than the botched welfare reform, but the central truth laid bare in the last two weeks is that the Government are all at sea abroad and are increasingly sidelined on the world stage. On 17 June, after sitting next to President Trump at the G7 dinner, the Prime Minister declared:
“There is nothing the president said that suggests he’s about to get involved in this conflict”.
The Foreign Secretary dashed to Washington, then to Geneva, and the call to the US was for restraint. Then, five days later, President Trump struck Iran’s nuclear sites.
The British Government’s response was not to congratulate the US on executing this brilliant action. Instead, they rushed out a statement to say that Britain was not involved, and that the £30 billion giveaway base of Diego Garcia was not used. That did not sound like leadership to me; it was not even followership. I wonder if the Government ever gave President Trump a copy of the reported advice from the Attorney-General saying an attack on Iran would be illegal. If they did, I am not sure that the President would pin that up in the Oval Office to replace the bust of Winston Churchill—out with Churchill’s inspiration and in with the Attorney-General’s injunction.
It is surely indicative that, in this lengthy Statement, the Prime Minister did not once mention those US strikes that resounded around the world this last week. The only mention of President Trump was a reference to the US-UK trade deal signed on what looked like a conspicuously windy day in Canada. That is a deal we welcome as a first step—it was only made possible, actually, by Brexit—but it still leaves our car makers, as the Prime Minster admitted, facing a 10% tariff on exports. Can the noble Baroness say anything about how the Government now intend to build on that trade deal with the US, which I hope was discussed at the G7?
The Statement spoke about stepping up, but where were we as recent major geopolitical events were unfolding? When Israel acted in its self-defence, Britain was out of the loop. Perhaps that is unsurprising when the Government had lately sanctioned two members of the Israeli Cabinet.
The Government have seemed equivocal at times, but I do thank the Prime Minister for his action against antisemitism and I associate this side with the Government’s strong condemnation of the BBC for its shameful broadcast of calls for the killing of Israeli soldiers. The Government were absolutely right there.
The Statement says the UK is using “every diplomatic lever” to keep Britain and the Middle East safe. We support the Government on that and we all pray for a just and lasting peace. But where are those levers and what are they? What progress are we making in addressing the humanitarian situation in Gaza and in ousting Hamas? Those issues rightly concern noble Lords across the House. Will we follow President Trump in easing sanctions on Syria? What of Iran? We agree that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, but have we had recent discussions with the Iranian regime?
We welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to more defence spending and to the British nuclear deterrent. We welcome the decision to buy 12 F35A aircraft with new capabilities. But can the Minister confirm what was said in the apparent exchanges on this earlier: that this will in fact cut the defence budget rather than increase it, because these are less expensive planes than the F35? The Minister is indicating that that is incorrect, so I withdraw that question. I misunderstood and will look carefully at Hansard.
We continue to back the Prime Minister’s strong commitment on Ukraine, which is rightly underlined in the Statement. But can the Minister explain why NATO’s communiqué was weak on condemnation of Russia?
On defence, can she tell us what the commitment at NATO to spend 5% of GDP on national security actually means? The only solid commitment is to spend 2.6% on defence by 2027. The 4.1% target is based on adding a new 1.5% spending goal for resilience and security to the already stated 2.6% target. What does that mean? The Italian Government have said that might include a bridge. The Prime Minister spoke of “energy networks”, so could it include spending on pylons to enable green energy? Will the spending on the Chagos deal count towards the percentage?
Finally, will the Minister tell us when the Statement promised to the House last night that stirred the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, to pull the plug on his pledges to the Chagos Islanders will be made?
The Prime Minister has done very much that we support in foreign affairs and defence and we will continue to support that. But, over the last two weeks, we have looked unsure and a little behind the game.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the Statement improbably begins by discussing the Government’s woes on social security, which of course have absolutely nothing to do with its real subject matter. We welcome the Government’s U-turn there, but I do not think that this Statement is the context in which to discuss them, not least because they have been coming so thick and fast that I am afraid I cannot keep up.
There is a wide measure of agreement that the UK faces greater and more diverse security threats than it has for decades and that we are all greatly indebted to our Armed Forces and other government agencies that are working so hard and effectively to combat them. The headline outcome of the NATO summit was the commitment to spend 5% on national security. In the Statement, this is referred to as a “defence investment pledge”, but it clearly includes expenditure on many non-defence items.
In the national security strategy, the definition of “national security” includes
“the health of our economy … food prices … supply chains … safety on the streets”
and the online world. This definition seems so wide as to be virtually meaningless. Can the Minister explain what is within the definition? The Prime Minister says that we will reach 4.1% spending on it in 2027, so he must know how he reached that figure. Will the Government therefore give a breakdown of the 4.1% and then explain how they intend to get to the 5% by 2035?
One obvious item to include in the definition of expenditure that promotes national security is overseas development assistance, particularly in areas such as conflict prevention. To what extent is ODA included in the new definition of “national security” and do the Government have any plans to increase it as they increase all other aspects of security expenditure?
The Statement goes on to say that UK foreign policy
“answers directly to the concerns of working people”.
What specific concerns of working people are meant by that phrase? To what extent are working people affected by foreign policy in different ways from the rest of the population?
One of the biggest challenges ahead is not just to increase expenditure on national security but to ensure that the money is spent as effectively as possible. In that context, can the Minister explain why we are prioritising the purchase of 12 F35A jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons? These planes are extraordinarily expensive, even if they are not quite as expensive as the F35Bs, and for decades we have not judged it necessary to have this capability. As the noble Lord, Lord West, said at Questions earlier today, this change presumably means that we need at the very least to update our nuclear doctrine. Do the Government plan to do so? Will they publish any new doctrine when it has been adopted?
On Ukraine, we welcome the commitment to repeat last year’s commitment on expenditure and also the funding of additional air defence missiles from frozen Russian assets. Can the Minister confirm that this funding has come from the interest on those assets and that no progress has been made on freeing up the capital, which could be transformative to Ukraine’s success?
In the Commons, the Prime Minister said it was very difficult to access the capital because not all countries were in agreement on how to proceed. Estonia has proposed a way forward on this. Will the Minister commit to looking at Estonia’s proposals as a matter of urgency?
The Statement rightly stresses the need to build up the Armed Forces. So does the Minister accept that there is still a crisis of recruitment, particularly to the Army? Will the Government therefore look sympathetically at the Lib Dem proposal to pay a £10,000 signing-on bonus for new recruits as a way of rapidly boosting recruitment?
On Iran, we welcome the current ceasefire, but it needs to be made permanent. The Foreign Secretary recently met the Iranian Foreign Minister, along with EU counterparts, to promote a ceasefire. Do HMG foresee any future role for the UK in securing a longer- term solution?
Finally, on Gaza, we agree on the need for a quick ceasefire, but there is absolutely no sign of this. In the meantime, deaths and starvation continue. Our ability to affect events in Gaza is limited, but we could at the very least recognise the state of Palestine, which is a necessary precursor to a two-state solution. The Prime Minister says that the Government are waiting for the “right time” to do this. The fear is that in the Government’s view there will never be a right time. We should act now.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their comments. I thought the noble Lord, Lord True, although he made an elegant entrance, enjoyed himself too much at my party’s expense. The focus of today, and what people are looking for in the Statement, was about the G7 and NATO.
I do not think we have seen such a complex and difficult international situation in the lifetime of most of us here. It is not an easy time. Across the world we have existing conflicts, new conflicts, and they seem to escalate quickly and change with new eruptions quickly. What we can do nationally and internationally to help bring peace trumps any other issue we may want to discuss, so I will focus on those issues.
I have to say that the noble Lord was uncharacteristically churlish about the role that the Prime Minister has played on the international stage. I can recall very early on in the days of this Government facing criticism from the party opposite about the Prime Minister going to international conferences, building relations with leaders of other countries, and I said at the time—and it still holds true and has proved to be true—that it is only by building up good relationships that you can have the difficult discussions when they are needed. My party and I are proud of the role that our Prime Minister is playing on the international stage, and I can remember when we have been less proud of a Prime Minister’s or Foreign Secretary’s role on the international stage. So, I make no apologies for the role he is playing. We are grateful to him for doing so.
The issue of the transformative and generational increase in defence spending by the NATO summit was really important. Five percent is greater than it has been for many years. I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord True, was querying the new 1.5% target. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised this as well. It is almost impossible to divorce national security from resilience. They are both about our security, and our safety in this country is dependent on both. The idea that we could spend national resilience money on pylons for green energy is a frankly ridiculous point for the noble Lord to make. But we must ensure that we have supplies of energy throughout the country for business, domestic and military use.
We have seen what has happened in other countries when there has been a failure of supply of energy. It is vital that we maintain that. To try to make a political point about green energy and the environment is not what this is about. I hope the noble Lord will understand how important a role the issues of supply chains and energy play in national security and resilience. If he does not understand that, we can find more information for him that he might find it useful to look at.
The noble Lord asked specifically about finance. We went through this last week. We will have fully funded plans to increase defence spending in this Parliament from 2.6% from April 2027 to at least 4.1% of GDP on collective defence and security by 2027. That target, I said before, is 3.5% on core spending and 1.5% on security.
I also make no apology for the Chagos deal. I have said this before: the idea that a country would spend a lot of money—and it is a lot of money—if it did not consider it vital and essential to national security is, quite frankly, a ludicrous argument to make. It is because it is so essential that the Government have been prepared to spend the money. We should recognise that and recognise the importance of it. When noble Lords talk about the cost of living, I will take no lessons from a party that gave us the Liz Truss Budget, which did so much damage to the people in this country and to the cost of living. The noble Lord can mutter away, but it really affected the economy of this country, with working people up and down the country seeing their bills and their mortgages rising dramatically.
The noble Lord also asked about the trade deal with the US. Yes, the tariffs were of enormous concern. The fact that we have managed to get them down to the levels they are is something that has been achieved by negotiation and would not have happened otherwise. The noble Lord also made a rather strange point about the F35A. He may have only heard some of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. Yes, they are less expensive than the F35Bs. That means that the money is available for other defence spending. He made that point earlier today. The fact they are cheaper is an asset rather than something to complain about.
I thank the noble Lord, however, for his comments about the Government’s comments on the BBC. Those who watched Glastonbury were quite shocked at the comments that were made by one particular group. The BBC does have questions to answer on why it did not act more quickly. Lessons should be learned from that.
I am just trying to read my handwriting, which can sometimes be difficult. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about the crisis in recruitment to the Army. It has been a serious issue. I can remember days when you would go down the high street and there would be an Army recruitment shop. In our schools and colleges there were people looking to recruit to the Armed Forces, and a number of my friends joined up. We have not picked the noble Lord’s suggestion of a golden handshake, as it were, but I am assured by my noble friend Lord Coaker that they are working at pace on this issue. They recognise that something has be done to make up the numbers that fell to such a dangerous level under the last Government.
I think I have addressed most of the questions. If I have missed anything, I am sure we will come back to it. These summits are just so important for countries working together. It is clear that, for some of the most dangerous places in the world—places of conflict—the only way forward will be negotiated arrangements and settlements, and working towards peace at pace.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I attended last week’s NATO summit in The Hague, as a vice president of the NATO PA. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that that is not the position I saw in terms of UK standing. I saw a country that is now again respected and is working very closely with all its allies to engage in the important fight against Russia. In meetings with heads of delegations and foreign Defence Ministers, they all commended the UK on the leadership it has taken, including that of our Prime Minister.
The position of increased expenditure is welcome, but one of the issues that is very important in terms of the fight against the Russian invasion of Ukraine is its financial ability to rearm. So what more can be done to ensure that sanctions do bite and that we ensure that the rearming of Russia is thwarted?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Certainly, his impressions of the leadership that the Prime Minister has shown chimes with what I have heard from other people at similar conferences. In fact, in our support for Ukraine, the Prime Minister was able to bring European leaders and others into London in support of President Zelensky. Indeed, immediately after the NATO statement, President Zelensky came to London and met the Prime Minister and the Speakers of both Houses. This gives a sense of the leadership that is shown, and also of how close our relationship is with Ukraine.
On sanctions, he is absolutely right. First, he will be aware of the money that has been spent—I cannot immediately recall the amount. As the noble Lord, Lord Levy, said, it is from the interest on the Russian assets. I will come back to that point. It is the interest on those assets that has been used to provide more weapons, including missiles, for Ukraine. It is important that we do that. The Government are still working at pace and have not ruled out legal action to ensure that we can get access to that money for Ukraine where it is needed.
The noble Lord made a point about sanctions. It is an important point. The UK has now introduced new sanctions that target Russia’s shadow fleet. We have blacklisted 20 additional vessels, as well as 10 individuals linked to the country’s energy and shipping sectors. Again, we have seen our partners also taking decisive action. Canada has listed over 200 vessels, and the EU has moved forward with its 18th sanctions package at some pace as well. So, sanctions are an important tool in the armoury supporting Ukraine against Russia. We must never forget the danger that is posed to the Ukrainian people. The Ukrainian people are at the forefront of the fight for freedom that all of us have to respect and know that we can also be in danger if we do not protect Ukraine.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that leadership on the international stage is crucial, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s attendance at both conferences because you have to be present at the most senior level to ensure that your voice is heard. There is a deep symbolism in the role that the United Kingdom plays on the world stage.
On Ukraine, I am sure the Minister will equally recognise the leadership of successive Governments and the solidarity across all parts of your Lordships’ House on the importance of standing with Ukraine. In that respect, can she share some of the specific conversations that have taken place with our colleagues in the United States on getting peace in Ukraine, in particular on the role of the United Kingdom’s leverage with the Ukrainians, the respect we have and the new relationship that President Trump has forged with President Putin to bring this conflict to an end? I draw attention to my work as chair of the International Communities Organisation, which is committed to resolving conflict around the world.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. His work in this area is particularly respected by this House. It has been a strength of the UK’s response that, whichever party is in government, we have been united across the divide but also across both Houses. I know the noble Lord was there when President Zelensky visited our Parliament. He spoke to both Houses and some of us were privileged to meet him afterwards. You get a sense of not just the huge pressure but, for a man who could never have expected to be in the position he is in, how he has responded to that. That is why he has received acclamation around the world for the stand he has taken.
The noble Lord is right about the symbolism of the UK’s role in this. It is important that we maintain that special relationship with the US, because it is so important to support for Ukraine. There is ongoing dialogue. The ongoing conversations and meetings that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have had with American officials have been important in that regard. They will continue. I think the whole House will say that we should not at any point detract from or retract our support for Ukraine in any way. We will urge others constantly to ensure that support remains solid, robust and united.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I thank the Minister for what she said about Glastonbury and the BBC, but it should be remembered that more than one act engaged in vile, pro-violence, pro-terror remarks. This Kneecap outfit from Belfast also needs to be condemned and called out for their pro-terrorism activities.
I also welcome what the Prime Minister said about aligning security objectives and plans for economic growth and renewing industrial communities, but given that the Northern Ireland aerospace and defence sectors contribute an estimated £2.2 billion to the economy, will the Minister decry and deplore the remarks today of the Sinn Féin Economy Minister, who said that money should not be spent on defence at all but on public services, whatever that means? Can she ensure that, despite the ideological nonsense of Sinn Féin and the way it behaves, Northern Ireland’s vital defence industries and the people who are contributing so much will be worked with, because this is important for our security and our economy?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the House when Kneecap was raised previously, but I strongly condemned their behaviour at that time and continue to do so. On the other issue he raises, it seems to me that the greatest public service that any Government provide is to keep their citizens safe. That includes, as I said before, defence spending and resilience. Citizens who work in the Armed Forces or our defence industry take on a public service to keep people in this country safe, and we should support them in doing that. I know Northern Ireland has an important defence industry. To say that it is less important does not recognise the threats the world faces at this time. I think we would all love an ideal world where there were no threats, no violence and no areas of conflict, and we did not spend money on defence. That is not the real world. We have to protect our citizens. If we fail to do that, we fail in the first duty of any Government.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, in his Statement, the Prime Minister linked economic security, national security and what he called social security. He said that welfare reform was urgent and that the system was failing people every single day. Is not what has happened at the other end of the building a demonstration that the Government’s credibility is shot to pieces? They have literally taken out of that legislation almost all the reforms that they proposed, so their credibility is damaged on that important issue. That matters to our defence commitments, because our credibility in promising that increase in expenditure in the rest of the Statement is now damaged because the Government have demonstrated that they cannot find those savings. That demonstrates that those things are connected. The Government’s credibility is damaged, not just on welfare reform but reputationally on these important national security issues as well.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord will not be surprised that I fundamentally disagree with the point he made. Every time our Government have made a commitment to defence spending, we have kept that commitment. That is an absolute commitment. The noble Lord wants to tie that in with welfare reform. I have not heard anybody say that the situation that this Government inherited on social security and welfare spending is not one that needs to change. There are many measures within that Bill that practically everybody in the other place has supported. An example is the idea that somebody who gets a PIP and is disabled who wants to try to work should not go to the back of the queue and have to go through the system again if working fails. They should be able to try work to see whether it is suitable for them. The system that we have inherited needs change, and that change will continue.
The Bill has passed tonight. People agreed on the issue of reform. They now want to look at the detail. That is the process of legislation. The noble Lord was a Chief Whip in the other place. He knows how the process of legislation works. He lost enough votes himself to recognise how difficult it can be. What can never be accepted is that it is right to write some people off in the system and say that, even though they want to work, we are not going to help them to do so. Those are the measures that we are going to put in place. To link this to the Prime Minister’s comments about economic, national and social security, all these things make up what is good about life, the importance of life and the resilience we all need. Our safety, our resilience and how we treat the nation all link together, and that is how you have a healthy society that supports each other.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, we should be relieved that we have a Prime Minister who is taking a leading role in the world, where we are and are seen to be a force for good. The UK is a leader on the world stage again. I welcome the Statement, including the fact that there is now an opportunity to push for a ceasefire in Gaza. In the meantime, my noble friend may be aware that more than 170 charities and other NGOs have today called for the controversial aid distribution scheme in Gaza, run by the Israeli and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, to be shut down. Will our Government make the case to ensure that, in future, aid is once again distributed by UN organisations?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. Noble Lords may recall that, when this issue was raised in the House in a Question that I answered a few weeks ago, I said that we had grave concerns about trying to set up an alternative to the tried and tested methods. Aid agencies that had working in Gaza, desperately trying to get enough aid in, were not being used. We know that there were pretty devastating consequences. To deal with that part of the region, the hostages must be released, aid must get into Gaza and then there has to be negotiation. The only way these issues can be resolved is through negotiation and discussion. It is hard work. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness’s point. The aid agencies are absolutely right: they know what matters and how best to get aid to those who need it. They just need to be allowed to do so.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that statement. The Statement says that we need to
“ensure a complete, verifiable and irreversible end to Iran’s nuclear programme”.
Israel identified two existential threats arising from Iran. One was the nuclear programme; the other was the ICBM programme. First, what is our assessment of the extent of the damage caused by the Israeli and US strikes on those two programmes? Secondly, is it also our policy that Iran should not resume the production of ICBMs on the scale at which it was doing before the strikes?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The answer to the noble Lord’s second question is yes, we do think that. Our assessment, which has been quite widely covered, is that the damage done was significant. We are strongly of the view, and I think it is a worldwide view, that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. The danger to the world of Iran having nuclear weapons is enormous. Therefore, the point that he makes about the damage done to those facilities is important.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome what the Lord Privy Seal has said about Ukraine, the role of the Americans in Ukraine and—if I might add—the role of the British in keeping the Americans onside in support of Ukraine. But is it not the case that, if one looks at this period as a historical episode, what is most significant is the agreement to European rearmament?
All the nations, with the exception of Spain, have agreed to this very bold defence target, led by Chancellor Merz of Germany, the new Chancellor. This European rearmament is crucial, and it is something of which we have to be a part. There are industrial opportunities and jobs there. It is very interesting to see that Europe has opened its defence market to Canada. Can I have an assurance that we will work closely with our NATO EU allies on making sure that the best use is made of the funds for rearmament, and that the threat of Putin can be repelled?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a really important point. What it comes down to is that if we were to let Putin succeed in Ukraine, the deterrent effect of NATO’s plans would be fatally compromised, so we have to harden our resolve. He mentioned the industrial opportunities, and there are those industrial opportunities, but the work we are doing with NATO and the UK-EU pact shows a real determination that we are not going to let Putin succeed.
It is a change, is it not? For many years now, we have taken defence and security for granted. More people now realise that the world is becoming a more dangerous place. The role that we play as a nation, and that our Prime Minister plays on the world stage—of being thoughtful and considered, of looking to broker peace and trying to get negotiations—is all the more crucial, but there has to be that defence capability to back that up.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for bringing forward this Statement. It strikes me that some of the carping that we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition here today rather misses the point of what has been happening in the last few weeks. We have had a series of strategies and statements issued by the Government in a number of different areas. Following on from the defence review, we have had an industrial strategy, a trade strategy and a national security strategy. These are all beginning to form a cohesive whole, which demonstrates that what we are trying to do as a nation is bring all these policies together in the interests of protecting our country and its people. Is that not a very positive element and one of the things that we should read from the way in which the Prime Minister is able to operate on the world stage in these areas?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an important point about how these strategies have formed together. The changes across the world, in the strategic defence of the world and how we have to respond to that, are really important. If we look at the industrial strategy and our national security strategy, on which I spoke last week, we see the linkages there and how they work together.
The defence spending review is something that we should be really proud of. We are able to take that, build on it and use our strategies to deliver it. As they link together, you see a cohesive whole. As the noble Lord, Lord Harper, said, these things do link together in how we protect our nation. If we do not draw all these links together, we will be weaker and poorer for it.
Renters’ Rights Bill
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
21:42 - Division on Amendment 34 - Ayes: 45 / Noes: 126 - Amendment 34 disagreed.
22:50 - Division on Amendment 43 - Ayes: 23 / Noes: 103 - Amendment 43 disagreed.
Lord Jamieson
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents the Secretary of State from expanding the definition of “relevant low-cost tenancy” by regulations.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the time to meet my noble friend Lady Scott and me to discuss the contents of the government amendments in this group. We are grateful that she has returned to the House with what has been referred to as a “break glass” provision, finally acknowledging that the Government’s policy may indeed lead to a significant backlog in the tribunal system.
However, on these Benches we struggle to understand why the Government, having recognised the problem, have not sought to take proactive steps to prevent such a backlog in the first place. Waiting until the system is overwhelmed before acting is not good policy. It also cannot be right that rent determinations made by tribunals can result only in the rent being revised downward. This creates a clear and perverse incentive. There is no risk to bringing a case if the rent cannot go up and can only go down. Why not try your luck? You may as well. It encourages unnecessary and speculative tribunal claims.
That is why I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising for their consistent work on this issue and for the thoughtful amendments they have tabled. Both noble Lords have highlighted the problem with clarity. The current system gives tenants an incentive to challenge rent, knowing that they have nothing to lose. We would therefore support Amendment 31 should my noble friend decide to press it to a vote. It would correct the imbalance by allowing for rent to be revised upwards as well as downwards, restoring fairness to the process.
Amendment 42, which stands in my name, would require the Secretary of State to conduct a formal review of the tribunal system responsible for rent determinations. We on these Benches recognise the potential for tribunal backlogs that the “break glass” amendment is supposed to address, but we do not believe that will be the case. Hence, we believe that a comprehensive review is necessary to help us understand the true pressure being placed on the system and how best to mitigate it.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, for recognising the overburdening of the tribunal system with Amendment 29, but it would add an additional filtering step rather than seek to reduce the incentive to go in the first place, especially when there is no downside to doing so, which we think would be the more appropriate way of addressing the issue.
Finally, I will say a word on Amendment 24, which concerns preventing the Secretary of State expanding the definition of a relevant low-cost tenancy by regulation. This is important because such a power, if exercised without scrutiny, could significantly broaden the Bill’s scope in unintended ways. It is vital that any change to this definition comes before Parliament not simply through ministerial discretion. From these Benches we look forward to hearing from noble Lords across the House on these issues. I beg to move.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 29 in my name and in that of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, but before doing so I will thank the Minister, as so many other noble Lords have done, for the courteous way in which she has discussed this issue with me. My amendment seeks to provide for a pre-appeal assessment process to filter out appeals that have no prospect of success and thus avoid overburdening the tribunals. Its specific and highly practical suggestion is that the Government should take advantage of the technical expertise available to them through the Valuation Office Agency. Rent appeals should progress to the courts only if the Valuation Office Agency considers that they have a chance of success.
It seems appropriate to be making this suggestion on the 100th anniversary of the Rating and Valuation Act 1925, which ensured consistency of property ratings across the country by the use of professional valuation officers. I commend this Act to noble Lords. Reading it is quite possible because it is a relatively brief piece of legislation written in language that a normal person can understand. But the main reason I am commending it is that it set up a decentralised but uniform system which gave people across the country consistent decisions on a regular and predictable timescale, with clarity on who was making those decisions and how they could be contacted. This sort of clarity and consistency is surely what we would like for all tenants and all landlords, but the current drafting of the Bill, which loads more work on to a tribunal system that we know is overloaded, is not in a position to deliver this.
As I explained in Committee, my proposal was prompted by current Scottish practice. It does not in any way reduce the right of tenants to appeal against a rent increase, and I am not sure that it even reduces the incentive to appeal on the off-chance, but it does reduce the likelihood that the courts will be overwhelmed very soon by appeals, in particular by appeals which do not succeed and which swamp the courts, to the detriment of important and merit-worthy cases.
Under the Government’s current proposals, tenants will enjoy a number of new and important rights. Rents cannot be increased as often as at present, for example. Most importantly in the context of this group of amendments, tenants who wish to challenge what they see as an excessive rent increase have access to an independent tribunal. The tribunal cannot propose an increase that is any higher than the one initially proposed by the landlord, as the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, has already pointed out. It can endorse the landlord’s proposal or rule that a lower rent should be charged. Obviously, these charges are of great assistance when landlords are proposing major increases that are out of line with inflation or the market, but, equally obviously, they will encourage a very large number of appeals which are lodged on the off-chance, and I do not think there is any doubt that this would be disastrous. In the other place during the Public Bill Committee, Minister Pennycook observed:
“There is no dispute on the Government side of the Committee as to the fact that the court system is on its knees”.—[Official Report, Commons, Renters’ Rights Bill Committee, 22/10/24; col. 9.]
He added “after the past 14 years” but the relevant point here is that the court system is on its knees.
As first introduced, the Bill provided that the tenant who appealed against a rent increase where the tribunal found this was allowable would pay the increase only from the date of the tribunal decision, which could be many months on. This clearly hugely increased the incentive to appeal, and I think it would also have been seen as massively unfair by any tenant who accepted an increase without appealing and then saw a fellow tenant getting months at a lower rate. So, I was very pleased that the Government recognised this risk and I look forward to the Minister explaining how the government amendments will work in practice.
However, I do not think this is enough to head off tribunal overload, which is why I have retabled my amendment. There will still, for many people, be a sense that they have nothing to lose by appealing. If I were an officer in a student union, for example, and I was asked my opinion, I would have to say that appealing remains something of a no-brainer. I would have to say the same if I was on a radio programme or an online forum. Why would you not? I therefore remain convinced that, in the absence of some sort of prior screening of the type that I have suggested, the courts will be overwhelmed.
In Scotland, the first stage in any appeal goes to Rent Service Scotland. Apparently, on average, it takes just five days to respond and most things stop there; very few cases go further. Obviously, the Scottish situation is very different from ours, but it is also obvious that, when it comes to providing tenants and landlords with quick feedback rather than months in limbo, it is very effective. It is also obvious, given the volumes that Rent Service Scotland deals with, that without this prior system there would be a very large number of cases which were effectively a waste of time.
It would be very easy for us to introduce a similar first-stage process in England. There is a large amount of expertise on rents outside the tribunals and the courts. The Valuation Office Agency already gives the Government valuations and property advice that they need to support taxation and benefits. Rents in social housing are tightly regulated. Registered providers must comply with the Regulator of Social Housing’s rent standard or rent settlement, which is effectively set by the Government, and its annual increases would be an obvious and simple yardstick to use when evaluating whether appeals should go on. Rent officers also still set rents for the remaining group of protected tenancies, so the basic infrastructure is there.
To see what we are facing, I think, as I thought in Committee, that a bit of back-of-an-envelope arithmetic is in order. The Government do not think there will be a huge growth in open appeals. If appeals from private sector tenants tracked the levels going to Rent Service Scotland and they all proceeded to the tribunal, we would end up with another 40,000 cases a year. That compares with 909 cases heard by the tribunals under current legislation in England, so that would be a fortyfold increase. But suppose that it was only a quarter of that level; that would still be a tenfold increase, with 10,000 extra cases a year hitting First-tier Tribunals that are under enormous strain. We hear a lot in the press about pressures and backlogs in criminal courts, but the statistics for the tribunals are at least as grim. In the year 2024-25, the open case load total—excluding immigration and asylum—rose to 745,000, which is an increase of 14% in the course of a single year.
The Minister was kind enough to discuss my amendment with me following Committee and to recognise that a provision for initial screening could be helpful if tribunals were indeed overwhelmed. In the absence of any government amendment to that effect, I look forward to hearing from her about the Government’s current thinking. I also highlight the enormous importance of reviewing the impact on the judicial system, which we will return to later on Report.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 30 in my name. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, that it is good to have something easy to read. I would say that this amendment is very easy to read: it would amend the Housing Act 1988 so that, when determining rents, tribunals must disregard any improvements funded by government grants for a two-year period.
The amendment, which I feel strongly about, is designed to help renters and the Government. It aims to improve upon a good policy that creates warmer homes and cheaper bills. The climate benefits from the warmer home grant, as do landlords, so why not guarantee that tenants get cheaper bills without a rent rise for a couple of years?
I met the Minister last week. She is very generous with her time, and I was grateful for her comments, but I still do not see the problem with passing the amendment. There are complexities, and the tribunals would have to sort out any details if the property owner added some of their own money along with the taxpayer money, but tribunals make far more difficult calculations every week. I have also heard privately from several people just how difficult it is with tribunals, but that is the sort of thing that must be fixed. They really cannot be allowed to wallow and not be the tribunals that they need to be.
The important thing for me in this amendment is that taxpayer-funded improvements are not used as an excuse to raise rents, and we need the force of law backing that up. Although the guidance is slightly more explicit, it will get ignored and that will discredit a good policy. Generation Rent recently did a poll of renters, asking them about their support for the Government’s policies in this area. There was a net support increase from plus 14% to plus 55% when renters were presented with a scenario where the Government would protect them from rent increases. I do not want to suggest that the Government should be run by opinion polls, but it is wonderful when you can do something that is right, does not cost any extra money and leads to a 41% jump in the popularity of that policy—and also, hopefully, the popularity of the Government.
I had hoped the Government would put this forward as their own idea in some form or another. I have been told privately that it is not nuanced enough, and that is possibly a fault of my nature, but I think it is a good amendment and hope that the Government will give it due attention.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 31 to 33 in my name. I declare an interest as a landlord of rented properties.
When I pointed out in Committee that the Bill as drafted would create a conservative 1 million applicants to the rent tribunals, the Minister commented that that was
“unlikely, to say the least”.—[Official Report, 28/4/25; col. 1045.]
In a recent letter from her, recognition was given that there is an inherent uncertainty about the volume of rent challenges. The proposed new delegated power to backdate rent increases acknowledges the potential difficulties. Welcome as that proposal is, it does not start to address the fundamental problem. At best, it will provide some temporary window dressing. The Government might recognise that the system may be overwhelmed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, pointed out very cogently, but promoting appeals to the rent tribunal in the first place is the crux of the problem when the Bill still provides that the tribunal can only confirm or reduce the rent, not raise it. That creates a no-lose situation for tenants.
Amendment 31 addresses the most fundamental of the structural flaws. It would remove this restriction that the tribunal may only reduce or uphold a proposed rent, not increase it. If a tribunal can only confirm or lower a rent and never raise it, that is a one-way ratchet. As my noble friend Lord Jamieson pointed out, if things can only get better, what possible reason is there not to try it on? There will be no loss, and until and if the Secretary of State regulates to backdate rent increases—and how speedy that will be with two Government departments having to consult over it is noble Lords’ own guess—there will be a decent delay in any increase being implemented. It becomes a virtual necessity for a tenant to challenge.
Amendment 32 would ensure that in the event the tribunal determines that the rent initially agreed was too high, landlords are not retrospectively liable for backdated repayments to tenants of an agreed rent. This is simply a matter of fairness and legal certainty: if a tenant has freely agreed a rent at the outset of a tenancy, it should not be open to the tribunal to rewrite an agreement and impose retrospective liability on the landlord. It would set a worrying precedent.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 34 and the associated Amendments 35, 36 and 40 in my name and kindly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. First, I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for her ongoing engagement with me and other noble Lords and Baronesses throughout the steps that this important Bill has taken thus far. My amendments concern a vital part of the Bill: the right of renters to challenge annual rent increases.
There remains strong consensus across this House and in the other place that stands with the Government in ensuring that unreasonable and exploitative rent increases are avoided. Such increases should not be used in this way across the private rented sector as a means of eviction through the back door. However, despite the Government’s own recent amendments, which I will turn to in due course, I remain strongly of the opinion that the Government’s current drafting of Clause 7 will not work, even with the new failsafe mechanism that has been added in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor.
It remains the case that under the current wording of the Bill, renters will have a universal right to challenge any and every rent increase they receive, in all circumstances and without qualification. Moreover, increases that the First-tier Tribunal agrees will come into effect only once the tribunal has given its ruling. This wording continues to have the very real and dangerous potential to undermine the supply of new rental homes in England and, at the same time, overwhelm the courts.
The Government believe that renters will apply to the tribunal only if they believe that a rent increase is above market rents. Like others, I am afraid that will not be the result of this legislation. The legal text of the Bill still sets out that a rent increase could not come into force until after the tribunal rules. The result of this drafting is to create an artificial incentive for all renters—all 4.5 million of them—to submit a challenge to a proposed increase in rent from their landlord, however legitimate. This would prevent the increase coming into force until the tribunal decides. There is no risk to the renter in this, as it provides a guaranteed delay. Once this is widely understood, as was pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, renters will exercise their right as a matter of course. Indeed, I expect a celebrity such as Martin Lewis would immediately note the opportunity to delay rent increases as a money-saving tactic for renters.
This incentive also risks the efficacy of the First-tier Tribunal by burdening an already struggling court with thousands of cases. This would result in those in real need waiting potentially months longer for access to justice from exploitative landlords. The Government rightly want renters in genuine need of redress to have access to the court, but the queue for justice will be too long for this to prove realistic.
My amendments seek to ensure that if a rent increase is challenged, but the increase is upheld by the tribunal, the rent increase becomes effective from the original date of the Section 13 notice. This important detail removes the incentive for spurious challenges that are being used only as a delaying tactic by renters who are challenging their rent increase because they simply want to delay payment of it. By removing this incentive, only those renters with real cause and who are being exploited, and are therefore likely to get the support of the tribunal’s decision, will challenge rent increases. These are the very people who should be at the front of the queue when it comes to these sorts of challenges.
I turn to the amounts of money we are looking at when it comes to rent increases. I want to explain how my amendments, while deterring spurious challenges, also support renters who challenge their rent but with whom the tribunal is not in agreement. The Office for National Statistics notes that the average rent per month in the United Kingdom, in the 12 months to April 2025, was £1,339. The average rent increase across the UK in the same 12-month period was 7%. Therefore, if we were to take 7% as a marker for the rent increase in the next 12 months, we would be looking at the average rent across the UK increasing by around £93 per month.
Now, £93 can be a good deal of money to many across the country, particularly as the cost of living crisis continues. This pressure on household finances has not been overlooked in my amendments, which cover the concerns of the Minister and others that renters may be put under undue financial pressure if they are unsuccessful in their rent challenges and are required to pay back large lump sums of backdated rent at once.
Under the Bill, every renter from the time it is implemented would have the ability to challenge and delay the £93 per month annual increase without needing to provide a reason, be it financial or otherwise, as to why they are challenging that increase. However, if the tribunal, when it eventually gets to each and every challenge, judges in the landlord’s favour, my amendments would ensure that instead of that renter needing to pay their landlord a backdated amount of rent immediately, a 12-month payment plan would be put in place. This means that if it took six months for the challenge to be reviewed by the courts and a decision made, the renter would not need to find the extra rent immediately but would need only to find the extra £46.50 each month over the next 12 months to pay their landlord in backdated rent. This seems entirely reasonable, and I hope the inclusion of this amendment has been carefully considered by the Minister.
I now turn to the Government’s assessment that renters will apply to the tribunal only if they believe a rent increase is above market rents. The Government are placing a great faith in this opinion and have commissioned a new burdens assessment and justice impact test, which is referred to many times throughout the Bill’s impact assessment, from November last year. However, we have not been able to review or scrutinise these two important documents, as they have not been published. Were we able to see and scrutinise them in this place, many of us may be reassured by the Government’s current opinion on levels of renters who will challenge their rent, but while the Government restrict access to these documents, we must rely on what the Bill says and our understanding of renters and the PRS as it stands in a time when household finances are tight and there is every incentive to delay a rent increase.
The Government have tabled a fail-safe amendment to Clause 7, but again there is a lack of detail here too. In Amendment 37 in the name of the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, we are not given clarity around when such a power would be used and what the trigger for this would be. What level of caseload would the tribunal need to face before the Government were to step in and introduce backdating? Therefore, while I applaud the Government for considering Clause 7 and tabling this amendment, I fear it will do nothing to reassure the sector. It is also interesting to note that in the event of the introduction of the fail-safe mechanism, rents will be charged from the date of the Section 13 notice—quite a reversal of policy from the tribunal decision date. If we had the detail around when such a statutory instrument would be enacted, we might be able to agree with the Government on the amendment, but as it stands, sadly I cannot.
To sum up, taken together, I believe that Amendments 34, 35, 36 and 40 in my name would deliver a fair result. They are technical changes that keep the vital rights of renters to challenge from being exploited, while reducing the artificial, jeopardy-free incentive to take any and all landlords to court for reasonable increases in line with the market. The amendment giving protection to renters who lose their challenge with the 12-month payment plan should also be strongly considered by Government.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendments 34 and 35 from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The noble Lord has given such a precise and detailed reasoning for all those amendments that there is nothing I can really add to what he said, but I would just like to remind the House—particularly my noble friend the Minister—of the point I made earlier when I was speaking about Amendment 1 of all the amendments before us on Report; that is, the value to the House of having the expertise that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, presents in supporting his argument. Indeed, I ask for particular attention from my noble friend the Minister to the points he raised relating to her amendments, which are also before us in this group. If she does nothing else, I hope my noble friend will take careful note of the improvements that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, suggests should be made to her own amendments.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, which have been supported by the noble Lord, Lord—
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
Not at all.
It is not just obviously fair that the tribunal should be required to backdate the rent; it would also remove the incentive for tenants to challenge every rent increase, come what may. Landlords who increase rent to market value should not be penalised by being unable to backdate that rent to the date of increase where there is an unsuccessful challenge. Otherwise, it makes a mockery of the tribunal process, which is there to determine the legal right of the landlord to increase the rent to the amount proposed. If that right is upheld by the tribunal, like other legal rights that are litigated successfully in our civil courts, it should be upheld from when it arose, with a remedy backdated accordingly. That is how our civil justice system works. For example, if I successfully make a claim against a defendant for negligence, nuisance or breach of contract, damages will generally be assessed from the date the claim arose. That is how justice is meant to work. It should be no different here. The correct market rent, upheld by the tribunal, should be backdated to the date of the original increase.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as the part-owner of a small number of rented properties in West Yorkshire.
I will speak in support of Amendments 29, 34, 35 and 36, which are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Your Lordships may recall from my contribution at Second Reading that I am deeply concerned about the impact of this Bill on rented housing supply. I remain concerned about this issue. However, these amendments provide me with the reassurance that I know the rental market is also looking for. The amendments are technical, but sensible and clearly thought through.
If the Government are to get anywhere near reaching their ambitious 1.5 million new homes target, we need to support and give clarity to the responsible institutional build-to-rent landlord sector, which is building thousands of new, high-quality rented homes each year. I know that this part of the rental market supports the Government’s aim to raise standards across the private rented sector. However, with the uncertainty it faces around how much rent it may reasonably receive and how many rent increase challenges it may receive, I worry that its development pipelines will slow or, at worst, completely halt, while it assesses this new landscape where any renter can challenge any increase without any jeopardy.
Amendments 29, 34, 35 and 36 would allow for those providing new, net additional high-quality rental homes to the market to continue to do so without undue impact from Section 13 rent increase challenges. They would allow the institutional landlord sector to continue delivering the net additional rented homes we need without uncertainty. Crucially, the amendments would deter spurious rent increase challenges and allow vulnerable renters the access to justice that they rightly deserve.
I acknowledge the Government’s amendments on Section 13 notices, but they also leave me concerned that, in this place and indeed in the rental market, we and the sector are being asked to place a significant amount of faith in the Government, and the data they have but will not publish, on how many renters might challenge their rent increases. If a renter can save themselves months of rent increase for free and without any jeopardy, why would they not?
I am therefore strongly of the opinion that the amendments in names of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, provide the requisite amount of clarity to the sector, while ensuring renters’ rights are improved. I urge the Government to take them on board to give everyone clarity while improving renters’ rights and access to justice for vulnerable renters.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I strongly support Amendment 29 so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. I recall that, when we debated this in Committee, the noble Baroness got a favourable response from the Front Bench, and it may be that on this amendment the ice is beginning to melt.
I am also struck by the contrast between the certainty that we get with Amendment 36 from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the absence of any clarity and certainty from government Amendments 37 onwards. As the noble Lord, Lord Carter, said, it is normal procedure in law if a rent increase is valid to backdate it from the date that it was due, so the Government are introducing a wholly new concept in law in their Amendment 67, which does not actually take the trick because, as I understand it, they are going to wait until the system is gummed up before they activate the process.
This is simply no way to govern. The Government ought to accept Amendment 36 with its clarity and certainty, rather than this doubtful procedure whereby there remains every incentive to appeal and only when the system becomes even more clogged will the Government intervene. That cannot be good government, and I urge the Minister to think again about Amendment 36 or the other amendment that achieves the same objective in the name of my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising. I just do not think that this takes the trick.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, I do not know which amendment to start with really, but I will start with the least contentious. We agree with Amendment 42 that a review is imperative and should definitely happen.
On Amendment 30 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, it seems absolutely right to us that, when the taxpayer funds lovely, significant improvements that will raise the value of the landlord’s asset, the tenant in the house should be protected from a rent rise at least during that tenancy. That seems only right and fair.
Amendment 29 from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, which I supported in Committee and co-signed, is a sensible amendment that several noble Lords have said they would support. I think she has explained it at length and with clarity, so I need say no more. But anything that acts as a triage system in this process should be looked at seriously.
On the controversial bits, the rent tribunal is clearly causing concern. I say to the Minister that I think there was an invitation in the last speech to look at this again—there will be Third Reading. It seems to me that a lot of work has gone into these amendments that would justify perhaps a little more time and effort than we have now. The Minister has a lot to justify in order to gain support from the House. We are minded to support the Government, but clearly we need answers on the very detailed and sensible proposals put forward today.
What worries us about Amendment 31 is that it risks allowing a tribunal to determine the level of rent increase, which could actually be unaffordable. The idea that a rent tribunal could decide that the rent should be such-and-such would fuel a market in which rents are rising exponentially, more than they have at any other time—the amendment would seem to fuel that further. We certainly do not agree with rent controls, but we believe that some brakes could be put on this; that would seem eminently sensible.
Perhaps I am looking at this through the wrong lens, but I would have thought that a tenant might expect an annual rent rise: “I am in my rented apartment and I am expecting the landlord to put up the rent in a year because I know what’s going on in the area, so I can kind of suss out how much it might be”. But, looking at it from the other way, if we assume all the things that noble Lords have said about everyone applying to the tribunal—Martin Lewis will be saying they should apply and the student unions will be on it—why would a landlord, knowing all that, impose a stupid rent rise if he knows that his tenant can then appeal against it? That should put an instinctive brake on unjustified, unrealistic rises. The system should work with those natural tensions.
We are not happy with it, but we have had conversations and thoughts about the proposal. We would ask the Government to look again at some of the detail. Perhaps with some assurances from the Dispatch Box, we could avoid a load of votes now and at Third Reading because I think that we would want the Minister to look in more detail than I personally, I admit, have done, if that is fair to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott, Lady Wolf and Lady Jones, and the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Howard, for their amendments on rent increases and the tribunals, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Carter, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Eaton and Lady Thornhill, for their contributions to the debate.
Government Amendment 37 will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to change the date from which tenants are required to pay a new rent in instances where the First-tier Tribunal has set one following a challenge to a proposed rent increase. Government Amendments 38 and 39 are consequential to that.
Our Government were elected on the clear manifesto promise to empower tenants to challenge unreasonable rent increases. It is essential that we deliver on this commitment, not only to protect tenants from undue financial pressure but to prevent rent hikes being used as a form of backdoor eviction once Section 21 notices have been abolished.
During the Bill’s passage, the House has debated at length the capacity of the justice system to enable the smooth implementation of reforms in the Bill. This is particularly the case on the subject of rent increase challenges, in relation to which noble Lords have expressed very serious concerns that strengthening tenants’ rights might lead to the First-tier Tribunal being overwhelmed by a sharp increase in challenges.
Set against that concern, we have heard powerful testimony from many tenant groups that private renters, many of whom are struggling to juggle family life, multiple jobs and financial challenges, are unlikely to spend what little time they have navigating the justice system unless they have a compelling reason to do so. Given the cost and effort that challenging a rent increase at tribunal would require, as well as the risk it poses to a tenant/landlord relationship, there is good reason to doubt that a significant number of tenants will bring rent increase challenges that have little prospect of success—who knows what will happen if Martin Lewis gets involved, but we will wait and see.
We also know that the majority of landlords act responsibly, and we do not expect that many will seek to serve unreasonable rent increases given that this will increase the likelihood of a tenant challenging them at tribunal, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, said. If landlords do not impose egregious rent increases, they will not get taken to tribunal. We recognise, however, that there is inherent uncertainty as to the volume of rent increase challenges that will be brought when the new tenancy system comes into force.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, mentioned the system in Scotland; as she will know, the changes made there are very different from the ones that we are proposing.
As the House will know, we are already working very closely with the Ministry of Justice to make sure that the justice system is well prepared for our reforms. In the Property Chamber, work is progressing to increase capacity, as well as reviewing resource and working practices in readiness for any increase in demand.
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)
Since I cannot withdraw my amendment, I thank the Minister very much for this constructive engagement, and I will not move it.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
Regarding Amendment 24, at present private registered providers of social housing can grant secure or assured tenancies. The majority of these are let at social rents. Social rents are regulated by the social housing regulator. The definition of “relevant low-cost tenancy” in the Bill reflects these arrangements. If the Government or the social housing sector were to change how rent is determined or regulated, this power would enable the Secretary of State to make technical amendments to reflect this or other changing circumstances. As the power relates only to the definition of relevant low-cost tenancies, I assure your Lordships that the Secretary of State will not be able to use this power to change the legislation to affect market-rate tenancies. Based on this, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, to withdraw this amendment.
Turning to Amendment 30, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her engagement on this issue. The Government fully support efforts to improve the energy efficiency of homes in the private rented sector, particularly where tenants are proactive in accessing support through government-backed schemes. The amendment as drafted would mean that any increase in value arising from these improvements would be disregarded, even if it was funded partly by public money. Therefore, if landlords have made sizeable investments themselves in improving the energy efficiency of their properties without government grants, under this amendment they would not be able to increase rent to reflect those improvements.
The tribunal has experts, such as surveyors, who will assess what the landlord could expect to receive if re-letting the property on the open market. Both landlords and tenants will have the opportunity to submit evidence on whether or not they think that the rent increase is justified. The tribunal already ignores any improvements to the property made by the tenant, to avoid inflating the rent. However, it is likely to be more challenging in practice for the tribunal to differentiate rent levels based on whether energy-efficiency upgrades were funded through specific grant schemes—particularly where the tenant was not directly responsible for the work. This may complicate the tribunal process.
We recognise that it is very important that means-tested energy-efficiency grant schemes are used to benefit tenants. That is why, for the warm homes local grant, which was launched in April, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has set a clear expectation that landlords should declare that they do not intend to raise rents as a direct result of the upgrades being made. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, rightly highlighted the importance of ensuring that landlords do not profit unduly from government-funded improvements and that the value of these schemes should flow primarily to tenants, given the impact on many people living in poverty, and the threat of eviction. We have carefully considered these points and believe that the measures already being introduced strike the right balance.
In conclusion, the landlord declaration, introduced and overseen by DESNZ through the warm homes local grant, will include a commitment from landlords not to increase rents as a result of improvements made using the grant funding. I hope that this offers the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, reassurance that the Government are taking this issue seriously. For those reasons, I respectfully ask her not to move her amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Howard, has proposed two amendments to the process for challenging rents at the tribunal within the first six months of the tenancy. On Amendment 31, the ability to challenge rent in the first six months of the tenancy is a vital safety valve, ensuring that tenants cannot continue to be ripped off if they have been pressured into an unfair rent. Landlords who have agreed a fair market price have nothing to fear from this mechanism. This amendment would exacerbate the worry that tenants already face about going to a tribunal to enforce their rights. Tenants will not challenge rents if they risk being worse off following a tribunal ruling. The Bill encourages tenants to engage the tribunal when they have legitimate concerns. By reinforcing the rights of tenants to do so, we are disincentivising the minority of landlords from pressurising tenants into unfair rents at the beginning of a tenancy. The way for landlords to avoid this is to make sure that their rents are fair at the start of the tenancy.
On Amendment 32, the Government are clear that tenants should submit an application to the tribunal during the first six months of their tenancy only where they believe that their rent is above market rates or that they have been pressured into an unjustified initial rent. In the first instance, we strongly encourage landlords and tenants to communicate about what adjustments to rent might be reasonable. The noble Lord asked how a tribunal determines a fair rent. To determine the market rate, the First-tier Tribunal considers a wide range of evidence, such as the price of similar properties being advertised online and evidence submitted from both parties justifying or arguing against the rent increase.
The First-tier Tribunal has experts who are experienced in understanding the different factors that result in the market rate and determining whether the rent is reflective of this. The First-tier Tribunal is best placed to do this in the new tenancy system. It is also worth noting that tribunals have had the power to adjudicate rent levels in line with the market rent since the Housing Act 1988, and since then the market rate has continued to increase. However, if the rent is challenged and the tribunal determines that a rent exceeds the open market rate, it is right that the tribunal can backdate the lower rent to the date of the tenant’s challenge and that the landlord repay the difference to the tenant. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Howard, not to press his amendments.
I turn now to Amendments 33 to 36 and 40. The Government recognise that some tenants may avoid challenging unreasonable rent increases out of fear that they will be saddled with significant amounts of backdating, which they will be unable to afford. By removing the ability of the tribunals to backdate a rent increase, tenants, particularly vulnerable tenants, will be empowered to challenge what they believe to be an above market rate rent increase. This reduces the risk of an unreasonable rent increase causing a tenant financial hardship, or even being used to force someone out of their home. This is a really important measure to encourage people to challenge unreasonable rent increases.
Amendments 34 to 36 and 40 in particular may only heighten the risk of vulnerable tenants feeling unable to challenge an above market rent increase. We know that tenants and landlords are usually eager to maintain a positive relationship and will not bring the other to court or tribunal without good reason. As such, I ask the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Howard, not to press these amendments.
I turn finally to Amendment 42. The tribunal has over 30 years’ experience in making determinations of unfair rent increases, having carried out this function since the Housing Act 1988. We have full confidence in the tribunal’s ability to carry out this function in a fair way. I appreciate the need for the justice system to be ready for our reforms and for landlords and tenants to access justice in a timely way. We are working in partnership with the Ministry of Justice to assess the impact of our reforms on the tribunal and to lessen these wherever possible. This close collaboration has been ongoing for a number of years and in a great amount of detail.
The amendment we have tabled to our rent increase measures shows that we are listening to the concerns of the sector and this House about tribunal workloads. It puts in place a safeguard in case it is needed. We will already be collecting extensive data to assess the impact of these reforms. As set out in the impact assessment for the Bill, and in debate, we have committed to monitor and evaluate our reform programme. We will use a range of sources to support this. Existing datasets will be used, and new data will be collected. We are committed to publishing the evaluation findings at the two and five-year points after the Bill’s implementation.
I will respond to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about the justice impact test. The justice impact test we are undertaking with the Ministry of Justice will identify additional burdens on the justice system, but they are internal government documents and are not published. The test is ongoing and regularly reviewed to ensure that it reflects any changes to legislation as the Bill continues its journey through Parliament. We are fully focused on making sure the justice system is prepared for changes to court case load and procedures that will be required for our reforms. We are working with the Ministry of Justice and HM Courts & Tribunals Service to that effect, including investing additional court and tribunal capacity to handle any extra hearings generated.
In this context and in the context of the review that I have already outlined, both in the course of discussing these amendments and earlier today, I do not think it is necessary to commit to undertake any further review. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and for setting out the Government’s amendments. However, we remain disappointed that the so-called “break glass” power is reactive in nature and fails to address the underlying incentives that drive unnecessary cases. Noble Lords across the House have raised the risk of the tribunal system being overwhelmed. Although I listened carefully to the Minister’s comments on mechanisms, there are no firm proposals. Therefore, on that basis, we will support my noble friend Lord Howard of Rising on Amendment 31 if he is minded to push it to the vote.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has raised, and we requested in Committee, the Government have failed to publish the justice impact test. I heard the Minister’s comments, but I asked her to publish it before Report given its importance and the concern across the House about the impact of the Bill on the justice system.
Amendment 42 seeks a review of the impact on the tribunal system. As we have another amendment later, reviewing the impact on the justice system in its entirety, we will not press this amendment now.
Serious concerns remain about the Secretary of State’s discretion to expand the definition of low-cost tenancies. I urge the Government to reflect carefully on the breadth of the powers they are granting. That said, I will withdraw this amendment.
Lord Best
“(4F) It shall be an implied term of every assured tenancy to which this section applies that for a period of four years from the commencement of the tenancy the percentage increase between the existing rent and any new rent specified in a notice given under subsection (2) must not exceed whichever is the lesser of—(a) the percentage of the rate of inflation calculated by reference to the consumer price index since the date on which the existing rent took effect, or (b) the percentage increase in median national earnings calculated over a three-year period by the UK Statistics Authority, ending on the date on which the notice was served.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for in-tenancy rent increases to be index-linked on the basis of CPI or increases in national annual earnings. This seeks to avoid the uncertainties for a period of up to four years of rents being determined at unknown – and potentially unaffordable – market levels.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 25 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, I will also speak to my related Amendments 26 to 28. I declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute and the Town and Country Planning Association, and a past chair of the Affordable Housing Commission. My wife owns rented property in Dorset.
I fear the Bill still contains a fundamental flaw in its provisions for rent increases. Quite properly, the Bill seeks to ensure that tenants are not subject to huge rent rises, which can have the effect, as the Renters’ Reform Coalition and Shelter have made so clear, of evicting them from the property. But the Bill’s way of solving this problem creates considerable hazards for tenants and landlords alike.
To prevent exorbitant rent increases, the Bill relies on the renter taking their case to the First-tier Tribunal, which will determine a market rent that cannot be exceeded. That arrangement is fraught with difficulty. The first problem with a system dependent on a tribunal’s judgment is that deciding on a market rent is not a science. The outcome of tribunal hearings can be unpredictable and sometimes appear arbitrary. The second drawback is that renters must take on a daunting task. They are likely to fall out with their landlord, on whom they depend for continuing service, and to appear in person they may need to give up a day’s work, incur travel expenses and experience a troublesome and intimidating process. Thirdly, the tribunal’s decision on what is the market rent may still involve a big rent hike, well ahead of rises in incomes, and can thereby present an impossible affordability obstacle for the tenant, which is the very problem the process was intended to avoid.
From the perspective of the landlord, many of your Lordships have been concerned that the tribunal will get clogged up with thousands of time-consuming appeals. I was pleased to hear that the Minister is looking at an amendment to make use of the Valuation Office Agency to weed out appeals that are likely to fail. She is also introducing an amendment that reduces incentives for renters to appeal by enabling the Secretary of State to allow at a later date a backdating of the rent increase that is determined by the tribunal. By making the appeal process more risky, this new measure could deter renters who have a good case for pursuing an appeal. In any case, it is a fallback, a long-stop that might not be introduced for some time, if at all.
More helpfully, Amendments 25 to 27 would provide clarity and security for the renter and the landlord and give confidence to responsible investors. The amendments would mean rent increases being capped on an indexed basis using either CPI or the rise in earnings averaged over the previous three years. The indexation would be limited to three annual increases, after which the landlord could charge a market rent, if necessary determined by using the process of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. This model surely represents a fair solution to the need for moderation of rent increases without reliance on appeals to the FTT and all the problems that brings.
In returning to this matter on Report, I have added the new Amendment 28, which addresses a criticism of the indexation approach. This amendment tackles the valid objection that there may be exceptional circumstances in which an indexed increase would not be fair to the landlord; for example, the landlord may have spent substantial funds to improve the property which could justify a rent increase that contributes towards the cost. The new amendment enables the landlord—not the tenant—to ask the tribunal to approve the setting of a rent in excess of the otherwise automatic indexation.
The amendments cut out the need for renters to take matters to the tribunal and therefore to enter into a battle with their landlord. Most tenancies do not last more than four years, so for most tenants, the arrangement would mean the certainty of indexation of rent increases, whereas the fickle market might have meant much greater rent increases. I believe this is a far better way of limiting increases than currently in the Bill. It cannot be described as rent control. It is time limited—and not comparable with failed rent control measures in other countries. It is fair to landlords and entirely preferable to the hassle and uncertainties of them being taken to the tribunal. It avoids the clogging-up problem that may mean that the tribunal system is going to be overwhelmed. Here is a package that has real benefit for landlord and tenant alike. With thanks to my co-sponsors, I beg to move.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best. I will add a brief footnote to what he has just said. As we heard in the last debate, there has been considerable concern about the capacity of the courts to handle the volume of appeals that will go to the tribunals when the Bill becomes an Act. The backlog has been going up: in the first quarter of 2025, the average time between a landlord submitting a claim and getting possession was over seven months—32.5 weeks, up from 29.8 weeks a year ago.
The Minister uses a different figure—eight weeks—but that covers only getting a possession order, not actually getting the property back. In an earlier debate, the Minister implied that it was actually quite difficult for a tenant to challenge an increase in rent. I respectfully disagree with that. There is a whole range of organisations that will give tenants advice on how to challenge an increase from the landlord.
This Government have made it clear that, unlike the previous Administration, they are not prepared to wait until the necessary reforms to the court processes are in place before they activate the Bill. That is a decision they are perfectly entitled to take, and it will be welcomed by tenants. However, a necessary corollary of that decision should be a process to minimise the chance of the courts being overwhelmed, which would be in the interest of neither tenant nor landlord. That is what Amendment 25 does.
The likelihood of the rent—a market rent when it was fixed—diverging significantly from CPI or RPI over four years is quite small. The certainty that goes with that guarantee will be welcomed, I think, by both tenant and landlord. If, after four years, there is a divergence, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, has explained, the rent can then catch up. As someone who voted for the Housing Act 1988, which abolished rent control, I see no problem with this measure to simply smooth increases over a four-year period. Again, speaking personally, if at the end of the four or five years the courts have shown themselves to be up to speed, with no backlog, I would be happy to see this provision lapse, but in the meantime, I hope the Government will smile on it.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
If I may add one note to what the noble Lord has just said, it is very common in commercial contracts to have CPI over a series of periods followed by a reset to market level, in part because CPI may take it up too high and it comes back down to market level. I think that needs to be part of this amendment.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, we support the amendments in this group concerning rent affordability, a matter that strikes at the heart of the lived reality of millions of tenants. We welcome the long-overdue commitment to abolishing Section 21 no-fault evictions but, as Shelter rightly said in a release only this week:
“For every day the government doesn’t pass this bill, another 70 households will be threatened with homelessness because no fault evictions are being kept on life support for no good reason”.
I hope that we will soon get some reassurances about when this key measure will begin, to overcome some of the rumours in the media of late about it being delayed.
We also welcome all the work to fix the issue of the supply of decent homes across all tenures, but private rent inflation is persistently outpacing both wage growth and general inflation. According to the latest data—we heard some of it from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, earlier—average rents in England rose by 7.1% in the 12 months to May 2025. Meanwhile, wages continue to grow more slowly than rents, with the most recent data showing annual growth of 5.2%. Rents have outstripped wages every month for nearly two years; that is, since September 2023. Over the past three years, the average annual rent has increased by £2,650, rising from £12,800 to £15,450, a 21% increase, compared with—for all the owner-occupiers here—just a 4% growth in house prices over the same period. This relentless rise is not just a statistical anomaly. It is a driver of poverty, hardship and, in some—way too many—cases, homelessness.
Amendment 25, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, and supported by me and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, proposes a mechanism to smooth in-tenancy rent increases by limiting them to the lower of wage growth or inflation. The Bill currently restricts rent increases to once per year and allows tenants to challenge above-market rents at the First-tier Tribunal, as we heard in the previous group. However, “market rent” is often calculated based on arbitrary information, such as advertised rents for new tenancies, figures that will inevitably and typically be inflated and do not reflect the actual rents paid by sitting tenants. This methodology leaves tenants exposed to rent hike evictions—Section 21 in all but name—undermining the very security that the Bill purports to deliver.
Tenants on lower incomes will be particularly exposed. For the many renters who have no alternative but to rent, the cheapest places they can find at market rent are already, by definition, unaffordable. The tribunal process will help, but not fix, this problem, and certainly not soon. Generation Rent’s analysis found that while 73% of tenants who challenge a rent increase through the tribunal succeed in reducing the proposed rent, the average increase awarded is still 14%, and only a small minority of cases result in annualised increases below wage or rent inflation. The process is also onerous and complex, deterring many tenants from pursuing it at all.
Smoothing in-tenancy rent increases is therefore not just a technical fix but a vital safeguard during this period of transition. It will provide tenants with the predictability and stability needed to budget and to remain in their homes, free from the constant threat of unaffordable rent hikes. For landlords, it offers an indexed yield without the administrative burden and uncertainty of tribunal proceedings.
I ask in particular that the Opposition Front Bench and the Government Front Bench resist the temptation and lure to comment on these proposals as rent controls. That would suggest that the years of knowledge and experience of the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Best, have rendered them somehow incapable of being able to understand the difference between rent control and something else. This proposal is fundamentally different. It is time limited. It applies only to in-tenancy increases. It does not set market-wide caps. It is designed to stabilise rents for existing tenants, not to distort the market or stifle investment.
Beyond these immediate protections, we must look to the medium term while we wait for the much-needed and long-awaited additional supply of homes. That is why I have tabled Amendment 114, requiring the Secretary of State to conduct a comprehensive review of rent affordability with the express aim of establishing a national rental affordability commission. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her support and the Renters’ Reform Coalition for their work on this issue. The coalition has found that nearly one-third of private renters—an estimated 3.8 million people—always or often struggle to afford essentials such as groceries due to the amount that they spend on rent, and nearly one in 10 have sold or pawned personal items to be able to afford to rent.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, in my Second Reading speech, I drew attention to the role played by high housing costs in driving poverty. I was thus pleased to add my name to Amendment 114, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, although I am supportive also of the other amendments in this group and hope that what I have to say will add to the case for them too.
Evidence from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation illustrates the extent to which high rents in the private sector are associated with poverty. Shockingly, it points out that around
“half of private renters were only in poverty after their housing costs were factored in”.
Two more reports specifically on child poverty, published this year, reinforce the point. The first, by IPPR, argues that:
“Housing costs are core to understanding child poverty”.
It notes that the number of children counted as in poverty is about a third higher when housing costs are factored into the measure, and that the private rented sector has become increasingly significant in the lives of children.
The second report was co-published by IPPR together with CPAG—of which I am honorary president—and Changing Realities, which involves people with lived experience of poverty. The report observed that rent increases are
“stressful for families to manage, and … the Renters’ Rights Bill as currently drafted will continue to enable large increases in rent … providing they are deemed to reflect ‘market rents’”—
a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best. It suggests that this
“risks exposing tenants to sudden and unaffordable hikes in housing costs, undermining the Bill’s stated aim of providing greater security and fairness for renters”.
The report quotes one tenant:
“I’m getting really worried about my rent going up this year. It keeps rising every year yet the local housing allowance is frozen for this year! … It’s frightening”.
Both reports underline how the situation is aggravated by freezes in the local housing allowance and by the operation of the benefit cap, which hits larger families and/ or those paying higher rents in particular. As the amendment states, any review of rent affordability must include in its remit the effectiveness of policy interventions to improve affordability relative to incomes. I would argue that this would need to include policies on the incomes side, which are making it impossible for some families to meet their rent commitments alongside other essentials.
This seems to me a very modest amendment that would complement the Government’s welcome commitment to an ambitious child poverty strategy. I know that the Child Poverty Taskforce is aware of the importance of housing to the strategy, but it is unrealistic to expect it to carry out the thorough review of rent affordability proposed in the amendment.
I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will be able to give a more positive response than the one she gave in Committee, which I found rather disappointing. What is needed is something more robust and holistic than the regular monitoring to which she referred, important though that might be. A review of this kind would be in the spirit of the Bill and would help to ensure that its impact is not blunted by the continued damage created by excessively high rents in the private sector.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to try to understand what the definition of rent is if we are going to control rents or somehow curtail them or attenuate the increases.
One can see the base rate just by googling property websites. It is a good idea to get a feel for the cost of a basic, low-cost, unfurnished property in the worst part of town, but that is not necessarily the market price, which is determined by a number of factors: the property may be furnished; it may be serviced accommodation; there may be porterage; there may be other benefits— I am not going to go as far as swimming pools and gyms, but I know they are available in some circumstances. Parking would be another one. All these different elements have different cost pressures and inflationary increases, which may be determined by factors outside the landlord’s control. A property that has inclusive parking may become significantly more valuable, one could anticipate, if the local council applies permits on the streets around it.
I am tempted to support Amendment 25, but I am reluctant to do so because at the moment all these extras are rolled into the single price. The logical conclusion of where this debate is going is that we will get menu pricing, rather as we see on low-cost airlines. There may be an attractive flight—£5.99 to fly to Spain or whatever—but by the time you add in the baggage, the booking fee and everything else, it rolls up to a significantly higher value. My noble friend Lord Young of Cookham made the point that the risk of the price going up over the four-year period may be somewhat attenuated, but those extras amounting to what I would call the landed price, or total cost of ownership, could vary accordingly.
Another significant point that we need to take into account is that there may be Section 20 repairs or improvements, particularly in the case of furnished accommodation where the landlord is prepared to improve and upgrade the fixed furnishings, such as tables and chairs and possibly soft furnishings as well. All of this complicates what is a rolled-up figure at the moment. The logical conclusion is that all those extras are going to be disaggregated and obfuscated, so it is going be harder to compare for the potential tenant. But it is going to be essential for the landlord to obfuscate in this way in the circumstance of a First-tier Tribunal appeal, which is really concerned with the underlying rent—that £5.99 figure. It is very difficult.
I have a huge amount of sympathy with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Best, but I cannot support it because I think the logical conclusion of it will be that we will get a fragmentation of the landed rent so that the tail wags the dog. The landlord will be so focused on restricting the base rate that those other things will get lost.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, we have concerns about a number of amendments in this group on the basis that they are unduly prescriptive and risk the introduction of what could be regarded as, in effect, a form of rent control.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, seek to protect the tribunal from being overloaded due to the Bill. While we agree that there is significant risk of overload, we have concerns about how the arrangements would function. In particular, we do not feel able to support a system that ties rental increases to CPI. CPI is a generalised index that reflects the prices of bread, fuel, clothing and so forth, but not rental market dynamics. What happens in areas where market rents are falling but inflation is high, or where incomes are stagnant while CPI rises? This approach uses a national economic measure to benchmark against a highly localised rental market, and the result would almost certainly be a distorted rental market. That said, we share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Best, about the impact of the Bill on tribunals’ backlogs, which we discussed at length in Committee.
Amendment 114 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, raises some important points. There is no doubt that rent affordability is a serious issue, and the amendment rightly draws attention to a range of important factors: the regional disparities in rental costs, the strain of high rents placed on household finances and the need to understand how effectively the First-tier Tribunal is working in practice. However, I must also sound a note of realism. We do not need another report for its own sake. We need actual change that improves the lives of renters and restores fairness to a housing system that too often feels stacked against ordinary people. If this review is to go ahead, it must not become just another document left to gather dust on the shelves of the department—it must lead to action. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to outline how the Government will respond to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness in her amendment, which we agree are all points which matter in this debate.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, and the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, for their amendments relating to rent affordability and rent controls, and the noble Lords, Lord Young, Lord Fuller and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for speaking in this discussion. I have the deepest respect for the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Young, and their experience, and for the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who has vast experience in this area too. I am grateful for their contributions.
I do not intend to revisit the detailed discussions we had in Committee. They were detailed and informed deliberations, and I know how strongly some noble Lords and tenant groups feel about helping those who struggle to pay high rents. I absolutely understand the pressure that rents put on the budgets of individuals and families. To come back to the points that we made earlier in the debate, obviously the solution to this is to create a lot more social and affordable housing, but I realise that is not going to happen overnight.
However, I must reiterate the Government’s concern that rent controls, as proposed, would risk reducing housing supply, discouraging investment and ultimately lowering property standards. In the case of Amendment 25, the most relevant international comparator is Ontario, an example that I also cited in Committee. I am afraid that the Ontario model, whereby rent increases are capped according to a measure of inflation, has not led to desirable outcomes. In fact, analysis suggests that the result has been higher rents for new tenants.
In respect of the experience in Scotland, a recent Nationwide Foundation report by the Indigo House Group found that rent control measures had not protected the majority of private rented sector tenants against excessive rent increases or against high advertised market rents, considering average advertised rents in the system as a whole. The measures in Scotland do not appear to have impacted rental price growth, because Scotland has consistently been one of the regions in the UK with the highest growth in asking rents. For example, according to Zoopla, in the year to January 2024, when the rent freeze was in place, Scotland was the only UK region with a double-digit annual rent growth, at 11.6%.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their support for my set of amendments, including the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who made the point that the First-tier Tribunal already faces a backlog and there is the danger that it will get a lot worse in the future. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his inside knowledge that, in the business world, indexation is relatively common as a way of stabilising increases over time. Of course, the market rate may go down when it resumes, in comparison with what has happened on an index basis, so rents could go down at the end of a four-year period.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, who made the point that renters will still be exposed, after this Bill is passed, to much greater insecurity and uncertainty from potential rent increases. We are seeing increases at the moment of 14%, which is miles above inflation. This is very unsettling for tenants and the stability of an index system would be infinitely preferable. I support the noble Baroness’s own Amendment 114, which proposes a government commission on affordable housing. This would match the voluntary sector-supported commission, which I had the honour of chairing a couple of years ago, ready for review. That was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who pointed out how housing costs increase almost exponentially the number of children and families in poverty—it is housing costs “wot done it” very often, by creating poverty.
The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, is yet to be convinced of the merits of my case. It is true that there could be complications, but any other system is more complicated and difficult than the one that we propose. I am sad to say that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, compared this to rent control—“Oh, not again!” We thought we were at pains to point out that something that hits the market level on a regular basis cannot be called rent control—it is not control of the marketplace—but I thank him for his contribution.
I am afraid I have not convinced the Minister, despite her great generosity in having meetings outside the Chamber. I am grateful to her for listening attentively to the case I make. It has not been sufficient to win her over. I can only say that there is now, on the record, an alternative to the Bill’s formula, and if that proves as unsatisfactory as I suspect it will be, maybe this amendment’s time will come. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(4A) In subsection (2)(b) at end insert— “(iii) any increase in the quality of the dwelling attributable to improvements made to upgrade the minimum energy efficiency that were not funded by the landlord but government or ECO grants, either in part or in sum, made within the previous two years.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would amend the Housing Act 1988 so that when determining rents tribunals must disregard any improvements funded by government grants, for a two year period.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I note what the Minister says about the Government taking it seriously and I accept that there is a move, for example in the warm home local grants, to put in a clear expectation, but that is not compulsory. Guidance is not compulsory. Landlords do not need to do it; they can completely ignore it. It is not okay that tenants have to suffer the noise, dirt and disruption of improvements and then do not actually benefit at all financially and have rent rises immediately. I am not precious about how it is done: it could be in the grant conditions. I imagine there are all sorts of ways of actually making this happen, so that tenants can have some benefit without increased costs.
I thank the Liberal Democrats for being prepared to support this amendment, but—although I bitterly resent saying it—I will not move the amendment.
Lord Carrington
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I very much thank the Minister for her answers to my various questions. However, I also point out that her agreement to work on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, is an extremely positive step and I look forward to the results of that.
However, with considerable sadness, I am very disappointed by the lack of clarity on Amendment 37. The drafting of that amendment is so vague, with the judgments being called only when absolutely necessary and when significant, et cetera, and there being no data to back this whole thing up, that I want to pursue my amendment, because my Amendment 34, together with associated Amendments 35, 36 and 40, all provide great clarity to this particular issue. They are, in a sense, technical amendments: they are not in any other way political.
In Amendment 36, I propose this 12-month delayed payment for any rent increases that the tribunal comes up with, so I recognise these financial pressures, and we have done something to try and ameliorate them. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
“(5A) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision so as to substitute, in relation to relevant tenancies, a different date as the effective date.(5B) The effective date may not be earlier than the beginning of the new period specified in the notice served on the tenant under section 13(2) or 13A(2).(5C) Regulations under subsection (5A)—(a) may amend this section;(b) may make different provision for different purposes;(c) may make supplemental, consequential, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision;(d) are to be made by statutory instrument.(5D) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (5A) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Secretary of State to amend the Housing Act 1988 so as to substitute a different date from which new rent is payable. The substituted date must not be earlier than the date specified in the notice of the new rent given by the landlord. The new date will only apply to applications to challenge the rent made on or after the date on which the regulations come into force.
““the effective date” means a date for the time being specified in subsection (3)(b) as the date from which the rent payable takes effect;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment tabled in my name inserting a new regulation-making power into the Housing Act 1988 in relation to the effective date for proposed new rent.
““relevant tenancies” means tenancies in relation to which an application under section 14(A3) is made on or after the date on which the regulations under subsection (5A) come into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment tabled in my name inserting a new regulation-making power into the Housing Act 1988 in relation to the effective date for proposed new rent.
Lord Hacking
“Restrictions on rent increaseWhen a landlord has obtained possession of a property pursuant to Schedule 2 of the Housing Act 1988 (as amended by Schedule 1 of this Act) on either—(a) Ground 1 (occupation by landlord or family), or(b) Ground 1A (sale of dwelling house),and the landlord is unable to place a family member in the property or sell the property and is putting the property again into the letting market, the landlord is prohibited from raising the rent of the property for a period of 12 months from the date of the notice to quit as served on the original tenant.”
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I will explain how this amendment came about and be more definitive. It relates to the proposal in the Bill—I think it is in Clause 7—that when a landlord has obtained possession principally on the grounds of a proposed sale of the dwelling and then withdraws from the sale and wants to put the property straight on to the market, he is prevented from doing so for a period of 12 months. The noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, moved an amendment in Committee to reduce that period from 12 months to six months. I will leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, to develop the argument again because he has tabled Amendment 58 in this group. Basically, the noble Lords argued that 12 months was oppressive and far too long, and that there would be a sufficient deterrence against the rogue landlord seeking to put the property on the market for the purpose of raising the rent.
I did not move an amendment in Committee on this subject, but I thought about it and I decided to write a letter to the Minister, which I did on 19 May. My proposal was much simpler: that there should be a prohibition on all landlords raising the rent when, following putting the property on for sale that did not go forward, seeking to let it out again. I really thought that that was a very sensible amendment; I had hoped that my noble friend would congratulate me and say what a good solution I had provided.
The immediate advantages of my proposal were that, first, it dealt directly with the problem of the rogue landlord raising the rent. That, as my amendment proposes, will be forbidden. It would also have the advantage that the landlord would not be penalised for a long period; he could immediately put the property on the letting market and then collect rent. The other great advantage was that the property would be on the market and there would not be an absence of a property on the market, which is always regrettable. It would therefore help to house people who needed rented property.
Unfortunately, my noble friend did not congratulate me on this proposal as set out in my letter. She expressed caution regarding other tenant/landlord situations, such as a landlord getting fed up with a tenant constantly asking for repairs to the property. Another example she gave, which was rather simpler, was that the landlord had got to the point where he did not like the tenant. We must remember that, in either of those situations, the landlord has to enter into a ruse, either pretending that he wants to sell the property or possibly finding a phantom member of his family who does not exist so that he could get possession under the alternative of placing a member of his family in that house.
I am asking the House to measure up the difference between the advantage of imposing a ban on any rent increase and the advantages that I have just outlined of having the property immediately on the market, with the landlord being able to collect his rent as soon as the property is rented. We have to balance that because the measure in the Bill will affect every landlord—the good and the bad. We should have a balance between that and the extraordinary. After all, a landlord cannot successfully evict a tenant just because he dislikes him. Equally, when he is fed up with a tenant who constantly asks for repairs, he cannot bring an action for eviction just because the tenant is pestering him. In both those situations, he has to enter into a ruse.
I am suggesting that the proper balance is to look at the market as a whole—everybody in the market is affected by these measures. Therefore, to release everybody else in the market from the measure proposed serves it. So it is a balance, and I suggest that that balance goes to the market and not to the particular circumstances of a landlord disliking his tenant or getting fed up with a number of requests for repairs. I beg to move.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 58 is in my name. I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who apologises that he is unable to be with us today but who has added his name to the amendment, and of course to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking —and indeed to the Minister and her officials for the time they have taken to discuss the background to this with me.
This amendment is at heart a simple and technical one. The Bill says that if you ask a tenant to leave on the grounds that you are selling the property but then the property fails to sell, as happens in about a third of cases, you are not allowed to rent the property out for a period of 12 months. It simply has to stand empty and impossible to rent out for a year. That means that numerous properties would, for the crime of not selling, be punished by standing empty and unrentable. My amendment does not seek to change the principle or any other element or clause of the Bill. It simply introduces a rational and balanced obligation to stand empty in this way for six months rather than 12. That is all that it does. I will now set out the reasons why.
On financial logic, when I and others suggested that 12 months was too long, the answer given was that 12 months’ lost rent would prevent evil landlords from claiming they were selling simply as a means to eject a tenant and then re-letting the property at a higher rent. The theory was that after the tenant had left, the landlord would jack up the rent to a high level, both to recoup their interim losses and make profits. Let us look at that proposition rationally.
First, if the landlord has a valid claim to increase the rent, the Bill already provides for that. A landlord would simply seek a normal rent increase rather than going to the dramatic and expensive process and risk of requiring a tenant to leave and then hoping to re-let at a much higher rent.
Secondly, in Committee I set out the mathematical calculation behind a six-month void period; noble Lords will be relieved to know that I do not propose to repeat the numerical details here tonight, or those that I provided subsequently in a meeting with the Minister and her officials. However, the numbers demonstrated clearly that the supposedly avaricious landlord, even if having the property empty for only six months, as I propose, rather than 12, would have to put the rent up by a very substantial amount—in excess of 200% or even 300%—to recoup their rental losses. I say nothing of the other costs, including the council tax surcharge bills and the risks of leaving a building empty. Such a huge rent hike would be impossible. The rent asked would be completely uncompetitive against other properties not carrying such an inflated rent level. In short, being obliged to leave a property empty for six months is more than enough of a financial burden and barrier so as to make the strategy so feared by the Minister simply untenable.
Thirdly, it was suggested that those nasty landlords might lie about selling a property or put it on the market at an absurdly high price, presumably in collusion with a disreputable estate agent—there are some, I believe. I therefore draw noble Lords’ attention to the second part of the amendment. This requires the landlord to provide, if necessary, to the local authority or the court hard evidence of marketing, pricing and offers, et cetera. A landlord flouting these requirements would be breaking the law and punishable accordingly. I understand that an agent colluding with them would also be acting contrary to the law. I remind noble Lords that any landlord taking this approach would face not only the legal risk of a false sales process but ending up with the property back on the rental market at an absurd and uncompetitive level of rent and, on top of that, losing six months’ rent.
Turning to other reasons, having made the argument on the rental conspiracy theory advanced in defence of the 12 months of standing empty, I heard that the landlord might have “other reasons” for wanting to get rid of the tenant, such as those that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, touched upon. Let us examine this argument. Whatever these other reasons might be, the Minister has confirmed that the Bill makes it perfectly clear that the landlord has only four grounds for requiring a tenant to leave: sale, anti-social behaviour, moving in a relative or persistent failure to pay rent. If the landlord cannot demonstrate that one or more of these cases applies—for example, through not providing conclusive evidence of a genuine sales process—that landlord will be in breach of the law as well as having the financial penalty of the months of lost rent. It is a fundamental of the Bill to block any attempts to get around Section 21 by other means. I entirely agree with that. However, as I hope that I have demonstrated, this amendment is no such thing. The “no renting out” mechanism to prevent abuse remains, but the amendment makes it proportionate rather than excessive and heavy-handed.
Standing back from the detail, we are frequently assured that most landlords are good landlords. Perhaps some in this House have friends who are landlords. Perhaps some Members of this House let out property. This provision to leave a property unlet will not apply just to a subset of bad landlords. It will apply to anyone who rents out a property and genuinely wants or needs to sell their property but does not manage to do so. It also, for the same 12 months, deprives the market of rental properties—a market already bedevilled by a lack of available property to rent. That does not help tenants. This is not only unnecessary but manifestly unfair and will actively harm the supply of rental property. The Minister has accepted in a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, that landlords will lose out, but says that it will be in a small number of circumstances. Where is the evidence for that—or that the six-month penalty is not enough?
I underline that I am no lobbyist for landlords. I have spoken repeatedly in this House about the need to protect the poorest and the most vulnerable tenants who are abused and evicted by genuinely unscrupulous landlords. I have a later amendment seeking to prevent illegal evictions which is specifically on that theme. However, as the Minister has stressed, a successful rental sector is about a balance of rights. The amendment that I am speaking to does not do away with the relevant part of the Bill. It simply reduces the punishment —and it is a punishment—for not managing to sell a property from 12 months to six months. Those six months of costs and no income are, as I have demonstrated previously, more than sufficient punishment to make unworkable the avoidance strategies that so vexed the Minister and to meet the objectives of the Bill.
To be frank, a prohibition on renting out for 12 months is an impractical and disproportionate sledgehammer level of overkill that does not belong in a Bill that creates a set of checks and balances to produce a new, fairer environment for property rental. It also works against its own objective by artificially restricting the availability of property that is available to rent. That is why I feel strongly that this amendment is proportionate and needed. I will listen carefully to what any others and the Minister have to say, but I may need to test the opinion of the House in due course.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I speak to my Amendment 59. I am grateful to the Minister for the time that she spent with me and a representative of the Shared Owners’ Network after Committee, when we discussed in further detail the problems facing shared ownership leaseholders in blocks that have been blighted by the cladding disaster. This amendment is needed to protect shared owners, who are accidental landlords, from the financial problems that they will face if they are unable to finalise a sale after issuing a ground 1A notice.
Many shared owners, of course, continue to live in the property which they half-bought from the registered social landlord. Many shared owners have simply had to move to get on with their life; they have been unable to sell the property in the meantime, so they have sublet. Shared owners are allowed to sublet—they have to get permission from their RSL to do this—but the rent that they receive from the subletting may not actually be enough to cover their costs, with the mortgage, the rent, the service charge and the insurance charges on a block affected by the cladding disaster. Those costs may well exceed the local market rent.
Many shared owners who have been subletting for a number of years have seen their financial situation considerably weakened, with many effectively losing hundreds of pounds every month as a result of subletting. These are people who employed all the professional people that they should have employed when they bought the property owned by a registered social landlord. They took every precaution available to them and bear no responsibility at all for the problem that has engulfed them.
When we met, although she expressed sympathy for this group, the Minister could not offer any mitigation for the unsustainable costs which a 12-month ban on re-letting would create for these shared owners. This is not a satisfactory outcome for a cohort who qualified for an affordable home because their income was not high enough to buy on the open market; this was their first step on the ladder. The Minister argued that the proposed ban protects tenants, but it fails to protect shared owners who are actually also tenants.
Shared owners face a much riskier sales process with the Bill. They have to give four months’ notice to their tenants, and that means they have no certainty at all that the offer to buy the flat will actually result in an exchange, or indeed a completion. Shared owners have to give the first option to buy their flat back to the registered social landlord so they can find another shared ownership owner, and there are strict qualifications, so they are fishing in a relatively small pool. Prospective buyers need to meet the criteria for shared ownership, and that means that the risk of a failed sale, even at a late stage, is actually much higher for a shared owner, and particularly high if you are selling a flat in a block with unsafe cladding.
Should a sale fall through, as is frequent, particularly for these types of properties, shared owners, like other landlords under the Bill, face the prospect of a 12-month void when they will be banned from re-letting their empty property and forced to cover its costs without any rental income.
These people never planned to become landlords. It was not part of their vision at all. They will have had no ability to plan for this outcome or make provision for extended void periods. This will become completely unaffordable for the vast majority of shared owners who, as I have said, are not as financially resilient as other leaseholders, otherwise they would have bought a property on the open market. They will have to pay for the property they now live in, as well as the property they have been unable to sell.
Of course, they will continue to market their property for sale after the first sale has fallen through, but facing the mounting unmet costs of an empty property will actually put their homes at risk of repossession if they fall into arrears, as is very likely. Also—and this is worse—it puts incredible pressure on them to accept any offer from a buyer as soon as possible, even if the offer is below the RICS pre-sale valuation. If they do that, due to the rules of the scheme, they will have to compensate the registered social landlord for the loss of value on their share, as well as losing out on their own share. So, the unintended consequence of the 12-month ban on re-letting is that it puts shared owners selling a property on the back foot, unable to wait for a suitable offer at a fair market value.
It is just not acceptable to punish shared owners who have had to become accidental landlords, including as a result of the building safety crisis, and have already suffered considerable financial harm. In her correspondence, the Minister explained that shared owners would have the option to ask their provider whether a buyback would be possible rather than leaving the property empty.
This could provide a solution, but it will need the Minister to make some changes, As the Minister knows, buybacks are currently very much at the discretion of the registered provider. At the moment they have only limited access to funding to do this, using either their own funds or recycled capital grant funding.
If the Minister is unable to accept my amendment, will the Government ring-fence some of the dedicated funding to registered providers in its affordable homes programme so that they can swiftly buy back properties from those shared owners who fail to sell after issuing a ground 1A notice? This would enable housing associations to add to the stock of affordable property to rent at well below the cost of a new build and avoid leaving a property empty. If the Minister can neither accept the amendment nor give that guarantee, I am minded to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time—probably next Monday.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, the three amendments here are interesting. The noble Baroness is well aware that we share the same concerns as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, regarding shared owners. I was allowed to gatecrash their meeting. I admit that it was eye-opening for me. I was aware of the issues around shared ownership, but I was shocked at the costs incurred and the amounts of money lost, which the noble Lord has amplified superbly. I hope the noble Baroness can give us some way forward on this and other issues that seriously affect shared owners—accidental landlords who are trapped in the situations the noble Lord has accurately described and see no way out. The “What can I do?” was quite revealing. It is no surprise that we will support Amendment 59.
We know that the not-able-to-sell situation applies to thousands of shared owners—far greater numbers than, I suspect, Amendment 58 from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, applies to. This is yet another area in the Bill where we do not know the numbers. We do not know how many homes will be affected. I have to pay credit to the noble Lord because Amendment 58 has been patiently worked on and lobbied for by the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell. I completely understand where he is coming from but perhaps do not agree that the detriment to the relatively few landlords who find they cannot sell their property is worth the abuses that might occur if prohibition on re-letting is reduced to six months rather than 12 as in the Bill. Perhaps this is an area for some compromise.
I have a simple question, and I am sure somebody will tell me I am wrong. If I genuinely wanted to sell my property and realise my capital for whatever reason, given the amount of time to evict, I would probably not serve notice to my tenant until I had sold my property. I can serve the notice; the process of selling, conveyancing and everything else carries on; the tenant leaves at the appropriate time; the buyers exchange contracts and we say, “You can’t move in until that time”. I do not see how that would be unachievable. I am sure somebody will tell me why that would not be the case. I certainly would not evict them before I put it on the market or had some sense of the market or of how things were. As I said in Committee, a letting agent said to me, “All houses will sell, Dorothy. It just depends on the price”.
Amendment 41, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is clearly designed to act as a disincentive to landlords trying to abuse this ground, but maybe if the landlord is genuine, it is just a little too draconian. We broadly agree that the Bill has got this right, as far as we can tell.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments and to offer my full support to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham. Amendment 59 addresses a significant gap in the Bill by providing a vital exemption for shared ownership leaseholders from certain provisions within Clause 14. Shared ownership is an important tenure model that enables many people to take their first step on to the housing ladder, yet it is not without its challenges, particularly when sales fall through, as my noble friend has highlighted. Amendment 59 is a sensible and necessary provision that recognises the realities faced by shared ownership landlords. Protecting this group helps to maintain confidence in shared ownership and prevents unintended consequences that could undermine the Bill’s original intent. If my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham is minded to test the opinion of the House, the Opposition will support him without hesitation.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hacking and the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Young, for their amendments and their engagement on these issues. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson.
On Amendment 58, we want to strengthen tenant security and prevent abuse of ground 1A. A 12-month no re-let period will act as a deterrent to unscrupulous landlords who want to evict tenants so that they can let to a new tenant for more rent or because the tenants are asking for repairs that the landlord does not want to do. We understand this is a strict measure, and it is meant to be. It is intended to ensure that only landlords who genuinely wish to sell their property will wish to use that ground and to deter from using it landlords looking to evict a tenant in order to re-let at a higher rent or to a different tenant. Not only will landlords have to forgo rental income for 12 months after using ground 1A but should they be found to be misusing the ground, they could be fined up to £40,000. It is right that we have these strong tenant protections in place.
This amendment would also bring significant complexity to the system, and I struggle to see how it would work in practice. It would allow the courts to require evidence that the dwelling had been on the open market for six months and that no suitable offers had been received, but it is unclear how the courts would become involved. Additionally, it could place undue burdens on courts which may have to follow up on any ground 1A evictions to check whether the landlord had tried to sell for six months and whether they had received any suitable offers. The court would also have to determine what a suitable offer was, which would be another undue burden. The no re-let rule is a clear and simple rule that would not benefit from further complexity. I believe this amendment would open the no re-let period to abuse, reducing tenant security and contradicting the aims of this Bill.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, indicated, if a landlord is genuinely planning to sell a property, they can market it to gauge interest before upending the tenant’s life by evicting them. This would be more effective for all parties than evicting as soon as they decide to sell and only then putting it on the market and waiting for suitable offers. For all these reasons, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, not to press this amendment.
On Amendment 41, I understand from our helpful discussions that my noble friend Lord Hacking’s intent here is to remove the period during which a landlord cannot re-let the property after using grounds 1 and 1A and instead prevent the rent being increased in the new tenancy. While this amendment addresses one of the goals of the no re-let period by making it unprofitable for landlords to abuse the moving and selling grounds, it does not address the other key reason to prevent abuse. Even if an unscrupulous landlord could not profit from abusing the grounds, they could still, under my noble friend’s proposals, use these grounds with no intention of moving in or selling to pursue retaliatory evictions. This means abusing the grounds to get rid of a tenant who had done nothing wrong but whom, for example, the landlord simply did not like or who they considered raised too many issues with the property.
These abuses of the system are exactly what the 12-month no re-let period aims to prevent. In the current system, under Section 21, we hear all too often of tenants afraid to ask for repairs because the landlord has made it clear that they will evict them if they do. Under my noble friend’s proposal, this could still happen. The opening up of the grounds to abuse must be resisted. The 12-month no re-let period is a strong disincentive for landlords to abuse the grounds, and I believe that it strikes the right balance. As such, I ask my noble friend not to push his amendment to a Division.
I turn now to Amendment 59. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his engagement on this issue and for introducing me to the Shared Owners’ Network. These clauses implement critical protections for tenants. If a landlord has used the selling or moving-in ground, they will not be able to re-let or market a property for 12 months. That period starts from the date of possession proceedings, as specified in their Section 8 notice to the tenant. These clauses also include other important prohibited landlord behaviours.
The Government are aware that some shared owners with building safety issues are facing very difficult circumstances through no fault of their own. The Shared Owners’ Network has provided invaluable insight into this issue. We are continuing to engage with it to determine how best to support these shared owners. We will have a dialogue with the registered providers as well. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion in that regard. To respond to another of his comments, I will clarify the licence points to him in writing.
However, I do not agree that, by helping in one area, other blameless tenants should have reduced security of tenure or be exposed to the risk of wrongful eviction just because of who their landlord is. We have to get the balance right somehow, to support those who find themselves in this awful position but not at the expense of other tenants. We will continue to work on that. All assured tenants must benefit from the new system.
I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Young, not to press this amendment.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendment 41 was the first in line in this group. I still think that it was a good amendment and would have produced all of the right results without creating sorrow for the market of the full 12-month waiting period.
It is now very late in the evening. I am not going to press for a Division. I nevertheless argue that my amendment was the best of the three.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a person to mutually agree a tenancy with a landlord which requires them to pay up to six months of rent in advance.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the payment of rent in advance can provide significant benefits to tenants that go beyond simply avoiding late fees or demonstrating financial security. Many tenants choose to pay rent in advance for financial planning, to ease the stress of monthly payments or to manage upcoming financial burdens. Amendment 43 in this group recognises and affirms this choice, firmly rooted in mutual agreement between tenant and landlord.
We did consider introducing a 12-month period proposal at Committee stage. However, in a spirit of compromise, and having listened carefully to the views expressed in Committee, we have instead brought forward a six-month proposal. We hope that the Government will recognise this as a reasonable and constructive step, and we hope that noble Lords can support this.
If a tenant does not wish to pay rent in advance, they would be under no obligation to do so. However, there are particular groups who would benefit from this flexibility, including overseas students and those with poor or limited credit histories. Many tenants with lower credit ratings face barriers to securing housing that are often no fault of their own. By paying rent in advance, these individuals could demonstrate responsibility and financial reliability, improving their chances of obtaining a tenancy.
Similarly, overseas students often lack a UK credit history and therefore require UK-based guarantors, which is not always possible. For those students, paying rent up front for a term or even an entire academic year is a practicality and a common solution. I ask the Minister to clarify what impact these amendments might have on overseas students’ ability to secure accommodation and whether the landlord will maintain incentives to rent to those tenants despite their limited credit history.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, it feels as if we are going back to Amendment 1 at the start of this debate and the theme of that essential freedom to contract between consenting parties, which had support on both sides of the House from the noble Lords, Lord Hacking and Lord Truscott, and others. Amendment 43 is a practical solution and an optional one. It provides a route for an otherwise unrentable tenant to find a tenancy and it is a practical expression of good faith. We have had some examples of where the freedom—it is a freedom and not an obligation—to offer up to six months’ rent in advance can be helpful.
My noble friend Lady Scott mentioned the case of students, especially foreign students. Foreign students often want to secure accommodation before they get on the plane to come to this country. At that point, they may not even have a UK bank account. They certainly will not have references or a track record. The only practicable way they can secure a tenancy with that impaired record is to pay in advance.
Earlier today, we spoke about the potential abuses in holiday hotspots, where somebody may say, “I am going to stay for a whole year”, as they contract in June, whereas in fact they immediately give notice to quit after the August bank holiday. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, who is not in his place, told the House that the differential between the Airbnb rate and the year-round rate is something like 49%. This is a way for somebody who was sincere about entering into a long-term arrangement for, say, six months—but it would not have to be exactly six months—with a potential landlord to demonstrate that they were not just the carpetbagging, holiday-hotspot people. They could pay in advance and that would be helpful.
My noble friend mentioned those with an impaired record. It would be possible to have a guarantor who stumped up for those people with a weak covenant strength. For those who have cash—I appreciate that not everybody does—coming to an accommodation with the landlord for paying up front sometimes results in considerably less rent, and in those cases both landlord and tenant benefit considerably.
Amendment 43 would help both the landlord and tenant to come to an arrangement to their mutual advantage. I know it is not for everybody, but without this provision the unrentables will remain unrented. The Bill’s objective, as we have heard from the Minister, is to get people into safe, secure, good accommodation, and for a small number of people the amendment would provide the otherwise unprovidable. I support it entirely.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I very much support Amendments 43 and 45, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I can give a practical example of this. A very nice couple from Chile wanted to rent one of our flats. They had no credit record at all here in England so there was no way to check that. There was no efficient way to check the previous landlord, which is the other step that a landlord normally takes to ascertain whether these are suitable tenants to go into the property. They had the money. Both of them were coming to work in London for a year for an academic purpose. Enabling them to pay some money in advance—I have forgotten whether it was six months or more—was therefore a sensible compromise. They turned out to be delightful tenants and highly reliable, and we were delighted to have them in our house.
I also want to speak to Amendment 46. It is to protect landlords when a tenant has signed up to take the property on a certain date but has failed to pay either the first month’s rent in advance or the deposit. I suggest that it would be entirely wrong, because the tenancy agreement had been signed and so forth, if the landlord were then obliged to take that tenant into the property. Remember that a landlord cannot chase unpaid rent for three months, and then there is the delay in getting a hearing in the county court, so that would be onerous for the landlord to deal with. Moreover, if the tenant has not paid either the first month’s rent or the deposit in advance, he probably does not have the money available, and the high probability is that the landlord will have to suffer that tenant in his property for three or four months without any payment at all.
I therefore thought it would be sensible to make it quite plain—my amendment starts:
“For the avoidance of doubt”—
that the landlord does not have to give the tenant keys to the property or allow them to get into it when the tenant has not paid. I added a further bit to the amendment to enable the landlord, if the tenant fails to pay the first month’s rent or the deposit for a further 28 days, to take the next step of having the lease annulled. That is to make it plain in the Bill what the position of the landlord is after having entered into an agreement with a tenant who then does not pay either the first month’s rent or the deposit.
Lord Carrington (CB)
I support the indefatigable and noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in his Amendment 46. I find it plainly obvious that rent needs to be paid before occupation. I can find preciously few examples of anyone paying for goods and services after they are contracted or consumed. An obvious example is a railway ticket or an air ticket. No one goes to the cinema and pays after the performance or takes a litre of milk at Tesco and then pays after drinking it: it is just not acceptable.
Participating in the private rented sector, as either landlord or tenant, is a serious business. The landlord has made a major investment and may have a mortgage to service, among other costs. A tenant is looking for a safe and secure tenancy which incorporates decent home standards: he is well aware of the financial obligation. Without this amendment, the landlord would be laid open to the possibility of four months with no rent and a longer eviction process under Section 8, possibly taking seven months or so. The position of a landlord is a commercial business, not a public service. I urge the Minister to accept this rather obvious amendment.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
My Lords, in view of the time, I will speak briefly to Amendment 43. I could simply say the first sentence: “We are strongly opposed to rent in advance because it is discriminatory”.
This amendment is being framed as a cosy option where tenants and landlords can reach a mutual agreement as to whether or not they will do this. No, I do not believe that. If allowed, it will become, as now, a requirement. In effect, it will become a bidding war by any other name, and landlords have their pick of tenants: Zoopla has just reported that there are between 20 and 25 punters for each property and at least 20 requests to view each property. Landlords can pick, it is a beauty parade, so they can choose the tenants who have the money to give them six months’ rent up front against those who just do not have those advantages. But those same people can still afford to pay the rent and would still make good tenants.
We are opposed to anything that prices out poor renters in hot rental market areas. We refute the argument being discussed by landlord groups that this is an option for niche circumstances that allows people to access housing; for example, as was said, where people might struggle with credit checks. If you are struggling with credit checks, it is highly unlikely that you will be able to pay six months’ rent in advance. In a very modest property in Watford, six months in advance is between £6,000 and £8,000. That is a lot of money.
We know that landlords and letting agents often use it as a barrier to reject tenants relying on universal credit or housing benefit, preventing them accepting a tenancy, which means that only those with savings or family support to draw on will comply, which those on low incomes are less likely to have. Shelter tells us that six in 10 renters have been asked for it and over 800,000 people in one of its surveys say they were not able to secure a property because of the demand for rent in advance. The Bill aims to prevent discrimination against renters on benefits. This amendment would allow it by the back door.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and my noble friend Lord Hacking for their amendments on rent in advance, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornhill, for speaking.
The Government have been very clear in their view that the charging of rent in advance is unfair. I have not heard anything this evening that has changed my mind on that. Therefore, we cannot accept Amendment 43, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott. Six months’ rent is a significant amount of money. For some renters, this will be their entire savings, which were perhaps carefully built up with the ambition of being put towards a deposit on a first home. For many others, it will be an amount of savings which is simply unreachable.
I recognise that it is the noble Baroness’s intention for it to be possible to request large amounts of rent in advance only where this has been previously agreed by the tenant and landlord. However, we must consider what this means in practice. It would allow a landlord, at the pre-letting stage, to insist on a tenancy agreement which would permit them to require up to six months’ rent in advance. In hot rental markets, we could expect such clauses to become simply a fact of renting. This could leave tenants with the “choice” of stretching their finances to the limit or facing homelessness.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, allowing tenants, where mutually agreed, to pay rent in advance of up to six months provides an important option for many, particularly those who may face barriers such as a poor credit history, overseas students without a UK credit record or those who simply wish to manage their finances proactively. This choice should be respected and preserved, not restricted by over-prescriptive regulations.
Housing is a personal and often complex matter, and we acknowledge the complexity of balancing landlord protections with tenants’ rights, particularly regarding initial payments such as deposits and the first month’s rent. However, it demands legislation that is flexible enough to accommodate different circumstances without sacrificing fairness and stability.
I know the hour is late but we believe that this is an important amendment for the freedom and flexibilities that tenants require in this sector. I would therefore like to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 43.
“(za) to a tenancy entered into before the commencement date (which has the same meaning as in section 146(3) of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025),”Member’s explanatory statement
In line with the original policy intention, this amendment ensures that existing leases (those entered into before the commencement of Chapter 1 of Part 1) will fall outside the scope of the new section 4B.
Marking of Retail Goods Regulations 2025
(4 days, 4 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 June be approved.
Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion and therefore beg to move formally.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I hope my words did not provoke last night. I was reminiscing with Northern Ireland Members about those days in the 1980s and 1990s in the Commons when we used to speak all night on Northern Ireland business and then my late colleague Eric Forth and I pulled the stunt of having a renegade vote. I have a certain admiration for the stunt that colleagues pulled last night, but I see that there is a full Labour House tonight. If you want to know the Official Opposition line, you will find it in yesterday’s Hansard, column 577.