Oral Answers to Questions
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
I am sure Members across the House will have seen the wonderful news this morning and join me in congratulating Ferguson Marine on winning a substantial Ministry of Defence shipbuilding contract through BAE Systems. That is great news for the workforce, who will play a key role in keeping our country and its people safe. Shipbuilding on the Clyde is thriving thanks to the UK Government’s record investment in defence, supporting 4,000 jobs; this is a real defence dividend for Scotland. This is investment that the SNP seeks to block, but Labour will build.
This is the last Scottish oral questions before summer recess, so can I thank you, Mr Speaker, your team and all the House staff for all your work over the last year? This was a historic spending review for Scotland that ended austerity. Along with last year’s Budget, it delivered an extra £14 billion as a UK Labour Government dividend to Scotland. That is more money for our NHS, police, housing and schools. Scots will not accept continued SNP failure on Scottish public services and will rightly ask the SNP: where has all the money gone?
Gregor Poynton
This UK Labour Government are delivering the largest budgetary settlement in the history of devolution, with an extra £9.1 billion to invest in Scottish public services, yet the SNP Scottish Government continue to squander opportunity after opportunity and waste the public’s money. Will he join me in urging the SNP Scottish Government to get a grip and invest in projects that matter to our communities, such as the East Calder medical centre, which has not materialised after SNP dither and delay?
Ian Murray
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in that call, and I pay tribute to his tenacious campaigning to see East Calder’s new medical centre delivered. I am 10,000 GP places short in my own constituency, and the SNP needs to take that seriously. The spending review generated £5.8 billion in health-related Barnett consequentials for Scotland. My hon. Friend is right to stand up for his community in East Calder, and I ask the SNP: where has all the money gone?
Katrina Murray
I have previously praised in this Chamber the efforts of the fire and rescue service in responding to more than one major incident in Cumbernauld. Both my constituents and I are therefore concerned that the proposed cuts to Cumbernauld fire station will undermine its ability to respond to incidents and put lives at risk. Will the Secretary of State make representations to the Scottish Government to invest in fire services in one of Scotland’s largest towns?
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend quite rightly speaks out against the cuts to Cumbernauld fire station, which sadly is just one example of the SNP’s dangerous mismanagement of Scotland’s fire services, as the Fire Brigades Union in Scotland told me just last month. There are 9.1 billion reasons why the SNP Government should choose to invest in local services, including in Cumbernauld, but after 18 years of failure and neglect my hon. Friend’s constituents will rightly not hold out much hope. Across Scotland, we need a new direction next May, with Anas Sarwar as the First Minister.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State share my view that, whatever the SNP Scottish Government’s budget, they have cynically and systematically deprived funding from areas that do not support independence, leaving councils such as Dumfries and Galloway and Scottish Borders and their health boards struggling to provide basic services?
Ian Murray
I would extend that and say that the whole of Scotland voted against independence in 2014. It seems to me that the SNP Government’s strategy is to starve all Scotland’s public services of the vital funding that they require.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The spending review came off the back of last year’s autumn Budget, which hit businesses in my constituency in north-east Scotland very hard, whether it was family businesses and farms with the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief, or the extension of and increase in the energy profits levy hitting investment in our vital oil and gas sector. What conversations is the Secretary of State having actively with the Treasury to ensure that north-east Scotland does not have to pay the price for this Government’s decisions again next year?
Ian Murray
I have had a minimum of 14 billion conversations with the Treasury with regard to funding in Scotland. This is the largest settlement ever in the history of the Scottish Parliament. This Government’s decisions in the October Budget and the spending review have given us the highest growth in the G7, the highest business confidence in a decade, record inward investment, three major trade deals and the conditions for four interest rate cuts, all helping businesses right across Scotland—everything that the hon. Lady and her party voted against.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Like the Secretary of State, I welcome the great news for Ferguson Marine this morning. As he knows, Scottish Liberal Democrats secured funding for key projects across Scotland in last year’s Scottish budget negotiations, including the Eye Pavilion in Edinburgh, which is so important for my constituents and his. We welcome the additional funding as part of the spending review to help projects such as that, but almost two decades of SNP mismanagement have left our health service in dire need of investment and improvement. Does he agree that the SNP should invest this funding wisely in GPs, dentists and care so that our constituents can see the same focus on innovation in health that was announced by the UK Government last week?
Ian Murray
The hon. Lady makes a good point about the Eye Pavilion in Edinburgh, which is a symptom of the whole of the Scottish Government’s strategy for our NHS services. The SNP promised a new Eye Pavilion in its manifestos in ’07, ’11, ’16 and ’21, and it is yet to deliver it. I bet we see the same process and the same promises in its manifesto in May next year. One in six Scots is stuck on a waiting list, the NHS app is years behind other parts of the UK, and we have the worst cancer waiting times on record. I am sure the hon. Lady and millions of other Scots know that the SNP has failed their NHS. If the SNP had any idea how to fix it, it would have done it by now.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
During the spending review period, the Scottish Government will have to continue to mitigate some of the cruellest Westminster policies. They had to do that under the Tories, and it continues under Labour, not least with the two-child cap. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether there are any plans to scrap it?
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues voted against the Budget. They voted against all the measures to raise revenue in the Budget, and they voted against the actual spending of it. From the second that this Labour Government took power just over a year ago, there was £14 billion extra going into the Scottish budget. The Scottish Government need to be spending it well, and I am sure the Scottish public will look dimly on a Scottish Government who cannot spend it and improve our public services.
Stephen Gethins
I am not sure the Secretary of State quite caught the question there. We voted against the two-child cap. If there is cash to go around and UK Departments are getting bigger spending increases than the Scottish Government, why will he not prioritise child poverty? The Child Poverty Action Group described getting rid of the two-child cap as “the most cost-effective way” to cut child poverty. It was described by the Pensions Minister as “immoral”. The Cabinet Office’s recent report “Tackling Child Poverty” stated:
“There is a lot we can learn from action already being taken in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”.
Will the Secretary of State make scrapping the two-child poverty cap a priority, or will he insist on failed Tory policies?
Ian Murray
Going by the votes last week, the hon. Gentleman wants to keep the failed, broken welfare system that the Tories put in. What we have done as a Government is a pay rise for 200,000 Scots, day one rights for sick leave and parental leave and £150 off energy bills for more than half a million Scottish households, and we have banned exploitative zero-hours contracts. There are 10,000 children in Scotland every single night going to bed without a home. That is a dreadful record for the Scottish Government.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Artificial intelligence will drive incredible change in our country. It will turbocharge growth and boost living standards. Scotland, as we know well, has been the UK’s home of AI since 1963, and it will become the home of the most powerful supercomputer in the UK, with this Labour Government investing £750 million in its development at the University of Edinburgh’s advanced computing facility in Midlothian. We are currently assessing applications for AI growth zones from across the UK, including several from Scotland, which is at the cutting edge of computing power globally.
Kenneth Stevenson
It is refreshing to have a UK Government so committed to investing in and developing AI, in comparison with John Swinney and the Scottish Government, who are stuck in an analogue age, unable even to provide patients and staff with a functioning NHS app. Does the Minister agree that the towns of Airdrie and Shotts and the former industrial heartland of North Lanarkshire are incredibly well placed to serve as an AI growth zone and capture the Government’s clear ambition?
Kirsty McNeill
Much like my hon. Friend, who is a truly passionate advocate for his community, I am proud to represent one of Scotland’s industrial heartlands. He is right to highlight the role that they can play in Scotland’s AI future. As for his comments regarding the First Minister, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary was particularly astute in his assessment. I am afraid that the First Minister is from the age of “Taggart”, when what is upon us is the age of “Dept. Q”.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
The transmission line from Skye to Fort Augustus has been approved. Due to a technicality, the people along the route will be deprived of £22 million. Will the Minister take this up with Ofgem?
Kirsty McNeill
I am led to believe that the hon. Member has already picked this matter up with the Secretary of State, who will be taking it forward, but I would be delighted to talk to the hon. Member about it.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
The Secretary of State and I are committed to supporting a flourishing broadcasting sector in Scotland and regularly meet its representatives. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar was part of a recent engagement that the Scotland Office was delighted to co-host with MG Alba, where he spoke passionately about the importance of Gaelic broadcasting, and we share his commitment to it.
Torcuil Crichton
We islanders have always been international ambassadors, and I am delighted that some of the Lewis chess pieces are going to France—a little bit of Gaelic Scotland in President Macron’s pocket. Gaelic broadcasting also has a global reach: 1.8 million viewers watched “An t-Eilean”, MG Alba’s detective series. Gaelic is a big part of Brand Scotland. Requesting more money for broadcasting is a straightforward ask, but may I ask Ministers to think more imaginatively about growth deals? Can we see a Scotland-wide growth deal for Gaelic, for cultural heritage items such as the Lewis chess pieces and for childcare, so that we can grow the social infrastructure of Scotland as well as its physical infrastructure?
Kirsty McNeill
That is an interesting point. My hon. Friend has been advancing this case, and he is right: the whole objective of the growth deals is to enable people to live well in the places that they love. As he knows, the UK Government have delivered a historic spending review for Scotland, which includes ambitious plans for local growth to become the foundation of national renewal. The Scotland Office will continue to engage with him and with other Members on both sides of the House, and with Scottish local government, to ensure that local growth investment supports the change that Labour promised and the change that our communities want to see.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
There have been a number of co-productions by BBC Northern Ireland and BBC Scotland. Does the Minister agree that we should develop and promote co-productions throughout the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, so that we can see excellence and best practice everywhere in the UK?
Kirsty McNeill
I do agree that we should be co-operating as far as possible. Steps have already been taken to preserve the future of home-grown content and talent through initiatives such as the UK Government’s independent film tax credit and high-end tax relief, providing a real opportunity for the industry to grow, but I should certainly like to talk to the hon. Gentleman about how the industries in Scotland and Northern Ireland could co-operate more effectively.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
The industrial strategy is transformational for Scotland. A year ago, the Government inherited an industrial crisis after 14 years of no plan and a complete lack of interest on the part of the SNP and the Conservatives when it came to Scottish industry. However, I congratulate the SNP on its job creation programme: it has created tens of thousands of jobs in China, Turkey and Poland. Rather than standing up for Scotland, it has been shipping Scottish jobs overseas.
Scotland has a proud industrial past, and Labour’s industrial strategy will work to ensure that we have a bright industrial future. We in the Scotland Office will be doing all that we can to exploit these opportunities.
John Grady
The industrial strategy identifies defence as a key industry. It is a big employer in Glasgow, and could create many good jobs for my constituents. However, the SNP has banned the Scottish National Investment Bank and Scottish Enterprise from investing in defence companies. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this shows that the SNP Government are weak when it comes to defending Scotland, and are denying Glaswegians many good jobs?
Ian Murray
You will be unsurprised, Mr Speaker, to hear me say that I agree with my hon. Friend. I was astonished to learn that the SNP was blocking investment in a national specialist welding centre on the banks of the Clyde, putting its own student politics before job opportunities for working-class young people, and that it was doing so at a time when one in six are not in education, employment or training. Putting politics before people is just not good enough, but where the SNP stands down, Labour will step up and fund that centre. We will invest in defence, and create a defence dividend that will mean jobs and opportunities for everyone in Scotland.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
With the exception of the London vortex that sucks in wealth capital and talent from across these islands, it is Scotland that tops the league for foreign direct investment. It is Aberdeen, Glasgow and Edinburgh that are among the top 10 cities in the UK for FDI, as they have been for 10 of the 18 years in which the SNP has been in power. What has the Scottish Secretary ever done to get foreign direct investment into Scotland?
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman needs to calm down a little bit. One of the key opportunities for investment in Scotland is the opportunity to invest in the renewable energy sector, so that we can realise our plan for clean energy by 2030. Much of that will be capitalised by the national wealth fund and GB Energy, both of which the hon. Gentleman and his party voted against.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Last Sunday, 6 July, marked 37 years since the Piper Alpha disaster, an incident that claimed the lives of 165 men and affected many more, particularly in and around the north-east of Scotland. We remember them, their families and friends, and indeed all those who continue to do the dangerous work offshore in our oil and gas industry, ensuring that the lights stay on in this country. Will the right hon. Gentleman please tell the House when the industrial strategy will replace the tens of thousands of jobs that are set to be lost in the North sea on his watch?
Ian Murray
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying respects on the 37th anniversary of the Piper Alpha disaster. It has left an indelible scar on Scotland, and we will never forget the lives that were lost, but we will also never forget that it was the catalyst for making sure that the North sea is the safest place to do oil and gas anywhere in the world—the UK is world leading.
I can answer the hon. Gentleman’s question by saying that he and his party have opposed all the initiatives that this Government have put forward in order to get to clean power by 2030. I gently say to him that when he finds out who the former Energy Minister was in the previous Government, he is going to be very disappointed.
Andrew Bowie
We are very proud of our record on supporting the oil and gas industry. Talk about the Government having their heads in the sand: 400 jobs will be lost in the North sea every two weeks on the Secretary of State’s watch. That is a Grangemouth-sized event every two weeks. The only strategy that this Government have is a deindustrialisation strategy. There is an industry with a skilled workforce that is ready and willing to generate energy, revenue and jobs in Scotland, so come on, Secretary of State, let us have a real industrialisation strategy. Remove the energy profits levy, overturn the ban on licences, and let us return to a policy of maximum economic recovery from the North sea.
Ian Murray
The energy profits levy was brought in by the former Energy Minister in the previous Government, who just so happens to be sitting across from me at the Dispatch Box today. We have the North sea transition consultation, which has closed. That sets out the pathway to a just transition in the North sea, which will protect jobs, and we want to get to clean power by 2030. Those are the jobs and the careers of the future, but that transition has to take those jobs with it.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
Scotland cultivates the very best produce in the world, and we are absolutely committed to supporting Scotland’s agricultural sector and, indeed, all those who live and work in our rural communities. I was very pleased that the Scottish Government’s Minister for Agriculture and Connectivity joined me for a food and farming roundtable that I hosted in Edinburgh in April. We heard directly from the sector about how Scotland’s two Governments can best collaborate and continue to support those who put food on our table.
Aphra Brandreth
Like farmers in my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury, farmers in Scotland feel let down by this Government’s disregard for agriculture and the countryside. We have seen Labour look the other way as the Scottish Government have delivered real-terms cuts to the agriculture budget. The Scottish Conservatives have set out a clear, multi-year plan to give farmers the certainty they need. Will the Secretary of State urge the First Minister to back that plan, which has strong support from the farming community, and help reverse the damage done to Scottish agriculture and our food security?
Kirsty McNeill
The Scottish Government have been given a record settlement in the devolution era, and it is for the devolved Governments to allocate their funding in devolved areas as they see fit. They are accountable to their own legislatures and, indeed, the Scottish public. That is a key principle of devolution, and this Labour Government will respect it.
John Cooper
We Conservatives were vilified when we pointed out that the vindictive changes to farming reliefs were going to damage jobs in rural Scotland. The Scotland Office conducted its own roundtable with agriculture figures. Will the Minister share the results of that with the House, the Scottish Government and, crucially, whoever the Deputy Prime Minister decides will be the next Chancellor of the Exchequer?
Kirsty McNeill
I would be delighted to report back to the House and Scotland’s rural communities, including my own in Midlothian, about the outcomes of the farming roundtable. We heard directly from stakeholders that they want support and, crucially, for the two Governments to work together, which is exactly why we had the Scottish Government around the table.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that Scottish agriculture, salmon and distilleries like Lochlea in my constituency will benefit from our three trade deals? Can she work out why the SNP failed to support them?
Kirsty McNeill
Those three trade deals are some of the proudest achievements of this Labour Government, and they will disproportionately benefit Scotland. As I have already said, it is home to some of the finest produce on the face of the Earth, and we are delighted to be promoting it as part of the Scotland Office’s Brand Scotland efforts.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor’s excellent spending review for Scotland, which sets out record funding for the Scottish Government, means that SNP Ministers are ideally placed to offer the agricultural sector in Scotland a multi-year funding settlement, and that that is exactly what they should now do?
Kirsty McNeill
I agree with my hon. Friend that the Scottish Government have been blessed with a record settlement in the devolution era. The difficulty for those of us on the Labour Benches who have championed that settlement is that we are all too well aware, I am afraid, that the Scottish Government are absolutely addicted to wasting money. That is why the only way for Scotland to take a new direction is to replace the failing Scottish Government with a Labour one in May.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
This weekend, I was at the Fettercairn show in my constituency, and I note that the Secretary of State was at the royal highland show in Edinburgh two weeks ago. With new research showing that more than 16,000 jobs are expected to be lost as a direct result of Labour’s family farm tax, what message did the Secretary of State and the Minister have for the farmers they met at the royal highland show about the Government’s plans to kill family farms in Scotland? Judging by the comments made to me this weekend, the fear, anger and disgust at how this Government have treated the agricultural sector and rural Scotland very much remain.
Kirsty McNeill
Our message to the farming community, including the National Farmers Union of Scotland—I meet its representatives regularly and, indeed, spoke at its annual conference—is that there has to be fairness in the Government’s approach to the public finances. The latest figures from 2021-22 show that 40% of the value of agricultural property relief went to just 7% of claimants, which is neither fair nor sustainable.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
The ruling brings clarity and confidence for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges and sports clubs. Single-sex spaces are protected by law under Labour’s Equality Act 2010, and will always be protected by this Government alongside the rights of the trans community, as was stated by the Supreme Court.
Dr Evans
Joe Griffin, the permanent secretary to the Scottish Government, was asked when appearing in front of the Holyrood Finance and Public Administration Committee about action taken in relation to the Supreme Court judgment. When pushed, he said:
“Specific actions, I can’t give you that right now.”
Do the UK Government believe that the Scottish Government are failing to uphold the law?
Ian Murray
The application of the Supreme Court ruling to services in Scotland is of course a matter for the Scottish Government, and it is for the Scottish Government to ensure they fully comply with the law as it stands.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
The Supreme Court judgment provided very welcome legal clarity on the matter of biological sex, but the Scottish Government have met clarity with chaos. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the SNP Government have made an absolute mess of this, in much the same way they have made a mess of passing on the biggest settlement in the history of devolution to Scottish NHS, education and housing services? Is it not time they got a grip?
Ian Murray
I think the F-word could be used about whatever the Scottish Government have done—and that is “failure”. When it comes to the elections in May 2026, the Scottish public will have to decide whether they require a third decade of the SNP Scottish Government or a change with Anas Sarwar as First Minister.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)
Under this Government, it is the working people of Scotland who will feel the benefit of economic growth. We have given the largest settlement in the history of the Scottish Government—£14 billion extra. The stability in the economy has enabled four interest rate cuts, meaning cheaper mortgages for home owners. Fuel duty is frozen, meaning 3 million Scots motorists pay less at the pump. The minimum wage is up, meaning a pay rise for 200,000 of the lowest-paid Scots—[Interruption.] That deserves a large cheer, because it is for the lowest-paid Scots. Also, the warm home discount has been extended to half a million Scots.
Jerome Mayhew
The jobs tax has decimated business confidence and has seen unemployment rise, and now—along with the Budget blow to Scotch whisky, the attack on family farms and the undermining of the oil and gas industry—the Scottish Hospitality Group has slated the spending review, saying it
“does absolutely nothing to support the hospitality sector”.
Will the Secretary of State work with the Chancellor to undo the damage her Budget and her spending review have inflicted on family farms, Scotch whisky, the oil and gas industry, hospitality, entertainment and business confidence in Scotland?
Ian Murray
The hon. Gentleman should go and speak to Scottish businesses and apologise for voting against the Budget and against the £14 billion extra that will go to Scotland as part of the spending review. As a result of the decisions taken by this Government, we have the highest growth in the G7, the highest business confidence in a decade, record inward investment, three major trade deals and four interest rate cuts—all helping businesses right across the country.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
It is fantastic news that Ferguson Marine has secured a contract with BAE Systems to help further enhance the UK’s maritime capability, making use of its skilled workforce. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is in sharp contrast to the student union politics played on defence by the SNP Government? Does he agree that the benefits of the spending review cannot be fully assessed until the SNP is removed from power in 2026?
Ian Murray
Yet again, I agree with my hon. Friend. I pay special tribute to both her and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West (Martin McCluskey), who have done so much to make sure we can get work into Ferguson Marine. Again, it will not be lost on the House, or indeed the Scottish public, that the defence industry is supporting jobs in Scotland and straight into Ferguson Marine. Where the Scottish Government walk past on the other side, we will invest.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
On Monday, we marked the 20th anniversary of the despicable terrorist attacks on 7/7. The painful memories of that dark day are deeply ingrained: 52 people were murdered and many more were injured. We thank our emergency services who ran towards danger with true bravery, and send our deepest condolences to the victims, the survivors and bereaved, and all those forever affected by that appalling day.
May I also extend our deepest condolences to the family and friends of Lord Tebbit? We remember his profound courage in the face of terrorism and a fierce devotion to his wife, Margaret. May he rest in peace.
We also mark the 30th anniversary of the genocide at Srebrenica. We remember those lost, and redouble our efforts to fight hatred and intolerance wherever it exists.
I am delighted to welcome President Macron to the United Kingdom. Our relationship has never been stronger and we are focused on tough new tactics to tackle illegal migration, on major economic investment to create jobs, and on leading our allies to support Ukraine.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Darren Paffey
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks?
At a recent coffee morning, residents in Southampton Itchen told me how much they still miss the Bitterne NHS walk-in centre, which was shut down a decade ago under the Conservatives. May I begin by welcoming this Government’s 10-year plan and its commitment to neighbourhood health services? Does the Prime Minister agree that, as we put this plan for change into action for my local residents, Bitterne is an excellent location for the first new neighbourhood health centre?
The Prime Minister
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for making the case for his constituents. I know the Health Secretary will give it every consideration. The 10-year plan will establish neighbourhood health centres in every community and will make a massive difference, starting in the places where the need is greatest and life expectancy is at its lowest. I am proud that we promised 2 million extra NHS appointments in the first year of a Labour Government and we have now delivered 4 million. We should not forget that the record investment in the Budget, which made that possible, was opposed by all the Opposition parties.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I echo the Prime Minister’s sentiments about the horrific terrorist attack of 7 July. I was pleased to be at the commemoration service on Monday. In particular, our thoughts are with the families of those who lost their lives, those who had to go on without their loved ones.
I would like to pay tribute to Lord Tebbit, who died yesterday at the age of 94. He was a man of iron integrity and conviction, who, by his efforts, helped to save our country from the chaos of the 1970s. We all owe him so much.
In its manifesto last year, Labour promised not to increase income tax, not to increase national insurance and not to increase VAT. Does the Prime Minister still stand by his promises?
Mrs Badenoch
It is rare—[Interruption.] It is rare that the Prime Minister is able to give a clear answer, but I am glad that he has done so now. He also promised—in fact, he boasted—that he had solved the doctors strike. Only a Prime Minister who was so weak would give doctors a 28% pay rise—only for us now to see them vote to strike again. He folds in every negotiation and claims it is a triumph. [Interruption.] Yes, he does. We saw more promises at the Budget: the Chancellor promised that she would lift the freeze on income tax and national insurance thresholds, because, in her words, they “hurt working people”. Is that still Government policy?
The Prime Minister
No Prime Minister or Chancellor is going to write a Budget in advance. We are absolutely fixed on our fiscal rules; we remain committed to them. We remain committed to our manifesto commitments—I realise that sticking to fiscal rules and manifesto commitments is a bit unfamiliar to the Conservatives. It is because of the decisions the Chancellor and this Government have taken that we can update the House: £120 billion of inward investment into this country since we took office; business confidence at a nine-year high—longer than the Leader of the Opposition has been in Parliament; Deloitte this week saying that the UK is now the best place to invest, creating 384,000 jobs. What a contrast to the mess we inherited from the Conservative party.
Mrs Badenoch
There was no clear answer there. The whole House will have heard the Prime Minister fail to rule out freezing tax thresholds. He could say yes to the first question—he could promise—but could not this time. What does this mean? He is talking about record investment and more jobs. We know that people are losing their jobs; unemployment has gone up every single month of Labour’s year in office. What does the issue of tax thresholds mean? It means that under Labour, millions of our poorest pensioners face being dragged into income tax for the first time ever. Does the Prime Minister think it is right that struggling pensioners should face a retirement tax?
The Prime Minister
For a Prime Minister or a Chancellor to say we are not going to write a Budget in advance is not a Labour thing or a Tory thing—every single Prime Minister and Chancellor says that they will not do that. We will stick to our manifesto commitments; we will stick to our fiscal rules. This is a language the Conservatives do not understand, and that is what got us into the problem in the first place. The Leader of the Opposition comes here every week to talk the country down, but that record investment—£120 billion—will mean good, well-paid jobs across the country. This investment is from foreign investors who can choose whether to invest in this country; they are choosing to invest in this country now, because they have confidence in what this Government are doing.
Mrs Badenoch
Investors are fleeing the country. The Prime Minister says he will stick to his manifesto promises, but Labour promised not to put a tax on working people and then we got the jobs tax, and all we have seen are jobs disappearing. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised
“not a penny more on your council tax”.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that council tax bills will now rise at their fastest rate in 20 years. Will the Prime Minister admit that under him council tax is set to soar?
The Prime Minister
No, of course it is not. It soared under the last Government. Here she goes again: the Leader of the Opposition is back on familiar territory. She comes here every week complaining about the national insurance rise, and when she is asked whether she would have the courage to reverse it, what is her answer? [Hon. Members: “No!”] No, and I will tell you for why, Mr Speaker. She is too embarrassed to say that she does not want the investment that we have put in. That investment went into the NHS. The Conservatives want that investment, but they cannot say how they would pay for it. That is what got us into the problem in the first place.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister still does not understand, so I am going to make it very simple for him: this is a mess of his own making—he should not be asking how we would clean it up. The fact is this Government raised national insurance through the jobs tax, and that is why they have to put up council tax. The truth is that his catastrophic Budget has created a domino effect that he cannot now control. We on the Conservative Benches know that you cannot tax your way to growth, but now he is flirting—[Interruption.] Labour Members are all muttering, but I remember that Budget. They were laughing and cheering; they had no idea of the mess that they were creating. They should go and explain to their constituents why unemployment is going up.
What is more worrying is that now the Prime Minister is flirting with Neil Kinnock’s demand for a wealth tax. Let us be honest about what that means: it would be a tax on all our constituents’ savings, on their houses and on their pensions. It would be a tax on aspiration. Will the Prime Minister rule this out?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady says that we should not be asking them for advice on the economy. She is absolutely right about that; we will not be asking for their advice. What we did in the Budget was stabilise the economy through the measures taken by the Chancellor. What has that led to? Four interest rate cuts. For mortgage holders, that is hugely important. Compare and contrast that with what happened under the Liz Truss mini-Budget. We had the fastest growth in the G7 in the first quarter of this year; wages were up more in the first 10 months of a Labour Government than in the 10 years under the Tories. So no, we do not need lessons from them.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that he has stabilised the economy. Has he spoken to any farmers recently? It is time for him to take responsibility for the mess that he is making. He has been in office for a year, and all we see is him congratulating himself on what a fantastic job he has done. [Interruption.] Nobody out there believes it—not even Labour Members. What a weak cheer! He is congratulating himself, but we can compare records. He talks about the fastest growing economy. We left him the fastest growing economy of the G7. We cut the deficit in every year until the pandemic, and we got inflation down to 2%. On his watch, taxes are up, unemployment is up, inflation is up and this weak Prime Minister has been forced into a series of chaotic U-turns. Yesterday, the Office for Budget Responsibility said that our economy is being eroded under Labour: doctors strikes; tax bombshells; the wealthy leaving in droves. Is it not the truth that, under him, he is dragging us back to the 1970s?
The Prime Minister
We are responsible for 4 million extra appointments in the NHS; we are responsible for a 10-year plan on the future of the NHS after the Conservatives broke it; we are also responsible for free school meals being rolled out in a way that has never been done by anybody—breakfast clubs being rolled out, family hubs being rolled out, transport across the country, and migration coming down. We take responsibility and we are proud of that.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that exciting proposal. He is a fantastic advocate for Portland and South Dorset. Eden Portland is a hugely exciting project. I cannot confirm funding allocations yet, but our £240 million growth mission fund should support transformative projects that give local leaders real investment to deliver real change. He makes a compelling case in relation to the fund.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself and my party with the Prime Minister’s comments about the horrifying terrorist bombing of 7/7 here in London? Our thoughts are with the victims, their families and our emergency services.
May I also join in sending condolences to the family of Lord Tebbit. He was a man of service—in the RAF, in politics and as a carer for his wife, Margaret. He will be greatly missed.
After years of Conservative neglect, the special educational needs system is in desperate need of repair, but with parents understandably worried, we already hear Labour MPs planning another rebellion, so may I make this offer to the Prime Minister? If he genuinely wants to fix the problem and not strip away the rights of children and parents in some cost-cutting exercise, we have 72 votes to help. Will the Prime Minister look at the five tests for SEND reform that we have published today and work with us to make it happen?
The Prime Minister
It is telling that when the right hon. Gentleman asks about the broken SEND system, the Tory Back Benchers laugh; that is how seriously they take their responsibility. It is an absolute shame. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, every week in this House, Members raise the issue with me—I think it has been raised with me more times than anything else. Everyone knows that the SEND system is broken; guess who broke it, along with everything else? The system does not work for parents and it lets down children, so we need to reform and change it. It is not about saving money; we have already invested an additional £1 billion in SEND. It is about creating a new system that truly supports every child. We are developing proposals, and we want to work with parents and teachers to get this right. I would expect the right hon. Gentleman to welcome that.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for his reply. We want to work across the House to fix the mess that the Tories left, but we do not want another welfare-style mess this time; we have to fix the system properly for parents and children.
The Conservative Government badly undermined the security of our borders by ripping up the returns agreement that allowed us to send migrants back to Europe. I hope that the Prime Minister can secure a new returns agreement with France that acts as a real deterrent and stops the boats. The Conservatives also sent hundreds of millions of pounds to France and got nothing in return. Does the Prime Minister agree that any new funding to the French Government must be conditional on them agreeing a returns deal and doing their bit to stop the boats?
The Prime Minister
We are working closely with the French on this issue. We will only provide funding that delivers on our priorities. We are working together closely, and we share information to a much greater extent than was the case before. We have a new specialist intelligence unit at Dunkirk, and we are the first Government to persuade the French to review their laws and tactics on the north coast in order to take more effective action. I will be discussing this at meetings with President Macron today and tomorrow.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I hope it was heard by those on the Conservative Benches. It is an absolute scandal that failed personal protective equipment contracts were handed out by the Conservatives, costing taxpayers £1.4 billion. We are focused on getting our money back. I can confirm that the commissioner is now investigating fraud involving bounce back and business support loans, and we will continue to go after the fraudsters, grifters and con artists, no matter who they are or where we find them.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
The main reason—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Some of you want to get in later. If this takes forever, you will not get in.
Nigel Farage
The main reason why that this country wisely voted for Brexit back in 2016, including millions of Labour supporters, is that we wanted to take back control of our borders, so that we alone decide who comes and settles in our country. Does the Prime Minister understand that this demand is even greater today than it was back in 2016, and that we demand—the country demands—[Interruption.] Does the Prime Minister understand that the country demands that he says to the French President that we will not accept undocumented males coming across the English channel, and that he is not dictated to by an increasingly arrogant, anti-Brexit French President?
The Prime Minister
We are fixing the mess that we inherited, and we are working with other countries to ensure that we take the measures necessary to stop people crossing the channel. They are serious answers to serious problems. For 10 years, the hon. Member’s proposal—the tail wagging the Tory dog—has been to break everything and claim that it is how you fix things, and to stick two fingers up at our neighbours and then expect them to work with us. He voted against the borders Bill, which gives more powers to our law enforcement to deal with security at our border. The reason for that is that he has no interest in fixing the problem; he wants to milk it and exploit it. That is the truth about him and his party.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have discussed this before; he is a brilliant champion for Exeter. Every child should have support to realise their potential. The Conservative party tore up Sure Start and took it out of our communities—an act of vandalism that abandoned families and deepened inequalities. We are delivering 1,000 Best Start family hubs across the country. That is in addition to free childcare being rolled out, and expanding free school meals. That is the change that a Labour Government make.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
The Prime Minister
I am really not going to take advice from a party that put forward £80 billion of unfunded commitments at the last election; that is the sort of thing that got us into the problem in the first place. We cannot just tax our way to growth; we need to ensure that we put in place the necessary measures. We are putting in place planning reforms to drive growth. The hon. Member voted against that, and the Opposition voted against that.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am proud that we will give 15 million workers—half of all workers—stronger rights at work. We are ensuring sick pay for up to 1.3 million of the lowest paid, tackling sexual harassment, and providing bereavement leave for families who experience pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. Compare that to the Leader of the Opposition, who thinks that maternity pay is “excessive”, and the leader of Reform, who wants working people to pay tax so that there can be tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires. Both of them vote against reform and better protection of workers at every turn. They always have, and they always will. They offer nothing for working people.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Prime Minister
May I join the right hon. Gentleman in thanking the veterans here today, and all veterans? He knows that this is a serious issue, and the end of his question did not really reflect that seriousness. The scheme set up by the Conservative party was found to be unlawful in the courts, and he knows it. It was not supported by communities. It would have meant, as he knows, immunity from prosecution for those who committed the most appalling terrorist crimes, and that is why it did not have support in the communities or from any political party in Northern Ireland. That was among the reasons it was found to be unlawful.
We have to tread carefully, and we have to get this right. I will work with the right hon. Gentleman on that, but we do not get there by cheapening the debate. [Interruption.] This is not about political point-scoring. I have worked in Northern Ireland, I have spoken to many of the people affected, and I know that we must get this right. I want to do so, and I want the House to do that together, if we possibly can, because it matters; but we have to do this in a serious way, and address the issues of the past in a way that has the support of victims and survivors. That is a key test for me, because without their support, it is very hard to come up with something that will have the confidence of everybody in Northern Ireland. That is why we have to work in this way.
In advance of the new legislation, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland continues to engage with veterans and their communities to ensure that legacy mechanisms are fair, lawful and proportionate. I will continue to work with the right hon. Gentleman and others in the House, because the most important thing is not scoring points, but getting it right.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The Conservative party failed to give children the support they need. The 10-year plan that we have put forward will rewire our NHS and transform mental health services, with 85 dedicated mental health A&E departments, giving 24/7 support; specialist mental health professionals in every school and college, benefiting 1 million young people this year alone; and an extra 8,500 mental health staff to tackle long waits. That is only possible because of the decisions that we took to invest in our NHS—decisions that the Conservatives opposed.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I know it is of concern to her, and to many people across the House. The system we have is broken; it does not serve anyone well. We have to reform it, and I set out in an earlier answer the steps that we are taking. We will share those with the House, and I hope that we can get the greatest support possible for the reform that I think everybody here knows has to happen.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It is so good to see a strong Labour MP standing up for Wales and her constituency. She makes her case; I cannot confirm the plans yet, but we will consider recommendations from the Burns commission, which includes a proposal for a new station in her constituency. I am delighted that just this week we set out our major road and rail schemes across the country, including the A66, the Newark bypass and the midlands rail hub, creating tens of thousands of jobs, new homes and better journeys for millions of travellers.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The Prime Minister
It is another shameful legacy of the Conservative party that one in four adults struggles with NHS care and that tooth decay is the most common reason for hospital admissions for children aged five to nine—that happened on their watch. We are fixing this, and I can set out what we are doing. We are rolling out 700,000 urgent and emergency appointments, reforming the dental contract, and recruiting more dentists and newly qualified dentists, who will practice in the NHS for a minimum period. All of that is made possible only by the investment we put in in the Budget, which the Conservatives all opposed.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight this issue. In March, we saw a major crackdown against criminals using high street businesses to launder money at almost 400 properties, which involved securing freezing orders over bank accounts totalling more than £1 million and arresting 35 individuals. There is much more to come, and I thank her for highlighting this really important issue.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are fixing the problem that they—[Interruption.] The Conservatives said they would take control of the borders and they lost it. We are working hard with our allies. We want to bring forward more powers for law enforcement on our borders, through our borders Bill, to give them the powers they need to take on the job and deal with the problem. And what did the Conservatives do? They voted against it—a confected argument.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
Tomorrow evening sees the annual national police bravery awards. Three of the officers nominated this year are three of those who were first on the scene of the tragedy in my Southport constituency last summer. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to Sergeant Gregory Gillespie, Constable Luke Holden and PCSO Timothy Parry, who are with us in the Gallery today, for their immense bravery in the face of evil? Does he agree that, just as our brave officers will always protect and defend us when we need them to, this Government will always support our brave officers in return?
The Prime Minister
Can I start by saying that the thoughts of the whole House are of course with the families of those who lost their little girls and with all those affected by this terrible incident? I would like to put on the record our heartfelt thanks to all those who responded and those who are with us today—Sergeant Gregory Gillespie, PC Luke Holden and PCSO Timothy Parry. These officers ran towards danger to protect young lives. I have met a number of them, and it is truly humbling to see the bravery and professionalism that they brought to their job that day and every day. Southport is a wonderful and loving community. In difficult days, they have shown kindness, empathy and courage. I thank my hon. Friend for all that he has done in relation to those values.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for raising this particular case, which saw a grave miscarriage of justice. The statutory test for compensation has been raised in the House before, and I have undertaken to look at it. I know he is working with the Minister responsible on the particular case he raises.
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for leading from the front in promoting the importance of his role as a father and keeping time for family life. I am delighted that in the past week, the Government have launched a review into parental leave and started to rebuild the legacy of Sure Start by launching our Best Start family hubs. Both of those will make a huge difference to my constituents in Ribble Valley. Can he commit to the parental leave review creating some truly ambitious outcomes, so that we can make the UK not only a world-leading place to live and do business, but the best place in the world to live a rewarding family life?
The Prime Minister
The first full review of parental leave and pay is a landmark moment. The current system is simply out of date and too complicated. One in three dads do not take paternity leave, often because they cannot afford to do so. That is a great loss to them and their children. I want parents to be able to give their child the best care, and I want to make the system work better for employers.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The Prime Minister
What an invitation! I am grateful for the invite to join the medieval festival, but if I wanted to see a load of people stuck in the past and fighting each other, I would probably go to the next meeting of the shadow Cabinet. I will consider it—thank you.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During PMQs, my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) asked what I thought was quite a reasonable question. I knew what the question was going to be, but during PMQs, I could not hear a single word—like other Members in the Chamber, I am sure—because the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), who is behind me, and others never shut up all the way through it. We in Reform UK do not subscribe to that sort of dog-whistle politics. Will you please advise us, Mr Speaker, of how to stop this behaviour in the future?
Mr Speaker
I think Mr Farage is capable of dealing with his own battles, as we have seen on many occasions. I would say that this is about the respect and tolerance that we should show each other. What we do in here is reflected outside, so please let us show common sense and respect for each other.
Adrian Ramsay
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister claimed in response to my question that the Green party had made unfunded spending commitments in our general election manifesto. He also said that to me at last week’s Prime Minister’s questions. That is clearly untrue; our manifesto was fully costed, including through proposals for the wealth tax that I was calling for. Will you outline, Mr Speaker, how I might correct the record? Should I send a copy of our manifesto to the Prime Minister?
Mr Speaker
I will not continue the debate from Prime Minister’s questions, which I have ended. The hon. Gentleman has corrected the record with what he has stated, which is now on the record.
Trial by Jury: Proposed Restrictions
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if she will make a statement on her plans to restrict trial by jury through the creation of a Crown court bench division and related sentencing changes.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
This Government inherited a justice system in crisis, with record and rising backlogs in our criminal courts, leaving victims in limbo as they wait to see justice done. For that reason, the Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to undertake a once-in-a-generation review of the criminal courts. We are grateful to Sir Brian for all his work. His report confirms that the system we inherited is broken, and that if we do nothing, it will collapse. We welcome the ambitious recommendations that he has put forward, and agree that a crisis of this scale requires bold action. We must consider any measures that will put our courts on a more stable and sustainable footing. Victims and the public deserve swift justice and a court system that they can have confidence in.
We will carefully consider Sir Brian’s recommendations on jury trials, along with everything else, before providing a formal response to Parliament in the autumn. Jury trials are and will remain a cornerstone of British justice, and will remain in place for the most serious cases. However, justice delayed is justice denied. The system was not designed for a scenario where tens of thousands of victims wait years for justice. The Lord Chancellor and this Government are committed to turning the tide on the Crown court backlog by the end of this Parliament and creating a sustainable justice system fit for the 21st century.
Robert Jenrick
All of us agree that justice delayed is justice denied. That is why it is so important to get control of the court backlog. No one pretends that this is straightforward, but the Government have made the crisis worse. The backlog is at a record high, and accelerating, with 750 cases being added every month. Sir Brian Leveson’s review rightly acknowledges that we must increase the number of court sitting days. We thank him for his work and welcome many of his recommendations.
However, it cannot be right to give another sentencing discount to those convicted of crimes such as burglary and stalking. That could see criminals serve as little as a fifth of their sentence, when combined with the Gauke review—20% of a sentence served. Is that justice for victims? Out of court settlements for drug dealers and thieves mean that they will not even get a criminal record. It makes a mockery of the justice system.
Just as concerning is the proposal to scrap jury trials in many cases. The report admits that this will have only a “limited effect” on the backlog. It will save just £31 million—0.2% of the Department’s budget. As the report states, there is no limit to the cases for which jury trials could be scrapped. This is a slippery slope towards abolishing jury trials altogether.
Jury trials have been a central part of our constitution for centuries—in Magna Carta, and indeed before it. They are a gift that we have given to the world. To throw them away so casually shows a total disregard for our constitution, and for such limited benefit. It seems that too many on the Government Benches want to scrap jury trials regardless of the backlog, because they do not trust the British public’s instincts on justice. They say that judges know best; we say that the public know best. It does not have to be this way. The Government must take up the Lady Chief Justice’s offer of more sitting days. Will the Minister rule out yet another sentencing cut for criminals? Will she rule out letting drug dealers and thieves avoid even a criminal record? Does she accept that scrapping jury trials is a disgraceful and unnecessary rejection of one of our country’s proudest and most ancient liberties?
Sarah Sackman
What I did not hear in any of that was an apology. It is extraordinary to hear that the shadow Justice Secretary has suddenly discovered a sense of urgency, but where was that sense of urgency in the past 14 years? The so-called party of law of order allowed two things to happen. First, it took our prison system to the brink of collapse. That let down the public, and it let down victims—soft on crime, and soft on law and order. Secondly, it allowed the backlogs in our Crown courts to run out of control to record highs.
For 14 years the Conservatives did absolutely nothing, so let me explain the contrast with a party and a Government who are gripping the crisis and who are tough on law and order. We commissioned one of their own—Sir David Gauke—to give us his sentencing review. We commissioned one of our most revered judges, Sir Brian Leveson, who today has set out his recommendations. We will not provide our policy response today, because that demands and requires seriousness—not what we hear from the shadow Justice Secretary, but serious, careful analysis—and we will provide our formal response to the House in the autumn.
But we are not delaying. We are not waiting; we are investing in the system. To take up the challenge from the right hon. Gentleman about what the Lady Chief Justice said, we have already done what the previous Government failed to do, with an additional 4,000 Crown court sitting days and a record level of 110,000 sitting days a year—up from what the so-called party of law and order gave us. We also understand that we need proper system capacity. As we heard from the Lord Chancellor yesterday, this is not simply about adding more Crown court sitting days; as Sir Brian Leveson tells us—had the right hon. Gentleman bothered to read the report—we cannot simply sit our way out of this crisis.
We have to build system capacity—more judges, more prosecutors, more defence lawyers, and more court ushers. Of course we need to invest in the system, which is what the Government are doing with a promise of £450 million into our courts, additional to what the Conservative party provided. We are staying laser-focused on our mission, which is to provide swifter justice for victims, and restore public confidence in a justice system that was left to rack and ruin by the Conservative party.
The right hon. Gentleman has jumped the gun: we have been very clear that we are going to consider Sir Brian’s careful and detailed report, and we are going to listen to those who represent victims, and to the barristers and judges who do such an exceptional job. We will do what it takes for the victim who, if she reports a rape or serious crime, is told that she will have to wait until 2028, or 2029 in some cases, for her day in court. That is unacceptable, and that is why we will do whatever it takes, with the seriousness that the previous Government simply failed to have.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
What Sir Brian’s comprehensive report demonstrates is the terrible state that our once envied criminal justice system was left in by the shadow Lord Chancellor and his colleagues. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with Sir Brian that digging ourselves out of the hole in which they left us will require more investment, greater efficiency and structural change? Is that the debt that we owe to victims of crime in particular, to ensure that they get justice? It is up to this Government to put right the wrongs that have been done over the past 14 years.
Sarah Sackman
As ever, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee, gives a considered response and he is absolutely right. There needs to be a recognition of the scale of the problem and two things are required: investment and reform. When hon. Members read the report, they will see that Sir Brian is very clear that we need investment. This Government are already beginning to make that investment, through the additional Crown court sitting days that we have laid on this year; running the system at system max; additional funding for legal aid lawyers and criminal legal aid; and £92 million to keep the sector going, on both the defence and the prosecutorial sides. We are making that investment but, critically, as Sir Brian makes absolutely clear, that alone will not be enough. We need to consider once-in-a-generation structural reforms that will run a sustainable, proportionate system that will allow us to deliver swifter justice for victims. Investment and reform: that is what we will be getting on with and that is what we will report on in the autumn.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The Minister will know the high regard in which I hold her. With that in mind, does she, in her own heart, believe that intermediate courts will fix the criminal court backlog, or does she agree with the legal profession that that risks being a costly distraction from investing in the existing system? Does she agree with me that chipping away jury trials in the name of speed risks undermining the cornerstone of British justice?
Sarah Sackman
As I said in my opening response, jury trials will remain a cornerstone for British justice for the most serious cases but, as Sir Brian Levenson evidences in his careful report, juryless trials can be swifter trials. To put that into context, 90% of criminal trials in this country are currently heard without a jury—that is how our criminal justice system currently functions. Of course it is right that we listen to those who participate in the system, whether they are prosecuting or defending those in the system, but it is also right that we listen to the voices who have welcomed today’s report: the head of the Met police, former Lord Chancellors, a former Lord Chief Justice and the Victims’ Commissioner. Their voices matter too. Just as Sir Brian has done, we need to consider a package of measures capable of alleviating the acute crisis in which we find ourselves.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that trial by jury is, and will always remain, a fundamental concept of our British justice system, but we also need to ensure that we restore victims’ faith in the system, and do what we can to ensure justice is not denied by justice being delayed?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shadow Secretary of State for Justice quotes Magna Carta, but the state’s obligation is to ensure a fair trial, and essential to a fair trial is timely justice. In circumstances where some victims of crime are waiting two or three years for their day in court, that is not fair. In fact, that is resulting in many victims pulling out of trials, rendering court time wasted and retraumatising those victims. What the shadow Secretary of State for Justice has not read is the entirety of Magna Carta. I quote:
“To no one will we…delay right or justice.”
The right to a timely trial is embedded in Magna Carta, and we need to get back to delivering it.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
In his urgent question, the shadow Secretary of State for Justice said that “the public knows best”. For once, I agree with him, which is why the public threw out the last Conservative Government after they crashed our criminal justice system.
Yesterday, I made the case for safeguarding the guarantors of our justice system—our jury trials. However, today, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I want to raise our concerns that reclassifying certain offences and drawing on magistrates to run the new intermediate courts risks putting unbearable strain on the magistrates courts, jeopardising their ability to deliver swift justice, especially for survivors of domestic abuse crimes. Before adopting any new proposals, will the Minister publish an impact assessment of the measures on victims in magistrates courts, and will she rule out any measures that will delay justice, safety or freedom for survivors of domestic abuse?
Sarah Sackman
The proposal for the reclassification of certain offences in Sir Brian’s report is just that: it is Sir Brian’s recommendation. As I have said already, we need to take those recommendations away and consider whether they are appropriate for our justice system. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the essential role that the magistrates play in our criminal justice system. Currently, some 90% of criminal trials are heard in our magistrates courts and they do a phenomenal job. That is why we are continuing to recruit 2,000 magistrates annually and we want a more diverse magistracy—all of that will be essential. He is right that these proposals, which Sir Brian has conveyed as a package, need to interlock and to be operable together, so we are taking the summer to engage with stakeholders, such as the Magistrates’ Association, to ensure that we get this right.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
With the Crown court backlog that we inherited at such high levels, and continuing to rise, does the Minister agree that tackling it means not just adding more sitting days but making fundamental reform?
Sarah Sackman
The crisis that we inherited in our criminal courts, with record and rising backlogs, is intolerable. The human impact of that on people, whether they are victims, witnesses or they serve in the criminal justice system, is simply intolerable. If we do nothing, as the Conservative party was all too willing to do, the system will, in the words of one of its own, former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk, become “irrecoverable”. It is not enough to sit our way out of this crisis—we must have radical structural reform as well. That is the abiding lesson of Sir Brian’s report, and we will take it on board.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
We should thank Sir Brian for his report and carefully consider his recommendations. Criminals already get a one-third discount for an early guilty plea, and the idea that that should be increased to 40% risks undermining trust in the criminal justice system by victims. Jury trials are a centuries old cornerstone of the British justice system. The creation of an intermediate court to save £35 million is not worth it, when we have 81 empty courtrooms, and judges available and ready to sit. We need to build capacity and make the jury system work.
Sarah Sackman
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we all owe a debt of gratitude to Sir Brian Leveson and his team for the comprehensive review that they have undertaken, to which the Government will be giving due consideration over the summer, before we formally provide our response. We have to ensure that whatever package of proposals we take forward knits together with the recommendations from the Gauke review and the outcome of the spending review that the Ministry of Justice has received, with a commitment to make an additional investment of £450 million in our courts. I want to address his point about intermediate courts: they are not about saving money, but about addressing the backlog, delivering swifter justice for victims and having a criminal justice system in which the public can have confidence. If this package of ideas is right and will achieve that aim, we will pursue it.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I spent the first 20 years of my professional life in the criminal courts as a barrister. There is no one who loves the criminal justice system, or who has more respect for juries, than I do. However, the courts now are not what they were. The delays are so appalling that defendants just plead “not guilty”, because they know that their case will not come up for years, and the chances of actually facing justice are minimal. It is in that extreme state, which we have inherited from the Conservative Government, that radical action is needed. I know that my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench feel as I do about the criminal justice system and want it to work, so when they are looking at Sir Brian’s recommendations, will they consider a sunset clause? If his recommendations work, there will come a time when we can increase the amount of jury service again.
Sarah Sackman
My right hon. Friend speaks with huge authority and personal experience of how our Crown courts operate. Like us, she is committed to restoring and rebuilding our criminal justice system to what it once was, and to a system fit for the 21st century that the public can have confidence in. That means adapting our methods, taking on new technologies and becoming more efficient. All of that will come in the second part of Sir Brian’s review, as we have asked him to do. I will not pre-empty the response or give a running commentary on it, but all those things will be taken into account as we consider our response over the summer.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Last year, I was on a jury. We all know that we need to get the court backlog down, but my experience at Reading Crown court was that the availability of jurors really is not an issue. Many of us sat there for hours upon hours, and several jurors were dismissed on the Thursday, having never set foot in a courtroom. Before we restrict the number of jury trials, what work have the Government done to actually understand the utilisation of jurors to see how many are being used and whether they could be used more effectively?
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman and all those who perform the civic duty of participating in a jury for their service. As I said, that will remain a cornerstone of British justice for the most serious cases, but that is not the issue. The issue is that demand coming into the system simply outstrips the rate at which the courts are able to address and dispose of those cases. We need to look at the system capacity, the amount of judicial time, the number of prosecutors and defence lawyers, and the availability of suitable court buildings, ushers and criminal legal aid. We need all that system capacity, and we need to get it working together to address the challenges that others have outlined. I remind the hon. Gentleman that not only are 90% of our criminal trials heard in magistrates courts, but it remains a fact that magistrates courts deliver a turnaround of cases on average four or five times faster than in Crown courts. That is swift justice for victims, and that is why we need to look at whole-system reform.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents have a very simple view of the criminal justice system: they want to know that the victims of crime will have their day in court and that the perpetrators will have a punishment commensurate with the crime they commit. That underpins their faith in the system, so they come forward to report crime. While the Conservatives seek to talk down the justice system, will the Minister set out what she and her Department are doing to ensure that victims of crime feel confident enough to come forward to report crimes, hopeful that they will get the outcome they want?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend speaks so passionately on behalf of his constituents. I think the public ask for something really simple: if people are unfortunate enough to be the victim of a crime, they expect to have their day in court in a timely fashion, not to be made to wait for years, only to find that the trial has become ineffective and is put off for yet another year. That undermines faith in the system, and that is what is so detrimental about the neglect and under-investment under the Conservatives. That has been so corrosive of trust in the justice system. It is not simply that we are not delivering swift justice for victims; it is that the public risk losing faith in our justice system, which to date has been one of the glories of this country.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that one of the worst features of the US justice system is the extreme process of plea bargaining, which gives such a huge differential if somebody pleads guilty that it creates a perverse incentive to do so, even if they are innocent but not confident that they will be acquitted? Can she guarantee that we are not going down that route, with a 40% discount for pleading guilty coupled with early release for other reasons?
Sarah Sackman
English common law and our commitment to the rule of law with our independent judiciary are part of what make this country great. We are not going to ape the American system, or indeed any other system. We will look carefully at the recommendations of Sir Brian Leveson’s report, including in relation to the use of Goodyear indications, but we know that our law is robust. Provided that we have a justice system that is up to the task of enforcing that law, that is what we are really focused on.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
Under the Tories last year, 60% of rape victims dropped out of their cases because they were left waiting years for justice. We finally have a Justice Secretary who has put victims first and allocated the highest number of sitting days on record. Given all the outrage from the Conservatives at the size of the backlog, I am really keen to know what they did. Will the Minister answer what this Labour Government are doing to get justice for victims quicker?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We talk about sitting days and backlogs, and it can all sound a little arid and academic, but it comes back to people. The fact that so many victims of rape and serious sexual offences pull out of the process is testament to the fact that the system is not working. That is the direct consequence of allowing the backlogs to run out of control. We have to keep victims engaged in the process, which is why we have invested specifically in victims services and why we are looking to strengthen the victims code. Ultimately, victims want swift justice. That is why we will take a careful look at Sir Brian’s recommendations and do what it takes to bring down the backlog.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Magistrates courts are already under significant stress: some 22% of trials do not go ahead on the day that they are listed. Removing the right to choose a jury trial for sentences of under two years under an intermediate court cannot reverse years of underfunding, the closure of local courts and severe staff shortages, from prosecutors to defence advocates. The consultation on the reform of local justice areas proposes to merge three north Wales benches, against the advice of local magistrates. Does the Minister recognise the risk of yet further disruption to justice in Wales?
Sarah Sackman
The right hon. Lady has described how important the role of the magistrates courts will be and the importance of whole-system reform. The Government are not looking to tweak one aspect—to tweak what goes on in the magistrates court or the Crown court. One of the geniuses of the magistrates court is the local link and the fact that it delivers local justice, so we will look at that carefully, but there is no getting away from it: the scale of the problem, and what Sir Brian’s report tells us, means that we need whole-system reform of the criminal justice system, from beginning to end.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement and for the recognition of the importance of magistrates courts. Sadly, Harlow magistrates court was closed by the previous Government—as was Chorley magistrates court, of course. I recently spoke to a police officer in my constituency who has been a police officer for three years. He is being asked to gather evidence to go to court for crimes committed before he was even a police officer. Is it any wonder that victims have lost confidence in the system? This Government need to ensure that we have fundamental reforms to this process to ensure that people in my constituency get the justice they deserve.
Sarah Sackman
I come back to the fact that this Government are investing in our court estate. We have invested an additional £20 million in our court buildings for maintenance and to keep the show on the road, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right: the delays will reach a tipping point if we choose to do nothing about them, and that is simply not an option. The obligation on the state is to deliver a fair trial, and timeliness is critical to that. The longer the wait, the more likely it is that victims will pull out of the system and that the evidence becomes undermined, because people’s memories fade. That is why timeliness and getting the delays down is so critical to the mission we have to pursue.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Here we go again. Labour always talks tough on crime and always goes soft. The Minister talked about David Gauke as one of our own, as if that was some defence—I assure her that I probably have more in common with her than I do with David Gauke. That is not a good way to show off credentials on being tough on crime. I have seen at first hand where the courts, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service work together to cut through all the bureaucracy and backlogs to get tough on crime. In Lancashire, 23 organised crime gang members were being taken off the streets every single week through Op Warrior, with many remanded straight into prison and their cases going through the courts. I plead with the Minister to rule out as soon as possible any of the measures recommended that would see those organised crime gang members potentially not even getting a criminal record.
Sarah Sackman
It is a bit rich to accuse those on the Government Benches of being soft on crime. The hon. Gentleman’s party allowed the prisons to run hot and added 500 prison places in 14 years—we have committed the money for 14,000. That simply does not stand up to scrutiny. The Conservatives allowed the backlogs in the courts to simply run out of control, to the point where Alex Chalk—again, another of their own—pointed out that the position would become irrecoverable. That is the consequence of doing nothing. Being tough on crime is about rebuilding and investing in our criminal justice system, investing in prisons and our courts, delivering on the tough reforms that will be required to deliver swifter justice for victims and getting tough on exactly the sorts of gangs that the hon. Gentleman describes.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
After 14 years of Conservative government, victims of rape and serious sexual crimes are waiting years to see justice. It appears that the shadow Justice Secretary has recently discovered that our criminal justice system is broken. When does the Minister think he will discover who broke it?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Stuart, I do not need any challenges from you. You should know better; you are on the Speaker’s Panel of Chairs. You really do have to think about what you are saying. Your behaviour is getting intolerable.
Sarah Sackman
When the Victims’ Commissioner, the London Victims’ Commissioner and those who engage and support victims through victim services tell me that we have to take this opportunity for once-in-a-generation reform, because we are letting victims of crimes down, I take that more seriously than any other pleas for change. It is absolutely obvious that the delays from running a system with such record and rising backlogs and the failure to invest have real consequences for people’s lives. People are pulling out of the system and out of the process because they have simply lost faith in it. I will be thinking of their voices—of the victims—every day that we consider these proposals and drive them forward. Failure is not an option.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I have caution about stripping back jury trials, so I ask the Government to commit to tackling court backlogs by investing in more court capacity, particularly in Bristol and the west country, by supporting rehabilitation to stop reoffending and people coming back into the system so quickly, and by addressing the root causes of crime. Will the Minister consider that under the Leveson proposals, there may be space for some of the best examples of the US courts system? Some states have next-day hearings for domestic abuse cases, where courts can catch perpetrators in the window of remorse, when they will recognise their guilt and accept that they need to change.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member is right that as we take forward and are ready to announce the package of reforms in response to Sir Brian’s review, we will consider how we can take forward the best of our existing system and, indeed, learn from other systems. Whether that is intensive supervision courts, where we have seen some good results, or tackling the root causes that lie behind crime and engaging in preventive measures, we should be doing all that. This is our opportunity. We have reached a point of crisis. We have reached the point of emergency—no more, no less—as a result of the inheritance from the previous Government, but we have got to take the opportunity to build back better, with a more sustainable and more innovative justice system that the public can have confidence in and that protects the public. That is what we must do. The hon. Member is right: we should learn, we should listen and we should build something better.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
As I think Members across the House would agree, Alex Chalk, the former Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary, was taken seriously in this place, as were his opinions. He recently said that some cases
“could conceivably be dealt with by a judge and two wingers, so reserve the Crown court for the most serious cases… It is helpful to look at which cases should be triable either way and which should be summary only.”
Does the Minister agree that it is worth taking note of serious voices like Alex Chalk, rather than the opportunism of the shadow Justice Secretary?
Sarah Sackman
This issue is far too serious not to take seriously. I listen to voices, such as those of the former Lord Chancellor, former Lord Chief Justice Sir Ian Burnett, the Victims’ Commissioner and Sir Mark Rowley. They are all saying that we have got to take these matters and these recommendations seriously. It is that serious work that this Government will engage in, and we will not duck the difficult decisions.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister rightly points to the comparative inefficiency between Crown courts and magistrates courts. The clear issue is that we need new technology to be introduced to Crown courts, so that people who are on trial and victims are served faster, quicker and more expediently. The reality is that many cases collapse as a result of the evidence not being sufficient or brought fast enough. Why, then, has the Minister allowed the efficiencies part of the Leveson report to be delayed? That could bring forward much-needed recommendations that we could action to cut the backlog.
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member raises an extremely helpful point, which is about how we can improve efficiency in our courts through the use of technology, including technology that is improving rapidly before our eyes. For example, the Ministry of Justice is piloting the use of AI technology in some of our tribunals for transcription. How could that be utilised and rolled out more widely across courts and tribunals? He is absolutely right, but Sir Brian and his team, to give them their credit, have worked incredibly fast to produce a detailed, careful and well-evidenced report today. He will continue with part 2 of his review. Our job in the Ministry of Justice, as we develop our policy thinking, will be to bring those two parts of the review together to improve our criminal justice system.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
Some may say we are old school in South Norfolk, but I call it common sense. Criminals should be punished and victims should get their day of justice. Simply hoping that more sitting days will fix the Crown court backlog is not realistic, so I urge the Minister to be radical and ensure that offenders are punished and victims get their day in court.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Has the hon. Member actually read it?
Sarah Sackman
I can tell that my hon. Friend has taken the liberty of actually reading the report, because he has identified the central premise and argument that Sir Brian Leveson, one of our most distinguished judges, makes in it, which is this: we cannot simply sit our way out of the crisis we have inherited. We need to carefully consider once-in-a-generation structural reform. We have got to combine that with investment, too, which this Government are already doing with the 4,000 additional sitting days that we have added, over and above what the previous Government agreed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is about investment plus reform.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does the Minister accept that changes to fundamental rights, such as trial by jury, in one part of the United Kingdom could create serious divergence across jurisdictions and raise questions about equal access to justice for citizens in Northern Ireland?
Sarah Sackman
As the hon. Member well knows, justice is a devolved matter, and it is right that decisions involving justice are taken at the correct level, but I assure her and the rest of the House that the state’s obligation to provide a fair trial is paramount. Whether, as is currently the case, someone’s case is heard in the magistrates court without a jury, or whether, as for the most serious cases—and as will continue to be the case—a case is heard with a jury, the point is that the state must deliver a fair trial. The question of equal access to justice therefore simply will not arise.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Yesterday, the Bar Council facilitated a useful conversation with local barristers in the south-west. I think they have some reservations, but I will leave them to make representations. One thing that they did say, which I urge the Minister to feed into the provisions of the second half of the report, is about the efficiency of the forensics service and the transfer mechanism to bring prisoners into the courts. The delays and inefficiencies there, and the contracts that are laid that set out those services, can have a material impact on the efficiency of the court service. I urge the Minister to make sure that that is focused on, because that could have a massive impact. I have grave concerns about where things are.
Finally, as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I allowed—against advice—Alex Chalk and his predecessor to make some capital-to-revenue switches in their budgets to deal with the urgency of this problem. I hope that is helpful to the Minister in her negotiations with the Treasury going forward.
Sarah Sackman
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his typically helpful and constructive contribution. We are talking about a system that has so many moving parts, and that is why we will not give an instant response to Sir Brian’s review or to some of the points that the right hon. Gentleman raises. It is clear that we have got to get the whole system working.
In that vein, let me address our professions and our criminal Bar, who do a sterling job. I have engaged closely with the Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association, and we need to do this in collaboration with them. It will be a team effort to rebuild our criminal justice system, and we will continue to engage over the summer as we bring together the necessary reforms to bring down the backlogs and deliver swifter justice for victims.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I sympathise with the Minister’s frustration at the Tories’ brass neck. There is clearly a crisis in the criminal justice system, and it is clearly of their making. However, rather than undermining the jury system, we need to invest in our courts. Does the Minister agree that this is all about priorities? Is she going to use her limited budget to build more prisons and simply produce more prisoners, or use that limited money to invest in the criminal justice system and restorative justice?
Sarah Sackman
As I have made clear, we are investing in prison places. Only 500 were added in 14 years under the last Government, but we have committed money to the building of 14,000 new prison places as well as comprehensive sentencing reform. We have also committed £450 million to investment in our courts, whether it is used for court maintenance, additional funds for criminal legal aid, or additional—and now record—Crown court sitting days. However, as Sir Brian Leveson tells us, that is insufficient. That alone will not see a reduction in the delays affecting the victims about whom we have heard so much today. We must do what it takes, which necessitates both investment, which we are already beginning to make, and reform.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
As a member of the Bar, I say this plainly: removing the right to jury trials is a reckless constitutional shortcut. As the Criminal Bar Association puts it, is not reform but retreat. Does the Minister agree that the right to choose between a jury and a judge-led trial must never be denied, and that the real solution lies in investing in the system that we have rather than dismantling its very foundations?
Sarah Sackman
I respect the hon. Gentleman as a fellow member of the Bar, but I also respect the views of Sir Brian Leveson, the Lord Chief Justice, the former Lord Chief Justice Sir Ian Burnett, and many other august legal minds who have themselves done so much to preserve our fundamental constitutional principles. What they understand is this: 90% of our current criminal trials do not take place with a jury, but what really is unfair, and what really does undermine fundamental constitutional rights, is a failure to deliver a timely trial. If the hon. Gentleman is asking victims of crime, or even those wrongly accused of a crime who want to clear their names, to wait two or three years for their day in court, that, I believe, is a denial of a constitutional right.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I thank Sir Brian Leveson for his work and applaud all efforts to speed up the system, but what reassurance can the Minister give my constituents, who will see a reduction in access to jury trial as the beginning of a slippery edge leading to an ever greater erosion of one of the fundamental liberties and glories of this country?
Sarah Sackman
We are not setting out our policy response to the specific recommendations in Sir Brian’s review today. What we are recognising is his central thesis, which is that at present victims, including those in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, are being thoroughly let down by the delays that were allowed to accrue by his own party. With that in mind, I think it is clear that what we have to do is continue to make the record investment that we are already making, but combine it with structural reform—a package of reforms—that will not only drive efficiency but, fundamentally, deliver the swifter justice for victims that I believe we all wish to see.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I share the concern about delays in justice—no rape victims should ever have to wait five years for their day in court—but I am seriously concerned about the limiting of trial by jury and how it could dent confidence. As the Minister considers these reforms over the summer, will she please give some thought to more serious investment in rehabilitation and resettlement work? The LandWorks project in my constituency has a reoffending rate of 5%. If we could roll out that type of work, we would reduce crime, which would relieve backlogs in the courts, and everyone could have their day in court more quickly.
Sarah Sackman
The holistic type of support involving the preventive interventions that the hon. Lady has described is exactly the sort of provision that we are considering, in combination with the investment and structural reforms that will also be needed. I know that my colleague in the other place, the Prisons Minister, is taking on board precisely that sort of package of rehabilitation models so that we can break this endless cycle of reoffending.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
Over the weekend the Prime Minister rather pathetically told the BBC that he was “a hard bastard”. I think members of the public would find it surprising that letting criminals out of prison early is a way of showing that he is.
The Minister has said, not unreasonably, that she wants time to consider Sir Brian’s recommendations, but it is the case that some things are clearcut. Will she take this opportunity to rule out reducing sentences by 40% for criminals who plead guilty?
Sarah Sackman
I think that the Prime Minister probably is a hard bastard, and I think that we on this side of the House are tough on law and order. We would never allow what the Conservative party allowed to happen, running our prisons to the brink of collapse. At the point when we inherited the prison system, there were simply not enough places for us to lock up some of the most serious and dangerous criminals who had perpetrated crimes in this country. It is absolutely scandalous. What we are going to do—as the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out—is engage in the serious business of developing policy and of government. We are going to consider the detailed policy recommendations, and of course we must consider how they interact with David Gauke’s recommendations: it must be knitted together, and it must be appropriate to deliver swifter justice for victims and to protect the public.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
Jury trial has been deeply embedded in the British psyche and, indeed, in our constitution since Henry II, who introduced it in order to deal fairly with land disputes. It is also embedded in the United States constitution through the sixth amendment, to protect against biased judges and oppressive prosecutions and to safeguard individual liberties. I have severe doubts about our judiciary at the moment—I am not sure that it is going in the right direction—and when I read the “Adult Court Bench Book”, it gives me even greater concern. As the Minister probably knows, jury trial is already under threat in defamation cases. I have three questions. Why do the Government appear to be so terrified of decent British people sitting on juries? Are the Government intent on further undermining jury trial. If they are, in any way, will they please undertake to hold a full debate in the House before it happens?
Sarah Sackman
If the hon. Gentleman had heard my earlier answers, he would know that I made it clear that jury trial would remain a cornerstone of British justice in the most serious cases. In his review, Sir Brian Leveson considers whether a jury trial is appropriate and proportionate when it comes to, for example, some of the most complex fraud cases. He also considers whether it is proportionate when, say, someone has stolen a bottle of whisky. Is it appropriate to hold a full jury trial, with all the expense and delay involved, when it means that someone who is, perhaps, a victim of rape is waiting two or three years for their day in court, or, indeed, that that day will never come? However, as I said at the start, what I can undertake to do is this: when we are ready with our package of reforms and our response to the review, we will return to the House and a full debate can be had.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The jury system is essential to protect us against oppressive judges, malicious individuals—sometimes malicious police officers—or even Governments. The Minister speaks of the most serious cases. Is it not a fact that the most serious impact on individuals may result not necessarily from what she may regard as the most serious cases, but from any case that goes to court? The impact on the individual can totally change the course of that person’s life, even if the charge is not as serious as the Minister might consider it to be. It can be devastating to the person’s family life, career, or any other aspect of his or her future.
Sarah Sackman
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as I said earlier, 90% of cases in this country already happen without a jury, and no one says that that is not delivering justice of the highest robustness and integrity. Let me pick up his comment, and indeed earlier comments, denigrating the integrity and independence of our judiciary. Members will not hear that sort of criticism from this side of the House. Our judiciary is, in fact, one of the prides of this country. It is why people so respect the rule of law, and why the United Kingdom is such a great place in which to do business. I will not talk the judiciary down. We need them and we respect them, and on this side of the House we will adhere to that.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
The Justice Secretary talks about the need to expedite trials for the sake of victims of crime, and she is absolutely right. As she considers the proposals from Sir Brian Leveson, will she take into account those who are innocent and who stand wrongly accused, who are having to wait anxiously for years for their day in court?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Our focus is on victims of crime, who in some cases are waiting years for their day in court, but on the other side of the coin, defendants who are accused of a crime—perhaps wrongly—are waiting to clear their name. That can have a devastating effect. What he describes is the human impact of the delays that have accrued as a result of the backlogs that we inherited from the Conservative party.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
As a barrister working in criminal courts, I have often addressed the jury in closing speeches by saying, “Members of the jury, we have the best legal system in the world, and it is the best because you make it so. You bring your wisdom, your life experiences and your common sense, and you apply it to the facts in this case. Before you decide a verdict of guilty, bear in mind that if you or a member of your family were sat in the defendant’s seat, you would need to be sure before you returned a verdict of guilty. As a peer, that is an obligation on you.” I get the Minister’s point that justice delayed is justice denied, but equally, there is the principle that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done. Sir Brian Leveson has been given a basic mandate that we need to speed up jury trials, which will eliminate the fundamental principles and the cornerstone of our legal system. Does the Minister agree with that?
Sarah Sackman
As I have said, the jury trial will remain a cornerstone and pillar of our justice system in the most serious cases, but what Sir Brian Leveson tells us in the opening pages of his report is that the current system is broken, and he uses the word “essential”. He says reform of the system will be essential, because although we rightly take pride in the principles that underpin our criminal justice system, the fact is that it is simply not working at the moment. It is letting down those whom it is intended to serve and those who serve within the system, and we have to fix that. We will take our time, and then we will act on the programme of reforms that Sir Brian Leveson has recommended today.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
For over 50 years in Northern Ireland, we have had judge-only trials in terrorist cases, probably for understandable reasons. All non-terrorist cases have been jury trials. In my professional life at both the junior and the senior Bar, I have practised before all those courts, and my experience firmly confirms to me that public confidence is most attainable when we have jury trials. Irrespective of how cautious and diligent a judge is, they can get case-hardened, and that is the source of why public confidence rests most in the jury system. Does the Minister agree that the key determinant in retaining jury trial is whether an offence is indictable or not? If it is an indictable offence, the first port of call must be a jury trial.
Sarah Sackman
I respect the hon. and learned Gentleman’s wealth of experience before our different sorts of courts, but I also respect the wealth of experience that Sir Brian Leveson has brought to bear in his review. He identifies that although a jury trial will always be appropriate for certain cases—not least for the reasons that the hon. and learned Gentleman has outlined—we have to take a proportionate response. If we offered jury trials in all sorts of cases, certain victims and defendants would have to wait far too long for their day in court. As it stands, the vast majority—90%—of criminal trials in this country already happen without a jury. We have to consider very carefully where to draw the line, and that is what the Government will be doing this summer.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is held in the highest esteem by all of us in this Chamber—that is never in doubt. The British justice system is the envy of the world, and it probably set the example for justice systems everywhere. I pose my question with the utmost respect. The Minister will understand Members’ reluctance to restrict the right to a jury of one’s peers, and to replace a multi-person jury with a judge-only trial. Does she not believe that we must look at extending court days and at other interim measures, rather than changing the course of justice, which has served us well and which most democracies base their justice system on?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Gentleman will know that the respect across this House is absolutely reciprocated. Rather than sitting idly, we have taken on the challenge of increasing investment to deliver a record number of Crown court sitting days—4,000 sitting days above the level agreed by the previous Government. We have increased investment in our criminal legal aid system to build capacity, so that we can man all the additional trials and meet the demands on the system. However, the clear lesson from Sir Brian’s report and the key conclusion that he has delivered today, which we will take firmly on board, is that continuing to try to sit our way out of the crisis is not sufficient. It is essential that we make reforms as well, and we will take the time necessary to consider what that looks like.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ministers will be aware that I have raised concerns about the treatment and detention of Lee Stinton, a British national and the son of Elaine and Edward Stinton, who are my constituents in Lagan Valley. He was detained by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement while travelling to work in Key West, Florida. He has built a life for himself there, but that has all come to an end in the most awful of circumstances at Krome detention centre. I am grateful for the support offered to date by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Are Ministers seeking to make a statement on this matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am grateful for advance notice of that point of order. I have not been made aware of any request for a statement, but the hon. Member has put her concerns on the record.
Schools (Allergy Safety)
Wednesday 9th July 2025
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberSchools (Allergy Safety) Bill 2024-26 View all Schools (Allergy Safety) 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
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools to maintain an allergy management policy; to require schools to hold a supply of adrenaline auto-injectors for treating allergic reactions and anaphylaxis; to require allergy training for staff in schools; and for connected purposes.
I am grateful to the Minister for being in his place and for his constant dialogue on this issue. As he knows, I am not the first to raise the inadequacies of our current laws on protecting children with allergies in our schools. Many hon. Members from across this House have spoken on the issue, yet horrific incidents and countless near misses continue.
Many of us have experience of allergies, and one in three people in the UK now lives with an allergic disease. Hospital admissions for allergic reactions have risen by 160% in the past 20 years, and 50% of children are now affected by at least one allergic condition. Every year, approximately 43,000 cases of childhood allergies require care. Studies show that the incidence of food allergies in England nearly doubled between 2008 and 2018, with a prevalence of 4% among pre-school children.
At school, food allergies affect around two children in every classroom. Children spend a significant amount of their lives at school, and 80% of food allergy reactions happen there, including a quarter of first-time anaphylactic reactions. Many children who have had prior severe reactions are not prescribed their auto-injector, and many first-time reactions occur at school, so relying solely on children carrying pre-prepared medication is dangerous.
With an ever-growing number of children requiring allergy care, it has never been more vital that the place we entrust with the care of our children—the school where we drop them off every day—is a safe and secure environment, but too often it is not. I cannot comprehend the pain that some families have had to endure because they have lost a child, and as a father I hope never to experience that grief, but when current guidance and legislation allow a patchwork of different standards in our schools, we can and must do better.
There is a glaring lack of consistency across schools in the UK in allergy management. There is a 50:50 chance that the school someone’s child goes to will have a spare adrenalin auto-injector pen available. There is a 55% chance that no training has been provided to staff on managing allergies in school or on trips, and there is a one in four chance that staff have had no training on how to identify allergy symptoms or what to do in an emergency. Furthermore, there is a one in six chance that a school does not have an individual health care plan for pupils with allergies, and a one in three chance that a school does not have an allergy policy at all. There is also a one in three chance that near misses of allergy incidents are not recorded anywhere.
With the prevalence of allergies rising and a steep increase in hospitalisations due to allergic reactions, we must act to change this unacceptable status quo. School staff deserve to know how to prevent allergic reactions, and be prepared to manage them if a horrendous incident occurs. Children deserve to learn in a safe and inclusive environment, and parents deserve the confidence to send their children to school knowing that adequate measures are in place.
The Schools (Allergy Safety) Bill would require all schools to have an allergy policy in place. Currently, 70% of schools lack basic protections, and one in three schools has no allergy policy in place. Introducing these policies would create a whole-school approach to allergy safety, making it everyone’s responsibility to embed good allergy practices and know their role in protecting children. This would include how to manage allergies on a day-to-day basis in classrooms, playgrounds and dining rooms, ensuring that children with allergies are not excluded but supported in an inclusive school environment.
Without these policies, children with allergies often miss out on opportunities. The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation found that 70% of parents reported that their allergic child had missed school due to their allergy, sometimes driven by anxiety. Children should never miss learning opportunities out of fear, and this Bill can help change that.
Alongside allergy policies, the Bill requires allergy training for school staff, enabling them to create a safe environment. Research from NASUWT and the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation shows that 67% of school staff have not received any allergy awareness training. The Bill would provide guidance on adapting classroom practices to reduce risk, ensuring safe and inclusive activities, understanding the mental health impacts of food allergies and how to respond in such emergencies.
This Bill also mandates that schools carry spare adrenalin auto-injectors, so that if a reaction occurs, staff have both the medication and training to take swift action. When every second counts, this simple step could be lifesaving. Auto-injectors should be treated like defibrillators: they should be accessible, and accompanied by a trained member of staff.
Although there are examples of good practice, without a national framework it is a postcode lottery whether a child will attend a school where there are staff with adequate training, and policies and vital medication. This inequality leads to missed school days, unnecessary emergency visits, bullying and lower attainment. Providing spare pens, training and policies for every school removes that lottery. Safety should not depend on a child’s location or their family’s income.
The current legislation is insufficient. Schools in England follow statutory guidance, such as “Supporting pupils at school with medical conditions” and the “Early years foundation stage statutory framework”, but neither explicitly mandates safeguards for pupils with allergies. The Benedict Blythe Foundation highlights that this lack of clear expectation leads to wide variations in allergy safety across the country.
The three pillars of this Bill—staff training, allergy policies and spare adrenalin auto-injectors—can save lives. These recommendations come from coroners’ reports after tragic incidents. We must learn and fill these gaps to create a fairer, safer school experience for all children. Too many teachers lack the knowledge they need and do not have the support they deserve, and too many children with allergies are still not offered a safe, fit-for-purpose environment in which to learn. I hope that today, after an awful lot of talking, we can get on with the doing.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Chris Bloore, Tahir Ali, Sarah Coombes, Cat Eccles, Sarah Edwards, Amanda Hack, Becky Gittins, Jodie Gosling, Leigh Ingham, Alicia Kearns, Dave Robertson and Gareth Snell present the Bill.
Chris Bloore accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 282).
Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 59(2)),
That the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords] shall no longer stand referred to a second reading committee.—(Kate Dearden.)
Question agreed to.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Wednesday 9th July 2025
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberUniversal Credit Bill 2024-26 View all Universal Credit Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 9 July 2025 - (9 Jul 2025)
18:00 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 35 / Noes: 469 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 103 / Noes: 416 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 370 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:43 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 335 / Noes: 135 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:56 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 175 / Noes: 401 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 130 / Noes: 443 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:25 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 149 / Noes: 334 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 336 / Noes: 242 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman—or, for Sir Roger, Mr Chairman—are also acceptable.
Clause 1
Standard allowance for tax years 2026-27 to 2029-30
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 39, page 1, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) The relevant uplift percentage for tax years 2026-27 to 2029-30 is 4.8%.”
This amendment would apply the full standard allowance uplift percentage currently specified in clause 1 of the Bill for 2029-30 to all preceding years 2026-27 to 2028-29 as well.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 1.
Amendment 41, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(8) This section, so far as it relates to tax years up to and including 2027-28, comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
(9) This section, so far as it relates to tax year 2028-29, comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.
(10) Regulations under subsection (9) may not be made unless, on a date not before 1 October 2027, a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(11) This section, so far as it relates to tax year 2029-30, comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.
(12) Regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless, on a date not before 1 October 2028, a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment provides for separate decisions by the House of Commons on the continued effect of Clause 1 for the final two tax years affected.
Amendment 50, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(8) This section comes into force when the conditions in section [Commencement requirements relating to welfare reform] have been met.”
This amendment makes the commencement of Clause 1 conditional on the requirements relating to welfare reform set out in NC12.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) In the table in regulation 36 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (amounts of elements)—
(a) before the row showing the amount for limited capability for work and work-related activity (“the existing row”) insert—
Siân Berry
When one in five people receiving universal credit and disability benefits has used a food bank in the last month, and when Scope has found that the disability price tag is £1,095 per month, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. When the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper has terrified so many of our constituents, and when the basic rate of universal credit cannot cover the basic essentials, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. When the ultra-rich are orders of magnitude away from the tough choices disabled people face, and when we have such a deeply unequal society, and a wealth tax would break no manifesto commitments, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today.
From the Green Paper to where we are now, the Government’s behaviour has been an insult to disabled people, and I think they should be ashamed and should apologise. My constituents who receive benefits, and the people who love and care for them, have been subjected to chaos, confusion and indignity. Instead of making improvements, with careful consideration, to a complex and treacherous benefits system, the Government have rushed to fit the imperatives of the Budget timetable, bypassing evidence gathering and line-by-line scrutiny in a Committee of this House, and further limiting the power of the other place by making this a money Bill.
Yes, a tremendous effort of people power and bravery from Labour Members has won last-minute concessions for current claimants, but the Government should still scrap this unfair and harmful legislation, due to the harm that it will do to people who find themselves in need of support in future. This Bill is not a tough decision; it is the wrong decision. Here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for the proposals that she is bringing forward. This is the crux of the Bill. Does she accept that the reason why people get more money when they qualify for the health element of universal credit is that their illness means more expenditure—a certain diet, the need for a warmer home, and so on? Does she accept that halving it to £217 a month will detrimentally affect the most vulnerable people—the very people she says we should be trying to help?
Siân Berry
I thank the hon. Member for giving those examples of the vital things that additional payments are used for. They are so necessary, and it is so necessary not to cut them.
My amendment 39 affects clause 1, the only at all positive clause in the Bill as it stands. The clause uplifts the rate of increase in the standard allowance of universal credit beyond inflation—by 2.3% in the year starting April 2026, rising to 4.8% for 2029. My amendment simply sets the uplift percentage at 4.8% for the whole period. This sustained rise in the basic rate of universal credit is much needed. Setting out the case for an essentials guarantee, the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation state:
“The basic rate of Universal Credit should at least cover the cost of essentials like food, household bills and travel, but it is not currently set according to any objective assessment of what people need.”
Amendment 39 goes some way towards ensuring that, and the joint briefing to MPs from 20 charities, service providers and disabled people’s groups highlights this need in its recommendations.
I realise that the question on many people’s minds is, “How can the country pay for this boost to universal credit and the removal of cuts to the personal independence payment?” The answer lies with the Chancellor and something that my Green colleagues and I have called for many times, especially on this issue, ever since the Secretary of State introduced the Green Paper. On that day, 18 March, I asked
“why impoverishing”
disabled people
“to the tune of £5 billion is a higher priority than a simple wealth tax.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 181.]
The hon. Members for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) also spoke up for such a tax on the same day. Many hon. Members have asked the same question in the House, and it is not just MPs making this suggestion. It is not just charities such as Oxfam and the Equality Trust, not just campaigners such as Tax Justice UK and Green New Deal Rising, and not just Patriotic Millionaires UK, which says that its polling shows that 85% of people who have more than £10 million would happily pay 2% of their wealth to support a better society and public services. Two former leaders of the Labour party are also now talking about it as a serious option.
There are, I should say, other ways to tax unearned wealth, as part of a wider package, than the way set out in this simple proposal, which is making unlikely allies of Greens, millionaires and Labour leaders. I think the view of this House is clear: when fairer taxes on assets, which absolutely can work and should work for the nation, are finally put into the Budget, first to go should be the cuts target set out in the Department for Work and Pensions spreadsheet, and the two-child benefit cap. It is through such a tax that we should pay for the improvements needed to the Bill.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I am a great believer in a wealth tax, rather than taking money from disabled people—simple as, bottom line. What would a wealth tax look like, as far as the Green party is concerned?
Siân Berry
I thank the hon. Member for that question. I refer him to Patriotic Millionaires UK. It has done considerable work on this issue, with its considerable resources, and set out proposals for a 2% wealth tax on people who have more than £10 million in wealth. It polled the general public on that, and found that 75% of them hugely supported the measure, not just as an alternative to cuts to welfare, but as a general principle.
Clause 1 would be made into a genuinely good policy by amendment 39, but that change alone will not make this a Bill that the House should pass. Removing clause 5, as Government amendment 4 proposes, will not be enough, either, to make this a Bill that this House should pass. Clause 2, even once amended by the Government, would cut in half the health element of universal credit for nine in 10 new claimants. I will speak later about the severe conditions criteria and fluctuating conditions. Without amendment 2(a), tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), clause 2 should be removed from the Bill. Clause 3 would freeze the health elements of universal credit for the rest of this Parliament, so clause 3 should also be removed from the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 4 would freeze legacy benefits for disabled people, so they should be removed from the Bill, as my amendment 40 proposes.
A Bill that just consists of a much-improved clause 1 and possibly a much-improved clause 2 would almost be a Bill that this House could, in conscience, pass. We have the choice to craft such a Bill today. As well as those changes, amendments such as amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), are needed, and there are some new clauses that would help make the Bill even more fit for purpose.
The vital principle we must stand up for today is that any policy changes relating to disabled people must be led by disabled people. On the day the Green Paper was published, I raised the matter of co-production with the Secretary of State. That word has been much talked about by many others with experience of co-producing policy, and by the Government, thanks to strong campaigners and pressure from MPs.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I fully agree with the hon. Member on co-production and co-designing any changes that come forward. Does she agree that it is crucial that young people are also included, given the conditions that they can face, and especially given the challenge in moving from children’s disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, which the Minister has still not addressed?
Siân Berry
I thank the hon. Member greatly for that intervention. When I have gathered together young people in my constituency, I have found that the issues that they face are unique, and their voices absolutely must be heard.
The Government have said that they are committed to co-producing the Timms review with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, but organisations such as Disability Rights UK have told us that those promises are hard to trust. They fear a tick-box exercise, co-production in name only, and that the Government’s original plans will be the inevitable result. That is why I have signed up to new clause 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as well as new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball).
If clause 2 and its schedule remain, the severe conditions criteria simply cannot stand as written. It appears that the Government either meant to exclude people with fluctuating lifelong conditions such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis from the higher rate of the universal credit health element, or that Ministers completely overlooked that community when rushing all this through. Criteria that withdraw support from people with fluctuating conditions are unacceptable, and that is why I signed amendment 38 tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and amendment 17 tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). The severe conditions criteria also say that any diagnosis must be made in the NHS. Again, that is either careless drafting or a deliberate restriction, so I have also signed amendment 33 from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman).
I am trying to bring to this House the voices of disabled people in Brighton Pavilion and across the nation who are closely watching what we do today. So many of our constituents remain scared by the Bill. Right from the day of the sudden and careless release of the Green Paper, which contained terrifying policy details that were not in the Labour manifesto, they have been forced into a cruel limbo. It is shameful that the Government have chosen this path. This Labour Government are showing themselves far more willing to punish disabled people than ask the most wealthy to shoulder the burden of fair public spending on real social security.
I am so proud of the people power that has been brought to bear on the Bill. Action by disabled people and their allies has forced MPs to listen and take action, and forced the Government to withdraw the most brutal cuts, but still the Bill remains unacceptable without the serious amendments that I have outlined. I look forward to hearing much sense, including what the United Nations has told us, from the many hon. Members in this debate who share my values. My Green colleagues and I are ready to do all in our power to minimise the consequences of the Bill; to make it do good, not harm; and ultimately, if that does not happen, to see it fall. I hope the Government will truly learn from the cruel mess that this has become.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I will speak to my amendment 2(b) and the amendments associated with it. Before I get to the substance of my remarks, I thank the Bill Committee Clerks for their invaluable advice and amendment-drafting expertise. I thank the dozens of disabled people’s organisations, disability charities, academics and think-tanks who provided evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee’s “Pathways to Work” inquiry. I also acknowledge the Clerks team, and in particular the deputy Clerk, who led that inquiry. The role of Select Committees in improving Government policy is of immense importance and cannot be overestimated.
As I said last week, there is general recognition that the social security system needs reform, but reform should not be equated to cuts to the support for vulnerable people. There are many positive measures in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper and the “Get Britain Working” White Paper that will have a significant positive impact on people’s lives, and that will help people into work, and to stay in work.
However, there is also evidence of the impact other Departments will have on getting and keeping Britain working. Increasing NHS capacity and the funding allocation to areas of high health need will have a direct and positive impact on health status, participation in the labour market and, ultimately, productivity in those areas. The 2018 “Health for Wealth” report estimated that increasing NHS spending by 10% and targeting that at areas of high health need would reduce economic inactivity by 3% and increase productivity by £13.2 billion a year. However, although we have launched the NHS 10-year plan, which contains many positive measures, the additional targeted NHS capacity will not come on stream until April next year.
Jim Shannon
One issue that I hear about—like other Members, I am sure—is the decisions made on PIP, universal credit and ESA applications. Constituents tell me continually that there is a harshness in how those decisions are made. Does the hon. Lady agree that those applications should be looked at by experts, and that there should be compassion and understanding when the decisions are made? Does she agree that that is the sort of system we need for the people we represent?
Debbie Abrahams
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that we need a more compassionate system, but I also believe we need a system that is co-produced by the people who will actually be affected by a new assessment process. Yes, we need a system that is more compassionate, but I think that that will be built in by the people who co-produce the new assessment.
I was a little disappointed that the Government did not take the opportunity to include the co-production of the review in the Bill. I hope the Minister will address that in his remarks, but for that reason I support new clause 11 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball).
In addition, the Government have agreed to protect people on UC health with severe conditions or a terminal diagnosis—both existing and new claimants—and to ensure that their awards will be uprated annually in real terms.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend, I welcome some of the last-minute concessions that were made last week. Does she share my concerns, in particular around UC health, that there are still £2 billion in cuts that will impact more than 700,000 people, meaning that they will get £3,000 less? These are some of the most vulnerable people.
Debbie Abrahams
Let us be clear: this will apply to newly acquired conditions in particular. My argument is that by delaying the changes, we can ensure that people with a newly acquired disability or condition can receive treatment and care quickly by making sure that the NHS ramps up its treatment process. I do not think it is ideal, but it is a reasonable compromise, and I hope the Government will listen.
As I said, people with both new and existing severe conditions will be protected. This, I understand, is covered in Government amendment 2 and new clause 1.
There is significant evidence of the harms that disabled people would potentially have experienced if the Bill had remained in its previous form, but the concessions that have been made over the past couple of weeks have addressed that. I applaud the Government for that; it was definitely the right thing to do when the evidence was provided. When our fiscal rigidity is set to cause harm and undermine what we are trying to do in the longer term, it is right that we think again, and Iusb therefore urge the Government to consider my amendments.
There is strong evidence that the Government will make savings in social security spending in the long term through case off-flows. As I have mentioned before, that will be achieved naturally through the additional capacity in the NHS, the realignment of the labour market and, of course, the bringing forward of the employment support.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate.
The Bill is being rushed through by a Labour Government desperate to paper over the cracks in an economy that they themselves have brought to a shuddering halt. So many of the questions that are coming before the House at the moment are the result of that economic flatlining and the flailing of a Government who are casting around desperately to see how they can get themselves off that economic hook.
Put simply, the Bill is unaffordable. The Prime Minister’s latest concessions to his unruly Back Benchers—now happy and victorious—have left the Exchequer with a £5 billion gap to plug, which inevitably means higher taxes for hard-working families who are already feeling the pinch. Far too few of those voices will be heard today. Too often in debates in this House, Members are consumed with the idea that more spending is a better thing that can always be afforded, and therefore no responsible decisions need to be made. That was the decision of the Labour Back Benchers who wrested from those on the Front Bench control of one of the flagships of this Government’s agenda, leaving the Government—massively endowed as they are with Members of Parliament—like some gigantic ship that has lost all power and propulsion, listing at sea, waiting for the next wave to come along.
Graham Stuart
As we in this Chamber know, the next wave that comes along and buffets this Labour Government from the left comes all too often from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), to whom I am happy to give way.
Graham Stuart
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that we should consider such people. I think of the lady who came to see me on Saturday at my street surgery. She was concerned about the brutality of the PIP process and the way that she and her husband, who has a degenerative, progressive disease for which there is no cure, are put through the wringer to justify their situation, which anyone with any common sense would see deserves support. But the hon. Lady will be aware of the mushrooming in claims from those with various levels of mental health challenges.
Ultimately, we must balance looking after people with degenerative, progressive diseases in a humane and civilised manner with making sure that we have a system that cuts out fraud, and that seeks to minimise those who do not need aid seeking it and getting it. If only we could have a system in which people did not claim for money that they do not deserve and need, we would be able to look after the people whom I think—this is one area of commonality between the hon. Lady and me—both she and I would agree require fairer and more generous treatment.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Does the right hon. Member agree that the reduction in investment in the NHS and in mental health service support for the people of our country has led to an epidemic of people who have had to wait for support, sometimes for nearly two years, which worsens their condition and makes it harder for them to recover and go back to their normal daily life at work? That also leads to an increased demand on PIP.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. We on the Conservative Benches know that throwing money at a problem without proper safeguards is not leadership, is not generous and is not kind, but is an abrogation of responsibility and economic negligence.
Let me be clear: this Bill in its current form locks in billions of pounds of additional welfare spending year after year. Under the current Chancellor, we have already seen Britain’s debt interest forecast soar and the bond markets become jittery—more than that, they are charging far more than after the mini-Budget to which Labour Members so love to refer. And inflation, of course, has proven stubbornly high. Now we have yet another unfunded spending commitment, with no plan to pay for it except reaching deeper into taxpayers’ pockets. The Chancellor might not say it outright, but families in Beverley and Holderness and across the country know exactly where this ends up—with them paying more.
The Prime Minister can indulge in his favourite hobby of U-turning his way throughout his time in office, but that is not governing in the national interest, which is what he promised to do. It is the latest example of the Prime Minister bending to pressure from the left of his party, which is so well represented on the Government Benches today, desperate as he is to shore up support for a drifting Government who have lost all propulsion.
Instead of fixing the underlying problems in our economy—or fixing the foundations, as has oft been repeated—Labour has chosen the easy political route of higher spending, higher borrowing and, inevitably, higher taxes. Those higher taxes will be imposed not on some mythical class of super-rich people, which the Greens like to propose, but on ordinary men and women who get up in the morning, work hard, look after themselves and recognise personal responsibility as a central tenet of their lives. That also needs to be a central tenet of our political lives.
That is why I have tabled two amendments to the Bill. Amendment 41 would ensure that Parliament retains control over future annual above-inflation increases. It would mean that the House of Commons must explicitly approve continuing those rates beyond 2027-28, protecting against open-ended commitments that we cannot afford. New clause 9 would require the Government to report on fraud and error arising from these provisions.
Graham Stuart
Given the scale of welfare fraud that we have seen in recent years—it already costs the taxpayer more than £8 billion—it is only right that we get a proper handle on where taxpayers’ money is actually going.
Graham Stuart
I would happily give way if there were Labour Members who had an interest in controlling the public finances rather than running up the national credit card irresponsibly, which is their wont. Those efforts by the Front-Bench team have now come to nought. They have given in to their Back Benchers and they no longer have any control or say on the direction of this Government. Together, these straightforward safeguards to protect the public purse would help reduce waste and misuse.
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will stand up today and try to paint this as a fair and measured Bill. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shout and scream in frustration, but they will have their time to speak. In reality, this is not a fair and measured Bill. It achieves nothing but a two-tier benefit system, unfunded spending commitments and, ultimately, higher taxes for ordinary working people.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way on that point about fraud?
Graham Stuart
If the hon. Gentleman, who is so energetically rising from his place, can tell us how he is committed to ensuring that the public finances of this country are kept in a healthy state, I and the House look forward to it with bated breath.
Neil Coyle
I am really intrigued, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the right hon. Member suggested that he has a concern about tackling fraud and responsibility in public finances. Can he tell us where he was under the previous Government when fraud in the benefit system hit its highest level ever seen in the history of the UK’s social security system? Where are his references in Hansard? Where was he on Bill Committees and in this House when that fraud was soaring? And where was he when this Government began passing legislation to tackle that horrific level of irresponsible fraud in the benefit system?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman will know that, as the benefit system grows, the likelihood is that fraud will grow within it. I applaud all efforts to crack down on fraud. I want to see greater efforts by those on the Front Bench to do that, but he knows that it is those sitting on the Back Benches who are now calling the shots.
Ultimately, all roads lead back to the Treasury. The truth is that the Bill is not the product of serious policymaking—neither in its inception nor its eventual outcome, gutted and filleted as it has been by a triumphant left in the Labour party. Instead, it is the product of panic—a rushed response to economic pressures caused by a feeble Chancellor who has brought the economy to a halt. It has been written not with reform in mind, but with rebellion in the rear-view mirror. The result is a muddled, mean-spirited piece of legislation that satisfies no one, least of all the vulnerable people who will suffer under it, or the British taxpayer who will pay for it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The right hon. Member is right to bring his speech back to the vulnerable people who will be impacted. He will know the devastating impact of cancer on many families. One in two face the reality of a cancer diagnosis. Young Lives vs Cancer has said that, on average, the disease costs £700 a month and £6,000 in annual income. Does he agree that the Bill, by ensuring that those people do not get the high rate universal credit health element, will be devastating for many cancer patients right across the country?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the plight of cancer sufferers and the need to have a system that is more generous to those who genuinely need it, but is also tougher in ensuring that the funding goes to the places where it is most required. Under this Chancellor, as we know, Britain risks a return to the same old Labour habits: spend today, tax tomorrow and leave the mess for someone else to clear up. We saw that under Gordon Brown, and we are seeing it again today. The public deserve better than another Labour tax-and-spend spiral that leaves less money in their pockets and less resilience in our economy.
The Bill in its current form is a short-term fix with long term costs. It fails to tackle fraud, fails to address getting people back into work, despite all the protestations from Ministers that it had anything to do with that, fails to guarantee value for money and fails working families by paving the way for inevitable tax rises. If Labour wants to be taken seriously on economic credibility, it needs to start by showing some discipline on spending and not indulging in a spending spree that Britain simply cannot afford. The Prime Minister promised a serious Government—remember that?—a grown-up Government, yet here we are debating a confused, divisive Bill whose main achievement so far is to split the Prime Minister’s own Benches.
Graham Stuart
If the hon. Lady wants to tell me that the Bill is not confused or divisive and has not been driven by the ructions on the Back Benches, I look forward to hearing her intervention.
Patricia Ferguson
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is for me to decide what my intervention will be. I was going to say that I am very pleased to hear him sticking up for people who really need help. What part of new clause 9 actually makes things better for people who need help?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady should recognise that looking after the public finances, minimising fraud and ensuring that this House keeps control of public expenditure is exactly in the interests of the most vulnerable. Who will pay the highest price as this economic spiral goes downwards? As always under a Labour Government, it will be ordinary working people, the increasing numbers of unemployed people and vulnerable and disabled people—they are always the ones who pay the price for a Labour Government.
When the last Labour Government left power in 2010, youth unemployment was up 45%. That is their record on young people, who are most vulnerable to the negative impacts of unemployment. It is those vulnerable groups who are always let down by a Labour Government—and most of all by a Labour Government that is run not by those with some sense of public finance control but by their Back Benchers who are out of control.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it was 14 years of a Conservative Government that led us to a 29% disability employment gap, a 17% pay gap, 4 million disabled people in poverty, and the UN telling the last Government over the first half of their decade that they failed on almost every single commitment in the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I respect her a great deal. She will be aware that under the last Conservative Government millions more disabled people came into the employment market. Around 2.5 million—possibly as many as 3 million—more disabled people entered the employment market and had the dignity of work. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have no credible plan to get our economy growing. Hard-working families in Beverley and Holderness and right across the country deserve better than another Labour Government chasing short-term headlines at the cost of long-term economic growth and stability.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week’s chaos and climbdown has been overshadowed by events of the last 48 hours. The impact assessment published last night shows that £2 billion is still to be stripped from up to three quarters of a million sick and disabled people by 2029-30 through the slashing of the health element of universal credit in two. By the end of this Parliament, some people will lose around £3,000 a year because of these reforms, including those with fluctuating conditions.
If that was not bad enough, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has waded in to protect disabled people where this Labour Government have not. I believe that international laws and conventions must be upheld, but this Government are now under investigation for breaches. No matter what the spin is, passing the Bill tonight will leave such a stain on our great party, which was founded on values of equality and justice. The only way out is to withdraw clauses 2 and 3 so that breaches of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities are not upheld.
The UN’s contention is my contention; sick and disabled people have not been consulted. If someone with a fluctuating physical or mental health condition such as multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis or a recurring musculoskeletal condition had a period of remission and worked but then relapsed and returned to universal credit, unless unequivocally stated otherwise in the Bill, they would return on to the pittance of £50 a week for their health element.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
My constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates at 17%, and many of my constituents receive the universal credit health element. Does the hon. Member agree that if they were to be stripped of financial support, that may have an enormous impact on their mental health, which would cause a further drain on the NHS?
Rachael Maskell
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We know that when people’s mental health declines because of stresses and strains, it pushes them further away from the labour market, which is not the objective of “Pathways to Work” or this Government. It would be detrimental to people and our ambition.
That pittance of £50 a week will hit the budgets of individuals who have so little given that we have rising energy and food prices and housing costs. This is the difference between struggling and surviving. All they could expect is poverty to bite harder, stress to spread wider and hope to fade faster. For many with fluctuating conditions, stress exacerbates symptoms. What a way to live.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a powerful and compassionate speech. I recently knocked on the door of one of my constituents who suffers from fibromyalgia, and it happened to be the day that she received a letter telling her that she was expected to up her working hours by six hours following an assessment. She was broken by this news, and exactly the kind of mental distress that the hon. Member is referring to was evident to me. Does the hon. Member agree that whatever reforms we introduce must put compassion and care for individuals at the heart of the assessment system, so that people, particularly those with fluctuating conditions, do not experience the kind of distress that I witnessed that day from my constituent?
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Member advocates powerfully for his constituent and all those with fluctuating conditions, who never know how they will fare, perhaps because of the season of the year. Some people may develop more chest infections over the winter while being well for the rest of the year, yet they will be receiving a health element of just £50 a week, not £97 a week.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Will my hon. Friend recognise how the Bill protects people in exactly the situation that she describes? Those who receive the universal credit health premium at the moment will be fully protected, and once they go into work they are likely to continue to receive universal credit, so their protection will carry on. If their income exceeds the universal credit level, there will be a further six months when they are earning at a significant level when if they come out of work afterwards they will come straight back on to the position they were in at the start. There are very strong protections for exactly the people she is describing.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for that intervention from the Minister. This is where this gets incredibly technical. There cannot be an assumption that all of those people are on low wages. Many of them have worked all their lives as their condition has developed and are therefore in the later stages of their career, so their salary perhaps does exceed the thresholds. With many of the conditions I have listed and many more, someone could have a period of remission for eight or nine months, or even more, and they would therefore not be able to continue with the six months of support. They will exceed that and would be seen, according to our previous discussions, as a new claimant, and would drop to £50 a week rather than remaining on £97 a week.
My amendment will protect those people. It will also protect people with cancer, who could recover, go back to work and then receive the news that the cancer has returned or metastasised. If they then lose their job, do they go back to £97 a week or £50 a week? Can they eat or not eat? As if life was not hard enough for them, they may then receive that shattering news. My amendment would be a remedy for those people and for the many who need this support.
I worry that without such a guarantee—and with the single assessment, to be co-produced by the Timms review, according to “Pathways to Work”—we do not know either whether the eligibility criteria for qualifying for the UC health element, because of its association with PIP, will be more or less stringent than they are now; the Bill does not say.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We are at a really interesting point with this Bill: a year’s worth of politics happened last week, and it feels like there is more to come. Like the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), I begin by thanking all the disabled people’s organisations who have worked incredibly hard and assisted us in winning some concessions. No matter where we end up, they should be incredibly proud of the work they have put in, as should the disabled people already receiving PIP and the universal credit limited capability for work element who have continued to fight on behalf of future claimants even though they have no selfish need to do so. That shows the strength of the community and the amount that disabled people care for each other.
It is unfortunate that disabled people need to come together in a group to fight what is supposed to be a Labour Government. Given the change promised by Ministers, that first change should not have been to attack older people by cutting the winter fuel payment. The Government have also refused to take action on child poverty by bringing forward the child poverty strategy, and now they are balancing the Budget by cutting money from disabled people.
This is not the Labour party that I wrote about in my history Highers—I wrote about the rise of the Labour party, what it was founded on, and how the whole point of it was about supporting people and the principles of the left. This is not what I imagined a Labour Government would look like. I had hoped that they would actually deliver for some people—for disabled people and those the Tories spent 14 years marginalising—yet they are choosing to make the easy cuts that affect disabled people. I do not think those are the right cuts to make. I agree entirely with my Green colleague, the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), who suggested that there are much better ways of balancing the Budget. The fiscal rules are self-imposed, anyway.
To look at some of the specific issues with the Bill, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion in relation to the essentials guarantee and amendment 39. Making people poorer will not magically improve their health. I fully agree with new clause 11 on co-production, and I urge the Minister to take action on that.
In Scotland we have created the adult disability payment. If the Minister looks on the Social Security Scotland website, he will see that it says
“social security is a human right...any of us, at any time…may need this support.”
We centred the decision making on dignity, fairness and respect. I am not saying for a second that the adult disability payment is perfect—there are issues with every system—but I urge the Minister to look at how it was co-produced and the lessons we learned from that when he is planning the co-production of the review of PIP assessments.
I am massively concerned that we are not clear about the basis on which the Timms review is being done. What is the point of the review? I understand that it is to review the PIP assessment process—I have got that bit—but what is the Government’s aim? Is it to cut billions of pounds from the PIP bill? Is it to make the assessment process more humane so that people with chronic conditions do not have to fill in the same form over and over again, explaining what it is that they cannot do? Is it to reduce the number of mandatory reconsiderations? Is it to make the system better, centring it on dignity and respect? Some clarity from the Government on that would be incredibly helpful.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I am sure that the hon. Lady is familiar with the terms of reference for the Timms review, which clearly set out that its purpose is to ensure that PIP assessment is
“fair and fit for the future…and helps support disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence.”
I hope that she will agree that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is very well placed to lead the review in co-production with disabled people.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that. It would be great if the Minister could clarify from the Dispatch Box that there is no requirement on him or his review to save money. If the hon. Member can give that commitment on behalf of the Minister, that is great, but has the Treasury asked the Minister to reduce the bill? If the terms of reference say, “We do not want money to be saved,” that is grand, but I could not find that in the terms of reference.
I would like to hear from the Minister on whether he has been asked to save money through the review. Disabled people looking at this have already been terrified by the Government’s actions and their “Pathways to Work” Green Paper. I think we should hear from the Minister whether he will be trying to save money or putting dignity, fairness and respect at the heart of the decision-making process and ensuring that co-production happens with that.
I have some questions about the severe conditions criteria. I am concerned because the Bill’s wording is different from what the DWP has been putting out in press releases. Press releases such as the one quoted today in The Guardian have been saying that people with fluctuating conditions will be eligible under the severe conditions criteria. However, the Bill says that a claimant would need to have a condition “constantly”.
The Minister needs to give an explicit commitment from the Dispatch Box. The UK Government have decided not to give the Bill a proper Bill Committee, where we would have asked these questions, hashed this out and got that level of clarification, and people are really scared. As the Minister will know, a significant number of amendments have been tabled on these conditions, from parties across the House. Concerns have been raised, because schedule 1 to the Bill states:
“A descriptor constantly applies to a claimant if that descriptor applies to the claimant at all times or, as the case may be, on all occasions on which the claimant undertakes or attempts to undertake the activity described by that descriptor.”
So if one of the descriptors is about being able to get around or being able to wash yourself, that paragraph says that the descriptor must apply “constantly”. If that is not the case, we need a clear explanation about that from the Minister. I cannot find the need for a condition to apply “constantly” in previous legislation. It seems to me that this is a new addition.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Last week we heard the Minister say, from the Dispatch Box, that descriptors, activities and associated points will all be subject to the Timms review, which will be co-produced with disabled people. Was the hon. Member listening to that statement, and does she accept that as a fact given at the Dispatch Box?
Kirsty Blackman
No! The Timms review is about personal independence payment; I am talking here about are the descriptors relating to limited capability for work—they are totally different things. I do not understand how the Timms review could possibly cover this paragraph, because it is about personal independence payment and the assessment process for that. If it is covered by the Timms review, why have the Government not removed it from the Bill? Why is there not a clause in the Bill right now that removes the severe conditions criteria and that specific paragraph?
Sir Stephen Timms
The form of words in the Bill, including the word “constant”, exactly replicates the way the severe conditions criteria are applied at the moment. The “constant” refers to the applicability of the descriptor. If somebody has a fluctuating condition and perhaps on one day they are comfortably able to walk 50 metres, the question to put to that person by the assessor is, “Can you do so reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable time?” If the answer to that question is no, the descriptor still applies to them. The question is whether the descriptor applies constantly. If it does, the severe conditions criteria are met.
Kirsty Blackman
That clear information from the Dispatch Box is what I was asking for. Hearing that will give people a lot of comfort. As the Minister is aware, a commitment from the Dispatch Box will be looked at when it comes to any sort of legal challenge in relation to the descriptors. If people are not asked if they can or cannot do something reliably on other days, I will expect disabled people’s charities to use the Minister’s comment from the Dispatch Box when they bring mandatory considerations or challenges to say, “The Minister was utterly clear that I have answered the question correctly, in line with the legislation.” I encourage them to do so.
Given the way the legislation is written, I will still not support the severe conditions criteria and the cut. I agree with colleagues who have said that 750,000 people are expecting to lose money as a result of this. As one of my Labour colleagues, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), has said, this is still £2 billion of cuts on disabled people that the Labour party has chosen to make, or that is what it says in the impact assessment. It has chosen to make that cut to 750,000 people, asking itself, “Where can we make £2 billion of cuts? I know, let’s do it to disabled people.” We could have an additional £2 billion in taxes on the very richest people who do not rely on that money for the everyday items that they desperately require.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I completely agree with that contention. This is how we judge a society: by how it takes care of the most vulnerable. As the hon. Lady says, and not to discredit anybody, but it appears on the face of it that people have simply decided to say, “This is where we will go”, when in actual fact there are other avenues that can be explored, and people want us to do that before we get into any of this.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Member has been a real champion for her constituents in this and she is absolutely correct: this is not the first place that I would expect any MP to look to save money, and especially not the first place where I would expect a supposedly progressive Government to look to save money. I am deeply disappointed that we have ended up in this situation and unlike what was said before, I do not think there are victorious faces on the Back Benches. I think people on the Government Benches are absolutely heartsick, no matter what side of this debate they are on. They wish that those on the Government Front Bench had not put this forward and that they were not in the position of having to pick a side, because it should never, ever have come down to a Labour Government choosing to make cuts on older people, children in poverty and disabled people as their first matter of business.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The winding-up speeches will have to start at 5.30 pm. There are 37 Members standing on both sides of the House. I am not allowed to impose a time limit, but were I to do so, it would be about four minutes. It is for Members to decide whether to allow their colleagues to speak or to take up more of the time, in which case it is quite clear that not everybody will be called to speak. I call John McDonnell.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I will do my best, Sir Roger. I want to address new clause 8, tabled in my name. It is a procedural clause and I do not think it is particularly contentious.
Before I address the new clause, I want to say that I am still getting emails and still being met on the bus and at community events by people who are extremely distressed about this legislation going through. I want to put on record for my constituents that, as always, I will not vote for any legislation that cuts benefits to some of the poorest people I represent. I just cannot do that and I want that underlined.
Ironically, just to give some context, some Members may have listened today to an interview on the “Today” programme with George Osborne, who is now the chair of the British Museum, in which he was talking about the Bayeux tapestry coming to this country. I remember another tapestry, which was brought to this House when he introduced cuts to benefits for disabled people. It showed the names of the people who had committed suicide. Do hon. Members remember that? It was one of the most distressing things I have seen in my political life and I wept that day. I do not want that to happen again. Let us be honest, as sure as night follows day, if cuts go through on the scale proposed, people will lose their lives. People will suffer immense harm. Let us all understand that.
Members talk pompously about “The House at its best”, but last week’s debate was a good day for the House. People on all sides expressed their views, the Government responded, although not as far as I wanted them to respond, and the House held the Government to account. It is not often that we see that, but it happened, and the reason it happened was that we were dealing with primary legislation that hon. Members could debate and amend. I have put this new clause forward because, if the Government do anything, they should do it through primary legislation and not delegated legislation, which goes on in Committee, where there is no chance to amend it and it is often rushed through on a vote with no debate. This matter is so important that that is not the way we should operate as a House.
Last week, hon. Members on all sides of the debate showed how democracy should work in this Chamber. That is why my new clause says that the Government must bring forward primary legislation in draft form so that we can all see it—no bouncers any more—and it is not done as delegated legislation so that Members do not have the chance to amend it or properly discuss it. That is all I ask for, and to be frank, it is not contentious. I would expect the Government just to accept it, because it is the normal democratic process in this Chamber. I want to be able to go back to my constituents when the review comes forward, and say, “I argued your case, I tried to amend it, I won on some and lost on others—that’s democracy.”
I support new clause 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). It is truly an excellent setting out of how co-production could work. The only element on which I disagree with her is when the process moves on and we become dependent on the Government making a statement, which we could reject so that they could not move on. The problem with that is exactly the same as with delegated legislation: we cannot amend a statement. I have been here so long that I know what Governments do. They bring forward a statement including some good stuff that we cannot vote against, but there is also some bad stuff that we disagree with. If we cannot amend it at that stage, it is all or nothing, and as a result, we get bad legislation. None the less, the part of new clause 11 that sets out who should be consulted, be involved and elect the chair is critical.
I do not want to sound patronising, but the speech made by the hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge last week brought tears to my eyes, and it is not often a speech in this House does that. The justified anger that she expressed about what went on under the Tories moved me deeply, and I think it moved the whole House. I do not want a Member standing up in five years’ time equally angry about what we did in this legislation. I want us to be able to hold the Government to account, not aggressively but constructively, in a way that we can debate and amend, and hopefully we might even be able to build consensus. That is what my new clause is all about, and that is all I want to say.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I rise primarily to speak to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). However, I would like to begin by addressing the amendments brought forward by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We were first presented with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in June. Then, after being held over a barrel by her Back Benchers, the Secretary of State returned to the House with something quite different. Then, at the eleventh hour on Second Reading, just last week, amendments 4, 5 and 10 were hastily drawn up. Why? It was to cobble together enough support to get something that resembles welfare reform over the line. Only a Labour Government could pledge to reduce the cost of something and end up doing the exact opposite. The people who will pay the price for this additional welfare spending are our constituents who get up early, work hard and pay their dues.
New clause 12 and the associated amendments are key to fairness in the system, key to protecting the social contract that underpins our society and, most importantly, key to balancing the books to support our economy. There is no way we can continue to have a situation where individuals receive their PIP payments after attending only a virtual session. There is no way we can continue to have a spiralling welfare bill driven by the over-medicalisation of conditions such as OCD and anxiety. And finally, there is no way we can continue to hand out benefits willy-nilly to those who have come to the United Kingdom without any means of supporting themselves. These are not fringe views. They are widely supported by the public, by working men and women across the country who do the right thing and who increasingly ask, “Why are we footing a bill for a system we no longer believe in?” The social contract is fraying, and the blame lies not with the public but with the state in allowing the system to drift and grow to unsustainable levels.
Debbie Abrahams
I hope the hon. Member does not mind my intervening on him, but I want to pick up on the point he was making about people that come to this country and take benefits. Is he aware that during the pandemic, for example, people who have leave to remain were unable to avail themselves of any social security support as they do not have recourse to public funds, and that they were left absolutely destitute? I hope he will withdraw his remark, because it is just not true.
Mr Bedford
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, but I am not going to withdraw the comment I made, because there are people in that situation—
Mr Bedford
The social contract is fraying, as I said. When my constituent Nick, who works hard for the money he earns and pays into system, walks through his town centre, he asks himself, “What is the point? Why am I working harder than ever when the system rewards those that often don’t?” These amendments matter. They are not unfair; they are principled. They would ensure that the welfare system remained strong for those who truly need it, and fair for those who fund it. The hard-working British public expect us to act, and unfortunately, if the Government do not support our amendments today, they will be letting the public down.
Dr Tidball
I rise to speak to new clause 11 and Government amendment 4. This Bill has been transformed since Second Reading. I welcome the Government’s significant changes and hard work. I said that I could not support the measures that remained on the face of the Bill last week that would have pushed 150,000 people into poverty. Nor could I accept proposals for a points system which, under previously proposed descriptors, would exclude eligibility for those who cannot put on their underwear, prosthetic limbs or shoes without support. Towards the end of the Second Reading debate, the Government promised to remove clause 5 on personal independence payments, including the eligibility criteria. I wholeheartedly support Government amendment 4, which achieves that.
I am pleased to hear that the new impact assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions has found that the Bill will now lift 50,000 people out of relative poverty by 2030. This matters, to fulfil the Government’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and to meet our commitments to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. In 2016, under the Conservative Government, when the UN produced its inquiry report on the UK’s treatment of disabled people, it said that the Government at that time had to ensure that any measures of welfare reform should uphold the human rights model of disability and did not disproportionately or adversely affect the rights of disabled people to live independently or to access employment.
Vicky Foxcroft
I welcome the amendment, but does my hon. Friend agree that co-production needs to go beyond oversight if we want to build trust and engagement with disabled people and their organisations, and that we need to commit to the principles of co-production as outlined in my speech on Second Reading last week?
Dr Tidball
I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend, and I will be getting to those points shortly.
Further, the UN said that the voices of disabled people must be at the front and centre of this work and that the UK must actively consult and engage with disabled people and their organisations and give due consideration to their views in any legislation related to these rights. Therefore, Government amendment 4 is a significant step forward in removing those measures that were not consulted on. It also prevents the risks I highlighted in my speech last week on the previously proposed eligibility criteria, particularly on future recipients.
I am also pleased that the Minister confirmed last week that the legislation on changes to PIP eligibility and descriptors will not happen until the completion of the Timms review. This leads me to new clause 11. I am grateful for this new clause being selected. It is important to have a debate on it as a probing new clause, and above all, I will be seeking reassurances from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that the Government will get the detail of co-production right. I am grateful that the measures in this new clause were co-produced and supported by Disability Rights UK and the Spinal Injuries Association, as well as through discussions with a broader group of disabled people’s organisations and charities.
My new clause 11 sets out key measures to deliver on our excellent manifesto commitment to champion the rights of disabled people and enshrine the principle of working with disabled people to ensure that our views and voices are at the heart of all we do. Further, the measures in the new clause create a strong link between the Timms review and fulfilling our Equality Act public sector equality duty, along with the UK’s commitments to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, including the principle in article 4.3 of the need to
“consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities”.
Thus, in this context, meaningful co-production with the disability inclusion taskforce as part of the Timms review is essential.
Anna Dixon
I commend my hon. Friend for her excellent speeches, both today and on Second Reading, and for all the work I know she has done behind the scenes to get us to where we are today. I fully support her new clause 11, which would guarantee meaningful engagement with disabled people before any changes are made to PIP. As she knows, PIP is also a gateway benefit to carer’s allowance, so does she agree that it is essential to include carers, as well as disabled people, in the disability co-production taskforce?
Dr Tidball
I do agree. The Minister will head up this review, but the voices of disabled people must be front and centre. The measures in this new clause emphasise the need for disabled people and disabled people’s organisations to make up the majority of the taskforce and to have a significant role in the leadership of the review, and I believe carers could be part of that.
The output of this review must be meaningful and not performative. Therefore, there must be a mechanism to ensure that recommendations co-produced in the taskforce come back to this House for full scrutiny, debate and parliamentary approval before the legislation to implement the review’s outcomes is brought forward. That will ensure democratic accountability on those outcomes, including on how changes to PIP eligibility will impact disabled people. While the new clause suggests that this should happen after 12 months, and ahead of any proposals on PIP coming out next autumn, I am aware that the Minister is keen to ensure this co-production process is not rushed—that is a good approach.
I am grateful for the fact that in his closing statement on Second Reading, the Minister acknowledged my call for a target on closing the disability employment gap. That is the kind of approach I know the Government will develop as they bring forward their plans for employment support. The significant changes made to the Bill since last week will shift the emphasis to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential, and to closing the disability employment gap. They will anchor Labour values of fairness in this part of the legislation.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 2(a) tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), amendment 38 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), amendment 39 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and new clause 8 tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
Errol Graham was a 57-year-old grandad and former amateur footballer. When bailiffs came to evict him, they found his emaciated body in a freezing flat—no gas, no electricity and no food. Only two tins of fish four years out of date remained. He weighed just four and a half stone. A coroner ruled that he had suffered death by starvation. Errol suffered from severe social anxiety. The Department for Work and Pensions knew that, and still cut off his only source of income. As his daughter-in-law said,
“He would still be alive. He’d be ill, but he’d still be alive.”
His death was not a tragic exception; it was a political consequence.
In 2017, Jodey Whiting took her own life after missing a fit-for-work test while she was hospitalised. Stephen Smith was denied benefits despite being gravely ill. He died in 2019. These are not just names; they are the human cost of decisions made in this place—decisions that, according to Sir Michael Marmot’s research, contributed to over 1 million premature deaths in England between 2011 and the pandemic, driven by poverty and austerity. Today the Government press ahead with more of the same.
Clause 2 of the Bill will slash the universal credit health element—the limited capability for work and work-related activity component—from £97 to just £50 a week. By 2030, that is an annual cut of £3,000 for over 750,000 disabled people. These are not people waiting for an assessment; they are people who the DWP has already found too ill to work—people who cannot feed themselves, who live with degenerative illnesses and who experience daily pain, confusion and incontinence—and we are supposed to believe that this is about helping them into employment. Even the Government’s own figures show that fewer than one in 10 new claimants will be protected by the so-called severe conditions criteria, and charities such as Scope, Z2K, the MS Society and Inclusion London have made that clear. The clause will exclude “huge swathes” of severely disabled people, especially those with fluctuating or progressive conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, bipolar disorder and Parkinson’s. Why? Because to qualify, their condition—according to the Bill—must affect them not severely or overwhelmingly, but constantly. As Scope put it,
“It feels like it’s been designed to cut support—not to support people.”
Let us not forget the requirement for an NHS diagnosis in the middle of an NHS backlog crisis. That excludes people with neurodivergent conditions and others who rely on private or social care support. This is a deliberate narrowing of the safety net. The result? A two-tier system that punishes people for trying to work, having variable symptoms or falling through the cracks of bureaucracy.
Robin Swann
The severe conditions criteria and the need for an NHS diagnosis exclude young people as well, because their diagnosis and condition may not automatically transfer from their medical records as a child to their adult records. They would need another NHS diagnosis to move from the children’s DLA to PIP.
Zarah Sultana
Exactly. Those are among the concerns about the requirement for an NHS diagnosis.
Meanwhile, what is the economic justification? Well, there is not one. As a share of GDP, working-age benefits have not risen since 2015. Other countries, such as France, New Zealand and Australia, invest more in their disabled citizens. We have alternatives—for example, we could have a 2% tax on extreme wealth. Just 50 families in this country own more wealth than half the UK population. According to YouGov, three quarters of the public support a 2% tax on those with wealth of more than £10 million, yet this Government will not tax the super-rich. Instead, they choose to take from those with arthritis, cancer and chronic pain. They just cannot decide how much suffering to inflict. While they squeeze the most vulnerable, they have found billions for war, and billions to raise defence spending and back endless foreign interventions—money for war, but not the poor.
The truth is this: Westminster is broken, but the real crisis is deeper. This Government are not only out of touch but morally bankrupt. They work for billionaires and big business, while turning their back on disabled people. They hold their summer receptions at Mastercard headquarters, while disabled people are pushed to food banks. They impoverish the sick and elderly to satisfy spreadsheets, and then dare to speak of “tough choices.” But the public sees through this: 81% of voters believe that disabled people should receive support for basic living costs. That is not a niche opinion; that is mainstream Britain. Disabled organisations, from Disabled People Against Cuts to Disability Rights UK, are united in their opposition to clause 2, because if this cut is passed, the consequences will be felt everywhere, especially in our constituency surgeries. The emails, the letters, the desperation, the suffering—all of it is avoidable.
I voted to protect winter fuel payments, and I would do it again. I voted to scrap the two-child benefit cap, and I would do it again. I will vote against these cuts tonight, because this is not just about benefits; it is about the country we want to be. Do we want to be a country that protects the vulnerable, or punishes them? I know which side I stand on, and I know that I speak for millions across this country when I say that we are not going to take this any more. The two-party stitch-up is finished. There is an alternative, and we will be offering it.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I begin by saying how much I respect the sincerity of colleagues who believe that the Bill will help address some of the difficult challenges that our country faces. I know many in this House are motivated by a genuine desire to improve lives and ensure that our welfare system is fair, sustainable and fit for purpose, but I have to say, with the deepest respect and regret, that on this occasion, I think we have got this wrong. Yes, the Labour Government have inherited a broken system on multiple fronts and, yes, we need reform, but we must be clear that reform cannot mean pushing disabled people further into poverty. It cannot mean referring to cuts as modernisation. Poverty has a price tag, and the cost-shunting that will be involved in these cuts will be plain to see in years to come and must be taken into consideration.
I support amendment 37 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), which highlights the lack of value for money in the contracts for assessment. There are so many successful reassessments and appeals; it is clear that we are not getting value for money from these contracts, and that this is an expensive and ineffective model that Ministers should look at, if they are looking for savings. There are better ways forward, and that is reflected in many of the amendments that I am supporting.
New clause 8, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), would ensure that any changes to PIP must be brought forward in primary legislation. I strongly agree with that. Given the lack of time we have had to debate and give proper scrutiny to what is before us today, we should slow things down until the recommendations are brought back to us, so that we can have good-quality debate, and put better regulation and safeguards in place to prevent changes that would worsen eligibility for those who are already struggling or at risk of poverty.
New clause 11 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) calls for any review of PIP to be grounded in the principles of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. In a sense, I am disappointed that such a clause might be needed, but it points to the fact that we need more transparency, independent oversight and, crucially, co-production with disabled people. There can be nothing about us without us, and I hope the Government are listening on that new clause.
Amendment 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), acknowledges the fluctuating nature of some medical conditions that can be unpredictable and debilitating. The amendment would ensure that people with those conditions are not left vulnerable, and that the process is responsive and serves its purpose of being a safety blanket to those who need it most. Countless organisations have reached out to me and many others to raise concerns. People with conditions including multiple sclerosis, Huntingdon’s, cancer and schizophrenia are concerned about how the changes will impact on them. Their voices must be heard in this place. The amendments do not block reform; I think they strengthen it. They will ensure that the Bill is evidence-led and rooted in fairness.
New clause 12 seeks to prevent people with indefinite leave to remain, refugees and victims of trafficking from accessing PIP and elements of universal credit. Although it is not a shock that the Opposition will use any debate as an excuse to have a game of migrant-bashing, I am disappointed that those ideas have made their way into this proposal. What they will not tell the public is that most migrants in the UK are already excluded from accessing PIP and universal credit because they have no recourse to public funds. That restriction acts as a blanket ban on access to the social security system for 3.6 million migrants. Is it really acceptable to deny access to PIP or other social security to those who have spent years living and working in the UK—paying taxes and astronomical visa fees, and finally securing indefinite leave to remain—based on their nationality rather than on their disability? The new clause threatens the fundamental principle of our immigration system—that those granted indefinite leave to remain should have access to many of the same rights as British citizens.
There are better choices we can make, and better ways to find the money that we are told we need to find. We can scrap the outdated marriage tax allowance, a gimmick of the Cameron Government that still costs us £590 million a year. We can close unjustifiable tax loopholes, such as the carried interest loophole used by private equity bosses, which would raise half a billion pounds. We can apply national insurance to investment income, raising over £10 billion. A modest 2% adjustment to the £207 billion handed out in non-structural annual tax reliefs would raise £4 billion alone each and every year.
Let us talk about those reliefs. There are roughly 1,180 tax reliefs in the UK. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has no idea what benefit 815 of them bring to the public. This is about choices—we hear all the time about “tough choices”—so why are we not choosing not to properly examine that £200 billion of public spending while we tighten support for disabled people, who are just trying to live? We can and should reform the system.
Imran Hussain
As ever, my hon. Friend is making a passionate case. Does she agree that, for many of us, our principled objection to the Bill remains? It will still balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable; it will still bring poverty to our streets. Will she join me in my plea for the Bill to be withdrawn, which is the best option for the Government?
Olivia Blake
I agree. That is my plea to the Treasury Benchers: There is still time to withdraw the Bill and come back with something better.
These issues should be tackled head-on. It is unjust that, because of the way we have built society, each and every disabled person faces £1,000 in extra costs on average per month. None of that is optional spending; it is the unavoidable price of navigating a society that was not designed with disabled people in mind. There is a whole host of reasons for that spending; they are the non-negotiable realities of having a disability. Disabled people know better than anyone the barriers that keep us from work and what would help, so listen to us.
Graham Stuart
A non-negotiable reality is that we have must economic growth to fulfil the Government’s priorities, be it looking after the poor or the disabled, or any other priority. Yet under this Government, inflation has nearly doubled, and their unemployment Bill, jobs tax and other measures have brought the economy to a halt. Can Labour Members not understand that if they do not prioritise private enterprise and economic growth, they will never be able to serve the most vulnerable, who depend on that growth the most?
Olivia Blake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for interrupting at that point, because I have two suggestions that I think would be good for growth. The first is to ask the British Investment Bank to support disabled people in setting up their own business, as it does women and those setting up a minority-led business. I know many ADHDers who would make great entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, sometimes they end up going down the path of criminality. We should consider how we can ensure that their innovation is enhanced and used properly.
The second suggestion is that we make our economy much more inclusive. There could be a national insurance contribution discount for taking on someone with a disability, who may be in receipt of PIP and may have been out of work for more than six months. I am sure that, through a more inclusive society, we can encourage growth, not discourage it.
I have taken up far too much time, so I will end with this. Disabled people know what is best for us. We should be investing in people’s independence, not leaving them on the sidelines or pushing them into poverty. That is a matter of justice, but in the end, it saves money as well. More than that, it gives people the dignity and freedom to live well. That, surely, should be our purpose.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I stand to support new clauses 8 and 11, and amendments 12, 38 and 39, among others, which I will mention as I go through my speech. I promise to keep to the unofficial four-minute time limit.
A week after the cruel Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill and its arbitrary eligibility cut-offs was first discussed, we are today being asked to amend and pass this deeply flawed Bill in a couple of hours. Of course, it is now a completely different Bill from what was first introduced—even the title will be changed. I am not alone in welcoming the removal of clause 5, which means that no one will lose vital personal independence payments so that the Government can save some money. However, unlike other hon. Members, I do not believe that the UK Government’s concessions make the Bill any more worthy to become legislation.
The Government have conceded that placing an arbitrary cut-off date on PIP eligibility is unsupportable, so why on earth do they continue to do exactly that for claimants of the health element of universal credit? I commend the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for amendment (a) to amendment 2, which would keep the health element of universal credit at £423.27 for all new claimants, rather than lowering the rate for people who are unlucky enough to require that support after 2026, which will cause real hardship. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that, without further changes, over 700,000 disabled people will still face a cut to their income of up to £3,000 a year by 2030.
We do not know what data has informed that approach or how it will impact on the great people of Wales. An assessment of the specific impacts on Wales has been necessary since the UK Government first announced their welfare cuts months ago. Now that their plans have changed considerably, that impact assessment is all the more crucial. People in Wales need transparency and certainty about how the changes will affect their lives.
In what functioning democracy does a Government Bill get fundamentally altered in the middle of the first debate on that very Bill, and then elected representatives are given only a few hours to scrutinise it before it is passed? We need time to scrutinise the Bill fully and effectively. We need time to co-produce it with the constituents whose lives it will affect. This is a chaotic and shameful state of affairs, especially in the light of the substantial impact that the Bill will have on thousands of disabled people on the lowest incomes.
Ann Davies
I am just coming to the end of my remarks, if the hon. Member does not mind. I am keeping to my four-minute time limit.
The Bill should be scrapped. It is neither fair nor compassionate welfare reform. It is not fit for our constituents.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I will speak to amendment 17, which I tabled with the support of 62 Members from across the House. It would ensure that if a person has a fluctuating condition such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis, that is a factor in considering whether they meet the severe conditions claimant criteria.
I have been working with Parkinson’s UK, and as the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, I have heard concerns from those living with the condition, and their carers and families, about the problems they already face in accessing support through the welfare system, because of fundamental misunderstandings about the fluctuating nature of the condition. Those concerns have been exacerbated by the Bill, particularly paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which states that in order to meet the severe conditions claimant criteria,
“at least one of the descriptors…constantly applies.”
Someone with Parkinson’s, MS, ME or other similar conditions may be able to carry out one of the activities in the descriptors such as walking for 50 metres or pressing a button in the morning, but then not be able to do so by the afternoon. Under my initial reading of the Bill, that means that someone with Parkinson’s could never be a severe conditions criteria claimant because they would not meet the descriptor “constantly”.
I thank the Minister and his team for their extensive engagement with me on this matter, but the language used in the Bill has caused concern and fear for those with Parkinson’s. As the Minister has helpfully said, and as he explained to me prior to the debate, much of the explanation that I have received centres around existing guidance that a person must be able to undertake the activity in the descriptor “repeatedly, reliably and safely”. If they cannot, the criteria will count as applying constantly and they will be considered a severe conditions criteria claimant.
Sir Stephen Timms
I thank my hon. Friend very much for all the work he has done on this, and for helpfully highlighting that concern. It might help if I read briefly to him what the current training material for people applying the severe conditions criteria says about what level of function will always meet limited capability for work and work related activity:
“Although this criterion refers to a level of function that would always meet LCWRA, this does not in any way exclude people diagnosed with a condition subject to fluctuation or variability.
The key issue is that the person’s condition is not subject to such variability that their function would ever be significantly improved from the LCWRA descriptor identified”.
I hope that that, together with my earlier intervention, will give some reassurance to my hon. Friend.
Graeme Downie
I very much thank the Minister for his intervention, which I think will provide extensive reassurance to those with Parkinson’s and other conditions. I will keep a watching brief on this measure as it progresses, and I am aware that Parkinson’s UK has today received its own legal advice, which indicates that the application of the measure might not be quite as clear as the Minister intends.
My other concern is about the perhaps undue burden that the measure places on the guidance, as well as the perhaps unfair position in which it puts an assessor, which could lead to an inconsistent application of the guidance.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know, as do many Members, that my father-in-law died from Parkinson’s two and a half weeks ago, so this is a personal issue for both me and my family, and for many constituents who have written to me in recent weeks regarding their concerns about the lack of clarity. I add my support to my hon. Friend’s calls for clarity. Although I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention, we must ensure that we get this right, and get it right soon.
Graeme Downie
I know that the thoughts of Members across the House are with my hon. Friend and his family. I know what a challenging time it has been, and the fact that he has been able to carry on his duties extensively, representing his constituents, is to his credit and something that his family will be incredibly proud of.
As I said, the Minister has been generous with his time, and I do not believe for a moment that his intention is to restrict access to the severe conditions criteria for those with Parkinson’s. Those words from the Dispatch Box are incredibly helpful, but I ask him to ensure that he keeps a close eye on the situation.
Robin Swann
As the hon. Member knows, I signed his amendment, but may I caution him before he accepts the Minister’s very kind guidance? Will he clarify that it is guidance? This is training documentation and it is subject to change. It is not contained anywhere in the Bill or the amendments, so what the Minister read to the Committee was simply training guidance.
Graeme Downie
Again, I understand from my helpful conversations with the Minister that this is taking existing guidance and applying it to law, but I understand the hon. Member’s concern.
My final point is to ask the Minister to keep this issue under active review. If any new evidence comes to light to show that the primary legislation is acting as a barrier to the Government’s position being reflected in reality, I hope he will consider opportunities to correct that in due course. We all hope that the Government’s clear intention that people with Parkinson’s and other conditions are in no way—
Patricia Ferguson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking a further intervention. As a signatory to his amendment, I wonder whether his discussions with the Minister have included someone with a condition such as relapsing-remitting MS who can spend long periods appearing to be perfectly healthy, but then have other periods when a crisis occurs and they are debilitated by their condition. Will the provisions that the Minister describes be sympathetic to those sorts of situations?
Graeme Downie
As my hon. Friend will know, my amendment specifically mentions MS, and she and I have had shared friends who have suffered with that condition. We must ensure that there is a clear understanding of the reality of such conditions on the ground, so that when these provisions are delivered in reality by assessors, people are able to access the additional support that they need.
Welfare reform is undoubtedly needed after the mess of a system that we were left by the previous Government, but wherever possible we must ensure that the wording of the Bill is as clear as possible. We must ensure that those affected are in no doubt about what our intent is, so that that is indisputable and we truly give effect to the intentions behind the Bill. I again thank the Minister for his incredibly helpful intervention, but we will ensure that the reality reflects the Government’s excellent intentions.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 36. Over the past weeks, I have met numerous disability organisations, from Parkinson’s UK to Action for ME, and heard directly from those living with complex fluctuating conditions. I have also seen the impact at first hand as an employer of people with long-term invisible disabilities. What I have heard, seen and lived is simple: the current proposals risk unacceptable consequences for those who are already among the most vulnerable. The Government’s redefinition of “severe conditions” hinges on the word “constantly”—a single word that is of dubious clinical value. I appreciate the clarification given to other Members, but it is very late in the day to be getting such important information.
Conditions such as ME/chronic fatigue syndrome, MS, epilepsy and bipolar disorder do not operate on a schedule. They are unpredictable and they fluctuate, yet the Bill would exclude many individuals who have them from vital support, simply because their symptoms do not comply with a Government definition. Amendment 36 would ensure that our assessment system respects the United Kingdom’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. This affirms the principle of non-retrogression so that we do not roll back hard-won rights. It insists that we take invisible and episodic conditions seriously, and it protects people from falling through the cracks.
The Bill has had an extraordinary passage through Parliament, and at this point the most obvious course of action would be simply to pull it altogether and start again. I realise the political difficulties that that may involve, but vulnerable people’s lives are at stake. When the Government come to look again at some of the deleted clauses via the Timms review, it is essential to approach the issue from a “needs first” angle, not a “how much can I save?” angle, because so many Government cuts in the past have ended up costing more than they have saved.
I accept that the Government do not have infinite funds, but the PIP proposal represented an arbitrary change in eligibility—the four-point rule—with the crude objective of making a predetermined saving. It has all been the wrong way around: we should wait to understand needs first, and only then consider to what extent the Government can afford to meet them.
Anna Dixon
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the concessions that the Government have brought forward and the amendments that are before us today ensure that we are getting it the right way around? It is explicit in the terms of reference that the changes are about a fair and fit-for-the-future assessment, rather than to generate further savings, so does he agree that the Bill allows us to get the Timms review done and to bring forward proposals after that?
John Milne
I cannot agree with the hon. Member, and I will partly explain why in a moment.
We need a more honest assessment of the overall financial situation that is being used to justify these drastic cuts, because the wrong diagnosis leads to the wrong solutions. The dramatic rise in PIP claimants is at least partly driven by other Government policy; perhaps one quarter of the rise is simply due to raising the pension age. Large numbers of people who are older, and therefore more likely to be disabled, have been pushed out of pension support into benefit support. The state pension is paid out of current taxation, not past contributions, so the impact is immediate.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the NHS and waiting lists. Does he share my concerns about the severe conditions criteria and the requirements for the diagnosis to be made by an NHS professional, in the course of NHS duty, when people may not have access to that? There is also a requirement for the condition to be considered “lifelong” by NHS professionals or health professionals, who may be unwilling to say that schizophrenia or bipolar disease, for example, are “lifelong” because they do not want to tie people down to that diagnosis.
John Milne
Yes, I agree that that is an additional concern.
The implication has been made, both by this Government and the previous one, that much of the rise in claims is down to benefit chasing and people simply exaggerating their conditions. This is an assumption that needs serious interrogation because it looks to be substantially untrue. For all these reasons and more, the best course of action would be to pull the Bill now and to make a fresh start. Denying adequate support today will only shift the burden tomorrow on to social care, the emergency services and our already overstretched NHS. We have been warned by the UN not once, but three times, that our welfare system is failing disabled people. Amendment 36 is a chance to show that we are listening.
Neil Coyle
I am concerned about some of the amendments before us today, in particular those that call for delays to legislation. We are one year into a five-year term—20% of this Parliament is gone—and the public need to see progress, not further delay.
I am mindful that Ministers have already done a huge amount of heavy lifting to rebuild trust with disabled people and disability organisations since the election. We should all recall that in July 2024, the Department for Work and Pensions was under formal investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for unlawful treatment of disabled people. This Government have made considerable progress since then in trying to rebuild trust, including through measures in this Bill and linked to it, such as abolishing the work capability assessment. I have been here for 10 years—some might say it feels like longer—but before entering this place, I campaigned, as the chair of the Disability Benefits Consortium, to abolish the work capability assessment. I know that disabled people and their organisations are grateful and thankful for the inclusion of that measure in the wider package that the Government are bringing forward.
Although it seems to have been lost in some of the debates we have had on the subject, I am also mindful that in my own constituency, the number of claimants for PIP will rise in this Parliament, spending on that will continue to rise in this Parliament, and the 12,700 universal credit claimants in my constituency will get an additional payment under this Government’s plans, which will be the first ever above-inflation rise in universal credit. There is much to gain and much that is supported by disabled people and their organisations in the package that the Government have brought forward.
I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to support more disabled people into work. We need to challenge ourselves a little more in this place about some of the language of vulnerability. Being seen automatically as vulnerable because of a health condition or impairment is not in line with the social model of disability. Many disabled people find that patronising and offensive, and we need to update our system, just as we updated our system thanks to previous Labour Governments. We had the first ever blind Secretary of State in David Blunkett—now Lord Blunkett—at a time when the benefits system said that blind people were not required to participate in work-related activity. The benefits system is not a static beast: it is an evolving creature that needs to be updated to reflect changes in assistive technology, medication and adaptation and advances in technology.
We must not end up with a system in which people are written off and parked in a system because it is too difficult to get them into work. That is not a Labour solution. We are the party of full employment, which must and should include disabled people if we are committed to disability equality and if we are the party of progress. I will chip in that this party takes no lectures on what is progressive from nationalists, whether it is Scottish nationalists or the populists in Reform. We see the costs to disabled people of parking under the former benefits system and legacy benefits: the longer that somebody is out of work, the more ill health that they experience, including mental health and depression, and the more costs that they incur for the NHS. There are state benefits and individual benefits for getting the right support.
I speak from rather too much personal family experience. My mum has schizophrenia and my dad had a stroke in his 40s. He was told by the jobcentre, “This is what you will get. Now, basically, sod off—we do not want to see you, and we do not expect to provide you with anything.” He found his own way back into work through going to university as a mature student—well, not that mature—at Newcastle University, and he graduated in the same year as me.
We should look at the wider picture of full employment. I particularly welcome the Government’s broader aim of reducing the disability employment gap, which was deeply neglected for 14 years, and transforming jobcentres from benefit administration centres. They had been failing not because of a lack of will or frontline staff, some of whom are absolutely excellent, but simply because the job they were given to do had changed from being about supporting people into work to simply administering a failing system that, as we discussed earlier, had the highest fraud levels ever seen in the UK social security system.
I think most of us believe that disability equality is measured not in the amount of benefits that individuals receive, but in the shared opportunities and access to life chances open to all in our country. I am deeply mindful of that, because while we had a lost generation under the 14 years of the Conservative Government and the Lib Dem coalition Government, we had a previous Government who were deeply committed to those issues. That Government published a report, 20 years ago today, called “Improving the life chances of disabled people” with an implementation and delivery date that was meant to provide those opportunities and equal access by 2025. Sadly, those coalition and Conservative years set back the clock.
The report is still available to all those who want to see it, and it talks about pathways to work and dedicated employment programmes being necessary, such as the new deal for disabled people. Those programmes were largely demolished by the coalition. It talks about the importance of the role of the NHS, GPs, occupational health and rehab. Again, a Labour Government are now fixing the wider NHS problems to make those aims and objectives deliverable today. The then Prime Minister’s strategy in the report committed to changing the system so that it tested functionality and ability to contribute, rather than writing people off. Again, this Government have had to come back to that after a lost decade.
We had a report 20 years ago that talked about the necessity of a better equipment system and the need to improve access to work—something that Ministers are committed to today and are beginning to transform with faster assessment processes and by delivering the kit needed. The report also talks about the importance of engaging with employers and the positive role that Jobcentre Plus could play in engaging employers early in the process. Sadly, we have seen a long delay in delivering those improved life chances, but this is a Labour party back in government and trying to deliver disability equality and improve the life chances of disabled people. The measures in this Bill are integral to that aim.
As I say, I am concerned about some of the amendments before us. I also have some concerns that the Bill needs to go further in tackling barriers to work for disabled people, such as the benefits structure, including for those in supported accommodation. It is great that we have the right to try, but more is necessary. We also need to go a bit further with employers, including around reasonable adjustments and ensuring that employers do not accept resignations based on ill health immediately, but look at the packages of support that might be necessary, as well as working with them to tackle discrimination. The Federation of Small Businesses in particular, which has done work on this issue previously, would be a really useful partner to have going forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the next speaker, may I remind all Members that this is the Committee stage? Can we have some focus on the amendments we are debating this afternoon, not wide-ranging Third Reading speeches? At this rate, there will be little time for Third Reading.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I rise today to speak in support of amendments 2(a), 37 and 39, and new clauses 8, 10 and 11. Without going into a Third Reading speech, it is important to highlight that we are debating a Bill that will have a profound and, in many cases, devastating impact on thousands of families across our country.
As the Resolution Foundation puts it, this Bill represents an
“income shock for millions of low-income households.”
That should give every Member in this Chamber pause. What is particularly troubling is that the areas hardest hit are the very communities that this Government claim to support—places in the north of England, in Wales and in my region of Yorkshire. These proud working-class areas are being failed by a Government tightening the purse strings on the most vulnerable.
In Dewsbury and Batley, 7.9% of people claim personal independence payment. I have had more than 150 constituents contact me terrified about what these cuts mean. Those are not just numbers; they are real people with real needs. The universal credit health element is an essential lifeline for millions of people in our country. One of my constituents, Andrew Waring, ran a business before 2020. Then covid left him with long-term organ damage. He could barely walk 10 metres, and his PIP payments became a lifeline. Cutting such support is not about trimming fat; it cuts into people’s dignity and survival. More than 20 civil society organisations have urged MPs to reject these cuts. Even with the Government’s amendments and the change introduced last week to defer any cuts to PIP until the Timms review has concluded, people are still left concerned and in severe distress.
As it stands, clause 2 will leave 750,000 people, according to the Government’s impact assessment published last night, up to £3,000 worse off by 2030. One in five people on universal credit and disability benefits have used a food bank in the past month, and this Bill will just increase that number. That is why I support amendment 2(a) tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) to maintain the current universal credit health element. That cut will especially hurt people with mental health conditions who are already struggling to access support.
Many Members across the House have spoken in support of the other amendments that I also support, and I will not repeat their eloquent and informed speeches and the points they made. To conclude, what has been disappointing at the end of my first year in Parliament is to see a critical Bill, which will impact millions and millions of people in our country, rushed through the legislative process in a way that has not allowed the relevant time to understand, amend and improve it so that it is fit for purpose. I am sorry to say so, but this process has been a legislative mess.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I just want to make a gentle point to the hon. Member. He points out that the process feels rushed, but sitting here, I observe that there is not a lot of demand to speak from Members from any of the other parties on the Opposition Benches: just two Conservative MPs, no SNP MPs and no Reform MPs. Does he share my disappointment?
Iqbal Mohamed
I am unable to comment on the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers as “absent”. I am here to represent my independent alliance colleagues, all of whom strongly oppose the Bill as it is presented here today. It will adversely impact millions of people in our country—the people at the bottom of the food chain; the people who are struggling to feed their children, heat their homes, get to work, and keep appointments that are critical for receiving treatment that enables them to manage their conditions.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The hon. Member talks of the difficulty faced by people with disabilities. Many millions of those people are supported by family members who are unpaid carers. Does he agree that although the Government have said that they will work with disability groups and people who have disabilities, they should also co-produce whatever comes forward in conjunction with carers’ organisations?
Iqbal Mohamed
I do agree, and I repeat a point that was made earlier by one of my colleagues: the Timms review must include not just disabled people but disabled people of all ages, and also carers. As I said in my speech last week, this change could potentially cut £500 million from carer’s allowance for people who are caring for disabled relatives, the largest cut since the allowance was introduced in 1967. We urge the Government to maintain that holistic view of the change and the impact that it will have.
The process of the Bill—despite the objections from Labour Members—has been a legislative mess. What happened last week has been followed by today’s amendments, which will basically gut the Bill and focus the changes on universal credit. We have seen last-minute changes, a rushed timescale and a lack of proper scrutiny. Disability is not a choice. Needing help is not a failure. This Bill is not just bad policy; it is a betrayal. I urge every Member of the House to reject it.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I was keen to speak in the debate, to share with hon. Members my own lived experiences of our current welfare system and to explain why I support a number of the amendments.
My dad worked hard from the day he left school, at age 15, right the way through to the age of 55. He was an engineer. He paid his taxes and contributed to society. He never sought help from anyone throughout his life, and he was proud of the work ethic that he stood for. But on 13 August 2013, out of nowhere, he had a life-altering stroke. Overnight he completely lost the use of his left leg and left arm, his hand was almost always in a tight fist, and speech and memory became difficult. Although he had worked for the same engineering company for more than 20 years, his employment contract offered little financial support, and within just a few weeks he was struggling to make ends meet on statutory sick pay. As a family, we had never heard of personal independence payments or of universal credit. My dad did not want to apply, but financial realities meant that we had no choice.
We found a welfare system that was difficult to access. It was confusing, slow—incredibly slow—and at all times we found it frustrating and, frankly, dehumanising. We spent months and months going through the PIP application process, and all the while no financial support was forthcoming and things were tough—very tough. My parents were supported by the local food bank. They borrowed money and got into debt.
Having lived a difficult 10 years following his stroke, fighting against a system that he had paid into for so long, my dad died. In January 2023, having struggled to get a GP appointment, he developed pneumonia. He was placed in a medically induced coma, during which time he had a further stroke from which he never recovered. My dad, like so many others, was let down by the welfare system that was supposed to care for him, and let down by the NHS at the end of his life.
Given my background, the House can perhaps understand why I have found confronting some of the initial proposals in this Bill so difficult. I have seen at first hand how debates in Parliament and rhetoric from hon. Members impact on my own family and on my constituents, particularly with regard to their mental health. It is important that we recognise that disabled people so often feel that they are a burden. They feel that others think that their disability has been somehow manufactured, and that they are benefit cheats. Disabled people are not a burden; it is our privilege to support them.
It has been said of late that Labour is the party of work. Indeed it is, but through that labour we have a responsibility and duty to help others, and it is important that these values are reflected in any proposals. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), which seek to ensure that those values are enshrined, because I agree that we absolutely should be doing more to support disabled people into work. Obvious barriers exist, particularly in more rural areas, such as my constituency, where transport options are limited and suitable work opportunities are more difficult to find. Of course we should support disabled people into work, but not by changing the rules and making eligibility for benefits more difficult.
Our public services are broken, and many of my hon. Friends have articulated well how bad things are. Following 14 years of Conservative failure, it should be no surprise that welfare claims are rising. It is the statistical inevitability of the state of our country.
In all the time I spent advocating for my dad at DWP appointments, medical assessments and work capability assessments, I would sit there and think, “What about the people who do not have someone fighting on their behalf? What hope do they have?” Navigating the system was bad enough for our family. What must it be like for others?
In our roles as MPs, we all have a responsibility to advocate for people who do not have a voice. If we want to reduce the welfare bill—I am sure we all want to do so—we must do so by fixing our broken systems. Millions of people are on NHS waiting lists, and many who want to work are not receiving the treatment that would enable them to do so. This Government are making tremendous progress on improving our NHS and healthcare systems, and we need to give that time to bring about the change that we seek. The welfare system is slow, expensive and inefficient, and it is riddled with private profit taking advantage. We must reform that, tackle that and reduce those costs.
Disabled people in this country have suffered disproportionately for years. Austerity and the last Conservative Government ruined lives, and people longed for a changed narrative under Labour. They voted for that change last July. If we are to move forward as a country, we must move forward together, and that includes disabled people.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I understand that Sir Roger may already have made this point, but about 23 colleagues are still waiting to speak and we have roughly 88 minutes left. At four minutes each, most of you will get in. If you choose to take eight minutes each, half of you will get in. I will allow colleagues to make the decision as to whether they wish to help each other.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), who is my constituency neighbour. I welcome and value his testimony and his authenticity of purpose in what he said.
I wish to speak in favour of my new clause 5, which I am pleased to say has been supported by many of my colleagues representing both inland and coastal communities. My new clause would require the Government to publish, within six months of the Bill passing, an assessment of how its provisions impact on coastal communities, such as mine in North Norfolk. That is really important, because this Bill could have a huge and detrimental impact on such communities, and I am deeply concerned that the Government have once again failed to consider coastal communities in their policy. I have heard from hundreds of worried constituents, and I am sure that the same is true of my coastal colleagues from across the House—we all know that our areas are too often overlooked and not valued enough by Governments. My new clause would ensure that the Government have to take account of how our areas will be particularly harmed by such badly thought-out changes.
What is on the face of the Bill as it stands will be really damaging to our coastal regions, even if we accept the Government amendments. Some of the highest rates of PIP claims are in coastal communities, as are some of the highest rates of unemployment. Considerably above-average rates of sickness, poor health and lower quality of life are found in coastal communities. If the Government press ahead with such blunt changes without supporting more people into work first, it could be catastrophic for communities all around our coastline.
Communities who are eager to get into work are faced with a litany of barriers that the Government are not doing enough to solve. We have real issues with public transport access, so for many trying to access inland employment, it is either too far or too hard to get to many jobs, or they see their pay packets eaten into disproportionately by bus or train fares. Almost one in five unemployed people have not applied for jobs or have turned down offers due to problems with transport.
This problem is even more acute among young people—both employed and not—who are nearly three times more likely than their older working age peers to turn down a job because they simply cannot get to it. These struggles extend to those accessing vocational training, which can be a new route into new trades and qualifications that are simply not accessible for many due to the distances required, or the lack of a workforce to provide the training. We have many talented people currently in receipt of PIP or UC who would be eager to train for an industry that they feel could allow them to work, but in communities such as mine the opportunities are just too lacking.
We know that the welfare system is not working—that is clear—but the Government have to stop looking at this issue as mere numbers on a balance sheet. When the Government do that and just look at ways to get to a magic number demanded by the Treasury, they ignore the people behind the numbers. There is an urgent need to tackle underemployment and, in particular, the rise in the number of young people with mental ill health being sentenced to a lifetime of worklessness. But ripping out the safety net will do nothing to help young people in coastal communities such as mine, who are three times as likely to suffer from undiagnosed mental distress than their inland equivalents in underprivileged areas.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Tewkesbury is not a coastal constituency, although once a year at least it feels as though it is, but my hon. Friend’s constituency shares a lot of the issues faced by my rural constituency. What he is getting at—and this is why I will be voting against the Bill—is that it does not present the means to get people back into work. Transport is one of the most significant barriers to that, as I hope he agrees.
Steff Aquarone
I completely agree that that barrier must be addressed, and the business case is so clear and easy to see. The Government should focus on supporting employment opportunities in our coastal communities by investing in our tourism and hospitality sectors, supporting training and development opportunities, and fixing our broken transport system. Yet again, I think many of these challenges might have been raised earlier if there was a Minister for coastal communities in the Government who could speak up for us.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
The hon. Member speaks with passion about coastal communities, and I share that passion because I also represent a coastal community. I am pleased that some of the barriers he has highlighted are in fact being addressed in my coastal community through the work there that has now been chosen as a trailblazer. Transport is one of those barriers, and the organisation working in Clywd North will break down transport barriers by finding routes and ways for people to get into training and work, and by paying for their transport as well. I know that the trailblazers are looking to roll that out countrywide at the end of the process. Does he agree that things can be done to overcome those barriers, including in our coastal communities?
Steff Aquarone
I look forward to the shareable case study from Clywd North when it is available, because things can be done, and doubtless they are being done, but we need to be doing them in every corner of the country and every coastal community around our country. I hope the Government accept my new clause 5 to force them to make a real assessment of how areas such as mine and that of the hon. Member’s will be affected by the proposals. However, I still urge them to scrap these badly designed changes, go back to the drawing board and come up with reforms that will support, not punish, our coastal communities.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Today, I rise not just with a heavy heart, but with huge disappointment. Despite the concessions made last week, the Bill remains a danger to disabled people, and it is not just a bad policy, but economically reckless. When we take away essential support, we do not reduce costs; we shift those costs on to the NHS, local authorities, unpaid carers and working-class communities.
Despite the hard-won concessions, this Bill remains an assault on disabled people. It is not a strategy for inclusion or support; it is a calculated effort to slash funding and vital support from those of our constituents who need it the most. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, it will mean £2 billion-worth of cuts, which are set to cost around 700,000 future universal credit recipients an average of £3,000 each year by 2030. The Bill will push 50,000 people into poverty and will be disastrous for people already living in poverty. I was not elected as a Labour MP to take money out of the pockets of the poorest and most vulnerable.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I wish to speak in favour of amendments 12, 13 and 17, and Liberal Democrat new clauses 2, 3, 6 and 7.
The Bill has been an absolute shambles from the start; there was no consultation with disabled people, and there has been last-minute chopping and changing. The Timms review and the removal of the PIP elements of the Bill are welcome, but the process that got us there has left disabled people in Yeovil fearful, and with little confidence in the Government. For example, my constituent Noel has unfortunately been unable to work due to a degenerative condition. He receives universal credit and has been left deeply distressed by the proposed changes; he visits my office almost daily for support. He is not alone. So many people in Yeovil have made it clear that the proposals are just unfair.
The whole point of the Bill, as far as I can tell, was to get people back into meaningful work and lower the welfare bill—things that I think we all want—but at no stage has the Bill done what is needed to help get people back into meaningful work: address the crisis in our NHS and social care system, and our growing chronic health issues. I have constituents who would have ended up homeless as a result of the original proposals, and now, without a full impact assessment, we do not really know what effect the Bill will have on our constituents. I am really concerned that people with Parkinson’s and conditions like MS will effectively be excluded, as a result of the criteria, from the higher rate of the health element of universal credit. At the very least, I urge colleagues to support amendment 17 to address that.
The original Bill was supposed to save around £5.5 billion, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that the amended version will deliver basically no savings over the next four years, as over that period, the forecast savings from reducing the universal credit health element for new claimants will be offset or exceeded by the cost of increasing the UC standard allowance. What is the actual point of this Bill?
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
My hon. Friend and neighbour’s constituency, like mine, is extremely rural; he will know that the cost of delivering services in rural areas is four to five times higher than it is in urban areas. PIP allows people to live independently. Both my hon. Friend and I see integrated care boards that are under extreme financial pressure. We will end up paying one way or another—we might as well give people the independence to live freely while we do it.
Adam Dance
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour. We will see a huge impact from ICBs having to make a 50% cut. We are already seeing the impact in Yeovil, as hon. Members will have heard me say. The maternity unit has had its funding cut, and is being shut for six months.
The Bill was not produced with disabled people; lots of its content is being removed; there is no impact assessment; and the Bill is not likely to make any real savings. This tells me that the Government should go back to the drawing board, and either withdraw the Bill, or adopt the Lib Dem amendments and new clauses that require proper consultation and impact assessments. Either way, the Government must stop making decisions about disabled people without them.
I thank some Labour Back Benchers for having a backbone and voting against their Government in support of disabled people. I hope they do so again today.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I rise to disagree with Opposition new clause 12, which would indefinitely block the provisions of the Bill. I am speaking today not only as the MP for Beckenham and Penge, but from personal experience, as one of the few Members of this House who has been a recipient of the higher rates of the disability living allowance and mobility allowance, and having relied on a Motability car throughout my teenage years. I will speak to why the provisions in the Bill are so welcome, and to the damage that the Conservative new clause would do to it.
First, this legislation and the wider debate we are having do not exist in a vacuum. The Bill cannot be separated from the impact of more than a decade of savage cuts to our NHS and community care services, which have led to what one NHS manager describes as “medieval” levels of untreated illness. In poorer parts of the country in particular, community care has been decimated, and A&E attendance has almost doubled since 2010. This country now has the lowest life expectancy in western Europe, one of the highest rates of preventable deaths among rich countries, and one of the lowest numbers of neighbourhood nurses and GPs per head among wealthy nations. The dismantling of preventive care has not only brought our NHS to the brink; it has done more than anything else to drive the increase that we are discussing in the number of people who are on health-related benefits and who are disabled. I can speak to that from personal experience.
When I was 13, I had an accident in which I shattered my right hip. It left me unable to walk for four years. I needed nearly 10 major operations on the NHS at the Royal London hospital and the Royal National orthopaedic hospital, and when I was a sixth former, I became one of the youngest people in the country to have a hip replacement. When I had my first hip replacement in the 2000s, under a Labour Government, the average waiting time for a hip replacement in Britain was under nine weeks, although, thanks to the staff at the Royal National orthopaedic hospital, I was seen even quicker. I then received excellent rehabilitation care, with hydrotherapy every other day.
After 14 years of Conservative Government, the waiting list for a hip replacement has trebled from nine weeks to 27 weeks. That is up from two months to more than six months. It is not uncommon in Britain today to wait up to two years for a hip replacement, and rehabilitation services are non-existent.
This situation is replicated for other treatments. The Nuffield Trust notes that there was an increase in waiting times of nearly 300% for respiratory medicine services under the previous Government. The ballooning of NHS waiting lists and the list of people on health-related benefits go hand in hand, so we cannot divorce progress on the issues that we are discussing today from progress on the NHS. We are already seeing great strides forward. Following record investment from this Government, our NHS is on track to achieve a target of 92% of patients waiting no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment. There has also been investment in rehabilitation services, such as hydrotherapy, which are essential.
We must also understand this debate in the context of cuts to other community and preventive services, including programmes such as Sure Start. I was very proud to have had the opportunity to work for Tessa Jowell, who created Sure Start under the last Labour Government. Tessa understood the importance of a child’s first 1,000 days, and designed Sure Start as an early intervention programme, which had a significant and positive impact on the long-term outcomes for hundreds of thousands of families and children in this country. The programme was savagely cut by the previous Government in one of the most short-sighted and cruel things that they did over 14 years. That has led to increased hospital admissions. Evidence shows that young people who had access to Sure Start were more likely to be in very good or excellent health.
Alongside this investment and the great progress that this Government are making on health, we also need to reform the DWP and the systems around health-related benefits in this country. That is why opposing new clause 12 is so important today.
I want to touch on what happens when a person has had medical treatment and is looking to get back into the world of work, and also on the right to try, which is in the Bill. In essence, the Bill says that trying work will not trigger a PIP award review or work capability assessment. The importance of this is borne out in research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, published in November last year, which said that almost three quarters of work-related disability benefit claimants whom it surveyed cited a fear of losing benefits as a significant or very significant barrier to work.
The right to try matters, because people with a disability or a significant health condition often will not know what they are capable of doing until they have tried to do it. They may not know what adjustments they will need to get back to work. Eight years ago, I was told that I would need a series of operations on my ankle and knee, followed by a second hip replacement—a revision to the one that I had received a decade earlier. After this, I optimistically thought that I would be able to return to work five days a week in the office as soon as I could walk unaided. I was not able to do so; it would take several months for me to do that again. I was fortunate that I had been with my employer for several years, and I had six months’ unpaid leave, which allowed me to try and initially fail to get back to work. However, for anyone relying on support from the DWP today, the reality is often very different.
We have a perverse and inflexible system in this country, which has been designed to penalise and issue sanctions, rather than incentivise and provide support. It is a broken welfare system, designed by the previous Government, that is failing people. It traps people by telling them that the only way to get help is to declare that they will never work again. It creates a climate of fear—a fear that if they try to work, they will lose their support. This Government are absolutely right to challenge and reform the system, and I am fully behind them doing so. If implemented well, the right to try will make a really big difference to getting people back to work, and will go some way to dismantling the fear that surrounds the DWP for disabled people. It is a positive measure that will empower disabled people, rather than patronise or infantilise them. It has been campaigned on for decades. It is long overdue, so I am pleased to see it in the Bill.
Finally, I wish to touch on co-production. I am pleased to see it in the Bill, but new clause 12 would block it. Co-production brings people together. It leads to policy that is more person-centred and effective, and outcomes that are more equitable and sustainable. It is not only essential in all conversations about disability policy, but particularly important when legislation passes through a Chamber like this one, which so starkly under-represents the voices and lived experiences of disabled people.
Although disabled people make up 20% of the population, only 2% of MPs are disabled. I think everyone in this Chamber has received an A1 print-out of an election map. I have one in my office. The top right-hand corner of that poster lists the women, ethnic minority, and LGBT MPs, but it has never been lost on me that there are no disabled MPs included.
Disabled people are a marginalised minority who are so often overlooked in every corner of public life. As we look to reform our welfare system and the institutions across society, I hope we will stick true to the principle of co-production so that services and policies are designed and implemented in a way that empowers disabled people and meets their real needs.
Ms Creasy
At Committee stage, we often table amendments to try to understand the nature of the legislation. Many questions are being put forward in this concertinaed process. The first is whether we should make policy by phone-in rather than on an evidence base. That is the only justification I can see for new clause 12 tabled by the Opposition, who appear not to understand that no recourse to public funds guides the lives of many migrants in our community. It contains a fundamentally un-British perspective on people who come here and work for many years in our national health service, and who then have a stroke or perhaps develop MS. Under the Opposition’s proposals, we would deny such people the support they have paid into as taxpayers. It is a dog whistle so loud that I fear the dogs in Battersea right now are having a terrible time. We should not make policy by phone-in but by evidence, and I pay tribute to the incredible words of my hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who bring their own experiences to this debate.
I will speak to new clause 4, which I tabled, as well as to other amendments. Those amendments come from my experience of what makes good policymaking in this place and from my concern that we need to protect our constituents from the vagaries of public policy. I think in particular of a 62-year-old constituent of mine who is physically disabled with a mobility condition called ankylosing spondylitis—I will tell Hansard how to spell that. She works full time and lives alone in a rented flat that has been adapted for her. Removing, messing around with and playing with her benefits—as this Bill would do for millions of people around this country—will not save money; it will simply cost more. My constituent would struggle to get to work and to look after herself, which she can do using the welfare support that she gets under the current system. That means we will face higher costs in the long run.
I wish that Members would learn from the evidence on the bedroom tax. The bedroom tax was brought in under the same metric that we heard from the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who is no longer here—that somehow people who are supported by our welfare system are probably making it up. This is not a moral argument I am making; the bedroom tax did not save the money it was meant to save, because it just pushed costs into other parts of the public sector. That is why it is so important that agree to new clause 4 and weave the principles of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities into this legislation. It should be guided by principle not prejudice—in particular the principle that we should respect our fellow human beings and our constituents who have a disability.
New clause 4 covers the question of co-production, and on this point I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) is not in her place. I want to come back to that question, because there is a very important principle about co-production that we have not bottomed out, and I want to hear from the Minister about it. There is a simple premise that we signed up to in the UN convention, which I hope Members across the House would support, that there should be an adequate standard of living—that is identified in article 28. Crucially, article 19 also sets out that there should be an independent living process for our disabled constituents. That is why in 2017, 2024 and indeed 2025, when the UN criticised the previous Government, we rightly held them to account for it. What do we wish for our disabled constituents, if not an independent and equal standard of living? What do we wish for them, if not the basic human right to be treated equally? We must recognise that the world we live in does not work for them, and we must account for that through our welfare system so that they can live freely and, yes, play a part in the world of work while also living with dignity.
It is about very practical things, such as the freedom that comes from someone having a carer who helps them get dressed so that they can go to work. That is supported by our welfare system. It is also about travel costs, especially for those living in my constituency, where Transport for London seems to be hellbent on breaking down all of the stations so that they are not accessible. Covering those costs means that someone can go out to see family and friends. There is also the food that someone might need if they have a condition like phenylketonuria—a metabolic condition that means a person needs a low protein diet. These are not equal experiences, but by using our welfare state to support those people, we can have ensure that they have the human rights we wish them to have.
New clause 4 is about giving due regard to the principles set out in the UN charter so that benefits are calculated in a way that means they are sufficient to allow people to live a life of freedom equally alongside their fellow human beings. The payments we make must meet those tests so that disabled people in our communities can meet their living expenses. That is a question that many hard-working people who are struggling at the moment in their lives can recognise well.
It is about levelling the playing field. It is not, as the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said, about making fools of us all. Those are principles that I hope the Government will commit to weaving throughout the legislation. That is why new clause 4 matters: it goes beyond the principle of co-production, which I know the Minister has recognised, to the basic principle of how we treat people. That would apply to the universal credit health element of the Bill. If we restricted a benefit, it would call on us to ask why we consider somebody to need X amount at this point in time but Y amount in the future, and to ask whether that will live up to the required standard of living.
I want to touch on co-production in particular. Many have talked about it, but people do not necessarily understand what it means. It is not consultation. Co-production means that whoever is included can say no as well as yes. Without a power of veto, all we have is a better managed consultation. Co-production genuinely empowers every participant to shape things, because they can walk out of the room as well as being part of it.
The Minister has talked about seeking consensus, but it is not an equal relationship if disabled people are not given the clear power to veto what is put on the table, such that the Government have to work with them so that they do not use their veto. That is the principle of co-production—that is why it is not consultation—and that is what we should be seeking.
I have much sympathy for new clause 8—I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is not in his place—because I was here in 2015 when George Osborne used statutory instruments to slash the tax credits that our constituents relied on and 3 million people were pushed further into poverty. I was also here when MPs on both sides of the House expressed frustration about the use of that process. We had to watch the House of Lords clear up our mess and stand up to the Chancellor for using delegated legislation to take £1,300 away from our constituents. I hope the Minister will understand that this is not about this individual Bill or even about his good intentions; I know that he has engaged with all of us. It is about the principle that if we are to change the law, we should be able to amend and adjust that law and scrutinise it on behalf of our constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) set out many alternative ways in which we could switch spending to invest in order to save money in the long run. There are many different ways in which we can support our economy to grow; it does not have to be off the backs of our disabled constituents. There is also the important principle here—I know many on the Labour Benches believe this—that socialism is the language of priorities. Our priority must be to empower and enable every single one of our constituents to achieve their potential—and yes, that happens through a growing economy, and also through a welfare state.
I hope that the Minister will address the amendments that seek to ask questions about how we get this right. For many of us those unanswered questions are troubling —we cannot bring back answers for our constituents—because they tell us that we may not achieve those things that I have set out. None of us who have lived through George Osborne and the bedroom tax ever want to go back to that again. We want to be able to say to our constituents, who might find themselves in the position of the father of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, that we can absolutely be proud of the system we are building today, just as we are proud of my hon. Friend himself.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 11 and amendment 38. I am incredibly relieved that the Government have listened—most importantly, they have listened to the people who will be affected by changes to PIP—and taken clause 5 out of the Bill. The terms of reference for the Timms review have already been set without involving disabled people, but there is a chance with new clause 11 to ensure that it moves forward in a truly co-produced way. What worries me is that without the proposals in the new clause, the Bill highlights the need for co-production but provides no assurances that it will be comprehensively done. Disabled people must feel that any changes to the welfare system are made properly with them rather than done to them.
I have walked in the shoes of families in my constituency bringing up children with special educational needs and disabilities. For decades, my son and I have been caught up in the endless cycle of assessments, mandatory reconsiderations and tribunals. That is a situation familiar to many who have turned to the DWP for help to manage life with a disability or disabilities.
This is the reason that so many disabled people are terrified of the Government’s proposed changes: the DWP is too frequently at war with the people it is supposed to protect. Too frequently, it lets down the most vulnerable in our community, and it mostly gets away with it. Recently, the incredible Joy Dove won an eight-year legal fight to link her daughter Jodey Whiting’s suicide to the stopping of her benefits, which the DWP admitted was a mistake. Jodey’s avoidable death is not the only one.
DWP decisions often seem to be completely arbitrary. Once, when I was waiting to go into a tribunal, I received a call from the DWP offering to reinstate my son’s benefits if I dropped the tribunal. That experience cemented in my mind something that I believe to this day: the culture of the DWP is hostile to disabled people. That culture must change if we are to have any chance of building a sustainable, fair and compassionate welfare system for the future.
A constituent of mine in Scarborough and Whitby suffers from a variety of complex physical and mental health conditions, including PTSD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorder, polycystic kidney disease and liver disease. In May, after reporting a deterioration in his health, he submitted new evidence to support reassessment for a higher rate of PIP, which led to the DWP removing his award entirely. He was left with no income or support despite his ongoing need for care.
This is the reality: many disabled people who are turned down for PIP rely on the health element of universal credit. Many of my constituents have fluctuating conditions, such as MS, ME and mental health conditions. The reality of their conditions means that during periods of remission they return to employment. However, once their condition deteriorates, they return to universal credit. If that happens, with this Bill they would return on a lower level than before, down to just £50 a week. That completely ignores the realities faced by disabled people and their experience of their conditions. Without the protections provided for in amendment 38, we would create a two-tier system where people with unpredictable conditions would be valued less than those with more predictable ones.
I urge hon. Members to support new clause 11 and amendment 38. I also ask the Government to please pull the Bill. Even at this late stage, let us get it right for the people who really matter; let us get it right for disabled people.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of a variety of amendments, which I will mention as I go. In the life of an MP, not a day goes by without hearing from a constituent with an issue relating to benefits or health. We can all think of the people we have met who have suffered badly after 14 years of austerity imposed by the Conservative party. Our sick, disabled and vulnerable were left trapped in a doom loop, living hand to mouth and battling worsening mental health, while fighting a broken system that fails far too many.
I doubt many hon. Members in this Chamber have personal experience of the cruel welfare system. I do. I first became ill at work with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, which is a heart condition. Not long after, I suffered a pulmonary embolism and almost lost my life. That was followed by a total mental breakdown. Punitive sickness policies meant I was soon being managed out of the job I loved so much by human resources, which refused to acknowledge the recommendations of occupational health.
I was in receipt of universal credit for about a year, receiving £690 a month, but that did not even cover my rent and bills, and I was at risk of losing my rented home. Thankfully, I had friends and family to support me, but not everyone is that fortunate. My confidence plummeted, and the feelings of failure, rejection and uselessness at not being able to sustain myself were all-consuming. Nobody chooses this life. In fact, just yesterday the United Nations wrote to the Government stating that the rhetoric, language and false statements used when discussing welfare is damaging, as well as raising concerns about human rights violations.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I will speak to the Government amendments and against some other amendments. Before I was elected, I worked for the trade union Unison where I was the national officer for disability equality. In that job, I saw every day how disabled people who love their jobs are often pushed out of the workplace by employers who refuse to make the small changes that would help them to thrive at work.
Through the Mayfield review, this Labour Government are seizing the opportunity to finally make the workplace more accessible for disabled people. The Employment Rights Bill will bring in flexible working, allowing disabled workers to perhaps start a little later in the morning when tablets have kicked in or to work from home to avoid the painful morning rush hour. Alongside that, I have also introduced my own Bill for a deadline for employer responses to reasonable adjustment requests from disabled workers. We are transforming the workplace for disabled people, and Labour is also making work pay. No longer will it be a choice between benefits and a bargain basement job. We have increased wages for 3 million low-paid workers, committed to introducing mandatory disability pay gap monitoring and delivered the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation.
Government new clause 1 and associated amendments will ensure that for those who cannot work, their universal credit health benefit will increase in line with inflation. The Bill ends the absolute indignity of constant reassessments for those with severe conditions. Almost 15,000 families in Ealing Southall will also see the basic rate of universal credit increase by a record amount, lifting thousands of children out of poverty across the country. New clause 12 would rob those 15,000 families of that money—it must be rejected.
It cannot be right that almost 3 million people are off work long-term sick, 1 million young people are not earning or learning, and a thousand people a day are applying for PIP. We are an outlier internationally. No other country in the world sees the same massive increase in people on sickness-related benefits. It is unique to this country, and we do no favours to people with long-term conditions by ignoring it. The Tories created this broken system where people are better off on sickness benefits than in work and there is no help for those who want a job. Everyone knows the system needs reform, but amendments 2(a), amendment 2(b) from the Chair of the Select Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), Conservative amendments 50 to 55, and new clause 12 would continue to put reform on the long finger and delay change.
Last August, after 14 years of the Tories, when I visited west Ealing jobcentre and asked who I could speak to if I was a disabled person who needed a job that would work around my needs, I was told there was no one—no one at all. That is why we need change now. Under Labour, west London is one of the 14 Get Britain Working trailblazers across the country. People on long-term sickness benefits with back pain and other musculoskeletal conditions, which are the second biggest reason why people claim health-related benefits, have been contacted and asked if they want help to get a job, and hundreds have replied that they do. They have been sat there waiting for us to contact them. Those people were ignored by the previous Government—people who wanted to work but were left on the scrapheap.
Some £8 million from the Government is helping west Londoners into work. The Bill is part of a much bigger £1 billion plan to extend that to every jobcentre and to every disabled person who wants a good job. The new right to try will build a more flexible benefits system that does not force people to put themselves in a box, locked out of work for ever, but allows them to try work without losing benefits.
I am glad that the Government have ensured that no one on PIP will lose it, and that they will co-produce the PIP review with disabled people—it has been over a decade since the PIP system was last reviewed, and since then we have learned more about the impact of mental health conditions and fluctuating conditions—but true co-production means letting the review go ahead without this House trying to control it, so we must reject the rigidness of new clauses 8 and 11 in favour of true co-production.
Disabled people were let down again and again by the previous Government. Labour is finally delivering equality for disabled workers while fixing the broken system that forces almost 3 million people to languish on long-term sickness benefits without help. If colleagues across the House genuinely want reform that builds a better, more flexible benefits system that makes work pay, takes 50,000 children out of poverty and properly supports disabled people who cannot work, they must do more than just talk about it; they must vote for the Bill and get on with the job of changing Britain for the better.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 8 and 11, amendment 38 and the Bill more broadly. This informed debate has been conducted respectfully. Throughout the entire process, it has been illuminating to hear from so many Members with such in-depth personal, familial and professional experience. I urge those on the Government Front Bench to look upon such Members from across the House as a resource, because they speak with great authority. I mention in particular the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), which were so informative.
May I correct one earlier comment? We heard from one Opposition Member that “no recourse to public funds” means “recourse to public funds.” Well, the clue is in the descriptor. I know that Boris Johnson struggled with that, but “no recourse to public funds” means exactly what it says.
I wish to speak about the impact were the House to pass amendment 2. I recognise that the amendment adopts some of the previously announced concessions and somewhat limits the damage of clause 2. But let me be clear: even with the amendment, the clause is not acceptable. The Bill is not welfare reform; it is a cut—deliberate, far-reaching and deeply damaging. Even after amendments, clause 2 will remove £2 billion from disabled people in the years ahead. Three quarters of those affected are already in material deprivation. Around 750,000 individuals—people who are too ill to work—stand to lose an average of £3,000 a year. Members must consider today which constituents whose doors they knock on will find themselves £3,000 a year worse off. The weekly top-up for those too unwell to work, which is currently £97, will fall to £50 for new applicants—the same condition and need as current claimants, but half the support. That is not fairness; it is the creation of a two-tier welfare system. We are not talking about abstractions; we are talking about people who cannot walk 50 metres, or who need constant supervision, or who cannot operate a keypad unaided. They currently receive £423 per month. Soon, some could receive as little as £217 per month. That is not a budget decision; it is a moral one.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
One amendment tabled by the Conservatives seeks to strip foreign nationals of the right to claim benefits. That could mean that some people are left with no support whatsoever, which could include my father, who has been in this country for 40 years and paid into the system. The amendment tabled by the Conservatives is absolutely despicable, and I invite the hon. Member to join me in agreeing with that statement.
Andy McDonald
The hon. Member makes a powerful point. We have to raise our heads and look at our brothers and sisters, who are actively and economically engaged in our country, and think about the contribution they make and the payments they make into the Treasury, through tax and national insurance. We must treat them with dignity and respect, rather than trying to other them at every opportunity.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Member makes an incredibly powerful and telling point about the disincentive of trying to get into work for people who have a varying and fluctuating condition, such as MS. That is an unanswerable point and I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say in response. Does he agree with me that in conversations that the Minister has with what we are too lazily inclined to refer to as “the disabled community”, unless we are able to break down disabled groups into those who have a permanent condition and those who have a fluctuating condition, and to individually tailor responses to that, it will be a missed opportunity to get this right?
Andy McDonald
The hon. Member makes an important point, and it is critical that that is reflected on the face of the Bill. With all sincerity, we cannot walk away from here thinking that guidance notes are enough. They may change fundamentally in further iterations and say something completely different from what this honourable and decent Minister is saying to us today. Policy for disabled people must be made with them, not imposed upon them.
If we are serious about ending austerity, we cannot keep balancing the books on the backs of the poorest. That means revisiting not just what we spend, but who we tax and how. We have heard about the party of millionaires making their case that this country has done so well by them—they are so privileged to have made a success of their lives and to have flourished—that they are looking at the opportunities they were given and saying, “Please, we can make a further contribution.” It is they who made the argument about a wealth tax that would raise £24 billion. Nigel Lawson, when he was Chancellor, thought that the differential between capital gains tax and income tax was an anathema, and he equalised it, so there are opportunities for us there.
The Employment Rights Bill also presents us with wonderful opportunities. If we could grasp the issue of “single status of worker” and deal with the issue of bogus self-employment, limb (b) employment, zero-hours contracts and the rest of it, that not only represents secure, well-paid, unionised work for people to give them a flourishing life; it also gives us the opportunity to collect currently uncollected tax and national insurance, to the tune of £10 billion per annum. That would also mean supporting people according to their needs. That is not Marx, but the Acts of the Apostles.
This is a moment of reckoning. The country expects better. If we are to lose our nerve now, we will lose more than a vote: we will lose the trust that brought us here. We must reflect that during our discussions about the Bill, each and every one of us has heard the response from our constituents and our offices that this has been a shambles—there is no other word to describe it. Now is the moment to stop the cuts and I implore the Government to rethink the Bill.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I rise to support my new clause 10, as well as a number of other amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, including new clause 8, new clause 11 and amendment 38.
I welcome the concessions that the Government have made to the Bill, which I will be supporting. I pay tribute to the disabled and chronically ill people whose tireless campaigning led to those concessions—I have been proud to stand with them. However, the changes do not alleviate all my concerns about the Bill. One in three disabled people are already in poverty. The Bill, even after the Government’s amendments, would take around £3,000 a year from the disabled people of the future, at a time when the extra cost of being disabled is set to rise by 12% in the next five years.
The Government’s analysis states that the measures in the Bill will lift 50,000 people out of poverty. However, analysis from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the New Economics Foundation shows that they would actually push 50,000 disabled people into poverty. We know that benefit cuts and loss of payments help to trap women experiencing domestic abuse, make children grow up in poverty and even cost lives, like that of my constituent Philippa Day, who died from a deliberate overdose after her benefits were wrongly cut.
This is particularly pertinent to those with fluctuating conditions, who risk losing LCWRA status during periods of temporary improvement. That is why amendment 38 is so vital, as it would ensure that they are protected. Even with the Government’s concessions, not a single disabled people’s organisation supports this Bill. It is at the request of the disabled people’s organisations forum in England that I have tabled new clause 10, which would require the Government to publish a human rights memorandum before the Bill can be enacted.
No analysis of the impact of the Bill on the human rights of disabled people has been published so far. Last year, the UN found that there had been further regression in the “grave and systemic violations” of disabled people’s rights in the UK, which it reported on in 2016. Last night, the UN wrote to the Government to say that it had “received credible information” indicating that the Bill will “deepen” that regression. We should not proceed with the Bill as it stands.
Disabled people’s organisations remain sceptical about the Timms review into PIP. I am hopeful that the Government will support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), which would make provision for commitments around co-production and oversight. They must also support new clause 8, which would ensure that changes from the Timms review are introduced as primary legislation. That is essential in ensuring democratic scrutiny—otherwise, MPs will not be able to amend or vote on the legislation. It would also prevent a reduction in eligibility for PIP, which we know would be disastrous and which motivated so many of us on the Government Benches to call on the Government to think again.
I joined the Labour party because of what I experienced and witnessed growing up as a child and a teenager under the Conservatives. As a disabled MP, I have first-hand experience of the disability benefits system. We have all met constituents who are already not getting the support they need. The question today is this: do we let their number grow? If the answer is no, I urge Members to support the amendments that would strengthen protections for disabled people and, ultimately, to vote down this Bill.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I rise to call for the removal of clauses 2 and 3 from the Bill, because I think they get to the heart of the unfairness contained within it.
There can be no doubt for those of us who were here last week that trust was eroded between the Government and disabled people’s organisations—that trust will need to be slowly rebuilt over the coming months. We should therefore recognise that a positive step in that direction is the Government’s decision to pause on the issue of PIP reform and to place those decisions in the hands of the Timms review. However, that is not enough, because the Bill still contains a proposal to cut £2 billion from the universal credit health element for more than 750,000 future claimants.
From next April, we will have created a two-tier benefits system based not on health needs, but on the date when a claim was made. In fact, there are already nearly 4.8 million disabled people living in poverty today across the country. That is a damning indictment of our welfare system and should be a wake-up call to bring that number down, not to make it go even higher.
The numbers are stark. Taking £3,000 a year, or £250 a month, from disabled people’s income will force families to a crisis point and into further reliance on food banks. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation claims that if the cuts are not removed, an additional 50,000 people will be forced into poverty. Even before this cut, three quarters of all universal credit health element recipients are already experiencing material deprivation and are unable to afford the essentials on which to live. If we are serious about genuinely reforming the benefits system and putting disabled people and their organisations at the heart of any changes, I cannot see why the health element of universal credit would not also be part of the Timms review.
Ian Lavery
Is my hon. Friend aware that 25% of those claiming the health element of universal credit used a food bank last year, or that a third of those who claim it could not afford to heat their homes last year?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
That intervention is further evidence that our welfare system is not working. I understand that some Members may consider voting for this Bill tonight because of the proposed uplift to the standard rate of universal credit. Disabled groups that I have met are clear that that is not worth having if it is to be done at the expense of other disabled people further down the line. Members will have seen the letter yesterday from the UN committee on the rights of persons with disabilities, which has raised serious concerns that the Bill will deepen the signs of regression in disabled people’s human rights. The answer therefore remains that clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill need to be removed. We should allow the Timms review to look at all aspects of the benefits system and report back next year. That is what disabled people and their organisations want, and that is what I will vote for.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Last week, I voted against the Government because I was not happy with the proposals on the table. When the Bill was initially put forward, I was particularly concerned about the proposed changes to PIP eligibility criteria, which in my view were arbitrary and risked taking support from those who need it most. I am glad to say that the Government have listened and acted.
As a result of Government amendment 4, which will remove changes to PIP eligibility, alongside making other positive changes, I can now—carefully and with reservations—support the Bill as amended. The removal of changes to PIP eligibility criteria from this Bill protects carers and prevents the consequential loss of carer’s allowance. As a former carer, that is important to me.
I have put a lot of thought into this issue over the preceding weeks. I have listened to my constituents, and I have been thinking about what is important to them. Not only have the amendments removed the changes to PIP that I was worried about, but the Bill will now include vital increases to the basic level of universal credit. I do not feel able to vote against that today.
We inherited a heck of a mess from the last Conservative Government, and I do not think anyone disagrees that there is a need for change. We need a system that is well designed, that works, and that is fair to both claimants and other taxpayers, so I welcome the ministerial review of the PIP assessment. Co-production with disabled people and the organisations that represent them is particularly welcome. Conducting a thorough review in genuine co-production, leading to well-thought-out proposals for reform, is the right thing to do.
Simon Hoare
With the greatest respect, the hon. Lady is putting the cart before the horse, as are the Government. You do your review first, you find out what it says, and you tailor your policies and your response to it. Is that not the best way of making policy? This half-baked idea satisfies no one.
Lizzi Collinge
I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the bit where the Government are taking out clause 5 and the measures on the PIP eligibility criteria, and are doing the review first, but I thank him for his intervention.
I will hold the Government to account for their promises about the review. I also endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), and support her new clause 11.
This debate has involved a huge raft of different issues, and they have been conflated at times, so before I talk about the other changes that I support, I want to emphasise that PIP is not just an out-of-work benefit. It is claimed by people both in and out of work, and it is there to help with the extra costs associated with disabilities and long-term conditions. However, there is also a huge disability employment gap, and a great many people who want to work cannot, simply for lack of a bit of support—some health treatment, or an employer who will make reasonable adjustments. I am therefore pleased that plans for employment support have been brought forward, and that there will be extra investment earlier.
I should make it clear that my concerns always focused on a small part of the broader reform package, but for reasons of time, I will not go into them. These are vital steps towards fixing the system. I will not say that I have no concerns left—I have, which is why I support amendment 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie)—but no policy or solution will be perfect. No Green Paper can address everything, and no legislation can get everything right.
In these past few weeks, I have been reminded of something that my friend Joe once said to me: “Politics is not a game to be played. It’s people’s lives, and people’s lives matter.” No wonder our constituents have so little faith in our political system, when what should have been a debate about the rights and wrongs of a policy and about the lives of those constituents has turned into a debate about the Westminster bubble, not the people we serve. The Westminster bubble ought to be popped, and quickly.
The views of the House have been made clear over the last couple of weeks, and I am glad that the Government have listened. I will always speak out, as I know my colleagues will, without fear or favour, and we will always fight for a better, fairer welfare system for everyone.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I rise to support the removal of clause 5 and the associated amendments, and to comment on a few other amendments, based on what I have read and learned.
Many things have been said in this debate, in the Chamber and outside, but it is undeniable that the system is not working for far too many people. We see a welfare bill rising, people trapped on benefits, and opportunities lost. The most heartbreaking part of all this is not the monetary cost, which we seem to talk about too much, but the cost to people of being written off, and spending a lifetime in a failed, broken system. We all hear stories every week, through our casework and in our surgeries, of people who want to work but do not have the necessary support; of the intrusive nature of assessments; of bureaucracy that needs a human touch; of people fearing to try work for fear of losing their benefits; and of disabled people who need more support.
One of my hon. Friends, who is no longer in the Chamber, spoke about the broken social contract. While we approach this debate, and this subject, with the compassion and care that are needed, we should also be clear that the social contract is already broken. There is nothing honourable about denying or slowing down action to tackle the problem of 2.8 million people being thrown on the scrapheap for being sick, or long-term sick. There is nothing to cherish from the Conservatives, who left this Government a legacy of nearly 1 million young people thrown on the scrapheap, not in employment, not in education and not in any meaningful walk of life. No one can say that the system is not broken, and that is the spirit in which many of us in this Chamber have sought, from different perspectives, to approach this legislation. I want to speak against amendments that seek to delay or wreck this Bill, because whatever happens next, we need to get going.
One of the criticisms of this Government that I sometimes hear is that we do not move fast enough. Now that we have started to fix our broken welfare system, we are being told by some that we are going too fast. I think we can move forward with a Bill that begins to fix the foundations of our welfare system, and do so with compassion for those most in need, and I welcome contributions that we have heard today. I also welcome the fact that Ministers have listened to our concerns about the Bill and decided last week to remove clause 5, because it caused anxiety not just to Members of this House, but to many people outside who saw the risk.
Bringing the Timms review forward before any changes are made, and committing to fully involving disabled people and their organisations, is the right thing to do; the Government have listened. I recognise many of the points made in passionate speeches, and I support new clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). I hope the Minister will address that, and assure the House that the sentiment has been taken on board, because the new clause will make the Bill better, not worse, and clear the fog.
It is important that we push ahead with this Bill. As colleagues have said, work is central to Labour’s mission, because dignity comes from good work and from employers who embrace their employees and give people the ability to work. There is no dignity in allowing 2.8 million people to be thrown on the scrapheap, with no ability to get off it.
Tom Hayes
I recognise exactly what my hon. Friend is saying, because both my parents were forced out of work. They were unwell, and could not get the support they needed from the NHS. They could not get a foot in the door of the social security system and, as their health got worse, they got further away from the workforce. I wish that we had had better support for them.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is positive that the Government are open to setting a disability employment target, which could drive action? In my constituency of Bournemouth East, the rate stands at an unacceptable 24% after 14 years of the Conservatives.
Andrew Pakes
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He makes a powerful case for why our job today is to fix the Bill, not kill it.
We should be passionate about the centrality and dignity of work. Unemployed young people in my constituency, and those who are disabled, are frustrated by a system that does not work, and they want the Government to work with them to fix it. That mission was true 80 years ago, when the post-war Attlee Government were elected to pick up the pieces following the devastation of the second world war. Similarly, our Government’s mission today is to fix the foundations of a broken welfare system and a broken economy.
As I said on Second Reading, I am particularly concerned about the impact of the welfare trap on young people. I represent a city with one of the highest levels of—this is a horrible phrase—young people who are NEET, or not in employment, education or training, and who are starting their adult life on benefits. We know that the trend has not been helped by the failure of the mental health system and the health system, which has put pressure on people without offering them any help or support to get them through.
I am a passionate advocate of apprenticeships. It cannot be right that so many young people in Peterborough and around the country are starting their adult lives on benefits, and I agree that we should not be paying benefits so that young people can stay at home. We should be investing in young people’s ability to earn, learn and train.
I hope the Minister will expand on those points when he comes to respond to the debate, because it is morally, politically and economically right that young people should be earning and learning, and it is right that we proceed with this Bill. Following the removal of clause 5, I am content that this Bill begins the journey of fixing the system. It is the start, not the end, but it is a start we need to make.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the many amendments that attempt to improve this Bill, which I signed in desperation, because I did not enter politics to strip vital support from those who need it, yet the Bill does exactly that. We are the party that created the welfare state, so we know the welfare state is not a handout—sadly, the debate on this Bill has characterised it as such—but a lifeline. Proposing to take that lifeline away from anyone who may need it is a betrayal of those we are elected to serve.
While I welcome the Government stepping back on some elements of the Bill, I do not believe they have gone far enough. As it stands, £2 billion is still set to be cut from hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people who are already on low incomes, which cannot be right. That is why I am pleased to support amendment (a) to amendment 2, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), to scrap the cut to the universal credit health element entirely. We have to realise that disability rights organisations still do not support the cut at all. The impact assessments that do exist are inadequate or worrying, and thousands will still be pushed into poverty.
In truth, the announcement of the Timms review does little to quell my fears. This Government-led review will take place after the Bill takes effect. Whether or not the review is co-produced, the Government will be taking support away from disabled people and then consulting them on their views after the fact. The toxicity around the Bill means that it is being criticised by those whom it is meant to support, and that is really not a good start.
While I am pleased that the points element has been removed from the Bill, I still share the concerns held by many disability rights groups about what the Bill will truly mean for disabled people. That is why I have signed my name to amendments that will go some way towards making the Bill somewhat more humane. Amendment 38, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), would protect those with fluctuating conditions. New clause 8, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and new clause 11, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), would fix concerns about the Timms review by ensuring it is followed by primary legislation and by mandating its implementation and co-production with disabled people.
Other amendments that I support include those to protect carers and to ensure that due regard is given to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. We would be wrong to ignore the UN’s warning that the Bill will worsen the rights of disabled people. We have to remember that PIP allows many disabled people to access work. Cutting support does not incentivise work, but prevents it. The claim that these reforms would have boosted employment simply does not hold up. Let us not forget that the Bill was published three weeks ago, and was gutted on Second Reading with a further week to rush it through Parliament. That is no way to legislate on matters with such serious consequences.
We have a health crisis in our nation, especially in respect of mental health, and the answer is not to take financial support away from those who need it. If we want to reduce the number of people off work due to physical or mental ill health, we have to continue to address the issues in our healthcare system, and get on with the plans to allow people to access appointments and assessments to stop their ailments worsening. This is not how welfare reform should be carried out, and even at this late stage I urge the Government to throw this Bill out. Some may say that that would be mad, but surely it cannot be worse than what we have been doing this week.
We have to be frank about why the Bill was introduced. It was primarily about saving money, but it would balance the books on the backs of the sick and disabled. I am really tired of how we talk about the economy and about growth in this House as though this is a household bill and we can cut this or cut that. No one seems to ask a good economist and find out that we are meant to invest for growth. People keep telling me that I am young, which is patronising—and it is not even that true any more—but I still cannot find anyone who can give me an example of a time in history when cuts to public services or welfare have solved the issues of the day. That is the case again and again, and those discussions need to end.
There are many other ways in which we can save money. As many Members have pointed out, we could end tax loopholes or have a wealth tax. I was pleased to add my name to amendment 37, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), which would scrap third-party PIP assessments. US multinationals are making millions of pounds out of those assessments, while humiliating people and/or getting it wrong.
We are told that all this is about getting people into work, but I just cannot see how we can continue to hold on to that idea. I reiterate that it may seem bad to drop the Bill at this late stage, but it cannot be worse than the debate we have had over the past couple of weeks.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Sometimes politics seems complicated. Sometimes the passage of a Bill through Parliament, especially with antics and shenanigans like those we saw last week, may confuse people. But actually, the issue before all of us when we vote tonight is very simple. Today, Wednesday 9 July 2025, are Labour MPs going to vote through cuts to universal credit that will take £2 billion from 750,000 sick and disabled people who are already on low incomes—people who will have been judged not fit to work? Will we put our name to a Bill that will, on average, take £3,000 off every single one of those 750,000 people? I think that if we had not had the complications with the Bill the week before, Labour MPs would find it very easy. They would see a Bill that asks us to take billions of pounds from low-income people in our constituencies across the country and find it very easy to vote no.
I ask my friends on the Labour Benches to cast their minds back to when they were first selected and first elected. None of us got into politics to take £3,000 a year off low-income people who are sick and disabled and on universal credit. It has been said that what is morally wrong can never be politically right. People outside this Chamber see the issue before us very clearly indeed. The Bill is being railroaded through, disabled people’s voices are being excluded, and when colleagues say, “Don’t listen to those who say we shouldn’t press on,” that means, “Don’t listen to disabled people.” I think we should listen to disabled people, and not one disabled people’s organisation supports the changes.
The reason the Bill is being rushed through a Committee of the whole House, rather than a Committee where disabled people and their organisations—people with lived experience—could talk to the MPs on the Committee, is because of a politically imposed artificial deadline that is there to save face. I welcome the changes made last week as a result of pressure from disabled people and Back-Bench MPs, but we are voting tonight on taking money off people on low incomes. We are voting tonight on whether we think, after saying last week that it was wrong to have a two-tier PIP system, that it is right to have a two-tier universal credit system.
The reality is that people will remember how we vote tonight. It has been said before, but I will say it again: some votes define us. They define us as politicians and they define how we view our time in Parliament. Disabled people who come to see us in our constituency surgeries will not understand if we, as Labour people, vote for this cut to universal credit tonight or abstain. We will live with that vote in every single constituency surgery between now and the next general election.
Let us take a step back and imagine that we did not have a Whip system in this House. Of course, all of us agree on 99% of things all the time. That is the reality, but if this were not a whipped vote, I think the vast majority of Labour MPs would vote with their conscience and with their disabled constituents against cutting universal credit. All the rest is sophistry. We will live with this vote. It is often said that the longer the statement on Twitter from an MP after a vote, the worse the decision they must have made. You start at the first sentence and by the time you get to the end, the constituents are thinking, “Did they? Did they really vote for that after all they said on the TV, in their tweets and in the Chamber?”
We are Labour people. This is not a left and right issue in the Labour party; this is a right and wrong issue. I say this: any Labour MP who votes against these cuts to low-income people on universal credit tonight will sleep soundly, knowing that they did all they could, on £90,000-odd a year, to stand up for their disabled constituents. That is what we got into politics to do. We should not plough ahead. We should vote this out.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the final Back-Bench speaker, David Pinto-Duschinsky, after which I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I rise to speak against amendment (a) to amendment 2, amendments 45 and 52, and new clause 12.
The creation of the modern welfare state by the 1945 Labour Government remains one of our proudest legacies. At its heart was the powerful idea that people should be protected from hardship and supported to realise their full potential. Underpinning that vision was a clear principle: everyone who can work should work, not just for the dignity and agency work brings, but because it is the most effective route out of poverty. Children in workless households are five times more likely to grow up poor than those in households where every adult works.
That principle holds true today, but it is under strain. One in 10 working-age people is out of the labour market; among young people, that figure is one in eight. This is not a global trend, but a challenge unique to the UK, rooted in the welfare system’s design. Too often, that system locks people with health conditions and disabilities out of work; too often, it penalises attempts to get ahead and fails to offer real support; too often, it writes people off.
Disabled people in the UK have an employment rate 29% lower than those without disabilities and face a wider unemployment gap than many of their international peers. Their poverty rate is 10% higher. This is not compassion. We owe it to these individuals and to the welfare state’s founding principles to fix this problem. We cannot avoid change or fall back on impractical slogans—to do so would be to abandon those who most need help.
Yet that is what these amendments and new clauses do. I shall start with amendments 45 and 52 and new clause 12, tabled by the Opposition, whose Benches are empty. These measures reveal a lack of seriousness and of a plan. The Tories presided over this crisis of opportunity and soaring claimancy. They failed to reform the system, to address the disability employment gap or to tackle fraud, which tripled on their watch. Throughout this debate, they have been unable to explain their alternative—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), whom it is good to see in his place, recently admitted as much, saying that he could not say exactly what he would do—so they resort to gimmicks.
Amendment 45 demands that all assessments be face-to-face, forgetting that it was the Conservatives who cut face-to-face assessments by 90%. If there were an Olympic event for brass neck, they would win the gold medal every time. This proposal is unworkable, denying frontline managers discretion—a fact the Conservatives essentially admit in the small print. It is also unnecessary; unlike the Conservatives in government, this Government are restoring most assessments back to being face-to-face.
The same applies to amendment 52 and new clause 12. PIP already has strict residency and qualification rules and is needs based. These proposals would not effect meaningful change, but would slow down reform. Once again, this is gesture politics—the Conservatives do not have a plan.
While the Opposition admit a problem but offer no plan, amendment (a) to amendment 2 seems, I fear, to deny that there is a problem at all, proposing simply to remove all changes to the LCWRA. The changes those behind the amendment want to scrap are vital to rebalancing the system, which will not just remove disincentives to work but enable the largest above-inflation increase in basic jobseeker benefits since the 1970s. These benefits will rise £725 a year for 6.5 million people by 2029, helping 15,000 people in my constituency. Removing these changes risks losing measures that would lift 50,000 children out of poverty.
None of this is easy. We are talking about real lives, not abstract policies. I understand the anxiety this debate causes, but freezing the system in aspic and ignoring its failings would lock in current injustices and create future problems. We should start reform by reaffirming the system’s basic purpose: to protect and treat all with dignity, but also to empower people and give them true agency. That means recognising that some cannot work, ensuring protection for the vulnerable, and listening to and co-producing with disabled people. However, it also means ensuring that those who can work do so, offering support and holding employers to account. I believe that the Government’s proposals do so.
Just as Attlee’s Government reimagined the role of the state after the war, so we must reimagine it now after the upheavals of the pandemic, economic change and rising ill health. The world has changed, and our welfare system must do so too. We must reform the system—not in spite of Labour values, but because of them.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Colleagues have described the events surrounding this Bill as “chaotic” and “shambolic”, and they were right to do so. Sadly, by failing to consult on key elements, the Government were setting up the Bill to fail. Moreover, the Government’s impact assessment is, I fear, somewhat misleading, because it bakes in cuts that the previous Government had planned, but not actually implemented. As a result, I am somewhat cautious of some of the Government’s figures.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Minister.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
So here we are. Labour has had 15 years, including 14 years spent complaining about welfare reform while the Conservative Government fixed the catastrophic mess of unemployment benefits that we inherited—the alphabetti spaghetti of welfare that we had in 2010, if any of their Members can remember it. We fixed all those benefit traps, introducing universal credit, making work pay and supporting people off welfare and into jobs. In the first decade of our time in government, 100,000 fewer people were economically inactive every single year of the 2010s. In 2019 we had the lowest number of workless households since records began. Then covid hit, and Labour were clamouring for more welfare throughout that period. After the covid incident, as we left office we were introducing reforms to fix the health and disability benefits system. All of that was opposed every step of the way by Labour.
Dr Tidball
Does the shadow Minister really believe that anyone could truly think that the Conservatives ensured that disabled people were well paid when 14 years of their government led to a 17% disability pay gap?
Danny Kruger
The fact is, in our time in government we increased the number of disabled people in work significantly. Two million more disabled people were in work at the end of our time in government than before. There is much to regret about the last years of our time in government, and I was a critic of them myself, but on welfare throughout our time in government we have a proud record of improving the broken system that we inherited.
We are now a year into Labour’s time in government. They have had all this time to come up with a plan and we have absolutely nothing. Clause 5 did have some changes to the system, but they are going to scrap that today. I want to pay tribute to the rebels on the Labour Benches for finding their voice and showing what Parliament can do, and I particularly pay tribute to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—the real Prime Minister sitting there on the real Front Bench. I respect and honour them all.
As for the Government Front Bench, they are chopping the Bill’s title in half. It is now nothing to do with PIP, so we have no reform to welfare and certainly no savings. This is now a spending Bill, not a savings Bill. Looking at the impact assessment that has just been published—the third in the last three weeks, I think—if we add up the savings from cutting UC health for new claims, which is a little over £5 billion, and minus the cost of raising the standard allowance, which is a little over £5 billion, we get £120 million of extra costs over the next four years, plus the £1 billion of extra employment support. Labour’s idea of saving money on welfare is to spend more by the end of the Bill’s passage. The Government have also spent the money that they thought they were saving from the PIP changes before they did the U-turn. Even now they are on a wing and a prayer financially.
The Office for Budget Responsibility, on which the tottering Chancellor has relied to hold up her sums, assumes that the on-flow to benefits will fall halfway back to their 2019 levels over this Parliament. If they do not, the Chancellor will have to find another £12 billion. Why should new claims reduce under this Government when there is still an incentive of £50 a week to get on to UC health, and there is no reform to PIP for at least another year? The Minister has also said that his famous eponymous review is not aimed at saving money anyway. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) challenged him earlier to confirm that, and I think he has confirmed from the Dispatch Box that there will be no savings from his review.
Meanwhile, the UK is haemorrhaging jobs thanks to the national insurance rise, and we have the Employment Rights Bill coming down the track. The OBR did not even include in its forecast the likely impact of the unemployment Bill that Labour is introducing. That is something we can look forward to in the autumn.
We are in a deep fiscal hole, and of course we need welfare reform—in fact, we need welfare cuts. That is why the Opposition wanted to support the Government when they set out their intentions, and we said that we would support the Bill if they reduced spending, got more people into work and pledged that there would be no new taxes, but they did none of that, so we do not support it. We do, however, have a further set of proposals.
My friend, the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), challenged me to come up with some alternatives, and we have some amendments to that very effect. First, amendment 45 would improve the quality of assessments. There is a bigger piece of work to be done, and I welcome the Government looking closely at the assessments process, but right now we could make one clear and simple improvement. In 2019, 84% of PIP assessments were conducted face to face; last year, the figure was 5%. That was a covid change—[Interruption.] That was absolutely a covid change that was not changed back in time; I totally agree. The fact is, the work-from-home culture really took off at the DWP and with its subcontractors, and that does need to change. I recognise that. Why are the Government not doing that?
As a result, in the system we have, which is not being changed by the Bill, people are at the mercy of some distant, faceless assessor on the end of the phone. Of course, there will be people who cannot manage a face-to-face assessment, and we would authorise the Secretary of State to specify circumstances for that. It is also right not to call people back for repeat assessments. That was a change that the Conservatives were introducing, and I am glad that the Government are sticking with it. But, for the great majority of cases, we have got to get back to face-to-face assessments for the sake of claimants as well as the taxpayer.
Secondly, I turn to amendment 50. We have 1,000 new PIP claims a day—that has doubled since covid—and more than half the increase is in mental health cases. For UC health claims, it is more like three quarters. Of course, distress is real in our society and it is rising—I do not disparage the reality of many of these claims—but as the Minister has said the incidence of disability in our society is rising by 17% while benefit claims are rising by 34%. For some of the less severe mental health claims, it is far worse. In January 2020, there were 7,000 claims for people with anxiety disorders; this year, there are 31,000. In January 2020, there were 155,000 claims for anxiety and depressive disorders mixed; now there are 365,000. Autism was 60,000 and has gone up to 183,000. The hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) mentioned ADHD, which has gone up from 29,000 to 115,000 over the last five years.
Nadia Whittome
I wonder whether the shadow Minister realises that according to the DWP’s own statistics the PIP fraud rate is 0.2%. I do not want him to feel like a mug.
Danny Kruger
I am not talking about explicit fraud. These awards are being given, and no doubt the assessment is judging them to be eligible. There is not necessarily a deliberate attempt to defraud the system. What we have done is create a system whereby one is incentivised to seek higher and more expensive claims.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the hon. Member makes her intervention, will colleagues make sure that their language is parliamentary and respectful?
Olivia Blake
I want to pull up the shadow Minister on the ADHD statistics. Will he recognise that women were not recognised as having ADHD for many years and thus there is a backlog of women now accessing their right to benefits relating to ADHD? Many women like me were misdiagnosed with depression and anxiety disorders instead of ADHD.
Danny Kruger
I am sure that the hon. Lady is right. Those disorders have also increased extraordinarily in recent years. I take her point, and I was struck by the point she made in her speech about how many people with ADHD would benefit from being in the workplace. They could be in work, and they need to be supported for that. It is not right that we are consigning so many people to a life on the sofa with the curtains drawn, being told that they have no value and no contribution to make and will receive no help. Last year, 4,000 more people got PIP because of dyslexia, which was twice the number before covid. It was 10,000 for OCD; again, that number has doubled.
I want to acknowledge that the charity Mind—of course, it wants to increase benefits, so I do not cite it in support of our amendments—has said that what people with mental health conditions need is decent mental health support, proper employment programmes and flexible workplaces. That is what is needed.
Let me finish with new clause 12. The other place where we can look for real savings is with foreign nationals claiming health and disability benefits. I am aware that many visas have no recourse to public funds, but people with indefinite leave to remain do. Some 800,000 people are likely to claim indefinite leave to remain in the course of this Parliament. We do not have enough data from the DWP, so I urge the Government to have more transparency about the information that is received. However, on the basis of the information we have, we believe that some hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are claiming PIP and UC health are foreign nationals—that does not include EU citizens, who have rights under the withdrawal agreement. Welfare is simply not part of the contract that we make with people who come to this country. They are given visas on the basis that they will support themselves and our amendment would make that principle real.
Every pound spent on benefits for someone who could be supported into work is a pound less for someone else who cannot or can never work and who deserves all our sympathy and support. We cannot wait another year for this dithering, hamstrung Government to come forward with the changes we need. Our amendments offer a path to a better system that is fair for claimants and fair for taxpayers, and I commend them to the Committee.
Sir Stephen Timms
I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. If someone can work, they should. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) was absolutely right to remind the House that that principle underpinned the creation of the welfare state by the post-war Labour Government. If someone needs help into work, the Government should provide it, and those who cannot work must be able to live with dignity. Those are the principles underpinning what we are doing.
The UK, uniquely in the G7, has a lower rate of employment today than we had before the pandemic. My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) and for Hendon were right to point out that that is uniquely a UK problem. In large measure, it is because of the traps in the universal credit system that this Bill addresses. The system needs to be fixed and it is urgent to get on and do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) was right to point out to the House that delay is not the answer. The delay being called for by the Conservatives is not the right way forward. Abandoning people, in the way the system has for years, has been catastrophic. There are 2.8 million people out of work on health and disability benefits, and hundreds of thousands want to be back in work and say they could be, if only they had the support to get back into a job. We are determined to provide them with that support.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
When the Bill started its life, the Government were advocating for cuts for PIP and UC health claimants now and in future. They conceded that now was not right and that it was only for future claimants. Then they conceded that it should not be PIP claimants in future, leaving only UC health claimants. Does my right hon. Friend understand the anxiety and confusion that this has caused people in the disabled community? Would it not be better to pause, wait for the review and do it properly?
Sir Stephen Timms
No, because reform is urgently needed. We were elected to deliver change and that is what we must do.
It is particularly scandalous that the system gives up on young people in such enormous numbers, with nearly 1 million not in employment, education or training. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) was absolutely right to highlight that point. We need to get on and tackle the disability employment gap.
The Bill addresses the severe work disincentives in universal credit. It protects those we do not ever expect to work from universal credit reassessment, and the poverty impact assessment, which has now been published, makes it clear that 50,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. We are rebalancing support here.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I am grateful for the Minister’s generosity, which he always shows in this Chamber. Based on the poverty assessment, he now says that 50,000 children will be uplifted and taken out of poverty. Given that the decision was taken because of the fiscal impact of the Chancellor’s Budget, I asked him last week about the £5 billion of savings that then became £2.5 billion. He then said that he had not costed his decisions, which would have put an extra 150,000 children into poverty. Will he tell the House how much extra the measures on which he has capitulated will cost the taxpayer?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave him last week, which is that the figures will be published by the OBR in the usual way.
A number of amendments that have been discussed relate to clause 5, which, as the House knows, we are removing through Government amendment 4, so the Bill will make no changes to PIP. Parallel amendments to schedule 2 cover Northern Ireland and, as has been pointed out, Government amendment 5 changes the Bill’s name, once enacted, to the Universal Credit Act 2025. We will now make PIP fit and fair for the future with the wider review to conclude by autumn next year. The Opposition’s amendment 45, on face-to-face assessments, therefore no longer fits in the Bill, but I would say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), that we are indeed going to get ahead with increasing the number of face-to-face assessments, and the point that he needs to recognise is that that should have been done after the pandemic and it was not done. We are getting on and fixing the problems.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for giving the House, in her new clause 11, a helpful checklist of the desirable features of our co-produced review. I have committed to Disability Rights UK and to others that I will shortly discuss these matters with them, but let me set out my thinking now in response to my hon. Friend’s new clause. I accept subsection (1) of her new clause. The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities has featured a bit in this debate—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) referred to it, as did others. To quote article 4.3 of the convention, we should
“closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities”
in carrying out the review. I accept the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, that that is what co-production entails.
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me make just a little more headway. I will give away a little bit later.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge and I have discussed, I do not agree that the review must be finished within 12 months. We want to complete the review by autumn of next year, and with no four-point threshold, I do not think it is in anybody’s interest to rush it. I accept her proposal, in subsection (4) of her new clause, for a group to co-produce the review, not so much to provide independent oversight as to lead and deliver it. I will chair the group, and we will work with her and others to include disabled people with lived and professional experience in its leadership and in shaping its meetings, with around a dozen members and with capacity to engage others as needed on specific topics.
My hon. Friend has made helpful suggestions for who some members of the group might be. We will want disabled parliamentary representation to be involved in the process as well, and arrangements to involve disabled people more broadly. I agree with her that the majority of the group’s members need to be disabled people or representatives of disabled people’s organisations, and that they need to be provided with adequate support, including towards their costs of travel and taking part.
Dr Tidball
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting so many aspects of new clause 11 and for his assurances from the Dispatch Box. I will not be pressing the new clause to a vote if he can offer further assurances that there will be sufficient links between the Timms review recommendations and subsequent legislation on PIP to ensure accountability and that the voices of disabled people are heard.
Sir Stephen Timms
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, yes. The outcome of the review will be central to the legislation that follows.
Steve Darling
I really welcome the fact that disabled groups are going to be meaningfully engaged, according to the Minister’s proposal, and I look forward to seeing the full details of that, but how will carers’ groups be engaged as well? I would welcome some assurance on that.
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman raised that point very reasonably in the debate, and it is certainly something we need to consider as well.
Ms Creasy
I welcome the commitment to work with disabled people. The Minister will know that the difference between consultation and co-production is that every participant has to have a veto of the outcomes in order to co-produce. Otherwise, with the greatest will in the world, it is just another form of consultation. Can he give us an assurance that disabled groups will have a veto over the proposals, to engage the consultation process?
Sir Stephen Timms
We will aim for a consensus among all those taking part, and that is what I hope we will achieve.
Sir Stephen Timms
I will not give way for a moment or two.
On Parliament’s handling of the review outcome, which is also raised in new clause 11, I would envisage a ministerial oral statement. I can commit on behalf of the Government that there will then be a general debate on it, in Government time, and that the legislation to implement the review outcome will not be brought forward until that has happened.
Sir Stephen Timms
Not just at the moment.
Clause 1 introduces the first ever sustained above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance. The previous Government ran universal credit down. They did not uprate it; they froze it, forcing mass dependence on food banks. The increase is accompanied by a reduction, as we debated, in the health top-up for most new claimants, as set out in clause 2.
Clause 3 set out that the health top-up would be frozen until 2029-30 for existing claimants and for those with the most severe lifelong conditions or those near the end of life. The Government amendment means that, for existing claimants, the standard allowance plus the health top-up will rise at least in line with inflation up to 2029-30. That also applies to people with severe lifelong conditions who we do not ever expect to work and those near the end of life. Clause 4 and the amendment to it mirror the universal credit changes in employment and support allowance.
The Bill will protect existing claimants in a powerful way, including those with fluctuating health conditions, but it will move decisively to a more proactive, pro-work system. That is what we need, and the protection for those who are on universal credit at the moment—
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me make just a little more headway.
The protection for those who are on universal credit at the moment and who are on the LCWRA rate is that if they go into work, they are likely—depending, of course, on their income—to stay on universal credit, so that protection will continue while they are in work. If their income rises to the level where they are lifted off universal credit, for six months they will retain that protection, and if they go back, they will return to their original rate, so there is very strong protection there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
No, I will not give way.
Some amendments seek to change the new universal credit arrangements. The increase to the standard allowance—the first permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefits for decades—is an important step forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) highlighted. Balancing that with a lower health top-up for most new claims is key to tackling—
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Madam Chair. We were told that the Bill was going to bring a £5 billion saving to the Exchequer, then it was £2.5 billion. Is it in order not to have any idea what this will cost the taxpayer?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is a point of debate, not a point of order. Continue, Minister.
Vicky Foxcroft
Will the Minister ensure that the universal credit health element forms part of the co-produced Timms review when reviewing the assessment process, as the UC health element will be assessed under the new PIP assessment? Furthermore, can we ensure that all disability benefits and support are in scope, so that we can truly get an assessment process fit for the future?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is right that the Green Paper set out our proposal that the PIP assessment will in future also be the gateway to the universal credit health top-up, giving it indeed a broader role. Our aim is specifically a co-produced benefit assessment. If that works well, there may well be a strong case to apply the same approach, maybe even using the same or a similar group to other challenges, and perhaps including other aspects of the health and disability benefits system, but that would need to follow successful completion of the task immediately in hand.
Let me finally make an important point, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) and others. The severe conditions criteria in the Bill exactly reflects how the functional tests are applied at present. That is in guidance. It is being moved in this Bill into legislation. It does take account of Parkinson’s and MS because people need to meet these descriptors reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable timeframe, so I can give a firm assurance to those concerned about how the severe conditions criteria will work for those with fluctuating conditions. The word “constantly” here refers, as I said in my earlier intervention, to the functional criteria needing to apply at all times, not to somebody’s symptoms.
This Bill begins to repair a broken system that holds people back, by removing work disincentives from universal credit. We will provide record employment support for disabled people, for people with health impairments—
Division 258
Ayes: 35
Labour: 10
Scottish National Party: 9
Independent: 8
Green Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Liberal Democrat: 2
Noes: 469
Labour: 356
Conservative: 95
Independent: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Reform UK: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Division 265
Ayes: 336
Labour: 333
Independent: 3
Noes: 242
Conservative: 91
Liberal Democrat: 65
Labour: 49
Independent: 11
Scottish National Party: 9
Green Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Reform UK: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Alliance: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Business of the House (14 July)
Petitions
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I rise to convey the anger of the Du Cane Road Residents Association, which covers a cluster of different blocks including the very handsome Pankhurst House, which was in the Ideal Home exhibition in 1928. It was built for working women but has seen better days, and this is all because of Clarion Housing. The petition highlights repairs issues, such as a broken window that has been in that state for years, the ever-increasing and opaque service charges that nobody is really clear about, and the allocations policy. Once it was working women living there, but it now seems to be undesirables of both genders. I am all for equality, but it seems to have turned into a bit of a dumping ground.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of the residents of the constituency of Ealing Central and Acton,
Declares that numerous constituents residing in homes which are managed by the housing association Clarion including Pankhurst House and neighbouring blocks are seriously concerned with the poor level of service and delayed responses they have been provided regarding repairs, for example, a broken window for years on end; further declares that residents are unsatisfied with transparency around how service charges are calculated; further declares that residents are displeased with the allocations policy by which residents are assigned which they fear is leading to it becoming a “dumping ground” for undesirables when the original nucleus of the estate was women’s keyworker accommodation.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the Council to compel Clarion to ensure that; concerns are listened to and actioned in a timely manner, that more transparency is enacted with service charges, to commit to working with the council for improvements in the system of allocating residents so that existing tenants have a say in who their neighbours are, to provide a better balance of tenant and reverse the current system which is cumulative and having a detrimental effect on the community.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003084]
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of the Omagh bombing inquiry, which is seeking access to unreported oral evidence given to my predecessors on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in 2009. The petition states:
The petition of the Solicitor to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry, Tom Suter
Declares that the independent statutory inquiry into the Omagh Bombing includes within its scope “The allegation made by Norman Baxter (former Senior Investigating Officer in the investigation into the Omagh Bombing) in the course of his evidence to the Northern Ireland Select Committee on 11 November 2009, that police investigators into previous attacks in Moira (20 February 1998), Portadown (9 May 1998), Banbridge (1 August 1998) and Lisburn (30 April 1998) did not have access to intelligence materials which may reasonably enabled them to disrupt the activities of dissident republican terrorists prior to the Omagh Bombing”; and further that evidence was taken from Mr Baxter in private session which was not reported to the House, and that the inquiry has taken advice on the application of Article 9 of the Bill of Rights to its proceedings and will be mindful of the privileges of the House.
The petitioner therefore requests that the House makes arrangements to supply the transcript of unreported oral evidence taken from Mr Norman Baxter by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in private session on 11 November 2009 to the Omagh Bombing Inquiry.
And the petitioner remains, etc.
[P003091]
Birmingham Pub Bombings
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
Fifty-one years ago, on 21 November 1974, two bombs exploded in the heart of Birmingham, at the Mulberry Bush and the Tavern in the Town. Twenty-one lives were lost and 220 people were injured. Families were destroyed, futures were stolen, and scars were left that never healed.
In those two pubs, the Provisional IRA murdered 21 souls. James Caddick, John Jones, Stanley Bodman, John Rowlands, Charles Grey, Jimmy Craig, Trevor Thrupp, Michael Beasley, Thomas Chaytor, Marilyn Nash, Stephen Whalley, Eugene Reilly, Desmond Reilly, Maureen Roberts, Pamela Palmer, Anne Hayes, Maxine Hambleton, Lynn Bennett, Jane Davis, Paul Anthony Davies and Neil “Tommy” Marsh all lost their life. They were sons, daughters, parents, brothers, sisters—innocent people murdered in cold blood in Britain’s deadliest act of terrorism before 7/7. Today, it is still the largest, worst, unsolved mass murder in our nation’s history. To this day, not one person—not one—has been brought to justice for this atrocity. That is why I rise today to call for a statutory, judge-led public inquiry into the Birmingham pub bombings under section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005.
We all know what happened that night. We know that the bombs were planted by members of the Provisional IRA. We know that a warning was phoned in, and we know that it came too late—that it was chaotic, inadequate and fatal. We know that the Birmingham Six, members of the Irish community in Birmingham, were arrested, tortured and convicted of a crime they did not commit. They spent 16 years in prison before the Court of Appeal quashed their convictions in 1991. The relatives of the victims were left to grieve in silence, and were lied to by the police and by politicians alike. For decades they were shut out of justice, ignored, patronised and disbelieved. In 2019, a jury at the resumed inquest concluded that the 21 victims were unlawfully murdered and that the IRA was responsible, yet the jury was not allowed to consider who precisely carried out the bombing. The question of who bombed Birmingham, who murdered the 21, and who committed the largest unresolved murder on these islands, was ruled out of scope, so today the truth remains buried.
This is a wound that has never really healed. Since 2012, the families of those who died have fought with extraordinary courage and dignity in the search for truth and in the quest for justice. They have knocked on every door, they have sat with Ministers, they have won legal battles, they have crowdfunded representation, and they have taken their case to Westminster, Brussels, Dublin and Belfast. They have formed the group Justice for the 21, led by Julie and Brian Hambleton, whose sister was killed that night. Together they have done what so many others have failed to do: they have had the courage and the will to keep the flame of truth alive.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I commend the right hon. Member for bringing this important matter to the House. He mentions Julie Hambleton. I have met Julie many times over the years. I salute her courage and tenacity, and that of her fellow campaigners. I hope we can reach the point that they want to reach. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in the House. He made an exception for the Finucane family and created a hierarchy of victims. Surely the largest, most devastating terrorist act in our nation’s history is deserving of equal treatment, and a public inquiry should be given. Of course, there is one organisation that knows who carried out the bombing—the IRA. But though it demands transparency of others, it holds to itself its wicked secrets.
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for that intervention, and for his support for my call. He knows as well as I do that time after time, at every turn, the families were met with barriers, bureaucracy and broken promises. They were told that they could not get legal aid. They were told that their case was not part of the reconciliation, or the legacy of the troubles. They were told to wait until West Midlands police pursued leads that led precisely nowhere. They were told again and again to be quiet, but they would not be quiet and will not be quiet. This House should not sit quiet while their search for justice is unfinished.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate; he is absolutely right to do so. I have met Julie Hambleton, and I support her campaign. I have spoken to her a number of times, both in Belfast and over here. Justice is needed for the 21 innocents who were murdered. I would like to see that. As a Northern Ireland MP, the troubles are never too far from my mind. The legacy Act—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023—never sat well with me because of the likes of the Kingsmill atrocity, and the need for the inquiry that the right hon. Gentleman is asking for, and which, I have to say, I fully support. Does he not agree that these people have had no closure or justice whatever, and that they deserve justice—the very same justice, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said, given to the Finucane family?
Liam Byrne
I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing that point to the Floor of the House, and for backing my call. This campaign is not about vengeance. It is about truth and justice. It is about the right to truth and accountability. Our system of law and order, and our democracy, should work for all, not just the powerful. We have to ask in this House why, after all this time—after 51 years—there has not been a public inquiry. Let us be clear: this cannot be a desktop review. This cannot merely be looked into by an independent panel. It must be a judge-led statutory public inquiry, with the full power to summon evidence, compel witnesses and hold institutions to account. Why? Because these grieving families have been failed time and again, and after 51 years, it is enough.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing this debate to the House, and for the powerful and creditable case he is making. Does he share the concern that after 51 years, memories are fading? Documentary evidence, some of which may not be secured in the Department or the National Archives, is at risk of destruction, and the chance of bringing those still living who bear responsibility for this atrocity to some measure of accountability is fading. We may not be out of time, but time is running out. Does he agree that action is needed now?
Liam Byrne
Yes, and that is why I am grateful to have been given time to make this call on the Floor of the House tonight.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. Does he agree that for my constituents Julie and Paul—the relatives of two victims—who have waited for over 50 years to get justice, enough is enough? The families are still grieving. We must secure an independent public inquiry that includes the effective participation of the relatives as a matter of urgency, so that the families can get closure.
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is exactly right. She speaks with such passion and eloquence about this issue. She knows as well as I do how deeply the families feel their pain.
Since the exoneration of the Birmingham Six—the men who were tortured, framed and imprisoned—no one has been held to account for that failure. Since 1991, no new suspects have been brought to trial. Since 2019, even though witnesses have admitted that they knew who was responsible, no one has been compelled to testify, despite the fact that men like Michael Christopher Hayes, a former member of the Provisional IRA, confessed in a 2017 BBC interview that he accepted “collective responsibility” for what he called a terrible tragedy, and despite Witness O and Chris Mullin indicating in their evidence to the inquest that they had knowledge of those responsible for the murders. While the coroner accepted assurances from the Government Legal Department that relevant documents had been disclosed, widespread doubts remain about whether information held in the Home Office, Foreign Office or Ministry of Defence was, in fact, made available.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I commend the right hon. Gentleman on securing this important Adjournment debate. More than half a century has passed, and it seems that consecutive Governments have not provided closure, not just for the victims and their families, but for those who were falsely convicted and their families. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that it is a lack of political will, as opposed to anything else, that is preventing us from having a public inquiry?
Liam Byrne
The thrust of what the hon. Gentleman says is right. I will come on to some reflections on that in just a moment.
We know that there are documents that were not provided to the inquest. Key individuals involved have died, but there are allegations that at least two of those responsible are still alive and living free, and that their names can be found in books in the House of Commons Library. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) said, as the years pass, memories fade and witnesses die, and the trail of truth grows cold. That is why it is time to act now.
Let us look at the facts. This is the largest unsolved mass murder in British history. No statutory inquiry has ever been launched into what happened. No one from the state has ever been held accountable for the failings of the investigation, the imprisonment of the innocent or the denial of justice to the families. By contrast, at the urging of this House, we have rightly ensured for victims of Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal, Grenfell, Windrush and the Post Office scandal that we got to the bottom of what happened, and what caused the pain for so many victims. Why not Birmingham? Why are the people of Birmingham not given the justice that they deserve? It is time we sent the message from this House that there can be no more excuses.
A public inquiry is not just a legal tool, but a national act of conscience. It is how democracy apologises with honesty. It is how we tell the victims and their families that they matter, that their loss matters, and that their loved ones will not be forgotten. Crucially, it is how we learn. If we cannot learn the lessons of the past, the risk is that we repeat them.
We say often in this House that justice delayed is justice denied. It has been 51 years since that terrible night: 51 years of injustice; 51 years of doors closed and backs turned. I say that is long enough.
I want to be very clear with the House tonight about what we are seeking. We are seeking a statutory public inquiry under section 1 of the Inquiries Act 2005. We are seeking a judge-led process, with full legal powers to compel witnesses and evidence. We are seeking an independent inquiry that is resourced to ensure the effective participation of the families, and that asks openly, without constraint, fear or favour: who bombed Birmingham? We are seeking an inquiry that examines the role of the police, the criminal justice system and the state, both then and since.
We have to be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this crime is not covered by the legislation and the agreements that secured peace in Northern Ireland, and that means something important. It means that the Home Secretary has the power right now to order this inquiry. There is no legal obstacle; the only question is whether there is the political will.
In April 2024, eight Birmingham MPs wrote to the Home Secretary to demand this inquiry. In November 2024, on the 50th anniversary, Justice for the 21 renewed its call, and that call was backed by a cross-party group of MPs, mayors, lawyers and campaigners. I wrote again to the Home Secretary in spring this year. I have not yet had an answer about a decision on whether an inquiry will be launched, which is why I have asked for this debate tonight. I am asking not for special treatment, but for equal treatment—for Birmingham to be given the justice that has been offered to the victims of so many scandals, where we have set up inquiries to get to the bottom of the truth.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. As others have said, an inquiry is absolutely crucial. Last November, I added my name to the calls for an inquiry for the families, for the victims and also for the city. This has been a cloud that has covered Birmingham for 51 years. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has reflected on what signal—what message—it sends that we are still waiting, and on what it is that those families can believe in if they cannot get the truth for which they have waited for so long.
Liam Byrne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is about the past, this is about truth and this is about justice, but she is right to say that this is also about the future. This is about whether we, in this House, believe in justice without exception, justice without delay, and justice that does not stop at the doors of power. It is about whether the Government of this country will look the people of Birmingham in the eye and say, “We hear you. We see you. We believe you, and we will not rest until you get the answers that you deserve.”
Let us honour the memory of those 21 souls who never came home that night. Let us stand with their families and speak for a city that is still scarred by the silence. Let us at long last do what we should have done decades ago: let us hold a public inquiry into the Birmingham pub bombings.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
May I start by commending my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) for securing this debate? He is a very long-standing Member of this House, and I know that this is an issue of huge importance to him and his constituency, and to other Members from across the House who represent Birmingham. He has made his case passionately and powerfully, and the Home Secretary and I have heard what he has had to say, as well as the contributions of other Members, for which we are grateful.
I will respond to the points that have been made, but first, I want to say something about the bombings themselves. We must never lose sight of the fact that the bombs planted in the Mulberry Bush and the Tavern in the Town public houses in Birmingham on 21 November 1974 claimed 21 lives, injured more than 200 others, and caused untold devastation and pain. The harm caused by these brutal attacks went far beyond those killed and injured; it continues to affect parents, children, siblings and friends to this day. More than half a century has passed since the bombings, but the impact of these atrocities remains vivid and raw, not just in Birmingham, but in our national psyche.
Above all, we think of the victims and their families. I want to recognise the work of the Justice for the 21 campaign, which has continued to powerfully advocate for all those affected and to seek justice for their loved ones. I acknowledge their long-standing request for the establishment of a public inquiry into the bombings. The Home Secretary is considering advice and is determined to provide an answer to the families and victims as soon as possible. I am sure that Members will understand that we will ensure that the families are the first to hear the outcome.
My right hon. Friend mentioned in his speech that the Birmingham pub bombings are not covered by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. He is right that a public inquiry into the Birmingham pub bombings is not prevented by the Act. The Act does not prevent any public inquiry from taking place. However, I want to emphasise that the Birmingham pub bombings are absolutely in scope of the legacy Act and would be eligible for an investigation led by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery, which the Act created. I have full confidence that the commission and its team of dedicated staff hold sufficient powers, resources and expertise to support the families in the process of seeking answers to their questions. Indeed, the commission is already investigating the Guildford pub bombings.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am very glad that the Minister has concentrated on the truth and justice aspect of the legacy Act. Can he reassure the House that in their proposals to repeal the legacy Act, the Government are not going to lose the opportunity of having the trade-off, as it were, between immunity from prosecution and truth recovery, which was always the basis of the legacy Act?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member of this House, will know that I am standing next to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and I hope that he will understand that the work of the previous Government, while no doubt well-intentioned, did not provide a solution that had the support of political parties in Northern Ireland—nor did it have the support of veterans and those who suffered the impact of terrorism. I can give him an absolute assurance that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, working with colleagues right across Government, will do everything possible to ensure that we put in place a solution and a settlement that is able to attract wider support.
Sir Julian Lewis
It is kind of the Minister to give way one more time. I urge Ministers not to be blinded by what political parties in Northern Ireland say, because the truth of the matter is that they have to take certain positions—usually ones that favour their side and disfavour the other side—and the prospect of getting all those parties to agree on something like this is minute. That is why the legacy Act cut through all that, in the same way that Nelson Mandela came up with a similar solution that worked in South Africa.
Dan Jarvis
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman would accept that none of the political parties in Northern Ireland were able to support the previous arrangements. I know that he understands the complexity of these matters, and I hope that he will see that this Government are acting in good faith and attempting to put in place an arrangement that can attract the widespread support that is required.
As I was saying, the option for families to refer their case to the commission is available now. I encourage any victim, survivor or family member affected by the troubles to give consideration to the commission in their search for answers.
A number of investigations have been conducted over the 50 years since the bombings, including West Midlands police investigations between 2012 and 2014 and between 2019 and 2023, as well as coronial inquests that concluded in 2019. As is the case with so many incidents that occurred during the troubles, the prospect of criminal justice outcomes is increasingly unlikely. The families of the bereaved in Birmingham, like so many others, completely understandably continue to seek the information and accountability that they deserve.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North raised the desire of the families for the role of the police and the criminal justice system to be investigated as part of any public inquiry. As Members will be aware, the Independent Office for Police Conduct is a respected and well-tested forum for such matters. As a Northern Ireland veteran myself, I know that the troubles were a devastating time for the whole nation—such that 25 years on from the passing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the impact lives on.
Each tragedy has far-reaching and long-standing effects on victims, survivors and the communities around them. The work undertaken by all those who sought to end the troubles has helped prevent further such tragedies. It is important that we seek to remain united across the House in our condemnation of anyone who seeks to take us back to those times.
The pub bombings in Birmingham killed or injured innocent people who happened to be in a particular place when heinous acts were perpetrated. Today, and always, we mourn the dead and hold their loved ones in our thoughts. We think too of the survivors and all those who were affected.
I want to finish by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North for securing the debate and all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to it. Terrorist attacks have terrible and far-reaching consequences on individuals, communities and our society as a whole. We must stand united to combat terrorism, whether it is driven by political, religious or ideological causes. The Government and the people of this country are united in our condemnation of those who inflict violence on our streets.
The Birmingham pub bombings were a brutal moment in the history of that great city and of our country—a day when 21 lives were cruelly snatched away and hundreds more changed forever. We understand that the devastation caused by those horrific attacks continues for people to this day and, more than 50 years later, the fact that their quest for answers and justice goes on must be unbelievably distressing. As I have said, we recognise the frustration that causes, yet these are decisions that need to be taken incredibly carefully. The Government will respond to the request for a public inquiry as soon as possible.
I have the utmost sympathy for the bereaved families and for the survivors. Their experience for over 50 years has been deeply painful, and I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members across the House continue to hold them in their thoughts and prayers.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. These regulations were laid before the House on 3 June 2025, and they make technical improvements and changes to the capacity market scheme—the Government’s main tool for ensuring security of supply in Great Britain. We know that to achieve clean power by 2030, reform of the electricity market is critical. To paraphrase the clean power action plan, we must:
“Reform the capacity market to provide clear and viable routes to decarbonisation for unabated gas, enable low-carbon flexible capacity…and incentivise investment into existing capacity.”
Before I outline the provisions in these regulations, I will briefly provide some context. The capacity market was introduced in 2014, and it is designed to ensure that sufficient electricity capacity is available to meet future predicted demand, to maintain the security of our electricity supply. The capacity market is a well-established and technology-neutral scheme in which existing and new build electricity capacity receives revenue based on the capacity provided. Participants secure agreements through auctions, which require them to make capacity available at times of system stress. It is our main tool to ensure security of supply, and it provides the right incentives for all forms of capacity to be available when needed most. It covers generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility and interconnection capacity.
Through capacity market auctions, which are held annually—one year and four years ahead of delivery—we secure the capacity needed to meet future peak demand under a range of scenarios, based on advice from the National Energy System Operator. Since its introduction in 2014, the capacity market has contributed to just under 20 GW of new flexible capacity needed to replace older, less efficient plants as we transition to net zero.
To date, the capacity market has been successful in ensuring that Great Britain has adequate electricity capacity to meet demand, and it continues to be required to maintain our security of supply and to provide investor confidence. To ensure that the capacity market continues to function effectively, we regularly make adjustments to the implementing legislation based on our day-to-day experiences.
The draft instrument makes technical improvements and changes to nine regulations to support the functioning of the capacity market, and they have been identified and explored through consultation. The changes will ensure that the capacity market regulations remain clear for market participants and that the legislation remains up to date, to enable us to better deliver the security of supply mechanism.
The draft instrument does that by revoking several expired provisions of secondary legislation relating to the scheme, including references to: transitional auctions, which are no longer applicable; the temporary standstill period, which occurred in 2019; and the time-limited relief given to scheme participants in relation to coronavirus. It will also introduce a new process to establish a decarbonisation pathway for unabated gas plants currently in long-term capacity market agreements. That will allow gas plants to exit their agreements without penalty in order to transfer to a dispatchable power agreement, facilitating conversion to gas-fired power with carbon capture and storage once the technology is available. That will better align the capacity market with our clean power objectives, and it will provide gas plant operators with a future route to decarbonise their assets.
The Government carried out two public consultations on this instrument. The first considered reforms to the capacity market to strengthen security of supply and enable flexible capacity to decarbonise. The second considered reforms to modernise the capacity market and improve the participation and delivery assurance of consumer-led flexibility. Both consultations were published towards the end of 2024. Respondents were broadly supportive of the instrument’s proposals. We have also made a number of technical amendments to the capacity market rules that support the regulations, which were laid before the House on 3 June.
This draft instrument introduces a number of technical provisions and changes to enable the continued efficient operation of the capacity market so that it can continue to deliver on its objectives. These reforms will be critical if we are to achieve clean power by 2030. They will improve security of supply by ensuring the modernisation of the capacity market and making legislation as clear as possible for all scheme participants. We need clear routes for the decarbonisation of unabated gas and for the rapid acceleration of low-carbon, flexible capacity. And today, with these regulations, we take another step towards that.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers, and to be in the august company of the double award-winning Minister—the Scottish MP of the year, as of yesterday evening. The competition was very stiff.
The capacity market scheme was introduced in 2014 as part of the electricity market reforms to ensure security of electricity supply by providing payments for reliable sources of dispatchable generation or, in some cases, demand reduction. As we saw in January, a renewables-dominated system increases the need for capacity market generation. The system, which is designed to insure the market during periods of electricity system shortage and stress, is increasingly significant and increasingly costly as intermittency increases.
These regulations will allow unabated gas generators to exit their capacity market obligations without penalty for the purpose of retrofitting carbon capture, usage and storage and transferring to a dispatchable power agreement outside of the capacity market. The rationale for this is to allow generators to convert unabated gas to power with CCUS in order to decarbonise the UK’s electricity generation. So far, so good. We support that ambition in principle, as we believe in a cleaner energy system.
However, we also believe in delivering an energy system that is secure and affordable, on which we have some concerns. Namely, how will this impact energy bills? The regulations intend to allow unabated gas generators to transfer from existing capacity market agreements to a contract for difference mechanism to power CCUS, thereby entering a dispatchable power agreement.
If dispatchable power agreement contracts are more expensive than the average cost of electricity, higher prices will be locked in, and the cost of this mechanism will necessarily filter through to billpayers. Energy bills are composed of wholesale costs, network charges, contracts for difference subsidies, balancing costs such as curtailment payments, and capacity market payments. Under the Government’s clean power 2030 plan, those costs are all set to rise. Bills will go up.
This week, Ofgem announced a £24 billion investment in the electricity and gas grid, including a 2,700-mile pylon expansion, necessitated by, in Ofgem’s words, the need to
“handle the flow of electricity from new renewable sources.”
Onshore wind and solar panels need an expensive expansion of our infrastructure due to their dispersed locations, costing billpayers money. This is not cheap, and it will not bring bills down.
Contracts for difference payments are set to rise, while developers still await news of the administrative strike price for the next allocation round. We know that a high reserve price will drive up consumer bills. With increasing onshore and offshore wind bringing higher levels of intermittency into our systems, curtailment payments are set to increase, at least in the medium term. Last year, billpayers spent £1 billion balancing the grid by turning wind turbines off at times of over-generation, and now we have these capacity market changes.
The increase in intermittent renewables on stream in the UK must be shored up by increasing capacity market payments. Unfortunately, this Government continually prioritise climate targets over secure and affordable energy, and billpayers are paying the price. Can the Minister please tell us what impact the Government’s clean power 2030 payments will have on capacity market payments? Are the Government still committed to reducing energy bills by £300, and will the Minister reiterate that commitment?
There is no costing associated with these regulations or with clean power 2030 overall, as that would prove that the Secretary of State’s commitment to the unachievable targets he has set himself is pushing bills up.
I do not wish to stand in the way of these regulations. However, I must put on record our deep concerns about the impact of clean power 2030 and all these changes on consumer bills and the UK’s overall energy resilience.
Michael Shanks
I will not detain the Committee for long, but I should put on record that the shadow Minister was on the judging panel for the aforesaid awards. I am not quite sure what that says for either of us, frankly, but I thank him for whatever role he played in trying to prevent me from getting the award. It clearly did not work.
I welcome the shadow Minister’s broad support for the regulations, and I welcome his support for building a cleaner energy system, which I have not heard from the Conservative party for some months—I am glad he found his old script from a year ago and is repeating it in this place again, at least up to the word “however.”
Of course, the shadow Minister is right that security of supply is critical, as it is for any Government of any political party. These regulations are part of ensuring that security of supply into the future, and they are part of a series of measures we are taking to build infrastructure for the future, so that we remain resilient long into the future. That investment is important.
The shadow Minister talked about pricing, and I will pick out two points. First, the clean power mission is about reducing the current volatility in the price of gas. The Conservatives supported that move, and I credit them for constructing quite a lot of the renewables we have in the country, but they have since changed tack. At some point, they need to recognise that volatile gas prices are what is causing bills to increase so substantially, and that things like contracts for difference give long-term certainty on consumer bills and bring down the system cost, but the Conservatives oppose those things.
Secondly, capacity market costs have increased over time, not just in the past year but more generally. They have been impacted by a number of factors outwith anyone’s control when they were introduced. But overall, this change will bring about an overall benefit. It is important that we plan the power we might need one year or four years in the future and, of course, the cost of not having a capacity market would be a significant risk to the robustness of our electricity system.
Finally, and more broadly than these regulations, curtailment payments are deeply disappointing to everyone, but the answer is to plan the system strategically so that we build things in a way that makes sense. Secondly, of course, we need to build grid infrastructure to bring the cheaper power to consumers, and to reduce that curtailment payment cost. I hope we will see support from across the House on those questions of building new network infrastructure, although I suspect we will not from the Conservatives.
I warmly welcome, as I always do, the shadow Minister’s wholehearted support for the work we are doing in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, and long may that continue. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services) (Prescribed Terms) Regulations 2025
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
I beg to move,
That the Cttee has considered the draft Transport Act 2000 (Air Traffic Services) (Prescribed Terms) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. The UK’s airspace is a vital piece of our national infrastructure that is essential to economic growth, connectivity and national resilience. Last year, there were more than 2.4 million flights using UK airspace, but despite a significant rise in air traffic demand, the structure of our airspace has remained largely unchanged since the 1950s, when there were around 200,000 flights. Today’s flight paths remain largely based on a system that relies on a network of outdated ground-based navigational beacons. As a result, aircraft today fly less efficient routes and are unable to take advantage of modern aircraft technology and performance. If a pilot from the 1950s travelled through time, they would still know the exact routes used today. That has to change. It leads to increased fuel consumption, greater risk of delays and, as a result, higher carbon emissions. Without modernisation, National Air Traffic Services estimates that, by 2040, one in five flights could face delays of more than 45 minutes.
There is a plan to fix this: the airspace modernisation strategy, set out by the Department for Transport and the Civil Aviation Authority, and committed to by the Labour party in its manifesto at the general election. I am grateful to Government and Opposition Members who I know will support the regulations that we are considering today, which are one of the most important ways of enabling the plan for decarbonisation and improved routes to be realised. Modernised airspace will enable greater capacity, improve resilience to disruption, and help UK aviation to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
The regulations are made under powers conferred by the Transport Act 2000, for which I thank John Prescott. Under that Act, the Secretary of State may modify and prescribe terms in an air traffic services licence. This instrument designates as “prescribed” any terms specifying air traffic services authorised under a licence, and any terms specifying the area in which those services may be provided. In practice, this will allow the Secretary of State to modify the terms in the air traffic services licence granted to NATS (En Route) Ltd—a public limited company known as NERL—to create and fund a new UK airspace design service, UKADS.
If the regulations are approved and come into force, they will enable a series of important steps to happen. The Secretary of State will consult on modifications to the terms of NERL’s licence, in accordance with the procedures set out in section 11A of the 2000 Act. The CAA will undertake its own separate consultation on the changes to the conditions of the NERL licence, following the statutory requirements laid out in the same section of the Act. The combined results of the changes, if adopted following consultation, will be to authorise and require NERL to provide the UKADS and enable it to charge for doing so.
Airspace modernisation is not just a technical upgrade; it is a national strategic necessity to ensure that our skies remain safe, sustainable and capable of supporting the UK’s future prosperity and innovation. The draft regulations will enable the UKADS to deliver the benefits of airspace modernisation and to ensure that the UK continues to be a global leader in aviation for decades to come. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy.
A glance at the draft regulations might give the impression of a proposal that is short and easily resolved but, as the Minister’s speech demonstrates, this is not an issue with simple answers. In fact, the regulations are part of a wider topic of airspace modernisation, which is a matter of considerable complexity. I have no doubt the Minister is aware, from what I suspect are hundreds of pages of reports and strategies placed on his desk by officials since he he arrived in office, of the significant work that was conducted by the previous Government, the CAA and a wide range of other stakeholders on airspace modernisation. Recognising the importance of airspace modernisation, the previous Government provided £9.2 million to maintain progress and enable sponsors to co-ordinate their programmes during an existential period for the industry during the pandemic. That work has, without doubt, gained fresh impetus following the Chancellor’s announcement of airport expansion earlier this year.
While that announcement appeared to have been made by the Treasury without a full appreciation of the scale of the task involved, this draft statutory instrument is an important part of delivering on that intention. At the time, I said to the Transport Secretary that the Opposition support aviation expansion in principle, because it delivers economic growth. I reiterate that stance today, and we will not divide the Committee this afternoon. I do, however, have some questions for the Minister, which I will come to at the close of my remarks.
The arguments in favour of airspace modernisation and the actions taken to facilitate it are obvious, and the Minister has outlined many of them. Anyone who has returned home from holiday and found themselves circling the airport endlessly will welcome the measures to improve the efficiency of our air corridors. In September last year, easyJet published its work illustrating the potential for emissions reductions through greater efficiency. The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that the current proposal will result in substantial fuel savings over a 15-year appraisal period. At a time when the Government are increasing costs for travellers, it is all the more important that the draft regulations allow operators to fly more efficiently and, I hope, pass those savings on to passengers.
The aviation sector is one of the UK’s most successful industries, and our focus should be on how we support and improve it, not hold it back. In that light, not to embrace this opportunity to increase efficiency, to reduce fuel use and emissions, and potentially to reduce delays and noise would be a significant mistake. However, it is not that simple, because airspace modernisation will inevitably create winners and losers. While it will deliver greater fuel efficiency, reduced flying times and associated cost savings to airlines and, I hope, to passengers, changing flight paths will of course be a double-edged sword. Some people who live under a flight path will be removed from it and no doubt grateful for that, but others who do not live under flight paths now may may do so in the future; they can be expected, naturally, to be far from happy.
As with airport expansion, the creation of the UKADS to simplify that process may also face challenges. While a majority of the stakeholders supported the principle during the consultation, 33% of those who did not oppose the proposal did in fact answer “maybe” in their response. That included one third of the respondents from the commercial aviation sector, whose buy-in the Government will need for the proposal to succeed. NATS, the only organisation the Government say is capable of handling those responsibilities—we do not dissent from that—responded to the consultation by stating that therefore
“the accountabilities and responsibilities of UKADS must be more clearly defined.”
That is not to say that the proposal will not work, but I believe that further clarity is needed on some broad questions. For example, can the Government confirm that the necessary skillset is available to lead the changes? Will the Minister provide assurances to smaller airports that the structure of the new arrangements will recognise and reflect the unique challenges that those locations face? Does he believe that there will be sufficient expertise within the UKADS to support airspace modernisation outside London in a timely manner, so that progress elsewhere is not held back simply because the initial focus is on London’s vastly more complicated airspace?
Finally, I will address communication and transparency. During the consultation and following the policy announcement, it seems that some local organisations responded negatively and suggested that the concerns of local communities were being overlooked or ignored. I therefore ask the Government to give serious consideration to how they can provide maximum transparency around the process. In that light, my final question is: will the Minister commit to ensuring that the new body communicates its proposals with full transparency?
Mike Kane
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington for stating the Opposition’s support. UK aviation enjoyed its most successful month in history in April. Over the next 20 years, we are looking at the doubling of numbers in aviation, and freight as well, so modernising our airspace is critical to making sure that there is resilience in the system.
Work was done under the previous Government, and I pay tribute to the former hon. Member for Witney, Robert Courts, for what he did, but Governments become sclerotic and the last Government did not get this measure over the line. I was glad that we committed to do it in our manifesto. What we are doing today by implementing that manifesto commitment and putting it into law will be a huge confidence boost for the aviation industry. When I have spoken to industry representatives, as I do all the time, including this morning, they tell me they have been looking forward to today, because the measure is a statement of commitment and intent.
The hon. Member for Orpington is absolutely right: who knew that flying in a straight line would cut carbon emissions? EasyJet gives the example of the journey from Jersey to Luton airport wherein the aircraft burns a third more fuel because of the path it has to take. Flying in a straight line is better for customers and for the environment, and it will produce fuel savings. He talks about winners and losers, but this measure also allows us to analyse take-offs and landings and varying routes, so we can mitigate impacts on communities. That is key.
The skillset is an essential element of that. Until now, the skills have been dissipated throughout the country. This measure puts the skillset into one place in the UKADS. That means we can concentrate on the most congested skies in the south-east, but it does not stop us doing what we need to do in the Scottish, northern and south-west airspaces. There will be funding to make sure that those other regions benefit, including smaller airports, which the hon. Member asked about. I will also commit to full transparency as we go through the process and get it over the wire to modernise airspace, so that the British aviation set-up has a confident future.
The Chair
Does the hon. Gentleman wish to contribute? He did not indicate that he did when I looked at him meaningfully earlier, but he is just in time if so. I call Paul Kohler.
Mr Kohler
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. We welcome steps to better co-ordinate the fractured and complex system of managing airspace. It is important to bring it into the 21st century by delivering flight paths that cut emissions and ensure that journeys can be quicker, quieter and cleaner. The creation of a single guiding mind to co-ordinate and sponsor future airspace changes is a positive step and something that my party warmly welcomes.
We recognise that without modernisation, not only will there be unnecessary capacity constraints, but outdated flight paths will constrict innovation and stand in the way of future advances, including essential low and zero-carbon developments in the sector. It is vital, however, that the new organisation works closely with the communities affected by noise and air pollution—as has been said, there will be losers as well as winners—and that local communities feel that their voice is being heard when changes take place.
We understand that London will be the first area that the UKADS considers. Can the Minister clarify the timeline for the creation of the new service and when we can expect the work on the modernisation of London’s airspace to commence? Can he give any indication of how long the Department envisages it will take for the UKADS to publish and consult on its draft proposals? Finally, will the Minister set out what steps the Government are taking to ensure that UKADS works closely with the public, so that the communities affected by the changes are and feel properly consulted?
The Chair
The Minister is under no obligation to speak again, but I know he is a generous man.
Mike Kane
I thank the hon. Member for Wimbledon for his support; we have the whole House behind the measure. I commit to laying out the details of the steps for setting up the service, how much it will cost and what the consultation will be as we go forward over the next few years.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council (Housing and Regeneration Functions) Regulations 2025
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Buckinghamshire Council, Surrey County Council and Warwickshire County Council (Housing and Regeneration Functions) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. The regulations were laid before Parliament on 9 June 2025. This Government have emphasised our commitment to transferring power out of Westminster into local communities, and this instrument provides for the implementation of the devolution agreement that was confirmed on 6 March 2024 between the previous Government and the three councils concerned. I am pleased to say that in May 2025 all three councils consented to the making of this instrument.
The regulations will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provision in the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. The regulations will come into force the day after they are made and confer housing and regeneration functions on the respective local authorities, as agreed in the devolution agreements. Accompanying the regulations, we have laid a report, under section 17(6) of the 2016 Act, providing details about the public authority functions, including regeneration functions held concurrently with Homes England being devolved to the authorities.
Additional funding will be available for the areas through the adult skills fund, devolved to the councils from the 2026-27 academic year, as well as the education skills functions. The Department for Education will work with the councils to support their preparations and ensure that they meet the necessary readiness criteria. We will legislate in due course when the Secretary of State for Education is assured that they are operationally ready and is satisfied that the required statutory tests have been met in each of these areas.
In December 2024, the three councils submitted supporting information on their potential use of proposed functions, including feedback gathered through their engagement with local stakeholders. The outcome of that engagement demonstrated local support for the conferral of the new functions upon each of the councils, and in laying this instrument before Parliament, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the statutory tests in the 2016 Act are met, namely that making the regulations is likely to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people who live or work in the relevant local authority areas.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Can the Minister outline for the Committee, where these powers will sit, once councils have gone through devolution talks and appointed metro mayors? Will they still sit with the unitary councils, or will they go to the metro mayor? Can the Minister explain where the powers will sit when they get a new devolution agreement?
Jim McMahon
In a sense, these are legacy agreements made under the previous Government that we are keen to honour. We know that councils worked in good faith when preparing their devolution agreements with the previous Government, and we want to ensure that—notwithstanding the transition period following the English devolution and community empowerment Bill—we can honour those arrangements as much as possible. It is accepted that we are in a period of significant transition for local government in England, both in reorganisation and the creation of new combined authorities in these areas, but we do not think that is a reason in itself to hold back powers.
If the point comes when these areas receive a mayoral strategic authority, as it will be known under the new Bill—the Houses of Parliament need to go through the process of confirming that position—the powers will be conferred, alongside a range of other powers, which would be quite normal. I should say that nothing will be presented to Parliament in the English devolution Bill that cuts across what we now consider to be the foundational agreements that are in place. We would encourage willing local authorities to collaborate and come together, even if that is without a mayor being in place, so that further powers can be devolved to current local authorities.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I declare an interest as a Surrey Member of Parliament, and my constituency of Spelthorne is the northernmost borough of Surrey. Can I just confirm whether the changes that we are making today still require Spelthorne borough council to give permission for compulsory purchase, when we have handed those powers to Surrey county council?
Jim McMahon
I can check that particular point about the role of district councils in authorising. It may be that we follow up with officials on that point. I would also add that areas in Surrey are part of the accelerated timetable for local reorganisation, and we are now out to consult on the final proposals that have met the statutory test that we set out. We are in that statutory process and that will move to shadow elections for the new unitary authorities as early as May next year. At that point, there will be a transfer of power and responsibilities across to the new unitary councils, and at that point we will consider new SIs that transfer the powers from the existing council structures to the new unitary councils as they come into force. It may well be that, later, there is a devolution agreement set across that bigger geography that we then return to as part of a second SI. We are in a period of transition, and it will take time. We did not believe that it would be right not to fulfil the agreement of the previous Government with the councils that have acted in good faith, notwithstanding those transitional arrangements.
That brings me back to the statutory tests. It is our belief that the economic, the social and environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people who live or work in the relevant areas will be met. I thank local leaders and their councils for their hard work in the Government’s critical mission to widen and deepen devolution in their areas. I commend these regulations to the Committee.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. As the Minister set out, each of these agreements was negotiated between the then Conservative leaders of each of these councils and the previous Conservative Government. Having engaged with those individuals, I know that they are positive about the fact that this statutory instrument has been introduced for agreement.
I have a couple of questions, some of which stemmed from the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne and for Spelthorne. It is worth reflecting on the fact that there have been elections in some of the areas since the initial agreements were negotiated. We know that is not the case for Surrey, but there have been changes in Warwickshire and Buckinghamshire, although Buckinghamshire continue to have a Conservative leader.
The Minister set out that consent from the authorities was granted in May 2025, which is also when those elections took place, and it would be helpful, particularly in respect of Warwickshire, where there has been a change of leadership, if he provided an assurance that the revised leadership of the council is still supportive of the devolution deal that we are due to agree.
Some other questions have emerged. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne referred to how things would pan out in relation to the powers of mayoral strategic authorities. In the context of devolution, authorities are seeking an assurance that the exercise of those powers will remain subject to an appropriate level of local democratic oversight after reorganisation. I am conscious that ministerial directions could be used to instruct the local authority to conduct itself in a certain way, when that may not be what was envisaged when the original agreement was drawn up.
Finally, to the point about the consent of districts and boroughs, regulation 4 says that the consent of those districts and boroughs will be required for the exercise of any of these functions. The Minister can be very clear about that, and it would be helpful if he could set out in what circumstances the Minister may provide a direction to a district or borough to agree to, or to provide consent to, one of those functions. That potentially would circumvent the local democratic control that was envisaged. I am grateful to the Minister for honouring the commitments that have been made. For the most part, these provisions are politically non-controversial and are seen very much as beneficial regardless of who is in control of the local authorities, but I know that colleagues would appreciate it if he provided clarification on those points.
Jim McMahon
I thank the shadow Minister for his usual approach, which is to be supportive of devolution, and for his recognition that when we make a commitment to a local area, it is important that we act in good faith, notwithstanding the changes we have seen. In a sense, that is how we have tried to approach the most recent elections, with some quite significant change in some parts of England, in the make-up of councils and in the priorities of the leadership of those councils. I can confirm, however, that in the cases we are discussing, consent was sought from the councils before the elections, but we received notification afterwards that they were content to proceed. On that basis, we confirmed the position.
On the district councils, it is important to say that the district councils in the areas under consideration are the planning authority. Their role as the planning authority does not change, notwithstanding the powers being granted for things like compulsory purchase. I confirm for the record, however, that those powers can only be used with the consent of the district council; they cannot be used if the district council does not agree. We expect—it is not an unreasonable expectation—that local authorities will work together with the new powers to ensure that local people feel the benefits. I hope that is helpful.
On the point about the transfer of existing powers, it is easiest for us to refer to them as a foundation agreement—the start of an agreement of devolution and the first rung of the ladder. We of course encourage all areas to come forward that expressed an interest in further devolution. We are in a period of transition and are about to table the English devolution and community empowerment Bill in Parliament. We will need to allow Parliament to run its course and to consider the Bill in the usual way, but notwithstanding that, we want to see a standardisation of devolution across England.
I will be careful not to be too critical about what we have had before, because I do not think that devolution would have grown the way it has were it not for the flexibility in reaching agreements. That was part of a necessary process to develop, to get people to support it, but it is also fair to say that as we build out devolution, there needs to be consistency in the type of powers, the duties and responsibilities, and the funding arrangements, and there needs to be transparency about how much is given to each area.
That will give clarity to areas that are trying to assess whether they believe that mayoral devolution is the right move for them. Some might well decide that it is not the right time and that they want to stay longer with a foundation agreement. From a Government point of view, we will support that, if it is the right thing for that area. Likewise, however, they might well see the powers in the new Bill and say that those are worth accepting a mayor for, even if at the moment there is not yet such agreement.
This is very much a Government who are open to listening and working with local areas. If there are any places that want to have conversations about further and deeper devolution, our door, here and everywhere, remains open for that. We will say more about the expansion of devolution in England over the coming days on that basis.
With your permission, Sir Edward, I think I have covered the points that have been made. I can confirm to hon. Members that this instrument delivers a commitment made in the devolution agreements with Buckinghamshire, Surrey and Warwickshire to confer housing and regeneration functions on each local authority.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Neighbourhood Plans: Planning Decisions
(4 days, 16 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
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of neighbourhood plans in planning decisions.
When we come to this place as representatives of our communities, it is our job to hold the Government to account for things that really matter. I must admit that when I entered Parliament I never thought that planning would be something I would lead on, but for my community it is so important because it impacts their daily lives all the time. I do not go through a week without someone raising a planning concern with me, so I thought it would be useful to have a debate yet again on the importance of neighbourhood plans. First, I will say a little about the national context of neighbourhood plans and their roles and why they matter to me and my community.
As a country, we know we need to deliver more housing—both sides of the House believe that. The Conservatives and Labour pledged 150,000 houses in their manifestos and Liberal Democrats pledged 180,000. But the Liberal Democrats who campaigned against me locally have blamed the Government under both the Conservatives and now Labour for a build, build, build agenda, campaigning against local housing despite the figure in their manifesto being far higher. Here is where the national divides from the local, which is really important.
Before the Minister makes his prepared speech about 14 years of what the last Government could or should have done, I should say that since I was elected I have raised many planning issues, had debates on this topic and lobbied from the Back Benches to try to deliver change, because the planning system does need to change. Despite a change in Government, we are still struggling to deliver the houses—we have only to look at what the Chancellor said in her Budget speech:
“Changes to the national planning policy framework alone will help build over 1.3 million homes in the UK over the next five years, taking us within touching distance of…1.5 million homes in England in this Parliament.”—[Official Report, 26 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 951.]
I am no mathematician, but that is 200,000 short and deals only with the UK when the Labour manifesto was to deliver in England.
On top of that, the Government have brought in changes, but they make my community feel hard done by. The national statistics and changes to the national planning policy framework show that Hinckley and Bosworth’s housing target has to rise by 59%. With the boundary changes, I take in some of north-west Leicestershire, which has to rise by 74%. We are prepared to build our fair share of houses, but it sticks in the throat when we see Leicester city dropping by 31%.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point because that is not just happening in his local community. Does he agree that we see the same thing right across the country? The same is happening in Birmingham, where the housing target is going down, yet in places such as Aldridge-Brownhills it is going up by some 27%, with no infrastructure and no brownfield remediation funding to support it.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend aware that in the south-west the house building target for Somerset has risen by 41%, but in nearby Bristol, recently controlled by the Labour party, it has gone down by 11%?
Dr Evans
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising yet another point. I am sure we could go round the House and get examples of city areas having housing targets go down, whereas countryside areas have them go up. We know we need more houses, and everyone must take their fair share, but we have brownfield sites that need redevelopment and already have the infrastructure in place. The last Government chose to prioritise those sites for housing, because they are connected and have the amenities that the local population needs. That makes a lot of sense. I look forward to this Government explaining their decision.
Neighbourhood plans were brought in under the Localism Act 2011, to give local communities the chance to shape what their community looks like.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. Neighbourhood plans give local communities a voice. They know their areas better than anybody else. With this withdrawal of funding, the Government are basically saying that they know better. People will no longer have a voice or a say in their area, which is devastating for local communities.
Dr Evans
My hon. Friend is spot on. In the planning system, there is a constant feeling that things are being done to people, not with them. The idea of localism and neighbourhood plans was to fight that. We know that local plans deliver more housing with neighbourhood plans, because the neighbourhood chooses where it goes, so it is in keeping with what the local village or parish wants. I will come on to that, because that is the key point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I told him beforehand that I am not speaking today and will only make an intervention because neighbourhood plans specifically apply to England. In Northern Ireland, community planning partnerships bring together public services, residents and businesses, but they do not directly determine specific planning decisions. Does he agree that planning applications could be passed quicker through greater integration with the public and that we should look at a UK-wide strategy? He has lots of wisdom and knowledge, and he has explained this issue for all our benefit today. Does he agree that that might be a way forward?
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
Can I check the hon. Gentleman’s wellbeing, as he is not making a speech today? Is he fine and dandy? [Laughter.]
Dr Evans
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. For someone who is not speaking, he articulates his point very well. He makes a really important point: different parts of the UK have a different approach, and there should be shared learning. Joining up community hubs is really important, especially in rural areas, where there are limited numbers of sports fields, doctors, shops and schools. The ability to bring businesses and the community together is good not only for the Government, so that they can deliver the housing, but for the local populace, to better understand and buy into what is being delivered. That is the whole point of neighbourhood plans.
At the end of March 2025, the Government were aware of 1,800 neighbourhood plans being in place. The Locality website states that over 2,400 communities have initiated neighbourhood plans and over 1,000 plans have been successful at referendum. CPRE says that 5,800 local green spaces have been designated in neighbourhood plans, showing that local communities are deciding what is best for them. That is all well and good, but why are these plans important and are they making any tangible difference? An assessment of the impact of neighbourhood plans in England for the University of Reading in May 2020 showed that
“Neighbourhood planning’s contribution to housing supply can be significant. Neighbourhood plans which are allocating housing sites are providing sites for an average additional to local plan allocation 39 units per neighbourhood plan.”
I like to think of this in terms of percentage gains, as the Sky cycling team did. These are huge percentage gains in local communities, which go on to choose to have this housing. We know that these plans will deliver about 11% more houses, and they have community buy-in, which is fundamental to getting people on board to say they will take more housing. That is why we need these plans. However, the Government announced last month that the funding is stopping.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The village of London Colney in my constituency is under siege from top-down housing targets, with a huge development being dumped on the border by the neighbouring local authority and an enormous rail freight terminal the size of 480 football pitches. My local residents in London Colney want their voice to be heard on the location and type of homes, but after three years of having access to the locality budget in developing a neighbourhood plan, the parish council has been told that there is no funding left to finish that plan. Does the hon. Member agree that where local parishes have made significant progress, funding should be reinstated so that they can complete those plans?
Dr Evans
The hon. Lady makes a vociferous defence of her area; actually, she could have been speaking about my constituency in Leicestershire, which suffers all those things. The only thing I would say is that in my constituency we fought the national rail freight hub, won and pushed it back. The population was very pleased about that, but that speaks to people’s engagement and what they can do. The concern that we have to raise with the Government is about what happens when the funding stops. As I will say later, we need to understand where the Government stand on neighbourhood plans. Do they support them? Do they want them to be taken away? Do they want to see them wither? Will they strengthen them? The Opposition’s argument is that strengthening them would deliver the housing that people want in the way they want it.
On the funding that is stopping, Locality—the membership organisation that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government commissioned to deliver support services to neighbourhood forums to prepare their neighbourhood plans—has announced that it cannot proceed with new neighbourhood planning support services from 2025, and it has until the end of March 2026 to complete all existing technical support packages agreed with MHCLG. It believes that
“it will be difficult for some groups to progress their plans…we are not able to support the Champions Network and other learning and development opportunities”.
The National Association of Local Councils said:
“We are bitterly disappointed by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG) decision to stop funding for the neighbourhood planning support programme…This decision is a significant setback for localism and the highly successful neighbourhood planning initiative”.
CPRE nationally says that that it is
“concerned about the government’s decision to end support for preparing and updating neighbourhood plans, as this is likely to lead to planning decisions becoming less responsive to the needs and aspirations of local communities.”
That is the rub: it feels like a slap in the face for local communities that want to take on the responsibility of making change. That is often done by volunteers who do not have technical experience but aspire to change their area for the better. That is why it hurts.
This is not just some nebulous concept that we discuss down here in Whitehall and Westminster. My constituency is a primary example that is living this out. We do not have an up-to-date local plan under the Liberal Democrat borough council—this has been ongoing for six years—or an up-to-date five-year land supply. The Liberal Democrats’ local campaign says, “Stop building,” but the national campaign says, “We need to go even further than the Labour and Conservative pledges.”
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the housing debate is about not just the number of homes but who determines where they should be built. He continues to point to the Liberal Democrats, but I gently remind him that our policy is not just about numbers, but about having a bottom-up approach whereby local authorities work out the homes they need in their local area, in contrast to the top-down approach pursued by his former Government and the current Labour Government.
Dr Evans
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out; I hope she will get in contact with her colleagues in the Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough council to make that exact point. They could take more control if they had an up-to-date local plan and learned from their neighbours in North West Leicestershire—part of which is now in my constituency—which does have a five-year land supply and an up-to-date local plan, and is making the best of that because it is able to take in business rates and turn that into a positive. The community chooses where development goes and has control over it. The mechanism is there, and I have been raising this issue with the last Government and this Government.
I am keen to ensure that the Government are able to kick local decision making in the right direction to prevent failings. Neighbourhood plans are the protective mechanism that can deal with that. I argued with the last Government, and will argue with this Government, that neighbourhood plans should have more weight, especially where there is no up-to-date local plan, because that would do exactly what the hon. Lady is asking for. They allow communities to have infrastructure and amenities, in keeping with the their heritage and environment, without top-down speculative developments that place 100, 200, 300, 500 or 1,000 houses on top of them. Communities just will not swallow that. That is the key and why I secured this debate.
Let me continue with the example of my constituency. We now have the prospect of devolution, with 21 councils getting a legal invite to change the way in which they structure themselves. I am not sure about other Members, but if I got a “legal invite” from the court, I would not ignore it. This is being imposed on local governments. In my area, we have at least three different versions of what devolution will look like. This will have a drastic impact on planning, yet we have no idea of what the neighbourhood plans or planning authorities will look like, especially if we are divided into one, two or three different unitaries.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. On the devolved issue, which is slightly different in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of GB, there has been a planning proposal in my area for about seven years to develop a good-quality hotel close to where the Open golf championship will take place next week. That has been delayed not by problems, complaints or objections from local residents, but by a politically inspired complaint extraneous to the constituency. Does the hon. Member agree that we need to address the issue in a more holistic way, to try to get development that most people can agree with and want to see progressed as quickly and effectively as possible?
Dr Evans
The hon. Member makes a fantastic point. It is about getting that balance. There will always be nimbys, but I find that many of my constituents understand that we need more housing for the young and for older people to downsize into, and more businesses and infrastructure for jobs and creating wealth. The question is their involvement and the understanding of the community, and being plugged into decision making.
The whole idea of localism is that local communities know best. The Government cannot do everything, so we should empower the people at the bottom to make choices, and they will do. The evidence backs that up, which is why I would like to know why the Government seem to be reneging on localism. In response to parliamentary questions, the Government’s answers have been ambivalent:
“Government remains of the view that neighbourhood plans can play an important role in the planning system. Communities can continue to prepare neighbourhood plans where they consider that doing so is in their best interests.”
The Government believe:
“Support for neighbourhood planning groups should be possible without further Government funding.”
They also state:
“The Government has no target for neighbourhood plan take-up.”
This is why I secured this debate: do the Government want to scrap neighbourhood plans, or simply phase them out? If they believe in neighbourhood plans, why are they taking away the funding? How do they expect volunteers to deliver the change that the Government and the Opposition want to see, without the means to deliver it?
What protections can be put in place for villages and parishes that are using neighbourhood plans, especially when there is no up-to-date local plan? How can we hold to account local councils, such as Liberal Democrat-run Hinckley and Bosworth borough council, for not delivering a local plan? The plans were almost designated under the previous Government, but that would be a big step to take. Fortunately, we have seen progress in planning improved, but at the end of the day we are open to speculative development, and there does not appear to be a mechanism to hold local councils to account.
Finally, what does the Minister say in response to the thousands of plans, with likely tens of thousands of volunteers who have given hundreds of thousands of hours to deliver on a vision for their community that brings the houses that the Government need and of which local people can be proud? Westminster might write the targets, but it is our neighbourhoods that deliver the homes. If the Government cut the lifeline in neighbourhood planning, they sever the link that turns policy into places and houses into homes. We must not lose sight of their value or ignore the warning signs.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this valuable debate.
Let me take you, Ms McVey, and the Minister to my constituency of Melksham and Devizes, in the beautiful county of Wiltshire, where many villages have worked to develop neighbourhood plans over the years. The plans have allowed for good consultation with communities over what developments they want to see and where. For the most part, they have worked—when not disrupted by the lack of housing supply from the previous Conservative Administration.
The village of Holt is a perfect example of what can be done when local people have the tools to shape their future. A parish councillor in Holt recently reminded me of the success of Holt’s first neighbourhood plan, which was created in 2016. That plan shaped the development of a derelict tannery site into an award-winning mixed-use development that combines homes and commercial space while preserving the village’s distinctive character and history.
Nearly a decade on, Holt is now updating its plan to address residents’ current concerns, such as traffic, road safety and local infrastructure. As the councillor put it to me:
“The neighbourhood plan process is a part of local democracy.”
She is right. It empowers communities, gives residents a unified voice and ensures that developments do not just reflect the needs and priorities of developers.
The withdrawal of funding for neighbourhood plans means that we are heading towards a two-tier planning system. In one tier, more affluent areas, where the parish councils can afford to fund expensive plans, will continue to have a say in their futures. In the other tier, the less affluent areas that lack such resources will be left vulnerable to speculative development, with little say and even less resource.
Wendy Morton
On that point, some of us do not have parish councils, but the local voice in neighbourhood planning is still important. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this insistence on top-down targets is driving out any space for local communities and the local voice? That is deeply damaging if we want to create sustainable communities.
Brian Mathew
I agree entirely with the right hon. Member. I urge the Government to reconsider their decision. Local democracy should not be a luxury available only to those who can afford to pay for it.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this debate, which is incredibly important to our whole country, and certainly to my constituency.
Neighbourhood plans are a vital component of a fair, balanced and genuinely democratic planning system. They are a testament to the principle that local people should not simply be told how their community will look by central Government, but be empowered to shape the future of the places they call home. Neighbourhood plans should guarantee that development happens with the consent of those who live there, and is not forced on them by speculative developers or bureaucrats in Whitehall, who too often view our villages and market towns as blank canvases.
In Buckinghamshire, a clear framework is taking shape. The new Buckinghamshire plan is being developed right now to set out how many homes we need in the county and, broadly, where they should go, building on the local plans of the legacy councils before we went unitary in 2021. However, it is our neighbourhood plans that give meaning to that strategy on the ground. They provide certainty to my constituents in Mid Buckinghamshire. They reflect the unique character, constraints and aspirations of each parish, village and town. They tell developers, planners and councillors alike where development is acceptable and, just as importantly, where it is not acceptable.
In Mid Buckinghamshire, I have seen how the plans work when they are respected and, sadly, what happens when they are not. In Marsh Gibbon, for example, the parish’s neighbourhood plan, backed by a local referendum, capped the number of new homes in that small village at 25 until 2031, yet we now face an attempt by a speculative developer to push through 90 homes, all on farmland—nearly four times what the community had previously agreed to. Such proposals do not simply test the robustness of local policy; they erode trust in the entire planning system if they succeed.
We see similar disregard for local issues elsewhere. In Waddesdon, a proposal has come forward for more than 500 homes and a solar installation—far beyond what local people had planned for. In Stoke Mandeville, a 650-home scheme threatens to overwhelm local roads, schools, drainage and other infrastructure. In Longwick, the parish council produced a neighbourhood plan with the clear backing of the local community, yet despite that plan, and despite the village having nearly doubled in size already, Longwick continues to receive speculative applications for yet more housing. Sometimes we simply have to say enough is enough.
Labour’s stated aim to build, build, build, no matter the consequences or cumulative impact of development on our rural communities, in reality means destroy, destroy, destroy. Consent from constituents is crucial to protect the rural identity of communities throughout Mid Buckinghamshire and right across the country. Under the last Government, we rightly strengthened neighbourhood planning powers, because we recognised that development must be rooted in local consent. We wanted to see homes built where they were genuinely needed and wanted, while protecting the green fields, rural lanes and historic character that make our villages so special. We knew that communities are more likely to support plans when they have real control over scale and location, not when that is dictated from Westminster.
I am proud that in my constituency so many parish councils and volunteers in the villages I have mentioned—Marsh Gibbon, Waddesdon, Stoke Mandeville, Longwick and beyond—have done the hard graft of surveys, consultations and draft policies. They have balanced the need for new homes with the reality of local infrastructure and the natural environment and beauty. They have played their part in delivering homes, but on terms that respect the countryside and the unique Buckinghamshire character that makes these places attractive and worth living in.
Neighbourhood plans are not optional extras. They are not tick-box exercises. They carry legal weight and must be defended robustly by planning authorities, inspectors and Ministers, even if this Government have never quite grasped that concept or shown any interest in doing so. If we truly want to build the right homes in the right places, we must stand with our constituents, communities, hamlets, villages and towns. We must back local people, who have done the hard work of saying, “Yes, here, but not there.” If we do not, we risk not just bad development but a total breakdown in trust between residents and the system that is meant to serve them. That is what we in this place are meant to uphold.
Although the current Labour Government, particularly with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, want to ravage natural landscapes across our country, I will remain staunch in seeking to protect our neighbourhoods and my hamlets, villages and towns from this reckless agenda. I very much hope the Minister is able to give the Government’s commitment to neighbourhood plans and, as others have said, ensure that the funding can remain to produce them.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate.
I have been struck when listening to all the speeches so far by the fact that so often when we talk about planning, we speak in terms of bricks and mortar and targets, but we are actually talking about the neighbourhoods that we want to live in—the places where our children can be near their grandparents, where working families can afford a home, where older people can remain in the communities that they helped to build.
In West Dorset, the system too often delivers not the homes we need, but the ones that developers choose to build—homes that are almost empty, unaffordable or ill-suited to the needs of local communities. We are told that planning holds up development, but many sites already have planning permission and are sitting unused. Far too often, the problem is not the approval of homes but the delivery of what is already agreed.
I often joke when I am talking to residents that there are only two things in politics that everyone agrees on: that we need more homes and that we need them somewhere else. Let me be very clear: Dorset needs new homes, but they must be the right homes, in the right places, for the people who actually need them, supported by proper infrastructure, guided by good planning and with water management built in from the start.
Neighbourhood plans are a crucial part of the solution. They are developed by communities, who know their areas best and understand where homes can go and where they should not, what infrastructure is needed, what characteristics must be preserved and what kinds of homes are actually required.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Appropriate and adequate housing is key to the growth of any area. A lack of housing is a very real problem in Northern Ireland, particularly in my constituency. While we have a different planning system, our issues are the same. The hon. Member mentioned the lack of investment in water and sewerage infrastructure. Does he agree that, in the round of this planning discussion, we need to get the water services at the table to ensure that they are investing in areas so that the housing can be built when it is approved?
Edward Morello
I agree 100%. I will come on to the campaign that the Liberal Democrats have been running to make water companies statutory consultees, and the importance of their involvement.
In West Dorset, we need genuinely affordable social housing, affordable homes for key workers and smaller homes for older people who want to downsize but remain in their communities. In my constituency, nearly 80% of homes are under-occupied. Many residents, especially the half of the population over 55, are trapped in houses that are too large for their current needs, with no smaller suitable alternatives locally. Meanwhile, young families are priced out of the villages that they grew up in. Neighbourhood plans offer us a way forward, but they must be given real weight in planning decisions. Local voices must not be sidelined by arbitrary targets, and local planners must be given the tools and support to do the job properly and shape developments that fit our communities.
Planning should not just be about housing; it should be about protecting the natural environment and ensuring that the infrastructure is in place to support new developments. In West Dorset, more than 70% of our land is designated as a protected natural landscape. These landscapes are not only part of our heritage, but vital to our local economy; tourism brings in more than £320 million a year and supports more than 5,000 jobs. People come to Dorset for the natural beauty. If we lose that, we lose more than the countryside; we lose our livelihoods and our communities. That is why I believe that National Landscapes must be made a statutory consultee in the planning process and have a guaranteed seat at the table when decisions are made that could permanently alter the characteristics of our protected areas.
The same must be done with water companies, as mentioned. At present, they are not statutory consultees on new housing developments, despite the fact that every flush, every sink and every shower adds pressure to an already overstretched system. In 2024 alone, West Dorset saw more than 4,200 sewage spills, equating to a staggering 48,000 hours of sewage discharge. It is not just a planning issue; it is a public health crisis and an environmental disaster. When homes are built without the pipes and the run-off systems to support them, everyone pays the price. Water companies must be statutory consultees, so that new development does not simply add to the pollution burden and we can hold water companies accountable if the pollution continues. The planning system must build in environmental accountability from the start.
Neighbourhood plans should not just be maps of where homes go; they should be binding frameworks that connect housing with infrastructure, nature, transport and water. They must have teeth and they must be respected. We must also tackle the backlog of permissions already granted. Developers must not be allowed to sit on land when communities go without. “Use it or lose it” measures must be implemented to ensure that approved developments are built or planning permission is withdrawn.
Dorset will soon be consulting on its new local plan and I urge residents to get involved. Housing targets may be set by Whitehall, but homes are lived in by people, and people deserve a system that listens to local communities, delivers the right kind of housing and provides the infrastructure needed to make those homes liveable.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate. It is really timely, not least because the Planning and Infrastructure Bill continues to make progress down the other end of this place. I hope that it continues to receive the scrutiny that such a huge piece of legislation requires.
Neighbourhood plans were designed to give local people a meaningful say in shaping development in their communities; as democratically elected Members of Parliament, we must never forget that. They are a crucial tool for ensuring local input and accountability. There has to be a place for local voices when it comes to planning. Even where there are no parish councils, as in my constituency, local residents expect a voice; they expect to be heard. Just the other week, I was out on site at Barr Lakes common with a group of residents regarding a specific planning application.
I fear that the Government’s Planning and Infrastructure Bill risks undermining progress by centralising decision-making power and reducing the influence of local councillors and neighbourhood forums in planning decisions. That is why the funding for the NALC is so vital. If the Bill is allowed to pass, the resulting democratic deficit will risk elected councillors having only a limited role in scrutinising developments and—this is really worrying—denying them a meaningful voice in deciding applications, including those guided by neighbourhood plans. If neighbourhood plans are to remain relevant, the Bill must ensure that they have real weight and that local representatives retain genuine decision-making power.
We all know that neighbourhood plans are crucial in helping communities to protect valued local green belt. Many people in this place will know that I bang on a lot about the green belt and I am happy to continue to do so, because it is vital to the integrity of the communities I represent. We are not anti-housing, but I want to see housing that is not only in the right place but has the right infrastructure, and housing that meets the needs of local communities. It is local residents who understand the environmental and social importance of making sure that spaces are developed appropriately. Often, they understand that so much better than central planners here in Westminster and in Government.
The Bill risks expediting development and sidelining the protections provided by neighbourhood plans. The threat of piecemeal “grey belt” erosion will just grow further if we do not firmly embed green-belt protections in planning reforms. We are seeing that in my constituency, particularly down at Chapel Lane. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that neighbourhood plans can effectively safeguard the environment, which I think we care about on both sides of the House; to prioritise brownfield development as a first step, which I thought we all broadly agreed on as well; and to respect the clear wishes of local residents—and that is the bit where I feel there is an increasing divide in this place.
That is evident as I look around the Chamber: it is Members from Opposition parties who have come to speak in the debate and raise local issues. Apart from the Minister—and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, but of course he is not allowed to speak—there is nobody on the Government side of the Chamber. The Minister is a good man, so I do not want to refer to him as Billy No Mates, but he is a little bit lonely sitting there on his own early on a Wednesday morning.
Sir Ashley Fox
Does my right hon. Friend agree that probably half of Labour Members are pleased with the enormous reductions in housing totals in their urban constituencies and those who represent rural constituencies are just too embarrassed to show their faces?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The west midlands is heavily dominated by Labour MPs, but none of them are here today. Their housing targets have come tumbling down. My constituency is not technically a rural constituency; actually, I have challenged the Government to define whether my seat is rural or not, and there seems to be some ambiguity. Those of us on the periphery of the conurbations, where the green belt provides huge protection from urban sprawl, are really concerned about the Government’s approach.
The Government’s approach to housing targets is deeply flawed, as we have seen. Targets are imposed from the top down, with insufficient regard for local circumstances or infrastructure capacity. We need to see planning reforms that give neighbourhood plans real power, to help to balance that important housing supply with local realities. I have spoken a lot about the need to continue championing brownfield sites, and when it comes to neighbourhood plans, that must be seen as a credible alternative, but we need sufficient brownfield remediation funding to make that happen. Otherwise, it is almost unfair on developers, because if they are facing a choice of brownfield or greenfield development, often it is so much cheaper and quicker to develop that housing by going down the greenfield route, as we all know.
There must be adequate funding, and in the west midlands, under the leadership of the previous mayor, Andy Street, we absolutely demonstrated what can be done. He worked with Walsall council on the development of the Caparo and Harvestime sites, showing that these sort of town centre and urban edge sites can be delivered. That has to be a win-win. If we are serious about regeneration, let us develop the brownfield sites; then we will get footfall back into our town centres and communities working together again, and there is often some infrastructure in place. It just seems to be common sense, but we seem to be failing in that regard now.
One of the biggest concerns of local people is about infrastructure: “Where am I going to send my children to school?”, “Where’s the nearest school?”, “Where’s the nearest hospital?”, “Where’s the healthcare?”, “Where are the jobs?”, “Where’s the transport?”—do not worry, I am not going to talk about Aldridge train station today; I will save that for another day. This is about having joined-up thinking. We had an opportunity with the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to really make a difference, but I think that opportunity is gone. We need to build communities and houses, but we need to do more than that. We need to build sustainable neighbourhoods. We need to take communities with us, not leave them behind. Otherwise, I fear that we are not creating communities; in the worst-case scenario, we are creating the sink estates of the future. They have no heart and no soul, and they are not really homes; they are just houses plonked in an open space.
To me, all politics is local. It centres on the people we represent. Some of us will have friends or colleagues who serve on parish councils, district councils or county councils. We choose to serve here, but we must never, ever lose sight of the importance of that local voice.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for securing this debate.
The Localism Act 2011 gave parish and town councils the ability to produce neighbourhood plans, which formed policies to make decisions on planning applications alongside a wider local plan. That was strengthened by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which gave greater weight to such plans when it came to planning decisions. That is because Conservatives believe that planning decisions should, to the greatest extent possible, be made with the consent of local communities. We believe that local residents know best what they need. Neighbourhood plans are an important way to allow residents to shape development in their area in a way that reflects local needs and priorities.
There are several such neighbourhood plans in effect in my constituency, in Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge, in Nether Stowey, in Puriton, and in Wembdon. There is even a referendum on a neighbourhood plan in Cannington going on tomorrow. I am sure there will be many hundreds of people in Cannington watching this debate at this very moment. I urge them to turn out and vote tomorrow. Neighbourhood plans are particularly important in my constituency, where Liberal Democrat-led Somerset council says it will take at least another four years to come up with a local plan that applies across the whole county. I would like to criticise it, but I understand it is fairly normal for a unitary authority to develop a new local plan.
The previous Government provided funding for groups that wanted to create their own neighbourhood plan. It is very disappointing that the Government have now stopped that funding with no warning at all. Will the Minister explain the rationale for that decision? It is the latest in a series of decisions by the Government to take planning powers away from local people and give them to the Deputy Prime Minister. The Planning and Infrastructure Bill, for instance, seems designed to allow central Government to impose huge amounts of building in rural communities, especially those that do not vote Labour. A crucial element of the Bill is to reduce the power of planning committees, which will mean that there is less democratic accountability for development. No doubt the Minister will disagree with me, but I wonder whether he will reflect on why Somerset has had a 41% increase in its house building target while Bristol has had an 11% reduction.
I am not against development. We need houses so that our children can afford a place of their own, but they need to be supported by the right infrastructure, such as GPs, schools, transport links and parks. I want us to build beautifully, and in line with the character of the local area. According to a report by the University of Reading, almost 90% of neighbourhood development plans seek to improve the quality of development in their area. That is often done through policies and guidelines to influence new building design or alterations to existing buildings. My message to the Government is simple: we must support local people to properly engage in the planning process and have their say over development in their communities.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) for drawing attention to this often-neglected area. For many years, planning has been the subject of intense argument and dispute, both locally and nationally. Part of that argument is around environmental protection, but in particular there have been battles over the need to find ever more housing sites. The Government are clearly approaching neighbourhood plans from that perspective.
As Liberal Democrats, we believe that the starting point for any planning reform should be public consent. That cannot mean a right of veto in every circumstance, because the needs of society as a whole may outweigh local considerations. However, the best results can be obtained when we go as far as possible to allow local residents genuine involvement in their own future.
Neighbourhood plans were brought in following the Localism Act 2011 under the coalition Government. As such, Liberal Democrats have always supported them. At their best, they represent the strongest form of community involvement, control and consent in local development. They are a unique co-production between ordinary members of the public and planning professionals. Judging by the number that have been undertaken over the years, they have been very successful, especially in rural areas. When one considers the amount of voluntary work that residents have to put in, they are a remarkable exhibition of people power. I pay tribute to all the residents in my own constituency of Horsham who have sacrificed so much for their communities.
Cutting locals out of the process, as the Government’s new Planning and Infrastructure Bill does in so many ways, is a violent break with this past. The main strategic goals for an area need to be set by professionals, but alongside them, ideally in genuine partnership, residents bring a unique local knowledge and emotional commitment in a way that can never be replaced by professional planning officers. As such, it is disappointing to see that this role has been entirely ignored in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that is currently making its way into law.
In July 2024, the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) asked the Secretary of State,
“could she confirm that where local residents have complied with her mandatory targets through a neighbourhood plan, rather than a local plan, the neighbourhood plan will reign supreme and will not be trampled over by planning inspectors subsequently?”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1191.]
The Secretary of State replied:
“I can confirm that neighbourhood plans and the protections will remain, which is really important.”—[Official Report, 30 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1191.]
Now that the full text of the Bill has come to light, exactly how true was that statement? Neighbourhood plans are usually created on completely different timelines to local plans. They are usually adopted at different stages and they allocate housing for different periods. Although a neighbourhood plan can meet a housing target at the time it is approved, if a subsequent local plan sets a higher target, the neighbourhood plan will be overruled. That was already a problem under the previous Government. The introduction of the standard method for calculating local housing targets created a parallel but contradictory process for deciding house building, and that has caused endless confusion and dispute ever since. I say to the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth that the real cause of the problems with his local council is the standard method. That is the source of the top-down targets. The standard method is not a solution to the housing crisis, but it is a major contributory factor. It is very disappointing—
Dr Evans
That was the argument made to me when I solely represented Hinckley and Bosworth, but stepping across and taking in north-west Leicestershire, when they are able to deliver a local plan that has the five-year land supply that brings in the business rates, there is chalk and cheese to be seen. Everyone can see that. So I am not so sure that the targets are the problem. There is the local accountability. The Government need to step in to say that where councils are failing on delivery, they should be held accountable. Unfortunately, what happens is that people come to their MP to say, “What are you going to do to sort it out?”, when of course it is councils that deliver the plan. They just need to be held accountable. Does the hon. Member agree?
John Milne
Not entirely, although I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. The standard method was intended as an objective way to calculate local housing targets. It is objective in the sense that it is mathematical. However, the question has to be asked: does it give appropriate targets? I would say it very much does not. The reason for the pressure on the green belt—there could be 1,000 reasons—is that the mathematical calculation does not actually calculate housing need; it is a proxy for housing need, which is completely inaccurate and has been the cause of many problems. So it is very disappointing to see that the standard method has been retained by the current Government, and in fact made even worse by another round of mathematical jiggery-pokery that has very little to do with calculating genuine housing need.
The policy of reducing house prices by sheer number of planning permissions did not work for the last Government, and it will not work for the current one. It will do irreversible damage along the way to local communities before it will inevitably be changed again. An extra layer of difficulty has been added by local government reorganisation. In many areas, such as my constituency of Horsham in West Sussex, the forthcoming abolition of district and borough planning authorities means that the local plan process will be even more remote from the community.
It really is hard to see what role, if any, remains for neighbourhood plans in future. Why would anyone bother with all that work when they do not have any obvious statutory role? Neighbourhood plans can take years to draw up, and most of that is unpaid. The only clear benefit seems to be as a way of securing the higher rate of CIL, or community infrastructure levy payments, but to me it no longer makes sense to incentivise neighbourhood plan making in this way. Perhaps the Government should simply remove that hurdle and make the higher rate automatic.
It is extraordinary to see the complete absence of any mention of neighbourhood plans and their role in the new legislation. We can draw no other conclusion than to assume that the Government’s intention is to let them wither away altogether by a gradual process of neglect. To repeat: at their best, neighbour plans are a remarkable demonstration of people power—but not the people this Government want to listen to, apparently.
The Liberal Democrats believe that the best way to get Britain building the housing infrastructure we need and bring down costs is to give local communities a real voice and a real stake. To do so we want to ensure that strategic planning authorities consult on a statement of community involvement, which guarantees the right to be heard at an examination; that the Secretary of State takes this consultation into account when deciding an application for development consent; and that parliamentary approval is required for the removal of statutory consultees from the planning process. The Liberal Democrats would also like to see planning committees retain their current powers. When we look at this alongside the emasculation of neighbourhood plans and all the measures that take away or compress local consultation, it is clear that this Government believe that local residents are just a nuisance who need to be locked out of the room while the grown-ups make all the decisions.
We are deeply disappointed by the Government’s lack of commitment to boost nature’s recovery and tackle climate change in the planning process, despite promising in their manifesto that changes to the planning system would create places that increased climate resilience and promoted nature recovery. Neighbourhood plans have played a particularly effective role in identifying and protecting existing green spaces, which often have unclear legal status—lost in the mists of time—and are now under threat from the rapacious development industry.
Overall, the sidelining of neighbourhood plans in new legislation fits into a pattern of diminishing local power and representation. The Government believe that it is a sacrifice worth making for the sake of pushing faster house building, but all it will do in practice is to pile on more unbuilt planning permissions to the 1.4 million that we already have. It has been demonstrated plainly that permissions by themselves do not bring down prices. Developers simply stop building any time prices start to fall.
Mandating an ambitious annual delivery of social housing would be a faster and more effective, environmentally friendly and, above all, consensual way to achieve results. That is why the Liberal Democrats are asking for a guaranteed 150,000 new social houses a year. Neighbourhood plans should be retained and strengthened as a key part of the drive to build consensus in development—not compulsion.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing this important debate. He is a champion for his community, and I know that his constituents will be grateful to him for standing up for them.
Both my hon. Friend and I are in an unenviable position as two examples of MPs whose constituencies are set to be paved over under Labour’s new house building algorithm. He and I both have a Liberal Democrat council, and I know that his council has lacked an updated local plan since 2019. His council may not be engaged in speculative development itself, but my council has given developers a blank cheque in Hinckley and Bosworth to build at will, while nearby Labour-run Leicester city will be spared for their failures by having their brownfield site targets cut. My hon. Friend is right to pick up on what is, as I have called it in this House before, a politically gerrymandering algorithm put forward by this Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) said, I find it really surprising that there are no Labour Back Benchers here today. We have seen housing targets being massively increased in rural areas, but in urban centres where the infrastructure already exists, housing numbers and requirements are going down. I think that shows that colleagues in the Minister’s party who represent rural areas, as my hon. Friend said, are staying quiet because of the housing boom that they will have to explain to their constituents, while Labour MPs in urban centres are celebrating, or quite frankly embarrassed by, the reduction that this Government are allowing their councils to get away with.
I know of some of the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth has with his Lib Dem council. Like me, I am sure that he will recognise that in many Liberal Democrat “Focus” leaflets going out on people’s doorsteps there is an excuse as to why development is going forward in his constituency. But it is not the fault of the Lib Dem council, who make the decisions in the first place to grant planning permission; it is either the Tory county or the national Government at the time forcing them to make this huge sacrifice—that is why they are building across my hon. Friend’s constituency and mine.
The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), was a living embodiment of that example today by saying that it was not the national housing targets that were forcing our councils to build, and then excusing his own councils for not putting forward local plans that would stop that speculative development in the first place. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth will know that Liberal Democrat councils are in themselves speculative, which is one of the reasons they are failing their residents in planning going forward across this country.
John Milne
The targets are centrally driven and set by the standard method. In many areas, they are extremely difficult to fulfil, and that is why we get pressure on the green belt or protected conservation areas. That is the fundamental cause. Across the country, many councils of many different persuasions all face the same problem. That can break councils, because they are forced to allocate housing in areas where they really do not want to. The fundamental issue is the standard method, and we will never solve the issue of building on brownfield or greenfield sites until we properly replace it.
Paul Holmes
Again, the Liberal Democrats need to be clear about what they are promising the country. The hon. Gentleman again says that targets are the problem and that councils have difficulty in meeting them, but in the main Chamber his party is calling for more national housing targets. With all due respect, if a Liberal council in Hinckley and Bosworth is not delivering on a local plan, that is his party’s responsibility. Doing so would protect that constituency from the very targets that Liberal Democrats are bemoaning. The Liberal Democrats need to be clear on where they stand on national targets versus delivering locally for the people they claim to represent.
Edward Morello
Given the hon. Gentleman’s concerns over that Liberal Democrat-run council, I am sure he would welcome the opportunity to join me in applauding Liberal Democrat-run Dorset council, which is currently opening up its local plan to public consultation, so that communities can get involved in shaping the plan and we can deliver the homes that we need.
Paul Holmes
I am happy to congratulate any council controlled by any party if it has a local plan process going through, but the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his party spokesman, the hon. Member for Horsham, who just said that local plans cannot be delivered because of housing targets that put pressure on local councils. Dorset is an example of a Lib Dem council that has taken its responsibilities seriously, so I suggest that the Lib Dem spokesman has a meeting with the leader of that council.
John Milne
That is a gross generalisation. There are local factors everywhere. The hon. Gentleman really cannot make generalisations like that.
Paul Holmes
We have probably exhausted this line of debate, but, again, we have an example on the record of a Liberal council, Hinckley and Bosworth, that has not delivered on a local plan. Liberal Democrats in the main Chamber are asking for more national housing targets, but here in Westminster Hall they are claiming that targets are the reason why Lib Dem administrations cannot deliver local plans. We will let the record stand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and I were proud to serve under the previous Conservative Government, which built on the coalition’s achievements in introducing the Localism Act 2011. In that landmark legislation, we took bold and progressive steps to empower local communities. We made it a statutory requirement for local authorities to support and advise communities on neighbourhood planning. That was not just a policy, but a principle that local people should have a direct say in shaping the future of their towns, villages and neighbourhoods.
As I am sure colleagues are aware, schedule 9 to the Act created a framework through which parish and town councils, neighbourhood forums and community organisations—in other words, local voices—could lead the charge in designating local development plans, not as spectators, but as active participants in the planning system. District and county councils may hold formal planning powers—as Conservatives, we rightly believe that power should be delegated to the local level—but, if we are to build places that people are proud to live in, we must also make sure that the views of residents are heard, respected and acted on.
Parish and town councils should never be relegated to the role of rubber-stamping planning decisions; they must be central to shaping the development of their local areas. Villages know best. All my hon. Friends have talked about how villages in their constituencies want to build and want an active say in how their villages are shaped. I say to the Minister that this Government’s long-standing position has eroded planning committees, the rights of local councillors at parish, district and county level, and the ability of councillors to make decisions on behalf of local people.
I, like many others, welcomed the strengthening of neighbourhood planning in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023, which gave greater weight to those plans in decision making. The introduction of neighbourhood priority statements was a practical and positive step forward, giving parish councils and neighbourhood forums another mechanism to shape local policy, with a duty on local authorities to listen.
Sadly, that progress has been halted. Since taking office just over a year ago, this Government has made their mission clear: to sideline local people and centralise control. Through changes to the national planning policy framework, their smoke-and-mirrors “grey belt” policy and now the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, they are systematically removing local voices from the process. This is not reform—it is a power grab, and the message is clear: the future of our towns, villages and green spaces is being determined in Whitehall, not in our communities. That is a betrayal of the very principle of localism. When local voices are ignored and planning decisions are imposed from the centre, trust in the system is eroded and disillusionment grows.
We are becoming accustomed to disappointment when it comes to this Government, but to see, without so much as a ministerial statement, that Ministers have pulled funding for neighbourhood plans is another mark on their scorecard. This decision poses a serious setback for the principle of localism and undermines a widely celebrated initiative that has empowered more than 2,500 communities, with over 1,000 neighbourhood plans successfully passed at referendum. Parish and town councils have historically played a vital role in this process, driving forward locally led planning that reflects the needs and aspirations of their communities.
Neighbourhood plans have been a massively successful policy. Across the country, from small villages to growing towns, communities have embraced the opportunity to shape their future, but the Government’s plans threaten to undo these successes. Not only are they centralising power, but, with looming unitarisation, we will see even more erosion of these local voices, as these bigger local government councils will not have the time—nor, likely, the inclination—to bother with designating development areas, leaving already overdeveloped communities at risk of yet more reckless building.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth has been a consistent and passionate advocate for neighbourhood planning. He has highlighted the benefits of the process in this Chamber on many occasions, and rightly so. I commend him for his speech today, in which he outlined many of the problems that local councils face and the pressure they are under. This erosion of the right and responsibility of local people to have a say over local decisions must stop. We will continue to be a constructive but challenging Opposition on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, and I urge the Minister to speak to the Secretary of State about giving back power to local communities.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I remind the Minister to leave Dr Luke Evans a couple of minutes to wind up.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Alex Norris)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) on securing the debate; thanks to the way he set us off, this has been an excellent way to start the parliamentary day. Throughout his time in Parliament, he has been—and will remain, no doubt, for the rest of his time here—a champion of neighbourhood plans and neighbourhood planning and a consistent advocate for a locally led planning system.
The interest from hon. Members shows that, with many neighbourhood plans having been developed across England—indeed, with interest from beyond England; I was flicking through my notes to try to identify what I might have missed there—neighbourhood planning is a topic of interest across the House. Likewise, the future role for neighbourhood plans in the planning system will be closely watched by communities who have invested time and energy to participate in neighbourhood planning. Once we get beyond the politics, we are at risk of one of the most dangerous things in this place: vicious agreement. It is no secret that we as a Government believe in a plan-led system. The plan-led approach is and must remain the cornerstone of our planning system.
The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) talked about the neighbourhood plan referendum in Cannington tomorrow. I want to underline for any Cannington residents watching that the best way of allowing communities to shape development in their area is to have an up-to-date local plan that ensures the provision of supporting infrastructure so that the development proceeds in a sustainable manner, in exactly the way the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) described.
We have to end the uncertainty that plagues development across so much of the country by putting local plans back in their proper place as the foundation of the planning system. I hope I can give a degree of comfort to the hon. Member for Bridgwater and the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill is not as they characterise it. The foundation of the planning system is those local plans and those local communities. We have talked about democracy and local say, and they are the anchor for that.
Sir Ashley Fox
If neighbourhood plans are as important as the Minister says, why are the Government withdrawing funding?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman runs a paragraph or two ahead in my speech; I promise I will address that point shortly. I was talking about local plans, but I will turn to neighbourhood plans shortly.
To help us achieve our ambition of universal coverage of up-to-date local plans, which I think is a shared ambition, not least because of comments made by hon. Members today, we intend to introduce a new system for plan making later this year. In February, we responded to the plan-making consultation, which confirmed our vision for that new system. We will provide further details soon, in line with our commitment to provide a reasonable familiarisation period.
On neighbourhood plans, evidence shows that they work best where they build on the foundation of the local plan to meet the priorities and preferences of the community. In a planning system that is all too often antagonistic, neighbourhood planning can bring the community together in support of development, often resulting, as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth said, in more housing for the area and additional benefits to the local community. If we are to hit our target of building 1.5 million homes within this Parliament, the community support that neighbourhood planning attracts will be a very important component. I can give assurance of that.
Wendy Morton
On meeting targets, would the Government undertake to ensure sufficient funding for the brownfield remediation process, to unlock sites across the country? All of us in the House acknowledge the importance of unlocking those sites, because the regeneration opportunities would be massive, but it needs funding from central Government.
Alex Norris
I appreciate that point and share that view. I stare at a site, and probably, I will retire still staring at it—I should not make that commitment to my constituents, as they would encourage me to—in my old council ward, Johnsons dye works, that has been brownfield and vacant for three decades. The site is of complex ownership. We need those sites developed because they are a blight on the community. I completely accept that point. I think we made clear in the spending review our significant commitment as central Government to making funding available to get sites going. I hope that gives the right hon. Lady a degree of comfort about the Government’s direction.
Dr Evans
Just before he took the previous intervention, the Minister was talking about the power of neighbourhood plans and the community coming together. My worry is that, if there is no funding, why would volunteers step forward for such a big undertaking, requiring legal prowess? That is a big worry, and the Government do not seem to have explained how they have filled that void. At the end of the day, this is volunteers working hundreds of thousands of hours to deliver for their communities.
Alex Norris
I accept that point. I hope the hon. Gentleman will show a degree of forbearance, as I will come to that point shortly—I make that commitment to him and to the hon. Member for Bridgwater.
Neighbourhood planning is a well-established part of our planning system, and we want that to remain the case. Our Department is aware of more than 1,800 plans in place and 3,150 designated neighbourhood areas. I believe that in the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth’s constituency alone, there are seven made plans, with five more actively progressing, which reflects brilliantly on his constituents. I too express my admiration for those who join neighbourhood planning groups: they could be doing anything else with their lives, but they choose to put their shoes on, go out and have difficult conversations with their neighbours in the interest of the community. That is a very British and wonderful thing. I hope that, on reflection, the people of Cannington come out in their droves tomorrow to play their part in that process.
I turn now to our announcement following the spending review that we are unable to commission further funded support for neighbourhood planning groups. It was not a decision taken lightly, and I recognise the concerns it has prompted among groups, local planning authorities and hon. Members. I pay tribute to Locality, the National Association of Local Councils and other organisations that played their part in that process. I worked on it very closely with Locality, an excellent organisation that is very good at making community voice heard. We want to be clear, however, that that is not an abolition of neighbourhood planning. We believe that neighbourhood planning is an important part of the planning system.
The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth asked two questions. Do the Government intend to end neighbourhood planning? No, we do not. Do we intend or wish secretly for the phasing out of neighbourhood planning? No, we do not. Communities can continue to prepare neighbourhood plans where they consider doing so is in their best interests.
Paul Holmes
I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being most generous. From his language—he said that this was not a decision taken lightly—this is clearly another victim of the Prime Minister’s U-turn on welfare and the Chancellor now having to find money. Can he not see that there will be a problem? The simple logistics of getting together a local neighbourhood plan with no funding, including consultation—parish councils are not paid, but are often the most trusted of the councils—will mean a reduction in the number of neighbourhood plans and consultations. Does he not see that that is a bad thing for our villages across this country?
Alex Norris
On the point about the nation’s finances, it is the hon. Gentleman’s job to point the finger at the Government, but he and his party will continue to struggle until and unless they accept their role in that. At the end of the day, that inability to grasp the legacy of their 14 years in government will not help their fortunes in the future—but that is a matter for him, not me.
Difficult decisions have to be made. We have to weigh up where to put taxpayers’ money. Our analysis is that after more than a decade of taxpayer support, neighbourhood planning should be possible without further Government funding. Since 2013, more than £71 million of support has gone into this area. That speaks to the points made by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth and the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). There has been a significant period of work in this area. There is a network of planners and groups with skills and expertise in preparing neighbourhood plans, who can help others to do so. I hope that addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew) about access.
Wendy Morton
The Minister makes an important point about the level of expertise needed by local parishes and town councils to prepare their evidence base and documentation. However, if there is no funding from central Government, the only way I can see for a parish council or town council to find the funding is by raising the precept, which would be tantamount to Labour increasing the taxes of local people. Does the Minister agree, or is there an alternative?
Alex Norris
The right hon. Lady will know, despite not having any parish councils, that the precept is a matter for local authorities. That is a decision that they will have to make. We recognise the concern on resourcing, and it will depend on the area. However, even though national structured support is ending, there is now expertise and know-how within the market for local groups to tap into, which should help to develop their ability. Hopefully, some of that combined support can help to lower costs.
Brian Mathew
As I tried to make out in my speech, the worry of a two-tier system, where some communities can afford a neighbourhood plan and others simply cannot, will be important. The only way out that I can think of would be a simplification of the neighbourhood planning process, which would allow communities to get on and do it themselves without the need for expensive consultants to be involved, as there is at the moment. Is something the Minister would consider?
Alex Norris
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman succour on that point, but I hope that I can offer something in lieu. I accept that these things can become complex, but sometimes things are complex because they are complex. I do not think that we can wish that away and simplify a process in way that would mean taking away the fundamentals that require complex organisation and preparation. I think he is speaking to a wider point that also came up in the debate: complex planning matters ought to be the purview of local plans. If local plans are done properly, a lot of that complexity and difficulty will fall out and leave space for neighbourhood plans to operate as designed, rather than having to backfill the failures of local authorities.
I could not help but get the sense from the contribution of the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth that a lot of the issues are due to the absence of a local plan in his community. The hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire talked about speculative development. The story, as he put it, in his part of the world seemed to be developing, but that is clearly a risk until the process is finished. I cannot help but think that the issue there is the same. Similarly, the point that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) made about infrastructure falls within the purview of the local plan. We have to get the balance right.
I turn to local planning authorities, which have not been a feature of this debate, but have been a feature of the public debate. The end of funding for neighbourhood planning groups has created a misconception that our commitment to funding local planning authorities for their neighbourhood planning function will be affected. I want to be clear to anybody watching and to hon. Members in the Chamber that that is not the case. That again speaks to the point about the interrelationship between the local and neighbourhood planning functions. We will make announcements about the arrangements for this financial year in due course.
I turn to where neighbourhood plans sit in decision making, because I want to address the point made by the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne). It has never been the case that neighbourhood plans are determinative in every case, always. National policy is clear that an application contrary to an up-to-date neighbourhood plan should not usually be approved. I totally accept and understand the frustration that people would feel if they are approved, but we have to be honest: under the system as it stands—this does not result from any changes that we have made—when the balance of considerations in the case outweighs the neighbourhood plan, the development can take place. That is the world as it is today. In response to what the hon. Gentleman said, we are not planning to make changes to that. Again, the best thing that communities can do is have neighbourhood plans sitting underneath a local plan for their community.
Before I finish, I turn to the points that hon. Members made about local government reorganisation and the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 reforms. I hold the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) in very high regard, but I know that to be in his company is to expect a degree of impudence, so I was not surprised that he trumpeted provisions in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act that his Government did not turn on. There is no point in the powers being on the statute book if they are not turned on—that does not help—so I chafe a little at the characterisation that that is somehow our failure, rather than Conservatives’. Surely, they are at least equally complicit.
I want to give clarity to colleagues and those watching that no local government reorganisation will affect the status of neighbourhood plans; they will continue to have effect and will form part of the development plan for their area.
Dr Luke Evans
The way I see it, under devolution, more powers will be devolved down to parish councils, so indirectly they will have more responsibilities by the very nature of what the Government are trying to do in creating unitaries. Do the Government really believe that a volunteer on a parish council, which will have more responsibilities under devolution, will turn their attention to neighbourhood plans, especially when there is no funding, given the responsibility that goes with them? My concern is that there are competing issues for parish councillors.
Alex Norris
There are a couple of points there. I noted this and decided not to say anything about it because it might look like I was trying to be rude, and I am not. The hon. Gentleman should not conflate local government reorganisation and devolution. Although they are, of course, related to some degree, they are different. Local government reorganisation is about changing local authorities’ boundaries so that they have the right size and heft to function. The power conversation is slightly different.
I have to say that, in my experience, parish and town councillors are generally excellent, so I believe that they are able to balance competing interests. I do not accept that planning would not be seen as a priority; that is not an option for any politician in any role. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I hope I can assure him that local government reorganisation is not likely to drive material change in this space, not least because the plans will continue unaffected. The most important thing will be, as the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire said, that the new authorities get into the local plan process to ensure they have the cover and that good organisation and order.
Neighbourhood plans can play an important part in planning decision making across the country, and we want communities to continue to prepare them if they wish to do so. We want to encourage more constructive engagement across the whole planning system. Neighbourhood planning has shown that communities are willing and eager to embrace development when given the opportunity, as the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth said. I congratulate him on the case that he made and on securing this debate. I thank all colleagues for their contributions.
Dr Luke Evans
I thank the Minister. I know that this is not his brief, and that he fought eagerly to respond to this debate. I appreciate his constructive tone. He heard Members say that neighbourhood plans are not a luxury, that they are about local concern and that things should not be forced on communities. Members said that we want neighbourhoods that we want to live in, that local people should have a meaningful say, that we want scrutiny and, to the greatest extent possible, that they should be done with local residents. Those are the key sentiments behind neighbourhood plans.
Neighbourhood plans are not obstacles to progress; they are the architects of local consent. In fact, they are the granular centre of local democracy. To dismantle them is to forget that true planning begins not in Whitehall but in the beating hearts of our communities, which call these places home.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role of neighbourhood plans in planning decisions.
Sport England: Tackling Racism
(4 days, 16 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
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role of Sport England in tackling racism in sport.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am grateful to have been granted this debate, because this is an issue I have been dealing with for over seven years now. We know that racism exists within sports across the country, but what we do not talk about enough is when it impacts at a grassroots level—in local clubs that work and are situated in marginalised communities. This is not an issue exclusive to my constituency of Bradford West.
Although I will make mention of wider racism in sport, my focus today is Onna Ju-Jitsu, a multi-award-winning martial arts club based in my constituency. For several years, I have had the privilege of supporting the club, which delivers self-defence and ju-jitsu training to children and adults from all backgrounds, ethnicities and faiths. Its membership includes students and individuals from disadvantaged communities, and I have witnessed at first hand the dedication and excellence this club brings, not just to the sport of ju-jitsu, but to our diverse communities.
Impressively, the club has achieved a 50:50 male-to-female participation ratio and is led by a strong, accomplished female coaching team under Sensei Mumtaz Khan, a 7th degree black belt with over 32 years of experience. I would not want to get on the wrong side of Mumtaz.
Almost seven years since I raised this issue directly with Sport England—it was on 29 November 2018, to be exact—I am raising this matter in Parliament because, despite Mumtaz’s best efforts to seek justice for her students who have been wronged, Sport England has failed. It has not only failed the club and those individuals; it has failed to uphold its own policies, and has engaged in what I can clearly see are—and I am clear in calling out as—textbook attempts to cover up that failure.
The tragedy is that the very students who Mumtaz tried to seek justice for have now left British ju-jitsu without the justice they deserved. Any ambition they may have had for a future in sport ended the moment that accountability and justice were not provided by the very organisations that could have taken action.
During a competition bout at the British Ju-Jitsu Association National Championships in Birmingham on 1 September 2018, a competitor from Onna Ju-Jitsu was injured by a kick to the face and head. The impact was significant; it was caught on video, and required attention from the event’s first aider and qualified paramedic. According to the accident report, the paramedic advised the competitor not to carry on the round due to the pain. The competitor accepted this reluctantly. That instruction was clearly conveyed on the accident report and verbally to the competitor and to Mumtaz. Despite this being directly attributed to an uncontrolled kick to the head—a move that would ordinarily receive a red card and disqualification—the bout was then awarded to the opponent.
At the same championships, Ruqayyah Latif was moved up a weight category and missed out on a guaranteed gold or silver. Safa Zahid clearly won her match, but had her win go to another opponent. In fact, in one BJJ competition—not the championships—Safa Zahid was entered into a category to fight boys. She still managed to win a bronze, fighting boys with her two long plaits.
Ismail Ghani fought someone whose dad refereed the final. He was told that he lost by one point to make him feel better, even though referees are not allowed to disclose scores. His brother, Eessa also suffered the same fate, losing his match by, again, apparently one single point. At the 2017 nationals, Eessa clearly won his final match. Even his competitor and the competitor’s father apologised to him, because they believed he had won. That match is all on video and recorded, by the way. Between them, those two brothers missed out on three gold medals.
Another boy at the club was moved to a higher weight category and fought boys weighing up to 10 kg more than him, which was a serious safeguarding risk. The Minister responded yesterday in the main Chamber to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) regarding Alex Eastwood’s tragic death, and the same safety issues apply in this case.
Going back to Onna Ju-Jitsu, when Halah, a young girl at the club, clearly won her match but was still handed a loss, that was when things erupted. This was not just one student fighting in one competition alone; the club competed for the first time at the British Ju-Jitsu Association national championships in 2014. During that competition, and subsequently at the championships of 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018, the club experienced numerous questionable decisions that denied its competitors gold medals and national championship status.
We arrive here today as the result of literally years of systemic discrimination and bias faced by these competitors of ethnic minority backgrounds. Many of these students decided to leave the sport and never competed again, due to the blatant bias and discrimination that they faced. For that reason, Mumtaz lodged an official complaint with Martin Dickson, chairperson of the BJJA, regarding the award in one fight.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady; she has outlined a number of very serious issues and will deliberate upon them shortly. Does she agree that sports are a real equaliser and that we must use this tool effectively with our children to bring friendships and other bonds into a natural setting? It is not just about having regulation to ensure that these things do not happen again; it is about ensuring the essential funding to help clubs to become attractive to people of all classes, all creeds and all cultures.
Naz Shah
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; he is absolutely right. I will come on to the role that sport plays in bringing communities together and why it is so important.
Just as its institutional nature was to pass off bias and discriminatory results in tournaments, so the BJJA dismissed Mumtaz’s requests, using improper processes and technical committees made up of the very same people who are embedded in the very same institutional culture—people marking their own homework, so to speak. It is an organisation that lacks constitutional clarity, organisational transparency and democratic credibility. No information about its governance structures or democratic procedures is publicly available, and there are no minutes of annual general meetings, committee meetings or executive meetings publicly available.
To top things off, Mumtaz’s complaints were never going to be heard, because the very person overseeing the process and in control of the BJJA, the chairperson Martin Dixon, and the BJJA’s secretary were themselves promoting openly racist, Islamophobic and homophobic content online on their social media pages. I was going to quote some of it, but I thought it best to leave people to see it for themselves.
Having no confidence in the BJJA, I supported Mumtaz to raise her complaint formally with Sport England, an organisation funded by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport that exists to help to bridge the gap between under-represented communities and sport. It is meant to help to remove barriers and increase participation. Sport England does not directly fund the BJJA, but it provides it with recognition, and as such holds the power to de-recognise it and ensure accountability.
This evidence of racism was forwarded to Sport England on 29 November 2018. It is worth noting that, despite Onna Ju-Jitsu having previously won Sport England’s Satellite Club of the Year award, Sport England, instead of looking into the complaint, proceeded to engage in a phishing expedition and decided to
“chase up Sensei Mumtaz Khan’s coaching qualifications”,
claiming that was standard procedure for high-risk sports. I note that Sport England did not do that when it awarded Onna Ju-Jitsu its Satellite Club of the Year award, and the same yardstick is not applied to other clubs across the country. Sport England subsequently deemed that Mumtaz Khan’s coaching was invalid, to quash her complaint about the BJJA. That is a textbook example of trying to cover things up.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very powerful case about the racism that exists in the sport, which of course none of us should tolerate. For me, tackling this racism in sport must also mean improving representation in decision making, which is important. Does she agree?
Naz Shah
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I absolutely agree, because often sporting bodies do not reflect the diversity of those playing sport within their structures and systems. That is absolutely the case at senior management levels, and that must be addressed as well.
Coming back to qualifications, in comparison, sportscotland, Sport Wales and Sport Northern Ireland all confirmed—I have go this in writing—that they do not chase up qualifications.
Let me address the issue of Mumtaz Khan’s qualification allegedly being invalid, with these important details. In September 2018, a complaint was raised with the BJJA. In November 2018, a complaint was raised with Sport England. In March 2019, less than four months later, the BJJA did not send Onna Ju-Jitsu the annual forms to renew membership, bearing in mind that it has been a member since 2013.
In June 2019, Sport England makes an offer of mediation with Mumtaz, which she accepts. In July 2019, the following month, Sport England tells Mumtaz Khan that the need for mediation is being removed, because the BJJA said Mumtaz Khan had resigned her position as the diversity engagement officer, which she had never sent in. Sport England accepted, and recorded with its permission, a meeting at which the BJJA chair confessed that that did not happen. Mumtaz never resigned her position as the diversity engagement officer. It was said someone else had been appointed, but that was not true. That is a catalogue of BJJA telling Sport England: “This isn’t true,” “This isn’t right,” “These are confessions,” and that something that was clearly homophobic and racist is now just offensive. The list goes on.
In October 2019, Sport England decided to chase qualifications, which include being a member of a national body. That is where the contradictions start. Where I come from in Yorkshire, someone is either pregnant or not. No one can be both or a bit pregnant. No one can pick and choose measuring yardsticks when it suits, as Sport England has done. Sport England has said to Mumtaz, “Well, because you’re not a member of this organisation, you can’t make a formal complaint,” yet she can run a ju-jitsu club, and she needs to have all these qualifications, she needs to be insured and she needs to meet all these criteria. But when it comes to a complaint about racism and homophobia: “D’you know what? You don’t meet the criteria.” Which is it? Sport England needs to get its head round this. It needs to sort itself out and get its house in order. When Mumtaz raised a formal complaint against the BJJA, it removed her as a diversity officer.
I agree with Mumtaz Khan that she was targeted and victimised by Sport England for whistleblowing and raising concerns. It was only after my intervention as an MP that Sport England committed to even looking at the conduct of the BJJA. At first, when Mumtaz presented evidence of openly racist and homophobic slurs, they were judged merely just offensive. Someone put up a post saying, “I have found a cure for lesbians…Trycoxagain.” That is the kind of post we are talking about; they were homophobic and not just offensive. I am sorry, but I do not agree with that judgment.
Later, despite recognising clearly racist evidence, an attempt was made to squash the issue by asking the chair to send a letter of apology to Mumtaz, rather than taking action to hold people to account. Evidence of the BJJA breaching all seven examples listed in section 64 of the sports council’s recognition review policy of 2017 was sent by Mumtaz to Sport England in October 2022. Again, it was left to Mumtaz to point out to Sport England how to do its job.
Combined with the previous admission of racism, Mumtaz felt that that led to Sport England finally agreeing to take the matter to the other sports councils to gain agreement to derecognise the BJJA. After huge pressure, Sport England started a process to derecognise the BJJA, but never did; it gave the BJJA time to meet the criteria to get continued recognition. The BJJA did not meet the criteria in another six months, but Sport England did not go on derecognise it.
When Sport England made a statement, it was reviewing the information submitted by the BJJA, so any decision about derecognition never happened. On 21 May 2024, Sport England released a statement suggesting it was continuing the association’s recognition, subject to a number of conditions, despite the deadline of meeting the original conditions being eight months earlier. In my eyes, Sport England was clearly taking action to avoid derecognising or implementing serious changes in the BJJA.
Losing all hope in Sport England, Mumtaz Khan asked it to provide all the data. It was not just a cover up—it gets better! Sport England has accepted that it had, on her last attempt to make a subject access request and a freedom of information request, 4,763 emails, letters and documents relating to Sensei Mumtaz Khan and her club, but it will not give her any of them. I have even been to the Information Commissioner and we have done subject access requests. What is Sport England hiding? What is it trying to cover up? Why is it not releasing that information? That is an alarmingly high number of mentions for one individual and a small, local club, but we still do not have the information.
I ask the Minister: how can these students or others expect fairness through the BJJA when the issues are institutional and directly linked to the chairman, Martin Dixon, who promotes homophobia and racism, and when there is no accountability? We do not know what is in those papers; it reminds me of the Azeem Rafiq case all over again.
Martin Dixon has served as the chairman of the BJJA since 1992, a tenure spanning more than 33 years and counting. Although he has no doubt made many positive contributions to the BJJA over the years, this is a national governing body for a recognised sport in this country, not a fiefdom. If we do not get institutional change, including for those at the very top of the organisation, how can these students or others have any faith in competing in British jiu-jitsu?
Let me summarise the issue: an award-winning, British jiu-jitsu sensei, Mumtaz Khan, who competed and was an asset to the BJJA, established a club and allowed younger generations, many of whom were from ethnic minority backgrounds, to break barriers and enter the sport. Despite years of direct discrimination and bias against students in her club, all she wanted to do was ensure a fair playing field for all competitors in the sport. No one was asking for special treatment—just fairness and equality. After all, fair play, transparency and good competition are the nature of sporting success. Instead, the governing body and established national entities that were supposed to step in and take action to ensure that real accountability was in place resorted to denial, inaction and a cover-up.
This issue is about not just racism, racist sentiments or poor choices of words, but young people who face barriers to entry into sport due to the colour of their skin, their gender, their faith or their sexual orientation. When that happens, we are all worse off. This is an issue not just with the BJJA, but across all sports and across this country. I know at first hand the level of discrimination and racism faced by grassroots football clubs in my constituency.
We are regularly told by Sport England, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and every major sporting body that there is “No room for racism”, that we must “Kick it out” and that we must “Change the game”. These are all commendable slogans, but that is the problem—they remain slogans. In this House, we know that it is not slogans but consistent, deliberate action that brings about real and lasting change in sports and in society. The only way to ensure ethical practice in sports is through accountability and transparency. Those are not optional extras; they are essential principles.
In 2021, ex-cricketer Azeem Rafiq gave evidence to the then Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee detailing his experiences after a report found that he was a victim of racial harassment and bullying. From that case, we know the level of institutional racism in a sport such as cricket where we would expect better. The Minister will also be aware that, in 2023, Prince William wrote to Alpha United Juniors, a junior football club in my constituency, with concerns about almost 60 cases of racism that those juniors had faced in grassroots football. Children as young as seven years old had been the victim of racial slurs and threats of violence.
The challenge, as we witnessed with Azeem Rafiq and now Sensei Mumtaz Khan, is that those who speak out about the evidence of bias, discrimination and racism are often subject to attacks themselves for merely raising the issue. When we look at those representing Britain at a global level in sports—Anthony Joshua, Tyson Fury or the likes of Amir Khan in boxing; Mo Farah, Kelly Holmes and others in the Olympics; Adil Rashid from Bradford or Moeen Ali in the England cricket team; and the likes of Marcus Rashford, Saka and others in football—we should recognise that allowing barriers to be broken enables the very best of us to compete and represent Britain at the highest level, which helps us to be the very best at sport across the globe.
Afzal Khan
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I want to share an example from the Greater Manchester combined authority, which has, in partnership, launched a cricket strategy aimed at creating inclusive cricket, from encouraging young people to play cricket to creating a network of south Asian women to widen the reach of cricket in our community. Does my hon. Friend agree that such initiatives play a vital role in tackling inequality and racism and in strengthening community cohesion throughout the sport?
Naz Shah
I know how passionate my hon. Friend is about this issue in his constituency. I absolutely agree that we need such opportunities, because that is what it leads to. When we fail at the grassroots level due to institutional issues, we fail at success.
There is growing concern that Sport England continues to fund and legitimise governing bodies that are consistently weak on equality, diversity and inclusion. What is being done to move beyond policy paperwork and enforce meaningful standards for inclusion, not just box ticking? It is time for Sport England to explain how it holds funded organisations accountable on issues of equality and diversity, because recognition without results undermines trust.
What safeguards does Sport England have in place when repeated concerns about racism or exclusion are raised not just in jiu-jitsu but in other governing bodies? Has Sport England commissioned an independent review into ensuring transparency and accountability where patterns of exclusion emerge? We need to ensure that Sport England’s inclusion policies do not just exist on paper, but deliver a measurable change at every level of the sport. Although Sport England supports equality and diversity on paper, how is it measuring the real world impact across sport, particularly for marginalised communities? If we take the issue at the club I am talking about, it is clearly failing drastically.
Grassroots and ethnically diverse-led organisations often feel under-looked. How will Sport England ensure that their voices shape future priorities? Ultimately it is taxpayers’ money that funds the institution. I am grateful to the Minister for taking time out and meeting me when I raised concerns with her Department. I would like the Government to act to ensure that Sport England immediately derecognises the BJJA. I want the Government to conduct a full independent investigation into the leading national governing body and ensure the establishment of a new body that can provide confidence in the sport.
The Government should also arrange a full independent inquiry into Sport England’s handling of Mumtaz Khan’s complaint regarding the BJJA national governing body, and instruct Sport England to immediately release all the data held, unredacted, to Mumtaz Khan regarding her and her club from 29 November 2018 to date. I urge the Minister to take those matters seriously—no doubt she will. I also urge her to meet Mumtaz Khan and to hold Sport England and the BJJA to account. If we want British sport to reflect the values of fairness, respect and inclusion, we must ensure that those words are backed with real action.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) on securing this important debate. She outlined the huge contribution that Onna Ju-Jitsu has made to her area. I join her in thanking that organisation for the contribution that it has made to Bradford and the young people that it works with. I want to say from the outset how awful, concerning and unacceptable the experience is that my hon. Friend has outlined to the House today. I will encourage Sport England to learn and develop processes as a result, and I will go into more detail in the very short time that I have. I am happy to meet her if I cannot cover it all in the time I have left.
Sport unites us all. It transcends boundaries, fosters camaraderie and instils values of fairness, respect and perseverance. It is a mirror to our society, reflecting its strengths and at times its challenges. It is one of the most pressing challenges—racism—that we are discussing today. The Government’s stance is unequivocal: racism has absolutely no place in our society and no place in sport and activity. We are committed to stamping it out, from the elite level to the grassroots, ensuring that sport is truly for everyone, regardless of their background or ethnicity.
My hon. Friend raised a number of concerns in relation to Sport England and its handling of a specific case relating to the British Ju-Jitsu Association. Given the issues raised, I have met Sport England to talk about the specifics of the case and how it addressed it. I want to start by saying that I recognise and appreciate the concerns raised by my hon. Friend on behalf of her constituent. National governing bodies are central to our sporting system, and are responsible for the management, administration and regulation of their sports. As such, they should rightly be held to high standards. In this case, it is clear that the British Ju-Jitsu Association fell short of those standards.
My hon. Friend spoke about how there has been an extensive process over a number of years, which initially led to beginning the process of derecognition of the governing body. As part of that process, and in line with the criteria, the British Ju-Jitsu Association was given a deadline to submit relevant evidence and information showing that it was capable of meeting set policy criteria in order to maintain its NGB status. Following a review in May 2024, the home country sports councils agreed to the continued recognition of the British Ju-Jitsu Association providing it complied with agreed conditions.
It is worth pausing on those conditions, as they remain extremely relevant. First, the governing body needed to publish a commitment to cultural change. Secondly, it needed to establish an equality, diversity and inclusion working group, and monitor processes. Thirdly, it needed to move to being a more inclusive organisation through a plan agreed with Sport England.
I completely appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns that the change has not been comprehensive. The approach taken by Sport England has given the best chance of delivering long-term change by trying to keep the British Ju-Jitsu Association within its scope rather than cutting it adrift. However, I strongly believe that culture change means action as well as words, so I will be paying close attention to how the British Ju-Jitsu Association rebuilds the confidence of those who take part in the sport, which it has clearly lost.
I will say at this stage that those conditions must be ongoing. It is clear that there remain concerns about the culture at the British Ju-Jitsu Association. I know that Sport England takes its role very seriously in supporting an inclusive environment where participants have confidence in the leadership of sport, so I will continue to engage with it to make sure that scrutiny is maintained, and that action is taken when the British Ju-Jitsu Association does not meet the standards required.
I also want to address the wider situation of sport governance within this context. As a Government, we want to see as many sports clubs and organisations affiliated with their recognised governing bodies as possible. For participants, that is vital information to be aware of. The recognition process ensures that the home country sports councils, including Sport England, have the ability to change behaviour and drive progress. It also allows clubs and other affiliated organisations to apply for public funding. I refer hon. Members to the Adjournment debate last night on safeguarding in combat sports, which shows precisely why we need to use recognition to improve sport and sport safety.
In the case that my hon. Friend has raised, it is entirely right that Sport England continues to use all available levers to drive culture change within the British Ju-Jitsu Association, while maintaining its ability to take all possible actions, including derecognition should that change not be taken forward. In her speech, my hon. Friend raised concerns with how Sport England has handled the case. I recognise that it is always difficult to reach a conclusion that satisfies all parties in such cases, but I have been assured by Sport England that it takes the allegations seriously. I also recognise that, when it comes to assessing individual cases, its powers are limited.
As a result of this case, Sport England is in the process of reviewing the current recognition policy. At the moment, the criteria are very factual and based on whether a governing body has the right policies in place. That does not allow the sports councils to take into account wider factors that are clearly relevant to the confidence that individuals have in the leadership of their sport. The current review will look at those wider issues, including whether the sport has been brought into disrepute. That will allow sports councils to take a broader look at whether it is appropriate for governing bodies to continue to be recognised. A review of that nature, and the ability to consider the leadership and culture of a governing body, is something that I wholeheartedly support and strongly encourage.
I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns regarding the sharing of information, and I know that she has been speaking to the Information Commissioner’s Office about those concerns. As Sport England is a public body, it is for the Information Commissioner’s Office to take an independent view on what needs to happen, but I am sure that those at Sport England will have heard the issues in this debate.
I hope that my hon. Friend and her constituent can take from this debate just how important this issue is to me and the Government. I will be keeping a close eye on developments in British jiu-jitsu, but I am also taking steps to ensure that everyone who participates in sport feels included and welcome. It is a sad fact that racism continues to plague our society, and we must do more to tackle it.
Sport England is at the heart of our sporting system. It is therefore essential that it sets an example and creates the right culture in sport. I have heard at first hand Sport England’s commitment to do so, but given this debate, I will continue to discuss it with the organisation and ensure that it remains a central priority, as there is clearly more to do.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Early Years Providers: Government Support
(4 days, 16 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
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for early years providers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I requested today’s debate on Government support for early years providers because too often the early years are left out of the discussion on education, and the impacts that they have on children’s lives and futures are not always given the respect that they deserve. I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State during Monday’s statement when she called early years providers
“the hidden heroes of our communities.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 682.]
I am determined to see them hidden no longer.
Just over a year ago, I made the decision to stand to be a Member of Parliament because I believe that where people start in life should not determine where they end and what opportunities they should have. I spent many years in Nottinghamshire and Derby setting up Sure Start centres under the previous Labour Government. Then I had to watch Sure Start centres being dismantled and the most disadvantaged children having their support ripped away from them. That is the very thing that drove me to stand to be a Member of Parliament.
The injustice should never have been allowed to happen, and it is time to deal with the legacy of 14 years of a Conservative Government. In the UK, 4.5 million children are living in poverty; there are more than 4,000 in my constituency of Sherwood Forest. Almost 2.2 million children are on free school meals—just over one in four children in England. Half of those children will not reach a good level of development by the age of five. According to the Sutton Trust, the attainment gap between children on free school meals and their peers has widened to 20%.
Before I was elected, I worked with vulnerable children and I saw day in and day out how influential a child’s start in life can be on their future. I also saw how incredible Sure Start centres were in changing the lives of families in disadvantaged communities. I cannot express how excited I am to learn that the Government will be modelling their family hubs in a similar way and that they will be rooted in disadvantaged communities.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Ellie from Wincanton in my constituency has autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and a specific learning disability. She was not diagnosed during her early education and did not have the support framework around her, so I am really pleased that the Government’s Best Start family hub expansion could help early identification, particularly of special educational needs and disabilities, but does the hon. Member agree that the strategy must be matched with sufficient funding, especially after the Tories trashed early years provision?
Michelle Welsh
I thank the hon. Member for that point. What happens on SEND in early years is vital. I actually saw that and how it happens. Some of it is about funding, but a lot of it is also about changing how we work. At the moment, how we work is not for the benefit of the child and the family. Services that surrounded families and children for years and years were taken away and dismantled, and now parents and children are left in a very lonely position, especially when they have SEND.
We have to look more broadly. We could throw as much money as possible at this, but actually we have to fundamentally change how we work and think about what support services we really need to surround the child. I am hoping that my hon. Friend the Minister might be able to confirm whether any of the family hubs might be in my constituency of Sherwood Forest—a little cheeky question there.
It is well established that the first few years of a child’s life are critical in supporting their physical, mental and emotional development in the long term. Children’s brains grow and adapt so quickly, particularly in the first few years. The experiences that they have can have lifelong effects, which is why interventions at that stage of life are crucial, especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.
One of the most key elements of a Sure Start centre was the pathway from birth to childhood. Ensuring that families had access to midwifery and maternity services and health visitors meant that families were prepared and equipped with essential skills and even basics such as how to feed their child. At a time when maternity services across the country are under immense pressure, ensuring that families and children are supported in the community by these hubs is vital. I hope that under this Government and the new “best start in life” strategy, there will be a clear pathway from birth and that the Department for Education will link up with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that.
I was particularly excited to see childminders included in the strategy, as my mum was a childminder for many years. For too long, childminders have been treated separately and not taken as seriously as more formal educational settings. Growing up watching my mum, I have seen at first hand the impact that childminders can have on a child’s life and how important they are to supporting families. Would the Minister reassure me on the role that childminders will play in the Best Start programme?
Early years also impacts a child’s future through school readiness. Attending an early years provider, whether a private nursery, a school nursery, a childminder or something else, can prepare children for not only the academic side of school but the social element. Allowing children to meet and interact with others of the same age helps them to socialise and it supports their ability to engage with structured learning environments. It also helps children to build confidence, curiosity and resilience, which are all strengths needed for later education and life. By addressing developmental needs early on, early years education can reduce disparities in achievement and promote more equitable outcomes for all children.
A key element of early years provision, which I feel is often left out, is the power of play: 20% of a child’s week is spent in the playground. Play is so important for a child’s imagination, creativity and confidence in interacting with other children. I want to highlight the OPAL—outdoor play and learning—programme, which is a mentor-supported school improvement programme that aims to help schools to improve the quality of play. By ensuring that early years providers have the necessary equipment and staff training, children have time to play, which is effectively utilised to build skills in language, problem solving and teamwork. It can be as simple as giving children the blocks to build their own fort or a bucket and spade for a sandcastle.
Preparing children with as many skills as possible, as soon as possible, only increases their opportunities in school and, ultimately, their opportunities when they are adults, yet access to high-quality early years provision is not equal for all children across the UK. Disadvantaged children and those with special educational needs and disabilities are more likely to struggle to access early years provision in England. The Education Policy Institute found that, for children in reception with an education, health and care plan, the attainment gap in 2023 was 19.9 months compared with children without one. That is more than a whole school year. The gap only widens. The gap for pupils at the end of primary school is around 27 months, and by the end of secondary school, the gap reaches almost 40 months. That is over three years. If we do not attempt to address that gap at the earliest stage, children with SEND will always be on the back foot, and that is not right or fair.
I am concerned about the rising costs of childcare and the impact that it will have on children who are already starting from behind. Childcare must be affordable for both families and providers. The Government’s decision to deliver an entitlement of 30 hours’ funded childcare a week for working families will be key to driving children out of poverty and it will massively improve their outcomes in life.
I was pleased that two nurseries in Sherwood Forest were among the 300 schools that the Government announced are to receive the school-based nursery grant: Samuel Barlow primary academy in Clipstone and Lake View primary and nursery school in Rainworth. However, I have heard concerns from some private nurseries in Sherwood Forest that the Government funding does not cover the costs of the free days of care. That leaves nurseries no choice but to pass those costs on to paying parents; in the worst cases it means that they must close entirely. It is vital that providers are able to stay open at a time when we so desperately need them. Have the Government investigated concerns that the funding from Government does not go far enough to cover the costs faced by nurseries?
Investment into our early years providers makes a difference; there is no doubt about that. Little Elms in my constituency provides a fantastic early years learning environment to children in the Dover Beck and Lowdham wards, and it has recently been granted permission and capital funding by the council to expand and build an extra building, allowing it to offer 17 more spaces for children in the community. That extra space will mean they can employ more early years workers, too. It will make an incredible difference in just one community in Sherwood Forest.
Across the country, there are so many providers doing incredible work for our children, including Busy Bees in Vicar Water in Clipstone, which was rated outstanding by Ofsted. I want to say a heartfelt thanks to all those workers in Sherwood Forest and across the country. As we push forward with ensuring every child has the best start in life, I remind the Government of the importance of taking early years providers with us and urge them to give providers the support and tools they need to succeed.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this important debate. High-quality early years education is one of the most important investments we can make in not just children’s development but the future of our society. The early years shape everything that follows, laying the foundations for learning, wellbeing and opportunity, but too many children are still starting school without the basic skills they need to thrive. Gaps in communication, language and social development are showing up early, and for too many they persist throughout their education and beyond.
We cannot accept a system where a child’s background determines their chances in life, as the hon. Member set out so clearly. That is why well-supported, high-quality early years settings are so important, especially for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Those environments can transform life chances. They give children the stability, stimulation and support they need to grow, learn and thrive.
The evidence is clear: the earlier we act, the greater the impact. The extension of free childcare to younger children has huge potential, and I welcome two new school-based nurseries in my constituency in Paignton and at Furzeham primary in Brixham, but to truly benefit families and children, this must be about quality, not just hours. That means supporting the people at the heart of this system: the early years workforce. Nursery staff, childminders and early years professionals play a vital role in children’s lives, often forming their first important relationships outside the home. They are educators, role models and a lifeline for many families. We must invest in their training, development and career progression. If we are serious about addressing the SEND crisis, additional training is crucial, as is support from qualified professionals in early years settings such as speech and language therapists.
To tackle recruitment and retention challenges, the Liberal Democrats would introduce a career strategy for nursery staff, ensuring that most people working with two to four-year-olds hold, or are training for, relevant early years qualifications. We would also restore childminding as a valued part of the system by creating a single streamlined childcare register and commissioning a practitioner-led review to simplify regulation, cut red tape and attract new childminders, while keeping high standards.
Of course, families themselves also need support. That is why the Government’s commitment to family hubs has such promise, and I welcome it. These hubs have the potential to spot emerging needs early and provide parents with the tools and confidence to give their children the best start in life, whether that is understanding the importance of reading and play, managing screen time, supporting good nutrition or sleep, or simply helping parents to feel more confident. Family hubs can be transformative.
This is a moment of real opportunity. With the right focus, investment and support for our workforce and families, we can build a high-quality, inclusive early years system that will change children’s lives for the better.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this important debate. I welcome the Government’s efforts to make early years provision more accessible, and I am proud that they have taken the necessary steps to better support young families and give every child the best start in life.
The importance of early years providers is well understood. Studies have shown that high-quality early years support influences later wellbeing for both mental and physical health, as well as building resilience. We know that high-quality early years support affects attainment during the early years and future education. However, families in disadvantaged areas tend not to access early years services as frequently as families in more affluent areas. Currently, only 36% of families in the lower income bracket use formal childcare services during the early years, compared with 73% of those from higher earning families.
Children who do not receive early years education and support can be significantly disadvantaged. They are more likely to experience developmental deficiencies and deficits, leaving them lagging behind. That should not be the case. The economic gap in accessing early years provision can mean that some children begin primary school or early education without the necessary skills they need to effectively transition to that stage.
The early years foundation stage statutory framework sets out the specific skills that children should have developed by the time they arrive at school, including being toilet trained, simple letter recognition, and socialising with their peers. Children who do not access early years provision are less likely to be equipped with those skills, which means that teachers face increased pressure to bring those children up to the required standard.
When children arrive without the necessary skills, teachers are forced into the role of parent in an environment where their role is to be an educator. That can reduce the quality of teaching for the whole classroom, and the delivery of the curriculum is slowed down. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to ensure that every child has the best start in life. That involves providing support to parents, and children, from pregnancy to age five, and making early years services more accessible to lower-income families. To echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest, someone’s background should not determine their outcome.
However, there is still work to be done. For example, I would like to see dedicated outreach efforts in areas of deprivation to help close the inequality gap between those who access early years services and those who do not. Every child should arrive on their first day of primary school with the skills that they need to thrive. Will the Minister therefore commit to implementing dedicated outreach and parenting programmes for the most deprived areas, as an essential part of making sure that support reaches families who need it the most? In doing so, we help both parents and teachers provide the best start in life for every child.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I commend the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing the debate and on her speech, much of which I really agreed with. High-quality early years education is the foundation of young people’s learning and makes an enormous difference to how they settle into primary school and to the rest of their time in formal education settings. There is so much evidence of the role of the first 1,000 days in the lives of all children.
I recently had a great time when I visited Brown Bear nursery and pre-school at Great Moor in my constituency. As well as having a really fun session creating art with some of the little learners, I spent time talking with the nursery’s highly experienced director, Wendy, about the impact of the ongoing challenges faced by nurseries across the UK. Staffing costs make up 70% of the nursery’s outgoings, and the increase in employer national insurance contributions has led to substantial staffing cost increases—and that is before taking into account the changes to business rates. Wendy described the cumulative impact as absolutely crippling. As a Liberal Democrat, I of course supported the calls for the Government to exempt early years education and care providers from the rise in employer national insurance contributions, the result of which has been, as expected, even more strain on nurseries like Brown Bear that are already under enormous pressure.
In 2019, Wendy helped to set up a network for private providers in Stockport, which has since been going from strength to strength. The Stockport private providers network now includes 63 day nurseries, 22 pre-schools, 220 childminders and eight independent nurseries. The early years sector is primarily led by women, and it is worth us all reflecting on the way our society looks at women-led sectors, whether that is early years, care or even the multibillion-pound hair and beauty industry. It is important that we look at how we value those sectors.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Does she have any thoughts on how we could attract more men to the industry?
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention. We spend a lot of time talking about the gender balance in various industries. My hon. Friend spent time in the armed forces, and I know that the armed forces think long and hard about how they recruit and retain women in particular. Men are often really under-represented in early years education, in care settings, and so on, and they would have so much to add, particularly for those children who do not have many male role models at home or in their families. I look forward to the Minister commenting on that hugely important point, because he is the one in Government and will, I am sure, have all the answers.
Anybody who has had to spend time caring for multiple toddlers will know the skill, diligence, energy and resilience needed to do the job well. It is right that we expect high standards from our early years providers. High-quality early years education is crucial for ensuring that children from any background can go on to achieve their potential. However, many nurseries across Stockport and, indeed, across the country will find it difficult to improve or even maintain their good and outstanding ratings as their finances continue to be squeezed.
Sarah Dyke
I think my hon. Friend is coming to an important point that I want to make, too. I recently met Acorn childcare in Somerton, another brilliant women-led nursery in my constituency. Staff there have told me over and over again that they are really struggling with the unsustainable costs and the funding model that is being implemented, plus the free entitlement that they now have to deal with. The spiralling costs are becoming uncontrollable. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must review the rates paid to providers to ensure that they cover the actual costs of delivering good-quality childcare?
Lisa Smart
I completely agree that the funding model for early years and nurseries must be sustainable. We do not want to see the business model becoming no longer viable, so that these wonderful providers that give children the best start in life can no longer continue to exist.
There have been Government announcements on the provider agreement, and announcements about how any shortfall in funding can be met by only voluntary contributions. There have also been announcements about staffing ratios. My view—the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest laid out this point really well—is that such announcements do very little to support the quality of provision or staff retention.
For context, private providers across Stockport have told me that since 1999 they have experienced a 250% increase in wages, which is a good thing, but that is in comparison to a funding increase of only 83%. Those two things do not add up. Early years settings are having to deal with the increasingly complex situations that many children face at home, whether that is their special educational needs and disabilities or different situations. The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest was absolutely right to take about far too many children living in poverty, which clearly has a knock-on impact on all education and early years settings. It is important that we restate our request that the Government look at the two-child benefit cap when they make decisions about future planning.
I am approaching my 20th year as a primary school governor, and I am acutely aware of the shared challenges and issues facing children and educators across all settings. If we want to see our young people thrive, the Government must commit to a sustainable funding model for early years care. They must also recognise the true cost of providing high-quality childcare, and not add more pressures to young parents already struggling with the cost of living. I ask the Government to recognise the increasing financial burden on parents, and to understand that proper funding for early years education is really an investment in our children’s and our society’s future.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I call the Chair of the Education Select Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Pritchard; it is a pleasure to see you in the Chair. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this important debate.
I want by paying tribute to early years providers across the country. The early years sector runs on a powerhouse of dedicated, skilled professionals, the vast majority of them women, who spend every day making a difference to the lives of children. As I pay tribute to early years professionals, I want to recognise the extraordinary work of Laura McFarlane, who sadly died this week. Laura dedicated the whole of her 40-year career to improving the lives of children, most recently as the director of the Lambeth early action partnership, known as LEAP, a 10-year national lottery-funded programme of early years support, and as director of the Liz Atkinson Children’s Centre just outside my constituency. LEAP made a difference to the lives of countless babies and young children in Lambeth, thanks to Laura’s leadership, vision and drive. She will be very much missed. Her legacy is immense.
The early years of a child’s life are vital. They offer a unique opportunity to lay the foundations for learning and development and for good physical and mental health, and to close the disadvantage gap. There is a wide variety of early years providers, including childminders, not-for-profit and social enterprises, private companies, school-based nurseries and maintained nurseries. That makes early years policy more complex than some other areas of education policy, and it also creates challenges, particularly in seeking to secure availability, consistency and quality in every area of the country.
The debate about early years providers can sometimes fall into a false dichotomy between childcare and early education. I have always been clear that these are two sides of the same coin: what is childcare for parents is early years education for children. We want every child to have the highest-quality early years education in whatever setting they are cared for.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Does the hon. Member agree that although expanding nursery-based provision in schools is unquestionably laudable in improving access to childcare, we must guard against inadvertently passing on to primary school teachers the responsibility for teaching basic life skills that could and should have been nurtured earlier, thereby stretching resources and risking the lowering of standards? Perhaps the Minister could outline what steps his Department is taking to correct the funding and support imbalance so that childminders who provide vital individualised care are not sidelined.
Helen Hayes
On the first part of the hon. Lady’s intervention, that is exactly what the Government are trying to do in establishing school-based nurseries: to ensure that across the country there are a range of settings that support children’s development so they arrive at school in reception year ready to learn.
I welcome the Government’s expansion of early years provision through the roll-out of funded hours and the delivery of 3,000 new school-based nurseries. That will make a huge difference to families, giving parents the option to return to work and helping with the costs of childcare, which under the previous Government resulted in many families spending more on childcare than on their rent or mortgage and, for the first time in decades, saw women leaving the workforce because the costs of staying in work were simply unviable.
In delivering the roll-out, it is important that the Government pay close attention to the financial resilience of early years providers. Many providers have been flagging for a long time the fact that the hourly rate they have been paid does not match the costs of delivering funded hours. There have also been inconsistences in the way local authorities pass on the Government subsidy. The previous Government’s funding model created distortions in the costs of childcare, with parents of the youngest children paying very high rates to cross-subsidise the costs of providing underfunded funded hours for three and four-year-olds. Nurseries have also experienced rising costs in relation to energy, food and insurance, and they are also now having to adjust to increased employer national insurance contributions and the increase in the national minimum wage.
Sadly, we have seen far too many early years settings close in recent years because they cannot make their business model work. It is important that the Government pay careful attention to the financial resilience of the sector and take steps to ensure that nurseries do not close due to high costs and inadequate rates of funding.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out the eye-watering cost of nursery care for parents. Parents in my constituency tell me that, like me, they spend thousands upon thousands a month, when in other countries it costs just hundreds of pounds a month. One of the most recent contributing factors is the rise in national insurance contributions, which for me increased nursery fees by 10%. Does the hon. Lady regret the Government not accepting Lib Dem amendments to exempt nurseries from the extra charges?
Helen Hayes
I do not regret the Government not accepting Liberal Democrat amendments that are not accompanied by any means of plugging the funding gap that would be left by the additional commitments they ask the Government to make, but it is important that the Government continually look at the resilience and sustainability of the early years sector in the light of what are undoubtedly additional costs and challenges that the sector is having to bear. That will be important for the delivery of the roll-out and for provision across the country.
Early years practitioners do such important work. We trust our most precious family members into their care, and they have the capacity to make an enormous difference. Yet there is a recruitment crisis in the early years. We do not value early education and childcare enough, staff are paid far too little, and there are insufficient opportunities to gain specialist qualifications and to progress. I visited the Sheringham nursery and children’s centre in east London, which has a large sign at the gate that reads “Building Brains Here”. The nursery’s work is just that: laying the foundations for the rest of a child’s life. We must find the ways to value early years staff more, promote the early years as a rewarding and vital vocation, and ensure that staff are appropriately paid, with good opportunities for progression.
In that context, I welcome the Government’s newly launched strategy to give every child the “best start in life”, and the commitment to expand the number of stronger practice hubs, such as Sheringham nursery school and children’s centre, which play such an important role in strengthening good practice across the area in which they sit, and to incentivise early years practitioners to work in areas of deprivation where their expertise is so important.
Childminders are often overlooked in the debate about childcare and early years education, but they are a vital part of the landscape of care and education for many families. They play a critical role in the lives of the children in their care and they are the option of choice for many parents and carers, particularly for very young children. The number of Ofsted-registered childminders has been declining for several years, and many earn unacceptably low levels of income.
I welcome the steps the Government are taking in the new strategy to try to stabilise the income of childminders and encourage childminding as a profession, as well as promote innovations in childminding practice, which would help childminders to work together across a local area and in partnership with schools. I also wholeheartedly welcome the Government’s commitment to expand Best Start family hubs, building on the success of the previous Labour Government’s Sure Start programme, the proud achievement of my late predecessor Dame Tessa Jowell.
Sure Start played a vital role in supporting the landscape of childcare, often with a nursery on site plus supporting networks of childminders in a local area, offering them training and development, and building relationships with parents. For the most vulnerable and disadvantaged parents, more is needed than simply making a child place available. Sure Start centres, by offering play-and-stay sessions and parenting classes, built relationships of trust with parents, boosted their confidence and often acted as the gateway to taking up a nursery place, which is beneficial for children, and to re-engaging with the labour market and education for parents. Best Start family hubs are badly needed, and I hope they will play a similar role.
I also welcome the focus in the strategy on the quality of early years provision and inclusion. It is an unacceptable reality that the parents who find it hardest to find childcare places are the parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities, and that approaches to SEND inclusion vary widely across early years providers, which is not acceptable. I welcome the attention the Government are giving to that issue.
Finally, I want to draw attention again to the role of maintained nursery schools within the landscape of early years providers. Maintained nurseries are unique in being constituted as schools and required to employ a headteacher and qualified teaching staff, but they are excluded from the schools funding formula. Their funding has been dramatically eroded relative to their costs in recent years. Maintained nurseries are often beacons of good practice located in areas of deprivation, and are inclusive settings with an expertise in SEND.
The Minister will know that many maintained nursery schools have closed and many that remain are operating with unsustainable financial deficits. I say gently to my hon. Friend the Minister that the response of the Government to my inquiries on this topic, which is largely to push responsibility to local authorities, simply is not sufficient when local authorities are not fully funded to support maintained nursery schools. It cannot be right that, as the Government set out an ambitious new strategy for early years, some of the institutions with the greatest levels of expertise and the most successful track records of delivery are being left effectively to wither on the vine.
I call on the Minister to set out a plan for maintained nurseries, to reform their funding model and ensure their long-term sustainability. The Education Committee, which I chair, will turn attention to the early years in the coming months, and I look forward to making our contribution to scrutinising the Government’s work in this vital sector that makes such a difference.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for highlighting this issue and setting the scene incredibly well. Early years are the foundational building blocks for our society. I read recently about the Shaping Us campaign, led by the Princess of Wales, which strongly focuses on the need for early years support. The campaign highlights that:
“During early childhood, from pregnancy to the age of five, our brains develop at an amazing rate—faster than at any other times in our lives. Our experiences, relationships, our surroundings at that very young age, shape the rest of our lives.”
I subscribe to that not just because the Shaping Us campaign stated it, but because my youngest son Luke and his wife Rachael are staying with us with their two children—Freya is five, and her birthday was Saturday, a week ago, and Ezra is two and a half—and I can honestly say that the two of them absorb everything that happens around them like a sponge. Ezra is not able to speak yet, but he clearly understands everything said to him; we have to be careful with our language and with what we insinuate and do, because he is watching. Freya is the same.
I can absolutely understand why the years from pregnancy to the age of five are so important. Because children are by their very nature innocent, whenever we are having a bad day, they manage to cheer us up with a smile, a hug or whatever it may be. Those things mean a lot to their grandad.
The importance of the early years is well documented and accepted, and this House needs to play a greater role in supporting people to provide an environment for children that ensures that we raise a generation of happy children and highly functioning adults. That responsibility is incredibly important.
I am pleased, as always, to see the Minister in his place. The Minister does not have any responsibility for Northern Ireland—he will probably say, “Thank goodness for that”—but he interacts and exchanges ideas with the Minister from the Northern Ireland Executive. This great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has a wealth of ideas, and it is good that we can exchange them between the different regions.
Childcare costs, particularly for full-time places, have increased significantly, with some providers experiencing a 14% rise since 2021. According to Employers For Childcare, 43% of providers describe their financial situation as “struggling” or “distressed”. It is essential that parents have access not simply to people who watch their children, but to people who help their developmental progress.
In Northern Ireland, approximately 79% of women with dependent children are economically active. That is a good figure—that means that they are employed or actively seeking work. The spin-off of that, which may sometimes be negative, is that they are entrusting their children to other people, who will spend a lot of time with them. The atmosphere needs to be bright, engaging and, above all, safe. In many cases that will be provided by grandparents, family members and those who have available time.
Nurseries are having to take more children to balance the books, and they need greater support. I want to tell Westminster Hall about some of the things we are doing in Northern Ireland. Childcare is one of the most significant bills faced by many families across Northern Ireland. My party, the Democratic Unionist party, saw that—not that we are better than anybody else, by the way—and our Minister acted on it, so some credit can be given to our Minister for doing so. We instigated a survey of 1,000 parents, which found that nearly 85% of people had their return to work impacted by childcare costs. In other words, people go back to work early because they need the money, or they can put it off a bit longer if granny and granda, uncles and aunts, or other family members will help out.
Almost a quarter of parents also say that childcare costs consumed nearly a full wage in the household. Those figures are incredibly scary. The most recent Employers For Childcare survey highlighted an average cost of some £170 a week, which represents a significant financial hurdle, yet Northern Ireland lagged behind other UK regions in supporting working families, so we decided to do something. The DUP was determined to change this situation, and subsequently brought in the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme in September 2024—it will be a year old come this September. It provides a 15% subsidy for childcare costs to support working parents with children who have not yet started primary school. The NICSS is a really good scheme, not because it was introduced by our party, but because it helps everybody, irrespective of whether they vote DUP in Northern Ireland. That is what politics is about: delivering for all, irrespective of whether people vote for us on the ballot paper.
The childcare is delivered by registered childcare providers participating in the tax-free childcare scheme, or TFC scheme, including daycare providers, playgroups, childminders and approved home child carers. The overarching aim of the scheme is to help working parents with the affordability of childcare costs. The Northern Ireland Executive has agreed that the subsidy scheme will target working parents who are eligible for the tax-free childcare and who have children who have not yet started primary school. It is really important that we have that scheme in place.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point with regard to the interventions that have been made. However, returning to SEND growth, in Northern Ireland it is outpacing the growth of the general school population, and I believe that late identification of SEND and delayed support for it is one of the biggest failures right across the United Kingdom. So often, children are not identified as having SEND until they reach school age, by which point their language, social skills and cognitive delays are often entrenched. Therefore, does he agree that there needs to be more investment into funding specialist training for pre-school educators, because often early years is the poor cousin of the education system, despite the fact that, as we have already heard, zero to five is the most important time in a child’s life?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and the words of a mother and the words on behalf of her constituents are well documented; we thank her for that. She has outlined the issues very clearly.
The tax-free childcare scheme will be extended from 1 September 2025 to include provision for school-age children for families registered with the scheme. There is a lot more to do, but that means that from 1 September 2025 working parents of school-age children will be able to receive the 15% subsidy. The scheme started a year ago by focusing on a limited number of children, but it has done more since. This year, the subsidy will embrace even more people, up to the capped amount on their childcare bills.
To assist with the early years development of their children, parents need to have reliable and affordable childcare. I believe that this House needs to look at providing such childcare for working families, for the very reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) referred to. As I said earlier, I know that the Minister has regular contact with the Northern Ireland Executive and with the relevant Northern Ireland Minister in particular. I would just be interested to know what ideas have been swapped and how we can do things better together. I know that he will see the benefits of the Democratic Unionist party scheme, for instance, and hopefully there can be funding for more schemes that offer such practical help across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
There is nothing more important than looking after our children. As a grandfather of six, I understand the importance of schooling, as the ages of my grandchildren vary from two and a half right up to 16 and they are going through the system. I can see the improvement that we have made in Northern Ireland. I believe that improvement can be made elsewhere, and I know that this House and the Minister in particular will do their best to make sure that they deliver the best for all children across this great United Kingdom.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, Mr Pritchard, to serve under your chairmanship, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this hugely important debate.
When finding affordable childcare is harder for people than getting their hands on Oasis tickets, it is clear that the system is fundamentally broken. That is the reality for so many parents, and the reality that Labour inherited. A fragmented, underfunded and understaffed childcare system was one of the many messes left behind by the previous Government. And families across Altrincham and Sale West have suffered with the cost of that failure, not just in eye-watering fees but in the loss of earnings that comes from one partner—usually the woman—not being able to return to work after children are born.
This Government are turning that situation around, and in doing so they are supporting family finances and giving children the best possible start in life. Nowhere is that clearer than in my constituency, where Government funding for a new nursery at Altrincham C of E primary school has been secured. This development, alongside 30 hours of free childcare from September, marks a sea change in the support available to local parents.
In the past, we have heard big talk on early years, but it was so often a pledge without a plan; so often, promises have been made without the funding needed to make them a reality. In contrast, this Government are delivering £2 billion of extra investment in early years entitlement, taking our spend to over £8 billion—a 30% increase compared with previous years.
The Early Education and Childcare Coalition states:
“After years of political neglect, it finally feels that someone has taken control of the wheel, and the direction of travel for early education and childcare is hopeful.”
It welcomes the Government’s “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy, published earlier this week.
Cameron Thomas
The Liberal Democrats welcome investment in early years. One way in which I hope the Government will ensure that children with SEND and neurodiversity requirements are not left behind is by implementing systems in early years provision that enable SEND and neurodiversity to be identified and addressed sooner rather than later. Will the hon. Member join me in asking the Government to do that?
Mr Rand
Yes, absolutely. The sentiment across the House with regard to our SEND system and the need for additional, earlier intervention and support is well founded. I think that is the direction that the Government intend to travel in with their reforms, and I am sure that the Minister will outline that.
Putting trained early years teachers into nurseries generates the best outcomes and the best value for money, but just one in 10 has this at the moment. We need incentives to recruit and retain teachers, and the Government’s efforts in this area so far are welcome. This is about supporting providers to drive up quality. I welcome Ofsted inspections as part of that effort, but I ask the Minister to consider worrying reports that some providers have brought in extra staff on the day of inspections only.
That issue was brought to my attention by my constituent Frances, whose daughter was seriously mistreated at nursery. After the incident, Frances was deeply upset at the lack of safeguarding at what is a well-regarded nursery, and she found it extremely difficult to gain access to the CCTV footage and to hold the provider to account. There must be a balance between supporting providers and supporting parents in ensuring that providers are accountable. I hope that the rights of parents—which the Minister knows is an issue of great importance to me—are an important part of the ongoing reforms to the sector.
We have already made great progress in making it easier and cheaper for parents to access childcare. We delivered the 15 hours of funded childcare last September, and we are delivering 30 hours this September, which will save parents in my constituency up to £7,500 per child per year. It is fantastic to hear that we are building on this with the delivery of new family hubs across the country.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Our early years providers in South East Cornwall are essential for local families, and they are a cornerstone of healthy development. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need clearer national guidance on term dates, notice periods and transitions between settings? Local authorities need to offer consistent, joined-up support, which would provide families with the clarity and stability that they urgently need.
Mr Rand
I know that many local authorities and providers do try to give that assurance in advance, but I am sure that there is more work that they can do to give stability and certainty to parents and families in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country.
The family hubs that we are delivering across the country, including in my local authority of Trafford, will drive up quality in our early years system, support providers and strengthen support for children as they enter primary school, which is especially important for the 3,000 children in my constituency who are growing up in poverty. Lots has been achieved, and there is lots more still to do, but as the Early Education and Childcare Coalition said this week, we are heading in the right direction.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing this important and timely debate—I am sure she intended it to fall in the week when the Secretary of State announced the roll-out of Best Start centres. I also pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her ongoing advocacy for children, parents and early years providers up and down the country, often using her personal experiences to impress the importance of getting this right. Her commitment to the early years is noted across the House. She has also highlighted that early years providers span not just nurseries, but pre-schools, maintained nurseries, childminders, independent nurseries and in-school nurseries as well.
Quality early years education is the single best investment that any Government can make in the future of our society. It supports children’s development at a critical stage of their lives and lays the groundwork for future educational attainment, wellbeing and opportunity. It also matters enormously for families. Flexible and affordable childcare is not just a convenience; it is a vital part of the country’s economic and social infrastructure. With the UK’s statutory parental pay among the lowest in the OECD, parents are often having to choose an early years provider earlier than they might like in order to return to work.
The Government’s plans to expand the 30 hours free childcare entitlement have received broad support across the House, and rightly so. However, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether the ambition will be matched with realism. Is he confident that the promise will be delivered? Many providers are already struggling to keep their doors open. In 2023, half of them reported that their income did not cover basic operating costs, and that is before factoring in the Government’s increases to national insurance contributions and the national living wage.
In real terms, the average funding for three to four-year-olds is still below where it was in 2016. While the headlines about expanded entitlement sound impressive, and are no doubt welcome across the country, we have to ask whether it is enough to keep the sector afloat.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Over the weekend, I was at a village fête. I will not name the primary school, but I was approached by the head, who told me that with the expansion of the number of hours and the rate that they are being paid, the school will close within 18 months. Even though, by the standards of its sector, it had a reasonable buffer going into this, the cost of delivering the service is not matched by Government funding. This village will lose a vital service as a result.
Jess Brown-Fuller
My hon. Friend raises a valid and important point that has been made in various contributions to this debate. At the start of this week, I spent my morning at Fishbourne pre-school. It does not have a lovely name like the Bears or the Acorns—I am quite jealous, actually—but it is a brilliant, popular, charity-run pre-school that is doing everything it can to serve local families.
I was covered in shaving foam the moment I walked through the door. There were activities, messy play and free play going on everywhere. We had a lovely “Wind the Bobbin Up” in the forest school, but I also took the opportunity to talk to the manager of the pre-school. She told me very plainly that, under the new arrangements, not only will their funding model be affected, but they will end up taking fewer children overall. The demand is there—they are already at capacity—but this change will mean that they can serve fewer families in the Fishbourne area.
I think that is what my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) was alluding to: in those rural areas where there is not a huge amount of choice, and just one local service provider, if they can take on fewer children, where are the others meant to go?
Caroline Voaden
My hon. Friend is talking about the provision in rural areas. We have a wonderful nursery called Rainbow nursery in Totnes, which serves not only the town but the wider area. There are very few, if any, village nurseries, so lots of people come into the town to use the nursery provision. It is absolutely rammed, with a huge waiting list, and many parents will not even get a place before their child moves on. As other hon. Members have said, it is really struggling, with the free childcare hours, to cover its costs. If that nursery becomes unsustainable, there will be no provision. There are not lots of alternatives, so we are at a really crucial point.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I hope that the Minister hears the message loud and clear from across the House that many service providers are flagging this to us in our constituencies. I send my concern to Rainbow nursery—another great name for a nursery.
Fishbourne pre-school is just about covering wages and keeping the lights on, but there is nothing left over for the things that actually make early years special: the new books, the toys and the equipment to support those additional needs. Anything extra for the pre-school has to be raised by the parents via raffles or voluntary donations.
The staff at Fishbourne pre-school were conscientious, engaged and passionate about the young people who they look after. I could tell that they valued every single one of them. I was really pleased to see that it had recently taken on a male member of staff, which goes back to earlier contributions from hon. Members. The nursery manager told me that it is brilliant to have a male presence in the nursery because so many of those children only see females in nursery settings. He is doing a marvellous job and I commend him for it. He was not in charge of the shaving foam.
These professionals value every single one of the children they look after. Do the Government believe that they are valuing those professionals in the same way? The Department for Education itself has said that we will need 70,000 new childcare places and 35,000 additional staff by this autumn. Those already in the sector report feeling underpaid, overworked and under-recognised, despite the enormous responsibility that they hold looking after the most precious members of our families. If the Government are to recruit 35,000 more people into the early years sector, they need to make it an attractive career path.
The new entitlements from September are meant to support all families, but the current design risks deepening inequality. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that 80% of the families who will benefit earn over £45,000 a year. Just 20% are lower income families. That means that some of the children who would benefit most from early years intervention and education are the least likely to get it. I hope that the Minister is across that.
My party has welcomed the Government’s commitment to increasing the frequency of Ofsted inspections for early years settings to keep children safe. As the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) mentioned, that is incredibly welcome, but there is concern that the numbers on the floor can be boosted the day before an Ofsted inspection. The tragic case of Gigi Meehan in Cheadle and the horrific abuse uncovered at Twickenham Green nursery are searing reminders of what can happen when safeguarding fails. Gigi’s parents, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) and for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), have long campaigned for more regular and more robust inspections, as they are a vital part of raising standards and safeguarding children.
Going back to supporting the workforce who are delivering this essential care, we need to invest in proper training, setting clear standards for oversight and ensuring that there is a meaningful career path for nursery staff. Requiring a recognised early years qualification and helping staff to access and complete that training is key to building a confident, skilled workforce and ensuring that every child receives the best possible start. So many Members across the House mentioned SEND; that skilled workforce can identify the additional support that a child may need as they move on towards school.
I will briefly touch on the comments by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), on maintained nurseries. I have a maintained nursery in my constituency, which is relaying the same concerns that she raised: it has the additional onus of employing a headteacher and operating like a school, but it cannot access the funding that schools can. The burden and pressure on its balance sheet are huge, and it is at risk of closing, but maintained nurseries have the greatest majority of SEND children. They are doing those early interventions and some incredible work. I was grateful to visit my local maintained nursery.
Cameron Thomas
I was a very nervous father when I handed my daughter to the childminder in her early years setting. She was an absolutely fantastic lady called Jade Bamford in Oxfordshire. When calling for SEND training for early years staff, would my hon. Friend call on the Government to incorporate childminders within that?
Jess Brown-Fuller
My hon. Friend raises an important point that childminders are quite often the bedrock of early years provision. So often they are the experts, because they have a small cohort of children so they take the time to understand the needs of every single one of those children that they look after, and I praise them for it.
I would like to briefly touch on the comments made by the Secretary of State for Education during her announcement on school readiness, about children needing to have the ability to sit still. I have two children in primary school. Before they started school, the fantastic nursery that they attended and their primary school were in absolute lockstep on what it means to be school ready. Can they put their own coat and shoes on independently? Can they go to the toilet unaided? Can they hold a pencil? Can they recognise their name if it is written out? There was no requirement for them to be able to sit still, especially in reception where so much of the foundation of their education is rooted in play, as the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest spoke about. I know that the Secretary of State is a mother, and I am sure that she recognises that it was a poorly phrased statement, so can the Minister reassure parents across the UK that play will continue to be the bedrock of early years teaching, and that it will continue throughout key stage 1?
We were very pleased to see the Government’s recent announcements on Best Start hubs and early years workforce support. Those are welcome steps, and I know that a Best Start hub will be really welcomed in my constituency of Chichester. It is a real opportunity to ensure that families have access to all those support networks under one roof.
I will close by asking the Minister a couple of questions. Will he tell us whether the Department will urgently review the funding rates to ensure that they reflect the true cost of delivering early years education, especially in the light of rising staffing and operational costs? Will the Government please consider exempting early years providers from the recent national insurance increase, given the unique pressures facing the sector? What steps are being taken to ensure that the roll-out in September does not leave providers short-staffed and under-resourced? How will the Department support those that are already warning that they may not be able to meet demand?
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
I will give an extra two minutes to the shadow Minister if she wants them, given that we have a little bit of time.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) on securing this interesting and thought-provoking debate. It is nice to see a degree of unanimity across the Chamber about the importance of early years high-quality provision.
Let me first deal with NICs, because that issue has been raised by a number of hon. Members, not least the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes); the Lib Dem spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller); and the hon. Members for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) and for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart). We know the impact that it is having on nursery settings up and down the country. It is not right that they are treated differently from the rest of the public sector, given that so much of their provision is entirely state-funded.
The impact of the changes has been talked about in very clear terms in this debate. It has been described as “catastrophic” by the Early Years Alliance. We know that 52% of settings are likely to reduce the number of early entitlement places on offer, and that the changes will result in fees going up for parents. That is not what anybody here wants. I know that the Minister understands that, so in his bids to the Treasury for the upcoming Budget, will he ask—as I am sure he has already—that more relief is given to early years for the provision of NICs?
One of the themes discussed by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell)—in what I hope she does not mind me saying was a really excellent speech—and by the Lib Dem spokeswoman, was outreach to disadvantaged areas with the new offer. When we had the offer for two-year-olds, which was just limited by income, the take-up was not what we wanted. Now there is a wider offer, that outreach will be important. I hope that the Minister will speak to that. There is also a link between areas of disadvantage and children who are under the care of a social worker. What more will be done to make sure that social workers are aware of the provision in their local areas, and can direct families who may need it to that provision? That is very important. We know it may provide relief for the parents and a higher quality placement for the individual child. It would be very helpful if the Minister could come back on that today.
I want to talk about school readiness, because I absolutely welcome the Government’s focus in that area, which is very important. As I mentioned in my response to the Education Secretary’s statement the other day, the target we have is for the end of reception. It is therefore not really measuring school readiness as such; it is measuring the work of brilliant reception teachers, up and down the country. That is not actually what we want to measure.
We want to measure the things that the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman talked about: trying to get children ready to go to school. That would reduce the pressure on primary school teachers, rather than increase it. I am sure that the Government’s intention is not to increase it, but it is what will happen as a result of that target. We need to try to get those young people ready to learn and to go to school, because it makes such a difference to their ability to learn. I hope that the Minister will consider that as part of the school readiness work that he has going on at the moment.
As the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) mentioned, I would like to talk more about screens in the context of school readiness. The Government have brought forward a partnership for a national year of reading, which I think we can all agree is very positive, but the one thing that is driving the decline in reading in this country is overuse of screens by young people. I know that the Education Committee has done some brilliant work on this issue. We have to make sure that parents know that too much screen time is just not good for their children. We know that 25% of three and four-year-olds have phones. That is that is not good for them. It is delaying speech development, reading and socialisation, and that is being compounded by the reception baseline assessment now being done on a screen, which implies that children need to be able to use a screen by the time they get to reception.
A recent trip to a primary school alerted me to this. The reception teacher said, “I used to ask them whether they could split this orange apart or not, to be able to check their hand-eye co-ordination. Now it’s all done on a screen.” It is just wrong. If we want a change in school readiness—all Members present are interested in that; that is why we are at this debate—we need an increased focus on reducing screen use by young children, because parents too often just do not know that it is bad for their child. They are trying to do their best, and they think it is fantastic that they can give them a screen with some games on, but actually they are stopping them from being able to play. The hon. Member for Sherwood Forest and others talked about the fact that play is crucial to early development, and we impede that by giving screens to children.
This debate has been really interesting. There is a degree of unanimity on the direction that we need to go in. I hope that some progress can be made on funding for early years provision and that we can try to drive up the usage of the free offers in disadvantaged areas. We need to shift the focus on school readiness to what we need to help parents do to get their child ready for school. I hope that, together, we can shift the emphasis and try to get screens out of young people’s lives, because that is a single thing that we can do to help them with their mental health and their school readiness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh) for securing a debate on this most important subject. I thank all Members for their contributions, including the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes).
The foundations of success are laid in early childhood. Ensuring that every child has the best start in life and the chance to achieve and to thrive is the foundation stone of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. On Monday, the Government published our vision for the future of early years, so this is a timely debate that demonstrates that my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest clearly has her finger on the pulse on these issues.
Our landmark strategy will bring together early years and family services and put children’s first years at the heart of efforts to improve life chances. “Giving every child the best start in life” sets out the first steps to deliver our plan for change commitment for a record number of children to be ready to start school by 2028. That builds on the work that we have already started and the impacts that have already been felt. We have delivered the biggest uplift in the early years pupil premium on record, opened new breakfast clubs and funded 300 new and expanded school-based nurseries across the country, two of which, I am proud to say, sit in my hon. Friend’s constituency. From September, we are rolling out 30 hours of funded childcare for working parents, saving eligible parents who use their full entitlement an average of £7,500 a year. With the new strategy, we will go further and faster. We will spend close to £1.5 billion over the next three years to make early education more accessible and higher quality.
Central to my ambition to improve outcomes for all children is a diverse and thriving early years sector with a brilliant and valued workforce. We want early years to be a career that people are proud to join and stay in. That means more opportunities to gain qualifications and build fulfilling careers. We want high-quality evidence to underpin training, support and development for early years professionals. That will mean that passionate people can grow their skills and careers, and help every child to thrive.
Alongside a strong market, we want to drive higher standards through strengthened improvement and accountability systems that support and drive high-quality provision for settings and families. That includes funding for Ofsted to inspect more often, and inspect new settings within 18 months of them opening. Our ambition is to make early years education the best it can be for every child in every setting.
The early years workforce is at the heart of the Government’s opportunity mission and a top priority for the Department for Education. I pay tribute to those who are dedicated to the sector and working in it to improve life chances for every child. I declare an interest that my sister is an early years practitioner of 30 years’ standing. I can assure her and everyone who works in the sector that this Government hugely value their work.
As set out in the recent “best start in life” strategy, we are improving the quality of early education by investing in training and qualifications to raise the skill levels of the workforce. We are also increasing understanding of high-quality practice and providing access to proven, evidence-based early years programmes. That is backed with an extra £400 million over the next three years to improve quality and drive better outcomes for children. We will collaborate with the sector to co-design and consult on a new professional register and establish an evidence-informed career framework to support career progression at all levels.
We will recruit more early years teachers in areas where they are needed the most, more than doubling the number of funded early years initial teacher training courses by 2028. The early years teacher incentive will support recruitment and retention of early years teachers in the most deprived communities by giving existing and new early years teachers who work in eligible nurseries £4,500 per annum so that every child, no matter where they live, can benefit from high-quality early education.
We are rolling out a new early years teacher degree apprenticeship and transforming the apprenticeship offer into a new growth and skills programme with shorter, more flexible training options. That includes continuing and extending free online child development training for all staff, and funding more places on the national professional qualification in early years leadership programme.
We are investing in data-driven interventions to support early maths, literacy and language skills, and doubling the number of early years stronger practice hubs from 18 to 36 so that even more settings and childminders can access free resources and training to help their practice. We are helping more people to discover rewarding early years careers through our “Do something big” national recruitment campaign, and building on our pilot to offer financial incentives to attract and retain the best educators, including our campaign to encourage more men to go into the sector.
We are making it easier for managers to check qualifications and increase confidence in staff sufficiency by using the new “Check an early years qualification” digital service. Providers can maximise the potential of staff who have the right skills and experience but do not hold an approved qualification through the experience-based route.
We are working closely with local areas to do everything we can to ensure that there are sufficient places and the sector has the workforce it needs ahead of September. We have already seen a strong response from the early years sector following the introduction of the new entitlement. In 2023-24 we saw nearly three times the growth in places and more than 1.5 times the growth in staff working in early years compared with 2022-23, showing that the early years market is responding positively. Continuing that growth ahead of September will allow more families to benefit from the expansion, and we are determined that the sector receives the support it needs to make that happen.
The strength of our varied and diverse providers gives families a choice of high-quality, flexible options that meet their needs, but it can mean that stand-alone settings miss out on the benefits that come from working together. We will work with the sector to support brilliant settings so that they grow and spread their expertise. We will also explore how providers could, if they choose to, pool back-office functions and overheads so that nursery managers can focus increased efforts on the children in their care.
We want to ensure that the early education and childcare market continues to be financially sustainable, able to create more places where they are needed, and focused on the needs of children. We will continue to monitor the financial sustainability of the market and may take further steps to increase the transparency of the largest providers if necessary. We have seen a decline in the number of not-for-profit providers, especially in the most deprived areas of the country, and we will work with those providers, alongside philanthropy and social investors, to explore new ways to support them to expand, and encourage new providers to open settings.
Turning to the points made by a number of Members about funding, we are expecting to spend more than £8 billion on the early years entitlements this year, rising to more than £9 billion in the next financial year. We have introduced a £75 million expansion grant to support providers ahead of September’s roll-out, and we have almost doubled the early years pupil premium. Our hourly funding rate covers core costs, taking account of cost pressures, including forecasts of average earnings, inflation and the national living wage. We want to ensure that funding is distributed fairly and effectively, reflecting the cost of delivery in different parts of the country. We will renew our approach and set out more detail in due course.
The Chair of the Education Committee is a real champion for maintained nursery schools, which are a valued and important part of the early years system. They are high-quality providers that often focus on disadvantage and special educational needs and disabilities, helping us to give every child the best start in life. To recognise the costs that maintained nursery schools face over and above those experienced by other providers, we provide additional supplementary funding to local authorities for maintained nursery schools in their area. Maintained nursery schools also make crucial contributions to stronger practice hubs, which we are expanding.
With regard to comments made about the Best Start family hubs, ensuring that every child has the best start in life and the chance to achieve and thrive is the foundation stone of our Government’s opportunity mission. We will spend close to £1.5 billion over the next three years on improving family services and early years education to begin the hard work needed. Best Start family hubs will be backed by £500 million of that investment between 2025 and 2029, and we will fund hubs in every local authority area to ensure that the children and families who need support the most, especially those from low-income backgrounds or with additional vulnerabilities, can access it. Through the hubs, families will be connected to other local services such as healthcare, relationship support, housing and job support.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest mentioned childminders, as did the Chair of the Select Committee. Childminders play an important role in the childcare system, offering the flexible and personalised care that many families value. They also tend to look after younger children and are a key part of the provider landscape as we expand funded childcare hours for those children. We have already taken steps to support childminders, including making it easier for them to work from different places, such as schools and other community settings.
We now want to go further. We have listened to the sector, which has consistently called for monthly payments for early years entitlements. I can assure Members that we will work with local authorities and others to ensure that, where they want to be, childminders and other early years providers are paid monthly for the funded hours that they provide, making their income more sustainable. We will also keep working with Jobcentre Plus to encourage more people to become childminders.
The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), made a number of points on the reception baseline assessment. Digital assessments in primary school happen all around the globe and have been in place for several years in English primary schools, with the multiplication tables check in year 4. The reception baseline assessment is a short assessment to understand children’s abilities when they start reception, in order to enable measures of progress through primary schools. It is conducted on a one-to-one basis with teachers, and guidelines are in place to support pupils on the assessment. A revised version of the RBA, with a digital element, was set out in September. For more questions, pupils will be able to interact with images and items on a tablet screen, supported by a teacher. I can assure all Members that it has been subject to extensive trials with teachers and pupils, which commenced in 2019 under the previous Administration. Feedback from both groups has been positive.
I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest for securing this debate on such an important topic. I also acknowledge the engagement of all Members this afternoon, and the dedicated workforce in the early years sector, who do so much for our country. The Government are committed to breaking down the barriers to opportunity, and the importance of the early years cannot be overstated. Our strategy is to start a decade of national renewal for families, giving every child the best start in life.
Michelle Welsh
I thank everyone who has taken part in today’s debate. What is fabulous about this Parliament is the breadth of knowledge and experience regarding early years and childcare, women’s health and all those subjects. Although we may disagree sometimes on how to do this, I think there is a united vision to ensure that every child gets the best start in life. There have been moments of déjà vu in this debate when people have talked about outreach workers linking with social workers and ready-to-go-to-school programmes, because all those were around in the late 1990s under Sure Start and were sadly dismantled in front of my eyes.
I will close by saying two things. First, I think we need to move from talking about school readiness to talking about learning readiness—that is really important. Secondly, and notwithstanding everybody else’s contributions, we have a real chance with the Best Start strategy to make a real difference, and the more voices that can be heard on that, the better. Where you are born should not determine your future, and I am convinced that this Labour Government will make sure that is the case.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for early years providers.
LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme
(4 days, 16 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
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme.
I am grateful for the opportunity to bring this important debate to Westminster Hall. I begin by thanking all colleagues present; I am happy to take interventions. I also thank those joining us in the Gallery, especially my constituent Liz, whose story first alerted me to this issue. In preparing for today’s debate, I have been deeply moved by the countless personal stories that I have heard: stories of lives devastated, careers destroyed, and justice long denied.
For context, before 2000, LGBT individuals were banned from serving in the UK armed forces. It is estimated that around 20,000 service personnel were dismissed or forced out under that discriminatory policy. The independent review, led with dignity and compassion by the late Lord Etherton and commissioned in 2023, was a welcome step, but let us be honest: it came far too late, 23 years after the ban was lifted, with many veterans not living to see an apology or their berets and medals returned.
Lord Etherton’s review exposed the systematic mistreatment of LGBT service personnel on the Ministry of Defence’s watch. The findings were harrowing. Veterans were subjected to deeply invasive and degrading investigations based solely on suspicions of homosexual activity. Investigations often lasted months, yet individuals were sometimes given only a week’s notice before being dismissed. Interrogations were intensely personal and accusatory in nature. Physical examinations were also conducted, including internal procedures on both men and women in a misguided attempt to prove same-sex sexual activity.
People were sent to psychiatrists, where so-called conversion therapy was suggested as a means to remain in service. These practices included electro-convulsive treatments and the use of drugs—treatments that were cruel, dehumanising and wholly indefensible.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I spoke to her yesterday and am very conscious of the importance of it. Those people volunteered to serve in uniform. They protected this country and its people to the best of their ability, and the result was discrimination, abuse and the things that the hon. Lady has outlined. Does she feel that now, at long last, through recognition by the previous Minister, the current Minister and the Government, we have justice, and justice is really what it is all about?
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to reflect on the fact that the policy that has been put in place means justice for those veterans. Today I will speak about the speed at which we actually see justice served for veterans who suffered wholly indefensible treatment.
Nobody decides to go into the military lightly. It is a commitment to their country. As a result of the policy, many veterans lost not only their careers and pensions, but their medals, their reputations and in some cases they acquired criminal records without even being informed. Many had never disclosed their sexuality to friends or family and were then put in an impossible position of keeping the reason for their dismissal a secret, or having to share their sexuality. The consequences were profound. Veterans were left feeling humiliated and hounded out of service. Highly successful careers ended prematurely. Many found themselves suddenly without direction, with no time to prepare for civilian life. Many struggled to find new work. Some became homeless. Their future plans were torn to shreds, and they were left to rebuild their lives. The personal cost of that trauma is immeasurable: families were torn apart, livelihoods were destroyed and relationships were ruined.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Does she agree that the injustices faced by people who were forced out of the armed forces because of their sexuality have had profound and long-lasting impacts on their mental health, financial wellbeing and career prospects? Those impacts endure today.
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. It is impossible to measure the scale of the impact on all those veterans, be it emotional, financial or in terms of the homes they ended up buying or places they ended up living. It is impossible to measure the effect exactly, but it was profound.
Countless veterans were left with enduring feelings of shame and low self-esteem, as the Etherton report noted. These individuals had dedicated their lives to serving their country, only to realise, in the cruellest of ways, that the state had turned its back on them.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this subject to the Chamber. Is she as mystified as I am by the fact that, when serving in the armed forces was at its most dangerous and there was conscription—namely during the second world war—people were only too happy for warriors of any sexuality to participate, and that many people of non-heterosexual orientation won gallantry medals, with no questions asked and full admiration rightly expressed?
Jess Brown-Fuller
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Those LGBT veterans were welcome to fight for their country when they were needed, but this nonsensical policy was introduced only in the ’60s.
For too many, the weight of the betrayal that they felt proved too heavy to bear. Tragically, some veterans committed suicide following their dismissal.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. I am here today on behalf of my constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, as well as friends of mine who have been affected by this historical injustice, which can only be described as a shameful period in our history. Today, I want every LGBT veteran to feel proud of their service to our country. Does she agree that we must ensure that LGBT veterans who were wrongly dismissed do not face any further injustice by having to wait for the compensation that they are rightly owed?
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Member raises an important point. There are constituents in every one of our constituencies who were wronged, and I am grateful to her for raising the plight of her constituents in this regard. She is right that we cannot wait any longer for justice to be served. I pay tribute to those individuals who will never see justice served; they will not see a penny of reparation or an apology from the state for their cruel treatment. They deserved better.
The Etherton report is remarkable in its scope and sensitivity. The Government accepted all its recommendations, and the apologies that followed, the plans for memorials, and the returning of medals and caps would not have been possible without it.
Today, we must focus on one of the most critical elements for veterans: financial reparations. Last December, the Government announced a £75 million compensation fund, with individual payments of up to £70,000 for LGBT veterans who were affected by the ban. The announcement was welcomed across the House as an acknowledgment, at last, of the scale of harm inflicted.
However, I secured this debate because the implementation of the scheme has been woefully inadequate. The delivery has been painfully slow, and the communication from the Ministry of Defence has been appalling. That is not justice delivered. It is justice delayed, and as we all know, justice delayed is justice denied.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I also thank the Minister, who I know is personally invested in and has been a champion on this issue. He has the respect of the House and, more importantly, of the veterans concerned. I am concerned about the pace of the scheme. One of my constituents, who is a veteran, wrote to me to say that he is 77 and has prostate cancer, two brain tumours, heart disease and other complications. We have taken this up with the MOD, yet he still has no certainty about when he might get payments and the justice that the hon. Lady talked about. Does she agree that it is now incumbent on the MOD to demonstrate that it is doing everything possible to get the payments out as quickly as possible and finally deliver justice?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I appreciate the hon. Member’s intervention. He is absolutely right. I will come on to the fact that the scheme prioritises those who are over the age of 80 or have terminal diagnoses. That needs to be communicated to them so that they understand where their application is in the process. Some of these veterans, like the hon. Member’s constituent, have been waiting for 25 years since the ban was lifted. In some cases, they have been waiting up to 60 years for any form of recognition or redress. The charity Fighting With Pride estimates that, at the current rate, it could take five years to clear the existing backlog. That is wholly unacceptable, particularly given the age and health of many applicants. Time is not a luxury they can afford.
From the accounts I have received from veterans, the process is riddled with obstacles. Many of them have received the non-financial reparations, such as returned medals, regimental caps or letters from the Prime Minister, only to be told that they must provide additional documentation, such as military records, to claim the financial compensation. I am fully aware that someone who applies for the non-financial reparations may choose not to subsequently apply for the financial reparations or may not qualify, but surely that process can be streamlined. We could frontload it: when someone applies for the non-financial redress, their military records could be requested in anticipation of a possible financial reparation. That would ease the burden on applicants and speed up the overall process.
The Ministry’s communication has been woeful. Applicants were told to expect an update within 18 weeks. When those updates failed to materialise, many were left anxious and in the dark, fearing that their applications had been lost or rejected. For the hundreds of veterans who have waited years—decades—for justice, these delays are retraumatising. They are being forced to relive some of the most painful chapters of their lives, only to be met with silence from the very institution that wronged them.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on a vital issue. I am very proud to have her as a colleague. She is a fantastic representative of her constituents. A constituent of mine, Adrian Radford, has been waiting decades for justice to be done. As my hon. Friend said, with every delay he has to relive the abuse and trauma that he and many like him suffered. With just 44 people having received payments out of 1,200 applications, will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to commit to scaling up the delivery team with urgency so that we can finally deliver justice?
Jess Brown-Fuller
The experience of my hon. Friend’s constituent reflects that of many others who feel abandoned and ignored. The MOD committed to updating applicants to the scheme within 18 weeks of their application, but that has not happened and has further deepened the emotional distress by reopening old wounds, as my hon. Friend said.
I am very pleased, as I said before, that my constituent Liz is in the Public Gallery. Liz’s story mirrors that of so many affected by the policy. She was discharged from the RAF in 1969 after private letters between her and her girlfriend at the time were discovered. When her girlfriend failed to meet her one evening, Liz learned that she had been arrested by military police. Liz was then coerced into providing a statement, which led directly to her dismissal. She only discovered decades later when applying for this scheme that she had also been given a criminal conviction for same-sex sexual activity. That conviction has followed her unknowingly for her entire adult life and may have affected numerous aspects of it without her knowledge.
Liz is one of the few who has received her compensation, which was fast-tracked due to health concerns. I am pleased to learn that both the dismissed and discharged scheme and the impact scheme are prioritising veterans over 80 and those with serious health conditions, but that will represent a large cohort.
I move on to my questions for the Minister. According to Fighting With Pride, 84 payments have been made out of a total of more than 1,200 applications since the scheme went live in December. I had to get that information from Fighting With Pride because the MOD does not publish the number of successful applications on a rolling basis, which fuels mistrust. Will the Government confirm today how many veterans have received compensation in the dismissed or discharged scheme and the impact scheme, and what percentage of claimants that represents? Will the Minister commit to a simple weekly update? Even a tweet—is it still called a tweet?—would go a long way in rebuilding faith in the process.
The DD scheme is currently managed by a very small number of civil servants. That scheme is for the larger sum of £50,000, and it deals with the simple question of whether the veteran was dismissed or discharged for their sexuality or perceived sexuality. Will the Minister increase the capacity to come to a decision on cases by increasing the number of civil servants working on the DD scheme so that it does not take the predicted five years to clear all the cases?
I recognise that the impact scheme, which requires a decision by a panel chaired by Lord Paddick, deals with a far more complex area of impact payments that can be awarded up to the value of £20,000. The panel is sometimes presented with up to 600 pages of records for one veteran, and therefore the preparation time needed before a panel is extensive. The panel attempts to hear 10 cases per sitting, up from six at the start of the process. Will the Minister please give serious consideration to appointing a secondary panel with a secondary chair, as the most sitting days that the current panel can manage is two a week, with two days for preparation and reading?
Now that the internal IT problems have apparently been resolved, will all veterans who have applied for either scheme be provided with an update 18 weeks after their application and every 18 weeks subsequently until a decision is reached, as the MOD previously promised? Will the information that will apparently be available on the portal be accessible to all, even those who are not tech savvy?
Will the Government take the steps outlined to streamline the process of compensation, ensuring that the collection of military records is front-loaded when applications are received so that there is no delay in the claim being processed? Is the £75 million for reparations a ringfenced fund that will be extended if the number of applicants exceeds the fund? If so, where will the additional funding come from?
I thank everyone who got in touch ahead of today’s debate, including Fighting With Pride, the Minister and all Members who came to share their constituents’ stories and show support for speeding up the scheme. We need to do better to ensure this dark period in our history has an ending that recognises the magnitude of the injustice faced by so many veterans. There is not a moment to lose.
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate and for her wider efforts to ensure that LGBT veterans are properly and promptly compensated for past injuries, injustices and wrongdoings.
I also thank Fighting With Pride. I came into this job nigh on a year ago, and I often say that courage is not a reaction but a decision. The ability of its members to shout when being pushed down and told to be quiet has really raised this issue over the past couple of decades and brought it to where we are today.
I am also grateful to right hon. and hon. Members who have fought valiantly on this issue, not just while I have been in post but previously. Importantly, I thank the late Lord Etherton. It is unfortunate that he is not here today; nevertheless, the foundations of the programme lie with him and he should be deeply honoured.
The hon. Member for Chichester has helped to shine a spotlight on a truly dark era in military history. When I joined the military in 1999, the ban was still in place, LGBT personnel suffered horrific mistreatment and abuse, and homophobic bullying and sexual violence were absolutely widespread. That injustice has cast a long shadow over the lives of so many. Many dedicated professionals had their ambition in life cut short by those rules and regulations. My view that it is an injustice was powerfully reflected in the late Lord Etherton’s independent review in 2023. It is an injustice that placed the Ministry of Defence on the wrong side of history. It is an injustice that the Government are determined, and have done so much, to address.
Lord Etherton’s review, with all its recommendations, was submitted to the Government in May 2023 and published in the summer of that year, so there was a year between then and our coming into government. In the time that we have been in government, we have delivered a lot, although there is more to do. After much deliberation, we launched the financial recognition scheme. Up and down, left and right—not in our Government, perhaps—individuals were concerned that the payments were not enough or would not be processed in the right manner, but this Government raised the budget to £75 million.
The scheme will be open for one year, but I want to be absolutely clear, as I have been with the previous and current heads of Fighting With Pride, and assure all LGBT veterans that, if they are eligible and apply, they will receive their payment. Even if that extends, we will live by that commitment. Importantly, if the payments exceed £75 million, those who are eligible and apply will still receive their FRS payment. We will absolutely live by that. I have taken huge pride in how fast we have got here, and we will deliver.
I met Fighting With Pride this week and heard veterans’ concerns. We are looking in detail at the financial recognition scheme, and I will say more on that after I have given a progress update. As of 30 June, the Government have completed 42 out of 49 recommendations of Lord Etherton’s review. I saw one of those recommendations the other day: the memorial that will be built, which is looking fantastic. Five more recommendations are pending ministerial approval. Some of those do not sit within our Department, but we are almost there. We will complete those as fast as we can.
I am pleased to update hon. Members on the progress of the financial recognition scheme, which acknowledges the harm inflicted by the ban and offers tangible recognition to those who were affected. The Government have been unequivocal and I have been committed to ensuring that we right the wrongs of the past. The Prime Minister, the Defence Secretary and the chiefs of services have all expressed their deep regret for the unacceptable treatment of LGBT personnel. The scheme that launched in December 2024 is a tangible demonstration of that commitment. As I said, we have raised the budget to £75 million. I hope that brings affirmation and some measure of closure to those who have waited far too long for consecutive UK Governments to address the damage of those times.
On slow payments, I must address the important issue that the hon. Member for Chichester rightly raised: the timely delivery of payment to veterans who have served the country with courage and distinction. The rate at which those deserved payments are being processed is an issue that is causing considerable concern to constituents.
I take note of the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) about an individual who may be terminally ill or elderly. I want to be clear that part of the reason the process has been quite slow is because we have focused on the terminally ill, the elderly and the most complex cases first. I made a commitment to Fighting With Pride that we would do that to ensure that no one misses out on payments due to illness or age. That has contributed, although it is not the sole reason, to the speed and delivery of payments, but I will stick by it because it has to be a No. 1 priority. We are almost through what we think are most of those claims.
I assure hon. Members that we are taking decisive action to deliver payments more swiftly and efficiently. I will mention a couple of things that we are doing. We are boosting resources and allocating extra staff and funding to ensure that claims are processed more quickly, so veterans receive the support they deserve. A key reason for delay has been problems with the automated payment system. We acknowledge that and are looking into it. We are trying to process claims as quickly as possible. The system will get faster the more claims that we process, so we think it will speed up. That will streamline the process and reduce the administrative bottleneck, which is significant.
Let us remember that a lot of the files and data are not held digitally, so it is not a case of a Google search. There are Yellow Pages-sized files sitting in hangars all over the UK, so it takes time. We are also increasing the frequency of sittings of the independent panel to two a week, hoping that the automatic system will catch up, to reduce waiting times. Although there is still work to be done, I am confident that those combined measures will speed up the system. In addition to the commitments that I made earlier, the LGBT community should be assured that no one will miss out.
The issue about front-loading some of the military records when the non-financial redress scheme kicked in was that no one had agreed to or committed to the financial redress scheme, so we did not know what was required in the first place. That was not this Government but previous Governments. We did not front-load that; a lot of the non-financial redress schemes were already completed or under way.
On the 18 weeks for information, I will get back to the hon. Member for Chichester with the statistics on how we process that. We will have an electronic copy of that, so I will be sure to write to her with the detail. On the civil servants, the only thing I would say, and I say it relatively gently, is that those civil servants with the expertise to focus on the payments are the same civil servants who are writing ministerial correspondence back to people. The more ministerial correspondence that we get, the more time they are spending on that, rather than on processing claims. I will say this: after the Ministry of Defence broke the trust of LGBT communities, please now have the trust that we will deliver on this guarantee for you.
I will provide a bit of transparency on the details of the scheme and answer some of the questions put by hon. Members. As of 7 July, we have received many applications for the scheme. Of those, 944 were submitted online and 162 were received as hard-copy applications. To break that down a bit further, there were 242 applications for the dismissed or discharged payment only; 250 applications for the impact payment only; and 614 applications for both payments.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister may recall that in an earlier armed forces debate, I raised the case of Kate Green, a Royal Military Police veteran who felt compelled to leave the service just before the ban was lifted. Will he join me in highlighting the fact that the impact scheme makes provision for people who felt compelled to leave and that they, too, can apply for compensation?
Al Carns
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct and I champion what he says. For anyone out there who has not made an application, please get in touch and process it as fast as possible.
I will give a couple more statistics for the record. The first payments were made just 15 weeks after the scheme’s official launch and I am pleased to report that we have now paid over £4.2 million in total in the redress scheme. There were payments to 84 applicants for the dismissed or discharged payment, with each applicant receiving over £50,000. Additionally, we have made £82,000 in impact payments to 11 applicants, ranging from £1,000 to £2,000. I see the scheme speeding up considerably in the not-so-distant future.
It is worth noting that all payments are exempt from income tax, which was one of the key issues for Fighting With Pride when we moved forward with the scheme. Furthermore, payments will not affect any means-tested benefits, such as universal credit, income support or housing benefit, which is also critical.
Now, I have a message for anyone listening to this debate, or for anyone pushing out details about it on social media. I urge all those affected by the ban while serving between 1967 and 2000 to read the guidance, and to please apply for financial recognition via the “Veterans of the LGBT Ban: Financial Recognition Scheme” page on gov.uk. They have my word and a commitment that if this process extends for longer than a year, we will keep going and we will ensure that individuals who put in a claim get it resolved as quickly as possible.
I will also say that the scheme is not necessarily just about financial recognition. It is also about acknowledging the sacrifices and indeed the injustices faced by LGBT veterans, and ensuring that their experiences are recognised and indeed valued.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I hear the Minister’s call loud and clear that the process will be slowed down if there is lots of ministerial correspondence to answer. Can I therefore ask him to provide a regular update from the MOD so that hon. Members on both sides of the House do not feel like they need to continually chase things up on behalf of their constituents?
Al Carns
That is a really valid point and I will make sure that there is a communication strategy put in place to ensure that both the individuals affected and hon. Members from all parties are kept up to date on the scheme’s progress. Again, I thank everybody for raising issues; people should keep raising them if they see them. We will change, test, adjust and move forward as fast as we can.
The Defence Secretary and I remain committed to driving this work forward until every recommendation of Lord Etherton’s review is implemented. As I said before, when I joined the armed forces, the ban on homosexuality was still in place, which is just madness if we think about it now. Of course times have changed, but the financial recognition scheme is our acknowledgment that we must move forward faster than anyone else and increase the resources available from Government, and that no matter when these events occurred, they were completely wrong and we will redress them. To all those affected by these past failings, I say—from me to you—that we hear you, we absolutely value you and we are committed to righting the wrongs of the past.
Question put and agreed to.
Glaucoma Awareness
(4 days, 16 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
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered glaucoma awareness.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Mr Pritchard. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for attending this important debate. First, I declare my registered interest as a practising optometrist for the NHS. As an optometrist for many years, I have had the privilege—sometimes the heartbreak —of looking into the eyes of people whose lives are changing without their even knowing about it. Fundamentally, that is what glaucoma does: it changes lives quietly, and often without warning. Last week was Glaucoma Awareness Week because many people are not aware of the condition.
At this point, I applaud the work done by Glaucoma UK to raise awareness of the condition. It is known as “the thief of sight” for very good reasons. Broadly speaking, glaucoma damages the optic nerve. The optic nerve is made of millions of little nerves and bundles, and each part of the nerve represents a single point in our visual fields. Because vision loss begins at the edges, people do not often realise that anything is wrong until it is too late.
I would like to give two brief but real examples from my experience. First, a woman came into my practice who had been hit by a car, while in her own car, from the side, not once but twice. She came in and read out the bottom line—the tiniest letters that can be seen—and could not understand why she kept missing things on the side: in this case, cars. It became apparent that she was a quite advanced sufferer of glaucoma, and she had lost the majority of what we call peripheral or side vision. Another memorable patient was a gentleman who was brought in kicking and screaming by his wife because he kept knocking off the salt, pepper and ketchup from the dinner table. It became apparent, again: he could see everything clearly straight ahead, but he really could not see anything on the side. He also had a very advanced form of glaucoma.
Glaucoma is the leading cause of preventable blindness in this country, with over 700,000 people affected, but the shocking thing is that more than half of them—350,000 people—are undiagnosed: they are walking and driving around not knowing that they have the condition. They could be one of us—somebody we love, or somebody we work with, as was the case of a former Member of Parliament of this parish, Paul Tyler, a Lib Dem Member, who was diagnosed at a completely routine eye test. In his own words, he might not have been able to carry on his duty as a parliamentarian if he had not gone for a simple eye test where they detected glaucoma. Twenty-five years later, his sight is still preserved.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He rightly alludes to the issue of regular eye testing. Although we obviously want a response from the Minister, does he agree that if nothing else is achieved from this debate but raising people’s awareness about doing exactly as he recommends—and all of us recommend regular eye testing—to detect conditions such as glaucoma, he will have done us all a service?
Shockat Adam
I could not agree more. If we achieve that one thing today, we will have achieved a great milestone. In its early stages, glaucoma has no symptoms, pain or warning signs—just a slow, silent theft of vision. By the time it is noticed, the damage is permanent; it is as if the fire has gutted the house before anybody has even smelled the smoke. That loss has far-reaching consequences. People lose not only their sight but, more importantly, their independence—their ability to drive, read, cook or even leave the house. Falls increase, isolation grows, and then come the emotional and mental health impacts: fear, depression and loss of identity. At this point, I quickly pay homage to charities such as Vista in my constituency, which has offered valuable support for people living with visual loss.
On the subject of depression and identity, I want to share a moment that has stayed with me; it concerns a rare condition that many people do not know can be a consequence of vision loss. A woman, diagnosed with glaucoma, phoned my clinic, deeply distressed. She said a child was following her—but no one else could see them. She was terrified that she was losing her mind. In fact, she had a condition called Charles Bonnet syndrome, a common but under-recognised condition in which the brain fills in visual gaps with vivid hallucinations. Many people never mention it, understandably fearful that they will be labelled as senile or unstable, and so they suffer in silence. Esme lived with Charles Bonnet syndrome for over a decade, haunted by hallucinations that she knew were not real. Her daughter, Judith, now champions awareness through the incredible organisation, Esme’s Umbrella. These are not clinical oddities; they are real human stories, and far more common than we acknowledge.
We are now facing a growing crisis. Work done by the Association of Optometrists, Primary Eyecare Services and Fight for Sight has shown that glaucoma cases are expected to rise by 22% in the next 10 years and 44% in the next 20 years. That is hundreds of thousands more people needing care, follow-up and support, yet we already have the tools to stop this.
I would like to frame this, Minister, around the three bases of the Government’s own proposals for tackling healthcare. First, we must move from hospital to community. Patients are losing their sight not because care does not exist, but because the pathway is broken and follow-up is delayed. Just recently, a patient of mine was referred to hospital and diagnosed with glaucoma—fine, no problem there. The initial appointment happened without any problems, but the follow-up was postponed. Then the patient missed her appointment, and the one after that was postponed again. By the time I saw that patient again, just over a year later, they had lost two full lines on their visual acuity chart—the chart used by the optician. That is two lines that this patient will never, ever get back. That is the difference between being able to read letters or not; between seeing a grandchild smile or only hearing them.
One of the problems is that current waiting list data measures only first-time appointments, not the ongoing care vital to chronic conditions such as glaucoma. We need published data on follow-up waiting times, because that is where sight is being lost. That data would allow patients to make an informed choice about where they would like to receive treatment.
Here is the reality: hospital ophthalmology is the largest outpatient specialty in the NHS, with 8.9 million appointments in England in 2023-24, according to the College of Optometrists. It cannot carry that load alone. The answer lies in the community. There are over 14,000 qualified optometrists in England, providing more than 13 million eye tests. They are trained, regulated and ready to help.
Community glaucoma services led by optometrists have already demonstrated the ability to reduce hospital referrals by up to 79%. If we implemented a nationally regulated programme, it could free up 300,000 hospital appointments a year. That is not a one-time saving, because glaucoma is a chronic condition. People are not cured of it—they live with it, and must continue with recurring appointments for the rest of their lives. Shared care would allow faster appointments, earlier diagnosis, less vision loss, and critically, more time for hospital ophthalmologists to treat complex cases. It could also save the NHS an estimated £12 million annually.
Wales has already adopted this model; England should do the same. Yet fewer than one in five areas in England offers this service. It is a postcode lottery—one that punishes the most vulnerable, especially given that people from black and Asian communities are up to four times more likely to develop glaucoma and often have the least access to care. We need to raise awareness and create the statutory framework so that everyone—GPs, pharmacists, the public—knows to go the optometrist for an eye test. We need a national roll-out of a statutory integrated glaucoma pathway.
Secondly, we must move from analogue to digital; lack of digital connectivity is another major obstacle. Many optometrists are unable to send digital referrals to local hospitals. Some do not even have access to NHS email and we still cannot access shared patient records. That means crucial information such as medication, medical history and images get lost, delayed or duplicated. This is 2025. It should not be easier to get a takeaway delivered than to refer a patient with a sight-threatening disease. To move forward, we need access to NHS email for all primary eye care providers; shared patient records between optometrists, GPs and hospital services; and an efficient two-way electronic referral system. That kind of interoperability is basic infrastructure and would transform the speed, safety and continuity of glaucoma care.
Finally, we must move from sickness to prevention. The final and most important pillar is prevention.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. I know that he is very passionate about this area. More than half a million people suffer from the illness. Would he agree that the issue is about not just a national roll-out and getting an understanding, but a proactive approach where general practitioners make referrals for individuals whom they know are at a higher risk?
Shockat Adam
The hon. Gentleman may have read my speech when I was not looking, as I am coming to that point in a little while.
Regular eye exams are the frontline of glaucoma detection, yet one in four people in the UK is not accessing any form of eye care at all. Minister, we should begin with a mandatory sight test for drivers. The UK is the only country in Europe that gives lifelong licences until the age of 70 without requiring an eye exam. Earlier this year, a coroner in Lancashire issued a prevention of future deaths report linking a fatal crash to undiagnosed sight loss. This is no longer just a health issue; it is a public safety one. We can also incentivise eye tests, perhaps through reduced insurance premiums, employer wellbeing programmes or GP-led initiatives. For those over 40, when glaucoma risks are higher, every routine health check should include a simple question: “When did you last have your eyes tested?”
Finally, we must consider innovation. Most glaucoma patients are prescribed lifelong eye drops, but there is poor compliance. Mr Pritchard, imagine that you were elderly and trying to open up a bottle of eye drops and bring it to your eyes. It is very difficult, especially with arthritis and tremors; difficulty inserting the drops remains a major challenge. But new options are now available. One is called minimally invasive glaucoma surgery, which can delay or even eliminate the need for drops. I urge the Minister to explore commissioning MIGS, especially for suitable patients undergoing cataract surgery. Everybody who lives long enough will need to have a cataract operation. If they are also suffering with glaucoma, we can stop the disease in its tracks before it causes irreversible harms. It is critical that patients with glaucoma who need cataract surgery are able to discuss options with their glaucoma consultant, because if MIGS is not performed during cataract surgery, it may be eliminated as a future option.
The total cost of visual impairment in the UK is now £26.5 billion. That is projected to rise to £33.5 billion by 2032. Glaucoma alone accounts for £750 million, according to the College of Optometrists, and most of that burden falls outside the national health service in lost productivity, in formal care, in people having to give up work to look after family who have lost their sight and in a completely diminished quality of life. In fact, 41% of people surveyed reported severe financial impact due to sight loss, often followed by depression, anxiety and social withdrawal.
This is a silent epidemic and it all leads to a low score in every perceivable index. But it is not inevitable. We already know what works and we already have the workforce and technology. What we need now is collaboration from the optical and ophthalmic industry and a political will. That will help us shift care from hospitals into the community, bring eye care into the digital age and help us prevent sickness such as glaucoma, saving the sight of millions in the future. Let us act now while we can still see what is around us.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this important debate. When the time comes, I will welcome an intervention from him to help me pronounce the name of the eye operation that I had, because I can never say it.
I often say that all politics is personal, and that is incredibly apt for me in this debate, because 17 years ago, when I was 25, I was diagnosed with glaucoma. Pre-diagnosis, my knowledge of the condition extended to Edgar Davids, the Dutch footballer who wore what looked like safety goggles when playing because he had glaucoma and could not wear contact lenses.
Unlike many people’s glaucoma stories, mine is a very fortunate one. Before coming to this place, I was a golf professional. At the time, I was giving lessons to an optician, who offered to gift me a pair of glasses as thanks—I know that sounds a familiar story for a Labour politician, but I move on. He did some tests, including for glaucoma, and commented that my eye pressure was extremely high, in the mid-30s. Within the hour, I was in the ophthalmology clinic at Perth royal infirmary and was diagnosed with glaucoma.
Dr Cobb, who became my consultant, saw me at Perth royal that afternoon and has been absolutely incredible ever since. She explained to me that I was very lucky: if I had continued undiagnosed, I would probably have had another decade or so of eyesight and then would have woken up one day, in my mid-30s, unable to see. There would have been nothing she could have done for me; I would have been blind. The glaucoma was totally symptomless, and it is irreversible—those are the real dangers.
Shockat Adam
I always recall a patient of mine who was diagnosed with glaucoma at a very late stage. She came into the practice with a wad of cash and said, “Give me the best glasses and lenses you have, so I can see again.” Unfortunately she had glaucoma, and the vision was lost. There was nothing that money could buy.
Brian Leishman
That is not the first time I have heard that. I have another optician friend, who said that that has been a regular occurrence in his career. Someone may not know that they have glaucoma until it is too late.
I was prescribed eye drops. I went through a few options, with not much success, until I ended up on three different drops: bimatoprost, brinzolamide and brimonidine. All three go in my left eye at bedtime and then again the next morning, and then just brimonidine in my right eye at bedtime and again the next morning.
My right eye needs only one set of drops because it has been operated on. It has had a trabeculectomy—I hope that pronunciation was close enough. The operation was needed to save the eyesight in my right eye. It was an operation under general anaesthetic to make an incision in my eyeball to allow pressure to disperse and not attack my optic nerve. After an overnight stay in hospital, I wore an eye patch for a week, with no bending over for a fortnight and four weeks off work. I had a good report from Dr Cobb, and have had eye drops twice a day and twice-yearly check-ups at hospitals since. I really am lucky.
As well as my thanks to my consultant, I want to record my appreciation for my optician, Eddie Russell of Norman Salmoni, who provides regular check-ups between hospital visits, and for the outstanding care that his practice provides.
All that goes to show that the NHS really is our greatest invention. Personally, I reject the language of the NHS being broken. It is not broken; it is underfunded. The staff deserve more. They deserve the very best.
I cannot emphasise enough how important it is to get tested. Testing could be the difference between retaining one’s eyesight and not. I thank hon. Members for permitting me to share a bit about my ongoing glaucoma journey. Glaucoma cannot ever be cured, but we can try to manage the decline somewhat.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second time today, Mr Pritchard—I am getting a liking for it. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing the debate. As my party’s health spokesperson, issues such as glaucoma are of great importance to me—the statistics show its prevalence. I would not have thought there would ever be a case in which the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) would be lost for words, no matter what might happen; that is meant as a compliment, by the way.
As it is Glaucoma Awareness Week, there is no greater time to consider this issue. I will start by describing the scale of the issue in Northern Ireland specifically, because that is what I want to highlight. Queen’s University undertook a study that found a 2.83% prevalence of glaucoma in 3,221 people aged 50-plus—I understand that rate is normal, compared with the rest of the United Kingdom—and that around two-thirds of those were undiagnosed. There is an issue to address: those who are undiagnosed. Northern Ireland currently has some 18,000 confirmed glaucoma cases. As I have said to the hon. Member for Leicester South—he knows this story—although my dad is dead and gone, when he was alive he lost his eyesight to glaucoma. Unfortunately—they were probably just not as good at managing it in times past—it crept up on him, and he lost his eyesight. My dad was very fortunate to have my mother to look after him, in every sense of the word. They loved each other greatly. It was never a burden to my mum to look after my dad. That was really important.
I was fortunate to secure a debate on glaucoma and community optometry just last year. The hon. Member for Leicester South made a fantastic contribution to that debate. I greatly admire his knowledge of optometry, and the job he did before he was elected. When he comes to these debates he brings that fount of knowledge, experience and examples, which we all appreciate. There is such an important link between our opticians and healthcare specialists who treat eye conditions such as glaucoma. Data from Specsavers highlighted that in 2023, some 30,000 referrals for glaucoma were made for people aged 40 to 60. Not all those people were diagnosed as such, but the fact was that there were some concerns, and the treatment for them was able to start.
I have some stats for Northern Ireland that I want to quote for the record. Regarding the adoption of innovative glaucoma technologies, such as iStent inject, two of the biggest eye surgery hospitals in the country—Altnagelvin area hospital and Belfast city hospital—now routinely offer such combined procedures to comorbid glaucoma and cataract patients. The focus is now on making sure that no glaucoma patients miss out on the opportunity to intervene in glaucoma at the time of routine elective cataract surgery. The advances are incredible at this moment in time.
As of March 2025—which has just passed—almost 50,000 people were waiting for ophthalmology outpatient appointments in Northern Ireland. That is a massive number, and the Minister in the Assembly back home really needs to take that on. In Northern Ireland, the prevalence of glaucoma in people aged over 50 is, as I said, comparable to other parts of the United Kingdom, and indeed other parts of Europe. The figures that we have seem to be relevant wherever we are in the United Kingdom, but also across the whole of Europe. Interestingly, around two thirds of people with glaucoma were not aware of their glaucoma, as the hon. Member for Leicester South said in his introduction. If that is generalisable from the study sample to the whole population, that rate is higher than in other comparable populations.
Glaucoma is the second most common reason for certification as sight impaired, or severely sight impaired, in Northern Ireland. On average, 13.1% of certifications are caused by glaucoma, although that varies a lot year on year. I want to tell the Minister what we are doing itenn Northern Ireland in relation to the iStent inject surgery. That is a massive, technological, medical, modern way forward. It is good to be able to report it in this debate.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Under the 10-year plan, the Government want to invest in the NHS and bring services into the community. There are examples of that around our country, and maybe in Northern Ireland. There are trusts in London with diagnostic hubs that better manage glaucoma. There are regions with community glaucoma services that have reported halving hospital referrals, improving access and saving millions. There are also pilots, such as in the Royal Devon’s Nightingale model, that reduce appointments from two hours to 30 minutes. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that investing, reorganising and having a joined-up service with advanced detection will save money for the Government and save people’s sight?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. To be fair, the hon. Member for Leicester South was clear that there is an opportunity to advance greatly under the 10-year NHS plan to solve the problems. There are better ways of doing things and reducing waiting times.
We are fortunate to have two hospitals in Northern Ireland, the Altnagelvin area hospital and Belfast city hospital, where new treatment is starting and also where cataract operations can take place. Cataract operations also take place in Downe hospital, just outside my constituency. Optometrists have a key role to play because they can spot the early signs of glaucoma during routine tests. For patients with stable glaucoma, optometrists have a role in monitoring eye health and helping them manage their condition.
Ahead of this debate I was in touch with Glaukos on the steps that can be taken both nationally and within the devolved Administrations to improve the outcomes for those diagnosed with glaucoma. In his intervention, the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) made it clear that there could be great advances in glaucoma and for eye care and doing things better. Glaukos has educated me on the iStent injects that are implanted during cataract surgery or in a stand-alone procedure—the very things that the hon. Member for Leicester South referred to. These little stents unblock drainage and lower eye pressure with minimal risk or cost. Perhaps that is something the Minister could commit to looking at and engaging with as a means of treatment for those with glaucoma.
The Minister is always well versed on the technologies and advances. I know that when he replies to this debate he will give us some encouragement. I should say I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), in his place. I love doing debates with him. He and I share a passion for the subject matter. He brings a wealth of knowledge to these debates and I thank him for that.
To conclude, there are thousands and thousands of people living with the condition, but there will be thousands more to come. That is what we want to try to address. Ensuring affordable and accessible treatment is imperative. As I previously stated, and as the hon. Member for Leicester South who introduced the debate has stated, we must not underestimate the impact that our local opticians have in detecting these kinds of issues early on. I therefore urge people out there to prioritise their eye health while they can.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this important debate on glaucoma.
In my previous role in the NHS I was part of a working group made up of consultants, GPs, high street optometrists and others. The group was set up to create a primary care eye care service in NHS Ayrshire and Arran. Eyecare Ayrshire was set up as part of a redirection strategy to ensure that people were accessing the services most appropriate to their symptoms. It promotes that the best person to see for minor eye problems is a local optometrist, a high street optician, rather than attending a GP or A&E. The service has been very successful and continues to operate. Really importantly, it directs people to go to the optometrist. That can be vital if there are any other underlying or undiagnosed eye conditions. As we have heard today, early intervention can be crucial.
Last week I attended the event hosted by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) with Glaucoma UK and Glaukos, which did a great job of raising awareness of one of the leading causes of irreversible blindness. As we have heard, over 700,000 people live with glaucoma in the UK, yet over half do not know it and it is predicted to rise by 44% over the next 20 years. It is vital that we embrace early intervention and improve access to services and treatment before serious deterioration.
By 2050 the cost of blindness is estimated to be £33.5 billion, putting immense pressure on the NHS as well as those suffering from blindness. There are treatment options, as we have heard today, for those suffering from glaucoma, including eye drops, laser treatments or traditional surgery. Glaucoma UK recommends that optometrists receive improved education and training on combining those procedures to ensure that patients get the best care possible.
It is also important to acknowledge the disparity of services across the UK. In NHS Ayrshire and Arran, the total number of people living with sight loss is 1,000 over the national average. That is obviously a real concern. We need to make sure that people are aware of the need to have routine check-ups, and of the services available to them. Over the years there have been many redirection campaigns to highlight services, and it may be time to reintroduce that approach. I know from my experience in the NHS that identifying these diseases early is key to preventing them from becoming much worse. I encourage the Government to consider the recommendations highlighted.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this important debate and raising awareness of a life-changing condition following Glaucoma Awareness Week.
The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) outlined his personal experience, and particularly how regular checks are important as the condition is symptomless in its early stages. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for sharing his dad’s experience. And the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) brought her NHS expertise to the debate, so I feel slightly underqualified to be completely honest. Ironically, given that we are talking about eyesight, I did not print my speech in a larger font, so please bear with me.
Millions of people across the country are affected by sight loss, and hundreds of thousands of people have glaucoma. If untreated, glaucoma can have a profoundly detrimental effect on people’s quality of life and long-term health, yet one in every 10 people on an NHS waiting list is waiting for their first ophthalmology appointment. Ophthalmology waiting lists grew longer and longer under the previous Conservative Government, who oversaw a doubling of waiting times in England alone. Meanwhile, more than half a million people are waiting for follow-up appointments. As our population continues to age, demand is likely only to increase.
As with so many conditions, early intervention is key. One elderly patient in my constituency was sent for an urgent referral following a routine eye test. He was warned that if he was not seen in the next few weeks, he was at risk of losing sight in the affected eye. The appointment came through in time, only for it to be cancelled, along with the replacement appointment. By the time he was able to see a specialist, it was too late and he lost sight in that eye. This entirely avoidable incident demonstrates how it is crucial that we address the chronic shortage of ophthalmologists to deliver the care that people deserve.
A starting point would be to deal with the broken training system. Far too few specialist training spaces are offered, despite many graduates being keen to work in the field. A little over a decade ago, there were four and a half applicants per training place, and it has surged to 10 applicants per place. It is simply not good enough.
How will the Government deliver the ophthalmology workforce we need? In particular, will they look to reduce the extraordinary shortage of training places in this and other specialties? Will they consider publishing waiting list data for follow-up care? Transparency on waiting lists for follow-up appointments, not just for initial referrals, would help patients to make informed choices about the care they need and would illustrate the postcode lottery in NHS eye care.
Liberal Democrats know that fixing the front door of our NHS is crucial to achieving better outcomes on glaucoma and all conditions that impact sight. That means sorting out primary care and community services, so I am pleased to see that the Government agreed with that aim in the 10-year plan published last week. Fixing primary care means investing in local GP surgeries and giving everyone the right to see a GP within seven days, or 24 hours if they are in urgent need, and providing 8,000 more GPs to deliver that. It means ensuring that everyone over 70 and everyone with a long-term condition has access to a named GP.
As the hon. Member for Leicester South reminded me in our Opposition day debate on primary care in the autumn, optometry is a critical part of primary care and needs to be delivered locally. For glaucoma specifically, that means investing in eye services in the community and empowering the training of trusted, qualified optometrists to manage the condition. Optometrists are already in place to manage glaucoma across Wales and Scotland, so we have a strong base of evidence to inform that work. Research suggests that the additional training required is rewarding for optometrists, for the ophthalmologists training them and, more importantly, for the patients they are treating.
However, in England, glaucoma services vary drastically, depending on which integrated care board area people live in. With major organisational changes to the ICB structure under way, this could be an opportunity to standardise a better, more consistent, community-focused approach. Could the Minister set out how the Government will encourage true partnership between qualified optometrists and ophthalmologists, delivering care in the community wherever possible? What hurdles stand in the way of such an arrangement?
Finally, we need to ensure the highest possible uptake of regular eye tests so that we can catch this condition early and prevent damage to people’s sight. As somebody who has a close relative with glaucoma, I have my eyes tested regularly. It is not too unpleasant, and it gives me the reassurance I need that I am not currently developing the condition. The number of sight tests, including domiciliary visits, has still not recovered since the pandemic.
Given the scale of the challenges of ensuring that people are tested, of treating them when glaucoma is found and of training sufficient staff in a context of surging demand, the Government should produce a dedicated eye health strategy, as advocated by groups such as the Thomas Pocklington Trust. There clearly needs to be substantial work across the sector to strengthen eye care as part of primary care and better incorporate optometrists, to repair a broken training arrangement and to ensure that people get the eye tests they need.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), who is a colleague both in my region and in primary care. His powerful testimonies about patients and what they suffer are exactly why he is an asset to this House. He presents information that we all need to hear when we debate health issues.
The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) spoke about the fantastic Perth royal infirmary. It is lovely to hear a success story. We do not hear enough success stories about the NHS, because the good news, despite what we hear in this place, is that the NHS broadly does a fantastic job for many patients, and we should never forget that. The experience he described is what we want to see across the country when it comes to dealing with glaucoma.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is nothing if not tenacious and consistent because, when I checked the records, I saw that in April 2024 he introduced a similar debate to raise this cause and to make sure people hear about it. He is a credit to his party and the people he represents when it comes to raising health issues.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) talked about NHS working groups. I have worked in places that have had PEARS—primary eye care acute referral schemes. Patients love them, GPs love them and I think the opticians and those who work in the services love them too, because they allow better joined-up care, which is what we all want.
Glaucoma is actually a spectrum of conditions. Ocular hypertension affects 3% to 5% of people in the UK aged over 40. Primary open angle glaucoma affects about 2% of people in the UK older than 40, but when we break that down, it affects 1% of people aged 40, 3% of people aged 60 and about 8% of people aged 80. With a growing elderly population, we can see why this is a problem. Primary angle closure glaucoma affects about 0.4%. There are also some rarer ones, but the point is that glaucoma affects about 700,000 people, who could potentially go blind.
Are the Government considering the call of the Association of Optometrists, and it is a simple one, to commission a national glaucoma pathway? I ask the Minister to think about that.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on glaucoma is very clear:
“If any of the following risk factors for glaucoma are present, consider advising people to have their eyes examined by an optometrist…Older age. People 60 years of age or older should be examined every 2 years until they are 70 years of age, when they should be examined annually—free examination is available through the NHS…Family history of glaucoma. People older than 40 years of age who have a first-degree relative (parent, sibling, or child) with open angle glaucoma should be examined annually—free examination is available through the NHS…Ethnicity. People older than 40 years of age who are of black African family origin should be examined…Certain people are entitled to…NHS-funded eye examinations by optometrists…These include people …With a family history…as described above…Aged 60 years or older…In receipt of certain benefits”
or
“Who have been advised by an ophthalmologist”
to have a follow-up. This is really important, as we have heard today, when we are talking about awareness. People should get their eyes checked, check their availability and, if they are 60 or over, make sure they understand that they can get their eyes checked through the NHS.
This issue was raised in a debate at the end of April 2024, just a few weeks before the election. It is worth looking at what was said by the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), who went on to be a Health Minister:
“I have a degree of frustration with the Government’s approach to the issue. Given the statistics, I would like to see the Minister commit today to turbocharge access to ophthalmology services and make eye tests more commonplace for people who do not routinely test their eyes, but also to get people access to eye care services once conditions have been diagnosed.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 51WH.]
And he finished his remarks by saying:
“We will support the Government in the remaining weeks or months that they have to get this policy right, but mark my words: the next Labour Government see this as a priority and we will act.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2024; Vol. 749, c. 53WH.]
Now that we are one year into this Government, it is worth checking the record to see whether that priority has been given.
Forgive me for being a bit of a pedant, but I checked Hansard to see how many times glaucoma has been mentioned. There have been four mentions since the election, only two of which were in the context of health. One mention was made by the hon. Member for Leicester South last month, and the other was made by the hon. Member for Strangford in a debate on rare retinal disease. That does not seem like it is a priority.
I am being a bit of a pedant, but I also looked through the 10-year plan again, and there were two mentions of eye care, one of which was “ophthalmology” and the other was “optometrists”. The Minister will argue that it is a strategy document, but it raises the question: what is the plan for glaucoma?
The last Government concentrated on several areas. These included early detection and greater use of community optometry, with an emphasis on the importance of routine tests. There was £500 million a year for sight tests and optical vouchers, supporting more than 12.5 million NHS sight tests provided free of charge. The budget was demand-led rather than limited by volume, and the public were encouraged through campaigns and social media advertising to get tested. Integrated care boards expanded local services for minor and urgent eye care, pre- and post-cataract checks and glaucoma referral filtering. The post-covid backlog recovery programme also received £8 billion.
I am getting death stares from you, Mr Pritchard, so I will move on to my main points and my questions for the Minister.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
The shadow Minister needs to be brief. He has had five minutes, and I gave six minutes to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. I will give the shadow Minister another 30 seconds.
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
To be clear, it is important that the Chair is both neutral and fair in the distribution of time.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Thank you, Mr Pritchard. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.
I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) for securing this important debate to raise awareness of glaucoma. I enjoyed our meeting some time ago, when we discussed this and other related issues at length. I am keen to ensure that we keep that dialogue going, and not just in this Chamber. This is a timely debate as it follows Glaucoma Awareness Week, which ran from 30 June to 6 July.
Losing one’s eyesight can be devastating, and I pay tribute to the charities that do so much to help people live with glaucoma or to research a cure, such as Glaucoma UK, the Glaucoma Foundation and the Royal National Institute of Blind People, to name just a few.
Last week, the Prime Minister set out our plan to get the NHS back on its feet and fit for the future. Underpinning our plan are three big shifts: from hospital to community, from analogue to digital and from sickness to prevention. The plan was developed through extensive engagement with the public, patients and staff, including the eye care sector. All three shifts are relevant to preventing and managing conditions such as glaucoma in all parts of the country. More tests and scans delivered in the community, and better joint working between services, will support the management of conditions, including glaucoma, closer to home.
I turn to glaucoma detection. This Government take glaucoma very seriously, as it is one of the main causes of sight loss. It is a time-sensitive condition, and early detection and treatment can help to slow down or prevent vision loss. I acknowledge the vital role played by community optometry in protecting people’s eye health across the country. That includes the hon. Member for Leicester South, who of course is an optometrist and has significant expertise in this sector. I also pay tribute to all the hon. Members who have contributed to this debate with such passion and conviction.
Sight tests play a vital role in the early detection of glaucoma. Most glaucoma patients are identified through routine sight tests. It is not possible to “feel” glaucoma; it does not cause any symptoms and the eye pressure does not always cause pain. That is why regular sight tests are so essential, so that conditions such as glaucoma can be diagnosed and treated as early as possible.
It is recommended that everyone should have a sight test every two years, and more often if it is considered clinically necessary. The NHS invests over £600 million annually in the provision of sight tests and optical vouchers, and high street opticians deliver more than 13 million NHS sight tests annually, which are free of charge for eligible patients. NHS sight tests are widely available across the country for millions of people and those who are entitled to receive them include children, individuals over the age of 60, individuals on income-related benefits and individuals diagnosed with glaucoma or considered to be at risk of glaucoma.
We understand that some people might not prioritise sight tests, compared with other healthcare, or they might not know that sight tests are recommended every two years. That is why we always look for opportunities to remind the public through social media. I was pleased that the Department supported Glaucoma Awareness Week and highlighted the importance of regular sight tests through our social media platform last week. I will also take this opportunity to urge anyone who might be watching or reading this debate, “Visit your optician if you have not had a sight test in the last two years. Please check on the NHS website to see whether you are eligible for any help in paying for a test.” NHS sight test providers in the high street also display information about NHS sight test eligibility.
Some high street optical practices are also being commissioned by integrated care boards to provide glaucoma referral refinement services. Moving more care into the community is one of the key priorities in our 10-year plan; we want to see care happening as locally as possible for patients. Where a patient has been identified as having raised eye pressure, local glaucoma referral refinement schemes provide additional tests to confirm whether a referral into secondary care is absolutely necessary. These schemes can save patients time and worry, and reduce unnecessary referrals, while freeing up space for others who need specialist attention in hospital. More than 70% of ICBs currently have some coverage of referral refinement in place.
For those patients who do need to be seen in secondary care, it is vital that they have access to timely diagnosis and any clinically necessary treatment. We have wasted no time in getting to work on cutting NHS waiting lists and ensuring that people have the best possible experience during their care. We promised change and we have delivered early, with a reduction in the list of over 230,000 pathways, including ophthalmology. The waiting list has been reduced by over 24,000 patients since July 2024; it has fallen from 606,819 to 582,385 as of February 2025. In addition, we have exceeded our pledge to deliver an additional 2 million operations, scans and appointments, having now delivered over 4 million additional appointments.
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister will probably be aware of the Full Fact and Sky News report that examined the speed at which appointments are being delivered. The Government have indeed delivered 4 million appointments, but under the last Conservative Government there were 5 million appointments within a similar time period, so we are actually seeing a slowdown in appointments. How will that affect people with eye conditions or other health conditions?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. In our manifesto, we of course set a target of 2 million additional appointments within the first year of a Labour Government, and we have delivered 4 million. The key thing is to ensure that we get people off the waiting list. Regarding the figure of 5 million that he referred to, I do not know whether there was more activity, but somehow it was not helping to reduce the waiting lists, because we saw the waiting lists rise consistently. The key metric is, of course, the waiting list being reduced, and I am very pleased to say that, when it comes to eyecare, a reduction of 24,000 patients has been delivered since July 2024.
That marks a vital first step to delivering on the commitment that 92% of patients will wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to consultant-led treatment, in line with the NHS constitutional standard, by March 2029.
In addition to making progress on reducing waiting lists, we recognise the challenges facing ophthalmology services as one of the largest out-patient specialities in the NHS, and demand is set only to increase due to the ageing population. NHS England has worked with 11 ICBs to test a new way of delivering eyecare that aims to reduce pressure on hospital eye services.
The new model is emblematic of our shift from analogue to digital, as it uses IT connectivity between primary and secondary care services to improve the referral and triage of patients, with patient data and images being assessed by clinicians to determine whether patients need a secondary care appointment. It is called the single point of access approach. The SPOA approach reduces unnecessary hospital appointments, reduces the time from referral to treatment and allows more patients to be managed in the community. The ICBs testing the SPOA model have consistently demonstrated a reduction in unnecessary secondary care appointments and a significant reduction in wait times, both in time to treatment and to follow-up care. NHS England is continuing to share the learning from the accelerator sites for the SPOA with ICBs.
I want to see more ICBs adopting that approach for the benefit of patients, including those with suspected or diagnosed glaucoma. I believe that the SPOA has tremendous unharnessed potential and is a great example of how, by harnessing technology, we can improve the way the overall system works and facilitate the interface between primary and secondary care that we know is at the heart of so many of the challenges that we face across our health and care system.
Looking at the shift from sickness to prevention, although glaucoma cannot be cured, if it is caught early, treatment can prevent sight loss. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence plays a crucial role in evaluating new medicines, medical devices and other technologies to determine their clinical and cost-effectiveness before recommending them for NHS use. NICE has published guidelines on the diagnosis and management of glaucoma. It has also published guidance on interventional procedures that provide recommendations on whether glaucoma-related procedures are safe and effective enough for wider use in the NHS.
A number of treatments are available for glaucoma, including eye drops, laser treatment or surgery, aiming to lower eye pressure and prevent or slow down optic nerve damage to reduce the risk of sight loss. Although there are treatments for glaucoma, it is a lifelong condition that requires regular monitoring. Historically, that has taken place in hospital but, in line with our aim to move more care from hospital to the community, there is no reason why, when clinically appropriate, that activity could not be undertaken outside of hospital. We know that some ICBs are already commissioning glaucoma monitoring in the community.
We must also recognise that, if diagnosed late, glaucoma can sadly lead to irreversible sight loss. The hon. Member for Leicester South spoke passionately from clinical experience about the significant impact that sight loss can have on an individual. Emotional support is therefore vital. There are various resources that aim to improve the support, including mental health support, available to patients through their sight loss journey. That includes NHS England’s patient support toolkit for commissioners and providers and the RNIB’s 2023 patient support pathway. Those sit alongside talking therapies and psychological therapies, which are widely available and to which patients can refer themselves directly. We are also taking steps to update the form for certificates of visual impairment to improve the signposting of patients to local support services.
Finally, I recognise the potential for research and innovation to help us to understand sight loss and to develop new treatments, including for glaucoma. The Department for Health and Social Care funds eyecare research through the National Institute for Health and Care Research. NIHR infrastructure funding provides investment in research expertise, specialist facilities, a research workforce and services that help to support and deliver research studies through a range of clinical areas, including eyecare research. That includes the NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, which received funding of almost £22 million for five years from 1 December 2022, and is solely dedicated to eyecare research. The Moorfields BRC has been key in advancing research through a range of studies and clinical innovations in the glaucoma field. One of its flagship projects is a large-scale trial investigating the use of vitamin B3 to slow the progression of glaucoma. Recruitment for that study is ongoing at multiple sites across England.
As I have set out, the Government take glaucoma extremely seriously. Community optometry continues to play a vital role in preventing glaucoma. We are committed to improving eyecare services and patient outcomes, to reducing avoidable sight loss and, in particular, to harnessing the power of technology to drive those improvements forward. I also hope that this debate has further helped to raise awareness and may prompt a few more sight tests as a result. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Leicester South on securing this important debate.
Shockat Adam
It has been a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank each and every hon. Member for their contribution. I think we have achieved the first objective, which was to raise awareness of glaucoma, and we should keep the conversation going. As my neighbour, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, we have an ageing population. If nothing is done, very soon there will be more than half a million people walking around with this condition. That is why it was pleasing to hear that the Minister remembered our meeting, which was early on in our tenure; I can assure him we will continue to have that meeting every time he sees me about eye health.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people in the Public Gallery: we have people from the Worshipful Company of Spectacle Makers, the General Optical Council, the College of Optometrists and Glaukos —my apologies if I have forgotten anybody there. We must utilise optometry as the primary eyecare provider that it is, and treat it as such, equivalent to how we treat our GPs and pharmacy colleagues. We need a statutory framework to regulate the whole process of detection, monitoring and treating glaucoma. Working collectively with the optical and ophthalmic bodies and the Government, we can surely do our best to keep people from suffering preventable sight loss and the devasting impact that that has on their lives.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered glaucoma awareness.
Transport
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
A blind resident in my constituency, Marilyn, relies on her guide dog and the local bus network to live independently. However, changes under the Government’s £1.7 million active travel grant, including floating bus stops on Rifford Road in my constituency, force her to cross fast, bidirectional cycle lanes just to board a bus. That goes against safety advice from the Guide Dogs organisation and the Royal National Institute of Blind People and is causing real distress. Does the Secretary of State agree that Government-funded infrastructure must be safe and accessible for everyone, and will she commit to reviewing active travel guidance to consider the role of floating bus stops that put blind and visually impaired people at risk?
Simon Lightwood
During the passage of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill in the other place, we committed to writing to all local transport authorities asking them to pause the installation of a specific kind of floating bus stop, where passengers get off the bus straight into a cycle lane or an island. That is because they have been identified through research as problematic for people, particularly those with vision issues.
[Official Report, 26 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 1230.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood):
Simon Lightwood
During the passage of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill in the other place, we committed to writing to all local transport authorities asking them to pause the installation of a specific kind of floating bus stop, where passengers get off the bus straight into a cycle lane. That is because they have been identified through research as problematic for people, particularly those with vision issues.
Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The infected blood inquiry has today published an additional report. This additional report reflects the unprecedented nature of the infected blood scandal and the thoroughness of the inquiry’s investigation. I am grateful to Sir Brian Langstaff for the dedicated work of the inquiry.
I would like to reiterate a wholehearted and unequivocal apology on behalf of current and previous Governments to every single person impacted by this scandal. Nothing of this nature can ever happen again. But for this to be anything more than words, more tangible action must be taken.
The UK Government committed £11.8 billion in the Budget, delivered on 30 October 2024, for the infected blood compensation scheme. As of 1 July, 460 people have received their compensation payment, totalling £326,184,985.78; 2,043 people have begun their compensation claim; and 616 people have received an offer of compensation, totalling £488,346,336.18.
The Government are committed to reflecting carefully on this report to ensure that people who are both infected and affected are properly supported in their search for justice for this devastating scandal and to receive the compensation they are due.
As the inquiry notes,
“it is the time now to build constructively on the scheme as it is and as it operates”.
During the hearings to the infected blood inquiry, I set out that there were matters that the Government are willing to consider in the light of any recommendations from the inquiry. The inquiry has today made a total of nine recommendations, many of which reflect the areas I have already committed to reviewing. These include: eligibility for the unethical research award; the 31 March 2025 cut-off date, beyond which people will not be able to register with support schemes as a bereaved partner; expanding the supplementary route for the affected; the position of persons infected with HIV before 1 January 1982 and the special category mechanism—and its equivalents.
The Government will now quickly work through these recommendations and work closely with the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to understand the delivery implications of any policy changes to the scheme.
In his concluding remarks, Sir Brian Langstaff said that
“it is fair to record that the Government has taken major steps”.
It is our firm commitment, as we reflect on the inquiry’s work, to continue to take steps and support the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to deliver compensation to victims of this scandal as quickly as possible.
Subject to parliamentary approval, my intention is to provide a further update to the House before the summer recess and a response to Sir Brian’s additional report of actions the Government are taking in due course.
[HCWS797]
Local Government Best Value
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Local Government and English Devolution (Jim McMahon)
I have previously stated when updating the House, this Government are committed to resetting the relationship with local and regional government, and we will take the action necessary to fix the foundations of local government and to support the sector to build its strength. Today, I am updating the House on the steps that we are taking in partnership to support three councils to recover and reform: Warrington borough council, the London borough of Tower Hamlets and Slough borough council.
Warrington borough council
On 8 May, I informed the House that I was satisfied, having considered the best value inspection report, that Warrington borough council is not complying with its best value duty. I proposed an intervention package to secure the council’s compliance with that duty and asked the council and others to provide representations by 22 May.
I received 18 representations, which I considered carefully. I remain satisfied that the council is not complying with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, leadership, governance, culture and use of resources. I have concluded that it is both necessary and expedient for me to exercise powers in the Local Government Act 1999 as I proposed, with minor amendments.
I have today issued directions under sections 15(5) and 15(6) of the 1999 Act to implement the proposed intervention package. This package, to be in place until 31 July 2030, comprises specific actions that the council is required to take, alongside the appointment of four ministerial envoys, some of whom will have powers to exercise functions, which are treated by the envoys as held in reserve. I am confident that this package will address the issues identified and is necessary for the council to secure compliance with its best value duty.
The success of Warrington is important for both its own benefit and that of the region, with its critical role in devolution, which offers significant opportunities to drive up growth, improve transport connectivity and build new homes, as well as raising living standards for its population.
I have appointed Sir Stephen Houghton as ministerial envoy and Harry Catherall, Carolyn Williamson and Phil Brookes as ministerial envoys with powers to exercise functions. I am confident that their extensive knowledge and experience will help deliver the necessary improvements for Warrington.
I have issued directions that, in summary, require the council to:
Prepare and agree an improvement and recovery plan within six months, with progress reports to the ministerial envoys after the first three months and ongoing reporting thereafter;
Undertake recruitment for a permanent appointment to lead the improvement work in the authority and progress against the directions;
Review, in the first 24 months, the roles and case for continuing with each subsidiary company and investment of the authority;
Work with the Local Government Association to agree a suitable time for a follow-up review to their 2024 corporate peer challenge; and
Fully co-operate with the ministerial envoys and take any reasonable action within the authority’s functions to prevent further failure, as reasonably determined by the ministerial envoys.
I expect the council to drive its own improvement, with the support, challenge and advice from the ministerial envoys. To safeguard the process, some ministerial envoys will have power to exercise the following functions, to be treated as held in reserve and intended to be used only as a last resort to ensure compliance with the best value duty:
To ensure that the council has the leadership, structures and systems in place to drive and sustain improvement, including governance and scrutiny of strategic decision making, oversight of financial management, and the appointment, dismissal and performance management of senior and statutory officer positions;
To address the root causes of Warrington’s challenges by strengthening the authority’s approach to commercial decision making, property management, procurement and the management of commercial projects;
To support financial sustainability by closing short and long-term budget gaps, reducing reliance on high-risk commercial income, and strictly limiting further borrowing and capital spending; and
To enable transformation of the authority’s operating model and services to deliver value for money and long-term financial resilience;
The ministerial envoys’ appointments and directions take effect from today. The ministerial envoys will provide their first report in six months, with further reports every six months or as agreed with the envoys.
I will review at the appropriate time the directions and the ministerial envoys’ roles, to ensure that Warrington has the support required to accelerate recovery and protect the public purse. Subject to clear and sustained evidence of improvement, certain functions may be returned to the council ahead of the expiration of the directions.
As with other statutory interventions led by my Department, the council will meet the costs of the ministerial envoys and provide reasonable amenities and services and administrative support. The envoys’ fees are published on gov.uk. I am assured that this provides value for money given the expertise being brought and the scale of the challenge.
Tower Hamlets
Statutory intervention in the London borough of Tower Hamlets began on 22 January and is centred on a team of ministerial envoys working in partnership with the council to oversee and support the required improvement work. Today I am publishing the ministerial envoys’ first report, received in May, which identifies progress in a number of key areas. These include reconfiguration of the council’s transformation and assurance board, which is already drawing on the external expertise and challenge of its members, the creation of outline plans for continuous improvement and programmes for cultural change and political mentoring, and recruitment of a permanent strategic director of change who will lead the council’s improvement work going forward.
Although I welcome this early progress at the council, I share the ministerial envoys’ concerns that wholesale political and staff buy-in and involvement in the council’s improvement journey is not yet in place. This report clearly sets out the ministerial envoys’ expectations for further progress and I expect to see the council’s improvement work being embedded into “business as usual” council practices in the coming months, along with clear evidence that the political and officer leadership are gripping and proactively driving change.
When I met the council and ministerial envoys, I set out that the ministerial envoy model is a new approach to statutory intervention that reflects the Government’s genuine desire to work in partnership with the sector; that the council should treat the ministerial envoys as they would Ministers, and though we hope and expect improvements to be made, if this is not secured the option of escalating intervention to commissioners remained.
I look forward to receiving its progress report later this summer.
Slough
Slough has been in intervention since December 2021, and I extended the intervention in November 2024 for a further two years. I am today publishing the commissioners’ latest report, received in April. It highlights progress in a number of areas, including the appointment of a permanent corporate leadership team, improvements in audit and scrutiny functions.
However, with the intervention three and a half years in, a clearer articulation of the future vision is still required and a substantial transformation programme still needs to be designed and delivered, including a target operating model to evidence that the council can live within its means. It is clear that the council must now accelerate its development and it is vital that officers and members continue to work together to deliver the full range of reforms required to meet the best value duty. I look forward to receiving the commissioners’ update in September.
Conclusion
I am committed to working in partnership with these councils to provide the necessary support to ensure their compliance with the best value duty and the high standards of governance that local residents expect.
I will deposit in the Library of the House copies of the documents referred to, which are being published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.
[HCWS796]
Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1 Report
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government inherited a justice system in crisis with huge delays to hearings and victims left in limbo waiting to see justice done. To bear down on the backlog and deliver swifter justice for victims, I commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to undertake a review of criminal courts.
I welcome the work that Sir Brian has done on the first part of his review, focused on longer-term reform to criminal courts. I look forward to the second part, which will consider the efficiency and timeliness of court processes, through charge to case completion.
I am grateful to Sir Brian for all his work up to this point. I will place a copy of the part 1 report in the Library of the House.
This Government strongly agree with Sir Brian’s finding that the criminal justice system this Government inherited was broken. As of March 2025, the outstanding caseload in the Crown court is at a record high of 76,957. This is over double the number of open cases at any point in 2019.
Justice delayed is justice denied, and as projections in Sir Brian’s report suggest, by March 2029 open cases could reach new heights of 105,000 if we do not act.
Sir Brian is right that a crisis of this scale requires action of equal magnitude. Greater financial investment on its own is not enough: radical and systemic reform is needed.
I welcome the bold and ambitious recommendations Sir Brian has put forward in his report. Measures such as restricting the right to elect to retain more cases in the magistrates’ courts and removing juries from some Crown court trials could help to reduce waiting times for victims and make inroads into the caseload.
I am committed to turning the tide on the Crown court backlog by the end of this Parliament. A key test for any new measures is the extent to which they will make a meaningful difference to our caseload. We must create a more sustainable criminal justice system, in which victims and the public can have confidence.
We will carefully consider Sir Brian’s proposals in more detail before setting out the Government’s full response to the report in the autumn.
[HCWS795]
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.
Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee takes note of the initial proposed Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to all three Motions in my name on the Order Paper at the same time. I am pleased to open the debate. The energy national policy statements set out the Government’s policy for the delivery of energy infrastructure and provide the legal framework for planning decisions on nationally significant infrastructure projects. In 2024, the Chancellor announced a review of the current suite of NPSs to provide clarity for industry and stake- holders on the Government’s clean energy superpower mission.
This Government have been clear that the answers to the challenges around energy security, affordability and sustainability point in the same direction: to clean energy. For this reason, we have reviewed all the NPSs and determined that the existing overarching NPS for energy, EN-1, the NPS for renewable electricity, EN-3, and the NPS for electricity networks, EN-5, should be amended to reflect the policies set out in the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan. This was published in December 2024 and supports the investment required to build the infrastructure needed to accelerate to net zero.
The suite of energy NPSs—EN-1 to EN-5—were updated recently and published in January 2024. Most changes made to the NPSs in 2025 are therefore minor changes to enhance the clarity of the guidance. Some material updates have been made which pertain to policy, and I will outline them for debate.
EN-1 sets out the overarching need case and general assessment principles. The narrative of EN-1 has been updated to reflect the publication of the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan. This reflects that all low-carbon NSIPs benefit from critical national priority status, with a presumption in favour of consent. This will include those relevant for clean power 2030. Energy from waste projects will no longer benefit from the critical national priority policy, as they do not meet the definition of a clean power technology in the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan.
The Government recently made legislation to reintroduce onshore wind into the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime. This provides an appropriate route for nationally significant projects over 100 megawatts in England to seek planning consent. These projects are of a scale and complexity that local impacts need to be carefully balanced against the national benefits and meeting the UK’s wider decarbonisation goals. To support the assessment and determination of onshore wind projects entering the nationally significant infrastructure project regime, the Government have included a new section within EN-3, addressing the impacts, considerations and other matters specific to onshore wind.
This Government are committed to removing barriers to the deployment of offshore wind and acknowledge the importance of this industry to our clean power 2030 goals. One issue that has recently arisen is inter-array wake effects. This is why, at the design stage for a proposed offshore wind farm, we propose in EN-3 that an assessment of inter-array wake effects is recommended to take place between applicants and those of consented and operational wind farms to inform and support the consideration of potential mitigations.
For EN-5, new references to the centralised strategic network plan—CSNP—will provide a holistic plan across the whole transmission network, onshore and offshore. This will enable co-ordinated, efficient network development and ensure access to reliable, clean and affordable electricity. The CSNP will provide an independent, long-term plan out to 2050 on how the transmission network should develop to meet our energy security and decarbonisation goals. Endorsement through the NPS would mean that the need case and technology type for projects that adhere to the recommendations of the CSNP do not have to be examined in the consenting process. The CSNP would establish the need case and technological solution. Removing this from the consenting process could accelerate the pre-consenting stage and reduce project-level risk.
In anticipation of a public consultation and publication of the electricity transmission design principles—ETDP—by the National Energy System Operator, we propose amending EN-5 to reference the ETDP, setting out that developers should have regard to it, as relevant, in addition to the Holford and Horlock rules. This will apply only once the final version of the ETDP is published early in 2026 and will apply only to projects at the strategic front end stage of the design process or earlier.
The three draft NPSs were laid in Parliament and published for public consultation, alongside the appraisal of sustainability and habitats regulations assessment. The consultation closed on 29 May and nearly 200 responses were received. The Government are considering these and will issue a formal response and revise the draft energy NPSs as necessary. The Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee has also scrutinised the draft NPSs and published its report on these on Monday 7 July. The Government will similarly consider and respond to the committee’s conclusions, and revise the NPSs as appropriate.
The Government aim to lay the NPSs in their final form for a 21 sitting day consideration period later this year. I appreciate that there are likely to be many views on these changes, and I look forward to hearing all the contributions to today’s debate. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his introduction to the energy policy statements before the Committee. They are necessary and important. Energy security and lower bills for consumers can best be delivered by delivering clean power by 2030 on the pathway to net zero. This is a vital growth opportunity that will benefit communities across the country through good energy projects creating modern jobs and resilient connectivity. The fast-growing renewables sector will underpin manufacturing and supply chains. I look forward to the development of plans and announcements from Great British Energy, as well as the National Wealth Fund, to drive low-carbon investment.
Specifically, these policy statements bring forward Labour’s drive in the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan for clean power sources to produce at least 95% of the UK’s power generation by 2030. Is my noble friend the Minister in a position to give any indication of the responses to the consultation that closed at the end of May, which he mentioned?
I welcome the establishment of the presumption in favour of consent under draft EN-1 through the remit of critical national priority—CNP. This should speed up the planning process and strategically assess the pipeline of deployment of offshore wind, onshore wind and solar, with nuclear as a backbone and low-carbon hydrogen likely to play an increasingly significant role. Importantly, energy from waste is now excluded from CNP as it no longer meets the definition of clean power. It is important that EN-1 underscores the need for flexibility and resilience to deal with unexpected events and challenges from continuing climate change.
EN-3 is very important as it reintroduces onshore wind into the nationally strategic infrastructure projects regime at the threshold of more than 100 megawatts, although Wales will keep its own dedicated consent decision-making process. Could my noble friend the Minister give some reasoning behind why this level of threshold was decided on and its implications? Can he assure the Committee that the community obligations and benefits will be commensurate with the size and impact on communities? The guidance under EN-3 is only applicable in England. I am aware of a plethora of development applications, especially in Dumfries and Galloway in Scotland, where naturally high-lying exposed sites present multiple challenges not only to residents but environmentally and ecologically to catchment areas.
The challenge of upgrading the grid is contained in EN-5 and is arguably the more critical, with the need to integrate electrical power to all parts of the country, urban and rural, for development and growth. EN-5 introduces centralised strategic network plans, as my noble friend indicated, and the process to identify future infrastructure needs up to 2050. Here again, looking strategically across the network and project endorsements within CSNP, this should bring benefits of reduced risk and shorter planning timelines to development consent orders. This replaces the date order of applications for projects that led to long delays for connections.
As the nation powers up electricity to all new areas, down transition systems into the threads of distribution systems to local development projects, flexibility and future-proofing with spare capacity will be at a premium. Although the establishment of NESO has significantly improved the co-ordination of whole-system planning, delivery remains fragmented. Grid infrastructure is still likely to be developed reactively based on project applications rather than long-term system needs. Is my noble friend the Minister assured that centralised strategic network plans co-ordinate with regional development and local needs that endorse clusters which can be built around various local sector developments? They risk being constrained without future-proofing.
Although I welcome the establishment of the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority—NISTA—it is based in the Treasury. How will NISTA co-ordinate with NESO in the department, and the department with regional mayors and development plans, to avoid conflicting priorities and delivery through a lack of clear responsibility? What will be the Government’s arrangements and what will they look like? Is it recognised that NESO could be improved with a statutory duty mandate with investment authority based on power needs in line with its strategic mandate? The build ahead model must be embedded in law to give clear obligations to delivery bodies and regulators to plan infrastructure on forecasted clean energy demand, rather than on the sum and mix of existing applications. Would my noble friend the Minister agree that this could provide the impetus to attract investment to build the infrastructure clearly identified in the clean power plan?
The greatest fear is that investment could slip back into the Conservative-type switching on and off of government resources in the Treasury that has so bedevilled infrastructure development in the past, either with or without national industrial strategies. Can my noble friend confirm that the sensible multiyear detailed capital spending plans for each department will be maintained, providing certainty and confidence to businesses and investors? Can he give any indication of the outcome of the Green Book review to endorse proper co-ordination between departments and mayoral plans for their areas? I know that this is critical to areas such as mine on Merseyside, where the Mersey barrage has such great potential.
In more rural areas, and perhaps below the NPS threshold, transmission capacity has already been improving. Although district network operators—DNOs—were not designed for decentralised applications, there have been notable improvements in access, but there is still a backlog of projects. Although queue reforms are beginning to unlock developments, there still remain many zombie projects to be cleaned out of the process. The problem of grid balancing for renewables remains to be solved. Can my noble friend the Minister give an update on battery storage development and funding, which is so vital to flexibility in connectivity efficiency?
Finally, it is rewarding to see biodiversity protection and delivery, as well as climate change resilience and adaptation, enshrined in these policy documents at last. It is admirable that this is being adhered to in these statements and the Government’s array of strategy documents. However, there remains one that is vital to co-ordinate across departments: the land use framework. This should integrate with a joined-up approach and give co-ordination across all the demands for land required for infrastructure, as well as housing, transport and everything else needed to transform Britain. Can my noble friend the Minister make sure that this is neither too late nor the last aspect to be considered, as it should match ambition with delivery?
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register, as an adviser to the Kuwait Investment Office and, on the unremunerated side, as chairman of the Windsor Energy Group and several other similar groups.
I note with slight regret the departure of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, with whom we have had some exhilarating debates. That is rather sad for me; I think we were getting on pretty well, although he spent an entire column of Hansard ticking me off for allegedly being against Sizewell C, when he claimed that everyone else was in favour. I understand why he said that, but it is not quite true. I am, in fact, strongly in favour of further development of Sizewell C; I had something to do with the final kick-off for Sizewell B, which took 15 years to build. I am sure there is a good site at Sizewell C. What I am against is dumping on it another white elephant EPR of the design being painfully worked out at Hinkley, which has not worked in many other places, is vastly expensive, will probably take another 15 years to build, and will cost huge amounts of government money at a time when we do not have much.
It is perfectly clear that if the alternative, which I shall come to, involving a set of smaller products built by Rolls-Royce, GE Hitachi or anybody else, were placed on that prepared site of Sizewell C it would have enormous attraction for private investment. Several private investors—small modular reactor builders—have already indicated that it could be done in a quarter of the time and would involve far less uproar over planning and construction sites, because these things are fabricated mainly in factories. It would also greatly ease the huge pressures building up on the state, on the Government, on the consumer—who is already very hard pressed and paying some of the highest electricity prices in the world—and on the taxpayer. I cannot imagine or understand why it has been decided to use this site for a replica of Hinkley C.
The Secretary of State says, “Oh, it’s fine, we’re the driving force in promoting nuclear; it’s a very good thing”, and mentions a list of things including Hinkley and Sizewell C. All I can say on Hinkley is that we were supposed to cook turkeys with Hinkley electricity in 2017, so we are eight or nine years behind time. Originally, way back when it was first mooted under a Labour Government in 2007, believe it or not, it was supposed to cost £9 billion. The Tories continued to approve it through their period and the price gradually rose from £9 billion, to £17 billion, to £23 billion, to £30 billion and then to £33 billion—admittedly with inflation obviously operating on it. Now the figure is £46 billion, although I have heard a figure of £51 billion mentioned. The prices are out of control.
Is this a system that we want to replicate? Do we really believe that we will learn all the lessons of Hinkley C and other EPRs around the world that have not been at all successful and are of a design that even the French recognise as “unbuildable”, as the chief executive of EDF has said? Is that really the best use of this site? I think not. Having spent vast sums—£2.7 billion—preparing the site, we should think again about whether we want either to see carbon-free electricity flowing from that site in the next 10 years or to resign ourselves to the fact that it is very doubtful that it will be in time for the 2050 net-zero targets.
We will come back to that, but here we have this rather complicated suite of documents. We are debating EN-2, EN-3 and EN-5 today—and, of course, a revised system in EN-1; I see the logic of why we need to revise the base of the system each time we move forward into new areas. We have already discussed EN-7 in this Room, which was very useful in opening up, more widely than hitherto, the nuclear side and recognising more strongly the case for SMRs, AMRs and other new technology in nuclear power. All that should be fully applied in the next stage in nuclear development, including a very large number of SMRs. We need to move quickly because the order books of the world are filling up as many other nations move into the area of SMRs. The latest, I saw this morning, is Indonesia, which is ordering 20 new SMRs, which it believes will be in operation in 2028.
Nevertheless, here are all these documents. I will try to concentrate on EN-2, EN-3 and EN-5 although, inevitably, our questions spill over to EN-7, the response to EN-7 by the Government, and EN-6, although that is not actually available. The Printed Paper Office tells me that EN-6 has effect for listed nuclear projects capable of being deployed by the end of 2025 and that the Government are in the process of preparing a new NPS. We cannot debate what we have not seen, but that will obviously overlap with many of the things that we have seen in the three documents before us.
I will go through a list of what one welcomes and what one deplores. I welcome the comprehensive approach in every conceivable aspect of the construction, the environment and the impact. A tremendous amount of work has been done by very many minds, and it is very impressive.
I welcome that it is recognised that we need new gas infrastructure. Surely that does not fit into a net-zero world—but yes, it does. We will see in a moment that it is confirmed in these documents. I welcome that the NPSs take a cautious step forward on the whole issue of how on earth we get electricity to the place where it is needed, from the new sources to the new consumer markets, with the very sensitive issue of pylons and how it is carried and transmitted. I shall come to that in a moment.
I welcome the fact that EN-5, I think, openly recognises that only half of the total energy demand for electricity will be met by 2050—and the other half will presumably come from unabated or abated gas and oil. That opens the question of how on earth you handle the emissions from the unabated electricity, which is necessary for our modern electricity demand. The answer takes us into the world of carbon capture and storage, which again is covered and referred to fairly comprehensibly in one of the three documents—I forget which.
I notice the enthusiasm with which the Government, from the Secretary of State downwards, say that we are driving all these nuclear plans forward. I have to say that if he is driving the Hinkley C plan forward, he is a very slow learner driver indeed. As I have already remarked, it was meant to be ready in 2017, or even earlier.
Those are things that are good. Now I come to the rather negative side. Of course, the nuclear replacement programme is miserably slow. We are all waiting for the final decision on Sizewell C. It was rumoured that it was going to be announced while President Macron was here yesterday or today. I do not know whether that has happened—I have not heard anything on the radio or seen anything in the newspapers or on the television, but that was the idea.
We are moving really very slowly in the direction of the final decisions on the real momentum needed for small nuclear reactors, which are sweeping the world not as a diversion or an alternative but as the next stage on from the huge gigawatt plants that are being built at Hinkley and one or two other places in the world, one of which is apparently about to be built at Sizewell. That is yesterday’s scene; those are the technologies of yesterday. We need the technologies of today: hundreds of smaller modular reactors that will be built much more quickly and attract private money.
There is a lot of talk about how somehow private money can be induced into Sizewell, through the regulated asset bases; the more I try to work out why private investment will be attracted, the more complicated it becomes. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the latest story is about this, since one rumour is that nothing has been raised at all. Other rumours are that there has been some development in attraction from the regulated asset base income stream, paid for by consumers, years before anything is actually completed, let alone before a single kilowatt of electricity is generated and sold.
I deplore, though not quite so strongly, the handling of the hydrogen sector, which is interesting. It is recognised that hydrogen is not a fuel but a vector; it is a means of carrying power from one place to another and of encouraging local distribution. There is no reason why the considerable amount of electricity that, at present, is not generated in the night when not wanted, even when there is a good wind—of course, that costs the consumer a lot of money—should not be used to convert into hydrogen. The hydrogen can then be shipped, just as petrol is now in petrol trucks, to the destination markets where it is used.
That has another implication, which is interesting and not mentioned at all: if hydrogen is being shipped by truck to markets where it could be either fed into trucks or turned back into electricity, you will not need pylons. You will avoid all the agony and debate, which we are going to get stuck into, about where pylons should go, and areas they are going to go over, including
“some rural and coastal parts of the UK”
that
“have not been near sources of electricity generation”.
Those are bureaucratic, polite words for, as we know, some big pylons marching over beautiful areas. That will involve a long planning battle and be expensive, although putting them underground is not much improvement even on that. I am told that, nowadays, it is not just a question of digging a trench; it is necessary to have at least two wires a tennis court’s distance apart, and a far bigger disruption of the landscape—equivalent, temporarily, to building a motorway. None of these documents goes into that reality, which is being widely discussed by many people outside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero.
I am sad that the whole idea of the Morocco interconnector has been dropped—it was in early White Papers. That is 3.2 gigawatts of clean electricity that we will not have. I am sad that the CCUS projects are moving much too slowly, because how can we get to net zero and abate all the gas and oil that will still be burned without a massive expansion of CCUS? I regret that our contribution to lowering world emissions will thereby be lower than it is going to be anyway. I regret that the technology that we developed for CCUS—which would have a real benefit in high-emissions countries such as India, China and, indeed, the United States—which we could be exporting will not be exported. It is not even mentioned in these in these documents.
I regret that the limits of the Secretary of State’s power in agreeing or disagreeing infrastructure projects are so vague. All we get is guidance that there must be an “appropriate balance”. How nice that the Secretary of State should be guided by an appropriate balance. What is an appropriate balance? Who will decide it? How will it be fair and just between all the different and immense pressures?
I regret that there is a vast underestimate throughout all these documents of the amount of clean electricity demand that will be required. In one of the earlier documents there was talk about doubling electricity demand. When one realises that electricity demand is now about 1/10th of total energy usage, doubling it will get us nowhere. We are talking about 300 gigawatts at the very least. The official figure appears to be under 200 gigawatts.
Finally, I regret that there is an underestimate of the enormous complexities, about which I was warned 40 years ago as Secretary of State, of integrating intermittent electricity into a stable grid system. It requires vast engineering ingenuity of the kind that clearly did not exist the other day in Spain and Portugal, where the lights went out completely. I want our lights and power to stay on. I want our power to be affordable. I do not see any big reassurance, even in all this literature and huge suite of documents, that that will be achieved.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction, as there are many things within these documents to praise. They set out a positive direction for future energy infrastructure, which broadly aligns with clean power by 2030 and net zero by 2050. Although I—and, I am sure, many others—welcome a whole-system approach to energy infrastructure planning, delivery has remained fragmented. Let us hope, to coin a phrase, that the wind might now change.
I have just come from the mass climate lobby outside, in Parliament Square. I am not usually someone who joins such events but, for me, it is vital for us to hear the Climate Coalition and the great many people who are raising this issue of climate change and nature loss, because it seems to be slipping down political agendas. Some of the coalition’s aims are to cut bills, back UK jobs and secure a greener, fairer future for all. Another is to restore nature to create a safer and healthier future. With these aims still fresh in my mind from the crowd outside, my remarks will address three areas: first, the cost of connection and district heating networks, especially for those organisations that create the warp and weft of community life; secondly, the capacity of the grid to receive the quantity of renewable energy that we need produced; and, thirdly, mitigating the impact of infrastructure projects on people, nature and landscapes.
Any approach to electricity network infrastructure must include the entire community that is affected or may be able to be a producer of energy. That includes our businesses, places of worship, community centres, sports clubs, town halls, schools and homes. Frustratingly, though, the cost of upgrading the connection to a low-voltage cable can be a huge barrier. One church in the diocese that I serve—St Margaret’s in Lowestoft—has been quoted £100,000 to upgrade its connection and move away from fossil fuel heating. Another, St Mary’s Church in King’s Lynn, has been given two quotes by Eastern Power Networks: one at £90,000, the other at £130,000.
Our churches and other community assets that need upgrades, particularly in rural areas, are also part of wider communities and villages that also need upgrading. Many of our churches are blessed with large south-facing roofs, which are ideal for generating electricity, as is now happening on the roof of King’s College Chapel in Cambridge and in many other places. If churches could have easier and cheaper ways to connect on to the grid, alongside other community buildings, they could not only move away from fossil fuels but become generators of solar energy and provide this to their local communities.
I was pleased to see local energy generation included in the Great British Energy Act and hope that this can be built upon, but I fear that the costs will not make it possible in many places. Can the Minister say what support His Majesty’s Government might make available, or how they might put pressure on companies providing the connections, so that community organisations that wish to change from oil and gas to renewable electricity, or feed into the grid, are not prohibited from doing so by the exorbitant cost? I was also pleased to see mention of heat networks in EN-1, although I again see cost as being a large barrier to those who wish to join a network. This needs to be tackled.
To come closer to this place, Project SWAN is a London district heating network that aims to provide sustainable heating from renewable energy sources—such as waste heat from the Thames and the London Underground—to Church House Westminster, Westminster Abbey and government offices in Great Smith Street. It seems, however, that the costs for Church House alone have rocketed from initial estimates of £2 million back in February to £3.5 million now, so the project becomes no longer affordable. Meanwhile, other organisations within the catchment area are pulling out. If we wish for district heat networks to play a larger part in our energy infrastructure, how does the Minister suggest a funding package or mechanism could be put in place to enable these to be more affordable for a range of partners?
My second point is about the grid in the east of England not being capable of handling the quantities of electricity we hope can be generated offshore. There is a risk that renewable energy production will stall due to the lack of grid capacity. We have a situation in which grid infrastructure is still being developed reactively, based on project applications rather than a longer-term systems need. I hope the Minister will agree that we need to move to a “build ahead of need” model. Is any consideration being given to embedding legal obligations for delivery bodies and regulators to plan infrastructure based on forecasted clean energy demand? Of course, we also need solar as standard on new-build houses and to use the enormous acreage on warehouses and industrial units to generate more electricity. We are missing a trick by not encouraging as much energy production as can be achieved as near as possible to its use.
In making my third point, I acknowledge the impact that this infrastructure development can have on local communities and nature, particularly during the building phase. In north Norfolk, linear swathes of land are being cleared for three underground cabling routes, each the width of a three-lane motorway. Two are north-south, connecting Weybourne and Norwich, and the third is east-west from Happisburgh to Necton, connecting Norfolk’s offshore wind turbines. I was pleased to see EN-5 mention how, in establishing these linear connections, there needs to be a greater sense of care around reconnecting important habitats, green corridors and biodiversity stepping stones, not only for nature but for people in reinstating public footpaths, cycleways and ways to get people to connect with and be outdoors in nature. That is to be welcomed, but how will it happen in reality? In putting in this linear cabling, ancient hedgerows often have to be removed. How can it be done in such a way to restore some of the habitats that are being removed?
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, mentioned pylons. National Grid has plans for a pylon route which will march across 180 kilometres from Norwich to Tilbury, with only part of it underground when it crosses the Dedham Vale area of outstanding natural beauty. I urge that cabling of the section crossing the Waveney Valley should also be undertaken. However, if underground cabling was used for any new national grid transmission lines as default, this would help to ensure fewer harmful long-term impacts for residents, for the environment, for settings of heritage assets, for tranquillity and for the countryside. Would the Minister agree that, to have an effective long-term strategy for the power network, it is essential that these 1960s lowest-cost solutions are no longer the default setting?
Overall, these national policy statements are part of facing the challenge of climate change and providing clear direction for planners and developers working on electricity network infrastructure. This needs to be achieved in such a way that people, place, nature and landscape can be protected and thrive as we make the vital transition to non-carbon burning energy sources a success.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring an interest: I still live in Suffolk and probably within a mile—perhaps even 500 metres—of where a substation is proposed to be built. The area of the country that I used to represent in the other place is likely, within 10 to 15 years, to accommodate about 30% of the UK’s electricity supply, through generation and the substation infrastructure for offshore wind and interconnectors. That is all within an area of 25 square miles, at best, and includes just one extra pylon, which is on-site at Sizewell C. As a consequence, local people are understandably concerned about the scale of development that is happening in one of the most environmentally protected parts of the country, which is critical to the Government for meeting their legislative targets set out in the Environment Act 2021.
My issue here is not about Sizewell C. I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford has strong views on what sort of nuclear technology should be placed there, but mine is more a beef with the onshore infrastructure for offshore wind and interconnectors, which have been put on green land that is being used right now for food production and environmental enhancement. Quite frankly, this greenfield is being trashed as we speak. Farmers have not been able to plant food. In the grand scheme of things that does not mean that the shelves will be empty but, nevertheless, yet another field is being taken out of food production.
I have tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. There is no sight of any assessment that the Secretary of State would have had to undertake in line with Section 19 of the Environment Act 2021—the environmental principles policy statement. Instead, we have a habitat regulations assessment, outsourced to Atkins. In essence, the non-technical summary says that because the updated energy NPSs
“do not set out specific locations for development”,
The assessment is “high-level”, and therefore we cannot know the potential effects
“until specific proposals come forward”.
The challenge here is that NESO knows exactly where lots of energy projects will be because it has already issued connections. It does this because of the long-term nature of some of them, and I am conscious that there will be a change, helped by the legislation coming through in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, that is not on a first come, first served basis. For what it is worth, I think the primary legislation is not as strong as it is claimed to be and that it could be more development-ready, but it knows where this electricity generation will happen, particularly for the 2030 clean energy plan, so I was very disappointed that Ed Miliband decided not to be more—how can I put it?—probing.
That said, on other aspects of the environment, I am pleased to see that the Secretary of State has, contrary to the proposals in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, kept the mitigation hierarchy. That is in EN-1 paragraph 4.6.10. I am also delighted to see the reference to the local nature recovery strategies in paragraph 4.6.14. That is good news but, frankly, the NESO knows where these sites and the projects will be, so although Parliament is not being misled, it is being let down with this crass comment through the HRA.
In terms of local communities, of which I am still part, the public consultation on these proposals started in April and concluded on 29 May. When can we expect to see at least the summary responses, if not the Government’s response to it overall? It would have been helpful to have that before this debate. I should have said at the start that I could easily speak for 15 minutes on each of EN-1, EN-3 and EN-5. I requested of the Government that we have this debate, so I am glad we are having it. There has not been one in the Commons, and I am tabling an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill to try to rectify that for the future.
EN-5 talks about sulphur hexafluoride, which has been used in industry for the last 50-plus years. It is brilliant at what it does. It insulates really well and contains things. The challenge is that it leaks, and it is the most potent greenhouse gas known to man. If you think that carbon dioxide is one, SF6 is the equivalent of 24,300.
Cooling all these substations then becomes a challenge for a lot of the rural communities that this is going to affect. By the way, one substation is the entire width of Parliament Square going right to the edges of the buildings. In fact, it is four times the size of that and the height of the Treasury. That is just one. Most of these places are interconnections. Offshore wind farms need two of them: one for the developer, and then National Grid, NESO or whoever runs it now will need its own. To give the Committee a sense of proportion, the volume of this room, the Moses Room, then becomes the length of the House of Lords Chamber and the Royal Gallery. That gives noble Lords a sense of proportion of moving away from SF6—which, by the way, I think is reasonable, but that is what is happening on green fields or is being proposed right around this country. That is what many rural communities are very upset about.
The other thing that surprises me in EN-1 is that paragraph 3.2.4 states:
“It is not the role of the planning system to deliver specific amounts or limit any form of infrastructure covered by this NPS”.
Why not? That is exactly what the strategy should be about. We have moved from a hub-and-spoke basis for the grid in this country to stuff coming principally from the coast and rural areas. The challenge becomes saying that it is the nature of a market-based energy system.
How have we ended up with this in the first place? When ScottishPower Renewables was developing EA1, it said it was going to do it through direct current, and that it is the best way, especially high voltage DC. For what it is worth, I think the Government should be insisting on HVDC as it is the most effective way. It would reduce the amount of generation and inter- connection that we would need as a country if we moved to HVDC as the principal method of transmission. That was what ScottishPower Renewables started off with.
To accommodate that, ScottishPower Renewables worked with the council, the developer and various bodies. The cable came onshore at Bawdsey. It went through Martlesham on its way to Bramford, an already developed station. The decision was made to allow the compulsory purchase of a much wider area so that, when other windfarms came onstream, the cables could literally be pulled through. It needed only one tunnel, basically, one channel. It needed to be quite wide because there is a lot more heat with DC, so you need more land to be able to absorb that. When you are doing underground cabling, that is the main difference between DC and AC and why there is now this strong preference—it was actually by the previous Government, my Government—for wanting pylons everywhere. However, in the contract for difference, ScottishPower Renewables basically did not get what it wanted, so it switched to the traditional AC, which meant fewer turbines. The same amount of land was taken, but ScottishPower Renewables did not now have to find other sites along the Suffolk coast to absorb this—is my intention to keep going, so I had better sit down.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I was considering aspects of information that would be provided. It would have been helpful to know at least the summary responses, but we will have a further opportunity at the next stage of consideration to go into this in more detail.
Building on what the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned, it is right that energy from waste should not be considered any more, partly because we have more than enough now, and planning permission does not need to be granted to any more projects. I fully respect the circular economy approach. That was started by the previous Government and has been continued, which is good news.
I go back to my concerns. Most of my focus is on EN-5, which covers transmission infrastructure on the ground, underground, overground or in the air. One thing slightly concerns me in paragraph 2.2 on
“Factors influencing site selection and design”.
In paragraph 2.2.2, regarding:
“the location of new generating stations or other infrastructure requiring connection to the network … system capacity and resilience requirements determined by the National Energy System Operator”,
two things happen. I am slightly surprised that an extra factor here is not: where is the electricity needed? Surely, the siting of all this network should be as close as possible to where it is needed. That is energy efficient.
I understand the issue about nuclear power stations. I do not accept it for SMRs, but for something like Sizewell C, I can understand why that needs to be away from places of high population. On the other elements, I think in particular of the connectors. There are two interconnectors, one from Belgium called Nautilus, which is now going into the Isle of Grain after a successful campaign to go to a brownfield site with existing substation infrastructure. The other one is LionLink, which is due to come into a place called Walberswick. Officials were quite open about this. They were not going further down the coast because they would have to crisscross 17 other cables. The seabed in that part of the country is almost like the M25 on steroids. The National Security Strategy Committee should be considering this because this also comes back to energy security and resilience.
Another interconnector that has already been granted permission is called Sea Link and is basically backup insurance. If the network goes down in the south-east of England, energy can be diverted from Sizewell C. That is costing £1.5 billion, and a lot of this energy gets lost in transmission. The majority of electricity in this country is needed in London and the south-east, so why are we not putting more into areas closer to London and other parts of the south-east where there is existing infrastructure? By that I mean Bradwell and the Isle of Grain. It would be straightforward to develop something in Tilbury. As a consequence, I am concerned about that aspect.
I am looking at paragraph 2.12.3. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich talked extensively about East Anglia, which I would expect him to do. I know it covers parts of where I live. Twice in this document, the east of England is singled out, predominantly, but not exclusively, East Anglia. It also covers significant parts of the east coast all the way from Scotland down to the Wash. That is why I hope that careful consideration will be given to the responses coming from that part of the country.
I will speak briefly regarding something that comes up in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill as well as here. The Minister has already referred to it. It is the public benefit. This goes wrong when damage to the public benefit or public area is set aside when the commercial benefit collapses. I would have more time for this thinking through the national policy statement if, in a market-led system, they sign up to it and do it and do not pull out, causing more misery for people in different parts of our country.
I could go on. When I last debated a previous national policy statement in the other place, I spent 45 minutes on it, and that was on just one statement. I will not do that today, but I just say to the Minister that I understand how much work has gone into this by officials and I understand that the overall thing is energy security and net zero. I get that, but these things impact local communities. I ask him to think about the genuine science, the evidence about the transmission of energy and about biting the bullet on getting a lot of this infrastructure a lot closer to London rather than destroying some marvellous parts of our country.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the debate today. I also wish his predecessor well, who I understand chose to retire. He will be greatly missed. We enjoyed debating with him, as we enjoy debating with the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. I will focus particularly on the impact on the countryside, rural communities and coastal communities, building on the arguments put by the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lady Coffey. I will also focus on the cost and whether it will be put entirely on the standing charge, how it will be paid for and future energy needs.
The Minister, in introducing the debate, referred to the Select Committee report, published on 7 July. It must have made quite uncomfortable reading for the department because it was entirely at one with the Government’s approach. There is one thing that I welcome with this approach, if I understand it correctly, and I hope the Minister will confirm this. A number of noble Lords have touched on the fact there have been very disjointed planning applications. You might have an application made for, normally, an offshore wind farm—I regret, in passing, the moratorium on onshore wind farms being lifted; that is deeply regrettable—then there is a separate application for the coastal station where the electricity generated comes onshore, and then there is a separate, third, application for the overhead pylons. My understanding is that this will treat all such applications as one planning permission application, so at least the public then know what they are in for.
What I think the department must regret is what the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee says,
“We have been immensely frustrated and disappointed by the disjointed engagement which the Government afforded us, severely limiting our ability to create added value, by test and challenge, which is the purpose of involving Select Committees in the scrutiny of National Policy Statements. The Government has failed to respect the value of Parliamentary scrutiny in this process”.
Having served on Select Committees in both this place and the other place, I greatly value the contribution that they make. They have the time and the expertise. The committee went on to say that, ,
“we feel that the National Policy Statements should plainly acknowledge that this framework represents a significant departure from a market-based energy system. The relationship between National Policy Statements, the Land Use Framework and strategic plans needs more precise clarification, particularly regarding how the availability and prospects of a grid connection should be considered within the development consent process”.
I place on record my regret that we have not seen the land use framework, which the Minister’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, has asked for on several occasions. It would have been very helpful to have seen that before this debate.
Whether as an MEP in East Anglia or an MP in North Yorkshire, I have always represented deeply rural constituencies. What I regret about the statements before us this afternoon is that they will, in effect, trash the countryside. I am honorary president of the UK Warehousing Association, which had a campaign to have solar panels on roofs. This has been immensely successful. I ask the Minister why it is that the excess energy they are creating—more than they need for their own use—is not able to be fed into the national grid? This afternoon we are talking about infrastructure projects which are going to criss-cross the countryside, effectively trampling over rural and coastal communities, with no benefit to them, all to feed into the national grid. If we have a green policy that is proven to work by putting solar panels where I think they are more appropriate, on roofs, why can the excess energy generated not be fed into the grid?
I cut my political teeth very early on when a second line of pylons were being applied for under a Labour Government in 1997-98. They were met with horror from the local residents, who set up, under the brilliant chairmanship of the late Professor O’Carroll, an organisation known as REVOLT. I would like to see that organisation commence again—it stood for Rural England Versus Overhead Line Transmission—for precisely the arguments my noble friend Lady Coffey has rehearsed, and I will not repeat them. Why are we transmitting energy for hundreds of kilometres? In the old days it used to be that 10% or 15% of the energy created was wasted. I am told that has been reduced to 5%, but it is nonsensical to waste energy.
We then had a situation in the north of England. I know it is a very long way away, and many of you probably do not know where Newcastle and North Yorkshire are—I am speaking to the wrong person with the Minister present in the Room. During Storm Arwen, we lost electricity in North Yorkshire and the north-east for nine days. There was no hot water and no heating, and it was in the winter. So it would be nonsensical to plan even more overhead lines, which are also subject to adverse weather conditions.
We also find ourselves in a situation in North Yorkshire and the north of England where, even if we wanted to drive an electric vehicle, there is no way we can charge them. Why can we not have some of the electricity that is going to be transported great distances? Why can we not keep it more locally, if we have to drive these wretched vehicles that will only do 100 miles? Apparently, they will do 300 miles if you do not have the air conditioning, heating, or radio on; if you are going to drive at 20 miles per hour they will do 300 miles. If you want to drive at 50 or 70 miles per hour for a longer distance with air conditioning or heating in the winter and the radio on, you are looking at 100 miles. That is just not sustainable. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to look at this.
On EN-5, the other issue with overhead pylons is very difficult. I had a constituent who came to see me when I was an MP, whom I found very disturbing. She came into my surgery in the middle of winter. She turned all the lights off in the room and said she was being electrocuted by the electromagnetic field that is all around us and, because we then had two lines of pylons in North Yorkshire, she was more subjected to it. Page 31 of EN-5 talks about electromagnetic fields. Paragraph 2.10.13 states:
“Where EMF exposure is within the relevant public exposure guidelines, re-routeing a proposed overhead line purely on the basis of EMF exposure or undergrounding a line solely to further reduce the level of EMF exposure are unlikely to be proportionate mitigation measures”.
I beg to disagree. If you are driving under this pylon and your radio goes berserk, that indicates there is a very magnetic force coming from those overhead pylons. I urge them to put them underground wherever they can. I would like to challenge the Minister. Why do these companies say they cannot afford to place these overhead lines underground? They are making—dare I say—obscene amounts of money. I think they have to justify why they cannot underground them.
I seem to be honorary president of most organisations so, for good measure, I declare my honorary presidency of National Energy Action. It is very concerned about the impact of cold weather and how the warm homes discount is going to be distributed. That is a separate debate for another day. What concerns me is that the standing charge seems to cover most of these connections and all the infrastructure that we are talking about this afternoon. I would like the Minister to reassure me that the standing charge is not going to be increased as a result of the infrastructure before us this afternoon. I will just complete my sentence and say that I hope that the warm homes discount could be increased for those who are already in receipt of it, who we know are living in energy poverty, rather than spreading it more thinly to those who have recently been identified.
I turn to the impact on the countryside of solar farms, battery storage plants and the interconnectors to which my noble friend Lady Coffey referred, and the damage to the countryside that the right reverend Prelate referred to. I hope that this is something that the Minister will consider. There is an application for a battery storage plant to be built very close to a school in my former constituency, near to my cottage. I understand that these battery storage plants are highly flammable, so that begs the question of why it is being built within half a mile of a school and the town of South Kilvington. After they have stored the energy, how are they going to transport it? Is that here today? Will there be yet more pylons there? That would be very helpful to know.
In the recent past, we have been exporting household waste from North Yorkshire to Holland, where it is burned. I am fully signed up to energy from waste, as I am to the heat networks that the right reverend Prelate referred to. I understand that we have an energy-from-waste plant in North Yorkshire, and again we are not allowed to use the electricity and heat generated by that plant. I think that is something that communities would accept as a positive.
I end by asking the Minister whether he will look at the environmental damage that all three statements before us this afternoon refer to. It can be mitigated by looking at the electromagnetic fields and reducing the environmental damage and could be totally mitigated by putting overhead lines underground. If we are going to have clean energy, there is going to be a hit for farmers. We have it on the record that 10% of farmland and 10% of fisheries are being taken out of production by the clean energy proposals. There has to be something in it for people in the countryside if they are going to have all this infrastructure placed on them just for the benefit of people living in London and the south-east of England. I hope that that might be explored within the statements before us to ensure that energy can be provided as close to the point of production as possible. I await with great interest to hear noble Lords’ responses.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I start also by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the work that he did as a Minister. I know that it was his decision to step down, and it has been really good to see him about the House since he took that decision.
On these Benches, we very much welcome the publication of these revised draft energy policy statements. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, they are extremely comprehensive. These documents are absolutely critical, and we welcome the Government’s efforts in bringing them forward; we understand what a great job of work that is. We welcome the fact that they integrate our net-zero targets.
I echo the points that other noble Lords have made about how it would have been useful to have some of the consultation responses, and the point that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made about the involvement of the Select Committees. We welcome the overall direction that the Government are taking in these policies, but it is really important that we look at them, because they are big and important policies. Perhaps next time we could do one policy at a time, which would provide better scrutiny. However, I recognise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said, that these have not been debated at all in the other Chamber, so we need to look at them.
I turn to EN-1, which serves as the overarching policy document, the master blueprint for the main energy infrastructure projects in the UK, designated as nationally significant infrastructure under the Planning Act 2008. It provides a primary policy framework for decisions made by the Secretary of State. This is the first time that this document has been updated since 2011, so it is really about time that we did it. EN-1 has been updated to bring the clean power 2030 action plan into the section previously covered by net zero. The aim is to put the plan in the forefront as a primary policy embedded by the NPSs. The clean power 2030 action plan, formed in December 2024, proposes that clean energy sources provide at least 95% of the UK’s energy by 2030.
Some of this debate has been about people in London taking power to destroy the countryside, and to my mind that is completely the wrong way of framing it. We did not frame it that way when we were talking about burning hydrocarbons. But the Government need to take people with them and support communities. Energy is for all of us, and we need to make sure that we include, talk to and listen to communities as we transition in energy.
There is a lot to be set here for net zero. We are talking about 43 to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind, 27 to 29 gigawatts of onshore wind and 45 to 47 gigawatts of solar. The Government recognise the role of the strategic spatial energy plan and the centralised strategic network plan; the land use framework has also been raised. A lot of policies need to come together to drive this energy transition.
A critical concept with EN-1 is the critical national policy priority for nationally significant low-carbon infrastructure. The CNP applies a presumption that the urgent need for such infrastructure, along with its national security, economic, commercial and net-zero benefits, will all generally outweigh other residual impacts that are not addressed by the mitigation hierarchy. As other noble Lords have, I welcome the mitigation hierarchy throughout all these documents—the need for good design and to limit damage. That is in stark contrast to Section 3 of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but we welcome the detailed plans that are in these documents, in that way.
Notably, I also welcome that the energy from waste facilities is now excluded from the CNP. That is very welcome, as it does not now meet the definition of clean power technology under the clean power action plan. We welcome this, and it is worth noting that this form of energy is now the most polluting form of energy that we generate. This statement explores how waste energy can be reduced using low-carbon technology and energy-efficiency measures. Negative emissions can also be balanced by greenhouse gas removal technologies. The document sets out requirements for carbon capture-ready designs for certain power plants. Again, we welcome this; we recognise that the Government have targets for 20 to 30 megatons of CO2 to be captured each year by 2030 and that the need for this technology is recognised by the Climate Change Committee. We also welcome considerations about climate change adaption and resilience in the planning framework; this is really important stuff.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister on EN-1. How will the Government ensure that the 2030 target is not perceived as a proverbial cliff edge and that, after the 2030 delivery timeframe, projects that are crucial for the 2050 net-zero target will continue to receive the necessary support? Indeed, in many ways, the period after 2035 is when we will have some of the most difficult and challenging decisions to take. There is a need to continue that pace and scale after we come through clean power.
We welcome the inclusion of climate resilience but are the Government doing enough in that space? We are increasingly seeing things having a real impact on our energy generation and transmission—whether high temperatures, floods, wildfires, rising sea levels or the siting of Sizewell—and every bit of our critical energy infrastructure needs to be adaptive and resilient to the changing world.
Finally on EN-1, we call for the land use framework, local plans and local nature recovery strategies to also be considered alongside planning permissions for all new energy infrastructure, such as flood risk management, climate mitigation and biodiversity, to find an optimum balance between food production and ecosystems.
We also welcome EN-3, the National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure, particularly the inclusion of the ambition for onshore wind to supply up to 50 gigawatts by 2030. I do not know why it was excluded in the first place—that is a question I might want to ask the Minister—but we are really pleased that it is back in this plan, with the revisions, where it should be. The wind is free; we just need to make the windmills to generate it. It is good for us and our energy security, and we need to do much more of it.
Solar photovoltaic generation is key to the clean power 2030 mission. I note that EN-3 describes it as cheap, versatile, and effective and clearly states a preference for
“brownfield, industrial and low and medium grade agricultural land”.
I welcome some of the Government’s policies more broadly. Recently, we have seen the future homes standard, we have talked about balcony solar and rooftop solar, and the Government are adding solar to carparks.
I question some of the net-zero rhetoric about our farmland. It is not taking 10% of our farmland, and it is perfectly possible to have farmland and solar energy. I also really welcome the inclusion of agrivoltaics in the policy. As we face an increasingly hot climate, there are lots of ways in which solar panels can work particularly well with farmland, grazing animals and efforts to increase our biodiversity. These things can coexist. The idea that it is either/or is simply not correct. How will the Government promote agrivoltaics as a policy and make sure that farmers are aware of it and know how to work with it?
We have talked a bit about heat from waste, so I will leave that for now. We welcome the strengthened section on undergrounding, which we have conversations about. I think all noble Lords are aware that undergrounding is 10 times more expensive than pylons, but it needs to happen in certain sections, particularly our protected landscapes. I recognise that, but is it is not an option to have it everywhere. It has its own environmentally damaging consequences: it involves encasing in concrete and every time you have a fault in the line you have to get out the sledgehammers and smash the concrete open to repair the line. It simply is not an option, even with the best will in the world.
There have been some issues with putting pylons out at sea. Energy UK raised the need to do more to mitigate the noise from piling. I know that there is some innovative technology, such as using water bubbles to try to control the impacts of noise on the marine environment.
Moving on to EN-5, the grid is crucial, and it has lacked investment. We discussed the NESO Heathrow report yesterday. We have £70 billion that needs to be invested by 2025 and much more by 2050. Against that background, predicted demand has doubled. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, challenged us on that and said it could be much more. We need to get this stuff out. We need to get the grid updated so that we can get to net zero, and we need a reliable and resilient electricity grid. That needs to happen.
I welcome the Holford rules and the Horlock rules. The Minister talked about updating them. Will he say a bit more about that? When will it happen, what will it look like and how will they work with communities to do that? These things are important. I desperately want to get away from pylon wars. I want to make sure that our communities are supported and get benefits from renewable energy infrastructure near their homes, such as money off their bills. We must support communities, take them with us and include them in the energy transition. I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said about SF6 emissions. Will the Minister say more about what plans the Government have? We should really stop using that stuff.
The National Grid has raised some concerns about development consent orders. It lacks the rights that other utility companies have, and it does not have the ability to safeguard land. It has also raised the issue of wayleaves and the relationship with the Public Order Act.
To conclude, I will make some general points. A number of tensions exist between the delivery and the quality of the assessments in these documents. It is important to address cumulative impacts, which is an issue running through them. I have talked about pylon wars, but I reiterate that I think we can balance these things. I would like to see the Government produce an annual report on our transition to net zero. It is important in terms of the resilience of the grid and the huge transition. I would really like to see more of this stuff put into the public domain, debated and put through Parliament. I think that would help to stop disinformation and other kinds of ideas coming forward.
I want to ask the Minister about greater use of AI. I welcome some of the stuff about moving away from radial lines. There is talk of the bootstraps and interconnectors. We have an opportunity to design this system and reduce the number of places that we have these cables coming onshore. Is NESO able to use AI better to look at how we redesign the grid, what order we do things in and how we connect renewables? There are lots of opportunities for doing things more efficiently, better, saving energy and in the right order. We generally welcome these policies; they are really important. I have not got time to go through everything. I thank everybody who has spoken, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s proposed updates to the national policy statements for energy, EN-1, EN-3 and EN-5, aim to lay the legislative and planning groundwork for the clean power action plan 2030.
I endorse entirely the comments of my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford and other noble Lords in lamenting the retirement of the redoubtable noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who was such a strong supporter of nuclear power, in particular. I also endorse my noble friend Lord Howell’s critique of the choice of EPR technology for Sizewell C.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich observed, there is much to welcome in these documents, but ambition must be tempered by realism grounded in economic and national security. It was a Conservative Government who made the UK the first G20 country to halve carbon emissions while growing our economy. What we cannot support is a transition that forgets the people who power our industries, who pay their bills and taxes and who depend on British energy for their livelihoods.
The Government’s so-called clean power 2030 plan, now at the centre of the revised EN-1, sets a target for 95% of UK electricity generation to come from clean sources by 2030. To meet that goal, developers are now directed to bring forward enormous capacities: up to 50 gigawatts of offshore wind—let us hope that some of that may be generated by the nascent offshore floating wind industry in Wales—29 gigawatts of onshore wind and 47 gigawatts of solar. Incidentally, the technology now exists to place solar panels on reservoirs successfully, which should be explored. These are not modest targets, and the reality is that ideology without realism leads to economic harm. Just last week, we saw the impact of this Government’s choices when Lindsey oil refinery crashed into insolvency. Energy is now the single largest cost in operating a refinery—indeed, operating all heavy industry—and this Government’s failure to deliver competitive industrial energy prices is pushing UK manufacturers to the brink.
The Government should listen to the warnings of Sir Jim Ratcliffe of INEOS, who has said that the chemicals sector in this country is now “facing extinction” because of
“enormously high energy prices and crippling carbon tax bills”.
We are now looking at a situation where only four oil refineries may remain in operation. To put that in context, Britain had 17 in the late 1970s. The industry, like many others, is being driven into the ground, not by foreign competition but domestic policy failure. Our path to net zero cannot cost us jobs, close our refineries, undermine British manufacturing and leave us more dependent on foreign imports. This is not decarbonisation; it is deindustrialisation.
Since the closure of Grangemouth, we have seen no meaningful action from the Government to address the structural challenges facing heavy industry. They are failing to tackle the fundamental issue: the cost of energy for British industry is simply too high. In the long-term, nuclear power can mitigate against this. I therefore ask the Minister plainly: what will this Government do to bring energy bills down for all industrial energy consumers, not just those covered by the narrow energy-intensive industries compensation scheme? Right now, UK industry is uncompetitive, and clean power 2030 will simply make it worse.
The updated national policy statements also fail to answer how we will maintain a stable, secure and affordable power system in the face of massive intermittent generation. As Professor Dieter Helm of the University of Oxford has explained, the costs associated with addressing the problem of intermittency has been ignored by
“almost every calculation of the costs for these renewables”.
It is the total system cost that matters, not just marginal cost. Yet these statements provide no clear answers on how we will manage the added infrastructure, back-up power and storage costs that are integral to this expansion. I therefore endorse the request by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for an update on battery storage development, to which I would add pumped hydro storage.
We are investing billions into offshore and onshore wind and solar panels, while ignoring the fundamental engineering challenge of how to keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Coffey for drawing the Committee’s attention to paragraph 3.2.4 of EN-1, and the statement that it is
“not the role of the planning system”
to limit any form of infrastructure. I also agree with her commitment to HVDC cabling. Perhaps, instead of pylons of undergrounding, power generated offshore in East Anglia could be transported via a subsea HVDC cable—just a thought.
There is no clear path to long-term baseload capacity, and no competitive framework for industrial consumers. I say again that, if clean power 2030 costs us our industrial base, weakens our energy sovereignty and drives up costs for working families, it cannot be considered a success. We do not serve the national interest by being the greenest country in the world if the price is the loss of our manufacturing base and the impoverishment of hard-working British people. That is not climate leadership; it is economic self-harm, and a lesson that others will learn from.
Of course, we want to strive to achieve a clean energy system, but we also need resilient, reliable and affordable energy. That is what will keep the lights on, protect our industries and uphold our national security. I therefore urge the Minister to return to the House with a clear plan, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, suggested, for delivering security and affordability of the UK’s energy supply.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank every noble Lord who has taken part in this debate. It has been really interesting and a lot of points have been touched upon. It just shows how important everybody considers this subject. It is about securing the future of the country, if not the world. I pick up a point that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh made. As you can probably tell from the accent, I am from the north-east of England as well and live in the countryside. I remember that, when I was growing up, if you looked out of my bedroom window, you could see the Yorkshire Moors in the distance, a pit heap down the hill and two lines of pylons, which are still there. The pit heap is not there. It has been reclaimed. If you do not come from the area, you would not have known it was ever there. The Yorkshire Moors are still there on the horizon and are just beautiful. Now I live a bit further away from where I grew up. I overlook the Dales, the Yorkshire Moors still and the Vale of York, so I am well aware of what it is like to live in the countryside and how important it is that get this planning right.
Reflecting publication of the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan, the overarching energy NPS will be updated to bring clean power 2030 front and centre as the primary policy that the NPSs enable. The changes also provide guidance to developers and examining authorities who submit their applications for onshore wind applications under the NSIP regime. Reflecting these policy changes, and the others outlined today, the updated NPSs provide greater clarity to developers, statutory consultees and decision-makers to speed up the planning process and help achieve this Government’s clean power 2030 target.
I will respond in turn to noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate. I will do my best to try and answer the questions and, if I cannot, I will write to noble Lords. I welcome the comments of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, particularly on the work of Great British Energy and the National Wealth Fund. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised the point about having the details of the public consultation responses to these documents. The Government are undertaking analysis of the consulting responses in parallel with the parliamentary process and, at this stage, we are not in a position to provide details on the responses. The Government intend to publish a response to the public consultation on the NPSs later this year.
I can assure noble Lords that the new approach to strategic network planning will consider long-term system needs, and recommend the necessary transmission upgrade, looking forward to 2050. It will be informed by the strategic spatial energy plan and closely linked to the regional energy strategic plans, which will provide the necessary regional and distribution plans. The updates to the NPSs in relation to the energy from waste, alongside the Defra statement of 30 December 2024 on the publication of the Government’s Residual Waste Infrastructure Capacity Note, will help to ensure that the Government deliver the right waste infrastructure to support the transition to a circular economy and the Government’s commitment to meeting net-zero targets.
The Government have set the 100-megawatt NSIP threshold for onshore wind projects, following technological advancements in turbine technology. Over the past 10 years, the rated capacity of turbines used in UK projects has doubled to around 5 megawatts on average, with some of the largest projects proposing 6-megawatt or 7-megawatt turbines. The 100-megawatt threshold ensures that only the largest and most important projects that are genuinely nationally significant enter the NSIP process. Mid-sized projects can then progress using the quicker and cheaper local planning route. On 4 July, the Government published updated voluntary guidance on community benefits for onshore wind in England, setting expectations that developers pay community benefits of £5,000 per megawatt of instalment capacity per year for the operational lifetime of the project.
The 10-year infrastructure strategy commits the Government to greater integration and coverage of sectoral spatial plans, which will help to provide clarity to industry. This includes developing guidance to support the production of sectoral spatial plans. The newly created National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority will work closely with departments, regulators, arm’s-length bodies and local delivery partners to identify spatial trade-offs and synergies between infrastructure policies, plans and decisions in England.
Issues of capital spending plans and a green belt review are matters for the Treasury, but I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on that point. The Government consulted on the land use framework earlier this year, and we are currently considering responses to the consultation.
In relation to the question on what the Government are doing on batteries and funding, batteries have a vital role to play in decarbonising the power sector by 2030. They help to balance the electricity system at lower cost and maximise the output from intermittent low carbon generation, such as solar and wind. Thus they minimise investment in new generation capacity and network upgrades to meet peak demand.
The Government have outlined their plans for deployment of battery storage in the Clean Power 2030 Action Plan and we will work with industry, NESO and Ofgem to build on those actions through the clean flexibility road map announced in the action plan. The most recent capacity market auction awarded £1.5 billion in current prices of capacity market agreements for battery storage, with new-build batteries securing agreements of up to 15 years.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and others for their comments regarding my noble friend Lord Hunt. I have covered his brief in this place. He has whipped his last session, which was in this Room. I know from experience and from what noble Lords have said that he was all over these issues. I think he will be a big miss on our side and for the House of Lords on these issues. I only hope I can fill the gap for a while.
The noble Lord spoke about the importance of nuclear power, in particular SMRs, to the energy mix. The Government are committed to delivering a new golden age of nuclear. The Government have committed £17 billion across the spending review period to the most ambitious nuclear new-build programme for a generation. Once small modular reactors and Sizewell C come online in the 2030s, combined with Hinkley Point C, more new nuclear will be delivered to the grid than over the previous half a century combined.
On SMRs, noble Lords will be aware that the new national policy statement on nuclear energy, EN-7, brings SMRs into the infrastructure planning regime for the first time. EN-7 criteria apply to all types of nuclear, including SMRs, and provide crucial new flexibility and certainty for the nuclear industry to work within.
The choice of European pressurised water reactors at Sizewell C will allow us to apply lessons learned during the construction of Hinkley Point C. The impact of these lessons learned is already being felt at Hinkley Point C. EDF reports that reactor two is being built 25% faster than reactor one. Once complete, the two EPRs at Sizewell C are estimated to power the equivalent of 6 million homes for 60 years, while making our energy supply cheaper and more secure.
On Sizewell C, financing is on the regulated asset base, RAB, model. We anticipate this model will ultimately bring significant savings for nuclear projects as the risk-sharing with consumers will lower the overall cost of financing when compared with the contracts for difference model. RAB is a tried and tested model used across UK utility networks, as well as large-scale projects, such as the Thames Tideway tunnel. Yesterday, EDF confirmed its 12.5% stake in the project. We have strong interest from a range of investors and will look to bring the process to a close shortly.
Unabated gas will continue to play a back-up role throughout the transition to clean power, ensuring security of supply. This means we will retain sufficient capacity until it can be safely replaced by low-carbon technologies.
Hydrogen transport and storage infrastructure will be critical to the development of the hydrogen economy and to meeting the Government’s net-zero and climate budget goals. It can support the clean power mission by enabling H2P to support electricity consumption. There is an urgent need for new carbon capture and storage infrastructure to support the transition to a net-zero economy, for which the NPS has clearly set out its support.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich raised the issue of high connection costs for churches seeking to decarbonise their heating. The connection quotes he mentioned were provided by the local distribution network operator. However, such connections can also be provided by independent connection providers, which may prove to be cheaper and faster. The NPS clearly sets out that, in order for a project to be economically viable as a combined heat and power plant, a generating station needs to be located sufficiently close to end-users with heat demands.
On undergrounding, the Government’s position is that overhead lines should generally be the starting presumption, except for in nationally designated landscapes, where undergrounding should be the starting presumption. Overhead lines are much cheaper to build, with undergrounding costing an estimated four and a half times more than overhead lines, according to a study published in April by the Institution of Engineering and Technology. The cost of building this infrastructure is borne by electricity bill payers so it is paramount that we keep costs down. In addition, overhead lines are much quicker and easier to build, cause less environmental damage, are much easier to maintain and repair and are easier to interconnect with existing circuits.
In response to the points regarding delivering the network ahead of the need, the new approach to strategic network planning will see NESO develop transmission network recommendations based on long-term modelling of energy generation and demand from the strategic spatial energy plan chosen pathways. The aim of this is to enable delivery of the network ahead of need.
I turn to some of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I shall write to her on some of her more specific points. She will also understand that I will not make reference to projects in the planning stage, as it would be inappropriate for me to comment. The environmental principles policy statement has been considered throughout the NPS update process and due regard will be given to it prior to the final NPS being laid before the House. The NPSs do not set out where energy infrastructure should be located, as it is for industry to propose new energy infrastructure projects that it assesses to be viable, within the strategic framework set out by the Government.
The habitats regulation assessment and appraisal of sustainability are carried out on the framework set out in the NPSs. It is for individual projects to carry out their own environmental assessments, as they are required to do so by law. To ensure that development is undertaken to meet demand across the country, NESO is developing the strategic spatial energy plan. It will identify optimal locations for energy generation and storage infrastructure, taking into account a range of factors, including technology costs, distance from demand centres, cost of transmission and cross-sectoral demands on land. The plan will be published for consultation in the second quarter of 2026, providing the opportunity for all to provide feedback. The DESNZ is working closely with other government departments to ensure that the SSEP interacts cohesively with the creation of other sectoral plans and spatial strategies, such as the land use framework.
Regarding the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the Government have noticed the concerns of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee that insufficient time was given to it to undertake parliamentary scrutiny of these three draft energy NPSs, and that the committee has made recommendations in that regard. We will address these as part of the Government’s response to the committee on the report.
EV charging in rural areas is an important point but a matter for the Department for Transport, and I suggest that the noble Baroness engages with it on this issue.
On the impact of electromagnetic fields from pylons, all overhead lines produce electric and magnetic fields, which, as stated in the national policy statements, can have direct and indirect effects on human health. However, the balance of scientific evidence over several decades of research has not proven a causal link between EMFs, which are produced by all power lines, and cancer or other diseases. Nevertheless, to prevent known effects, the International Commission on Non-ionizing Radiation Protection developed health protection guidelines in 1998 for both public and occupational exposure. Government policy is that exposure of the public to EMFs should comply with these guidelines, and all planning applications for overhead lines should show evidence of this compliance.
On standing charges, the Government will work to ensure that there are clear marked frameworks that promote effective competition and deliver an affordable, secure and reliable energy system. Government support for specific technologies and projects will depend on clear value for money for consumers and taxpayers.
On community benefits for the countryside, we will ensure communities directly benefit from the clean energy infrastructure they host. On 21May, we published a working paper on community benefits and shared ownership of low-carbon energy infrastructure.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, while accepting a lot of what was said in the statements, asked whether the focus on 2030 will reduce focus on paused 2030 projects. The capacity set out in the clean power action plan will be used to create a pipeline of viable projects to meet clean power by 2030 and beyond to 2035. In 2026, we will also publish a strategic spatial energy plan, looking at the future energy system from 2031 to 2050.
On the noble Earl’s point on climate resilience, he will join me in welcoming yesterday’s publication of the Government’s resilience plan. I mentioned it in the debate on the Statement on Heathrow. The NPS set out that the applicants should demonstrate that their proposals have a high level of climate resilience built into them. We are also aware that agrivoltaics—the integration of solar with arable farming—is a rapidly developing industry, and the Government are working to understand the opportunities to exploit this technology. Subject to the outcome of Defra’s rapid evidence review on the potential of agrivoltaics, we will work together with the solar sector to explore future research, demonstrations and opportunities for those systems in the UK.
On the noble Earl’s point on the Holford and Horlock rules, the National Energy System Operator is currently developing the new set of electric transmission design principles, which will be subject to public consultation.
On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, on optimising the network, the strategic network plans carried out by NESO, such as the centralised strategic network plan, will take a holistic view of the network upgrades. These recommend network upgrades optimised by balancing environmental and community impacts alongside deliverability and economic cost. The CSNP, for example, will recommend whether a route a route should be offshore, onshore or HVDC underground.
The noble Baroness is aware that our national policy statement on nuclear will enable nuclear and industrial decarbonisation by supporting smaller nuclear projects. In addition, we are providing a pathway for privately led nuclear projects to be deployed.
Every family and business in the country has paid the price for Britain’s dependence on foreign fossil fuel markets, which was starkly exposed when Putin invaded Ukraine. British energy customers were among the hardest hit in western Europe. The Government’s clean power mission is the solution to this crisis. By sprinting to clean homegrown energy, the UK can take back control of its energy and protect both family and national finances from fossil fuel price spikes with clear, affordable power.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I quite understand that the Minister will not comment on a specific planning application but the point about battery storage plants being highly flammable is of deep concern. If he can write to me, that is fine. Also, how is the electricity that has been stored to be sent to the grid? Will that again be via overhead pylons?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
With great pleasure, I will write to the noble Baroness on that point.
National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee takes note of the initial proposed National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure.
National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee takes note of the initial proposed National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure.
Black Rod
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that His Majesty has appointed Lieutenant General Ed Davis to be Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, in succession to Sarah Clarke, and that he is at the Door ready to receive your Lordships’ commands.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
As we have done previously, the usual channels will make brief tributes to the retiring Black Rod. Sarah Clarke took up her appointment as Black Rod in February 2018, joining us directly from a position as championships director at Wimbledon. Her uniform here was definitely more formal attire, but who would have thought that managing Wimbledon and dealing with Centre Court personalities would be good training for her role here? It could be said that she went from tennis rallies at Wimbledon to ping-pong in the House of Lords.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I liked it.
When the office of Black Rod was created in 1361, the decree stated that the post should be held by
“a gentleman famous in arms and in blood”,
a reference to the postholder being a man who had served in the military. Sarah Clarke made history as the first Lady Usher of the Black Rod.
On taking up her appointment, Sarah had rehearsals for the part of the role that the public and MPs will be most familiar with—having a door slammed in her face as part of the historic theatre of the State Opening. At her first rehearsal, she marched along to the Commons and walked straight in: they forgot to slam the door. At the second attempt, they remembered to slam the door, but the timing was not quite right and she was a hair’s breadth away from a broken nose. Sarah also believed that there should be a hard, robust knock on the door so that it could be heard in Central Lobby. The result was a rather stern email from the heritage team along the lines of, “Do not knock splinters off the door, please”.
Sarah’s tenure here since 2018 has been a momentous time in our nation’s history and she always discharged her duties with diligence, dedication, care and professionalism. In just under seven and a half years, she has led 252 Introductions to your Lordships’ House; there have been six State Openings and seven Prorogations. One of the highlights of our parliamentary calendar is a state visit and all of us know the huge logistical arrangements required behind the scenes. They are organised by Black Rod and her team to ensure a seamless visit. Sarah has overseen five state visits to this Palace, ensuring that visiting dignitaries enjoy the experience. Even on her final day in post, she was here to welcome President Macron.
However, it was Sarah’s leadership and calm professionalism, following the death of the late Queen Elizabeth II, when she worked tirelessly—literally around the clock—with the Royal Household to ensure that the lying-in-state and final journey of Her late Majesty reflected the mood and respect of the nation. Hundreds and thousands of members of the public walked through Westminster Hall to pay their final respects, and hundreds of millions watched on TV from all over the world. This would not have been possible without the fantastic support of the House staff, particularly the Yeoman Usher, Brigadier Neil Baverstock, and the Deputy Yeoman Usher, Fiona Channon. It is impossible to refer to that time without mentioning our excellent doorkeepers, many of whom became familiar faces when the lying-in-state was livestreamed on TV and proved to be most compulsive—and certainly most emotional —viewing.
Sarah’s leadership and commitment at that time were the embodiment of the truly excellent public servant that she is. We have enjoyed and valued our time with her. I have spoken of her professionalism, her dedication and her leadership, but we also remember her forthrightness, her friendship and her sense of fun. After Sarah and I spoke last week about her departure— I confess it was over a small gin and tonic—she emailed me, and I hope she will not mind if I share that email with your Lordships’ House:
“It has been the greatest honour to serve as Black Rod. I have deeply appreciated the huge support the House and Members have given me in over seven and a half extraordinary years with so many historic moments. I leave knowing I did my best to deliver my duties, met and worked with incredible people and certainly had a truly memorable and enjoyable time here. I could not have asked for more”—
neither could we. While we might fondly imagine that Sarah will have more time at home to spend with her partner Catherine and her two dogs Marge and Wilma—they really are called Marge and Wilma—I am certain she will fill her new role with the same dedication and commitment that we have seen.
Finally, I warmly welcome our new Black Rod, Ed Davis, to your Lordships’ House. As a former Royal Marines officer and a former Governor and Commander-in-Chief of Gibraltar, he brings a wealth of experience. We are confident that his previous diplomatic experience will serve him well in juggling the competing demands of this role, and we look forward to working with him.
Lord True (Con)
It is a pleasure, on behalf of these Benches, to follow the Lord Privy Seal, who spoke beautifully for us all as our Leader in her generous tribute to our outgoing Black Rod, Sarah Clarke. I rather liked the joke; I wish I had thought of it myself.
By a curious coincidence, I found myself sitting last night in the evening sun watching Carlos Alcaraz display his dominance of Centre Court. As I looked round that historic arena, packed with 15,000 contented people—well, perhaps not quite so contented, because he was playing a British tennis player—I thought: who in their right mind would exchange that glorious theatre for a dingy 19th century building riddled with mice and moths? Who would swap Centre Court’s giant retractable roof, costing just £70 million—
Lord True (Con)
I had probably better not go on. But we all know who made that choice, and that was Sarah Clarke. How grateful we are that she did, despite the fact that she is well and truly in her right mind.
Sarah brought with her a wealth of logistical and managerial expertise when she accepted our offer to become the first Lady Usher of the Black Rod and the late Queen graciously confirmed that recommendation. She may not have been the conventional choice,
“famous in arms and blood”,
as the Leader of the House reminded us, but she was unquestionably the right choice.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, when Sarah Clarke first came to be interviewed to be David Leakey’s successor, the majority view of the panel—of which I was one—was one of curiosity, but no great expectation. How could someone who was non-military and, heaven forfend, a woman, and with no public sector background, possibly compete with her more traditional competitor candidates?
The interview, however, was a revelation. Sarah was calm, assured, thoughtful and humorous. We thought that she was the best candidate, but we were so surprised at our own conclusion that we invited her back for a second interview, just in case we had missed something the first time. But the second interview merely confirmed the first, and those characteristics which we saw in Sarah when she first appeared at the interview she brought to the job from day one.
Sarah immediately established a serene authority, and a sensible, no-nonsense approach which meant that she was quickly respected by the House as a whole—a respect which only grew as she managed the many quick changes which were required during Covid, and then, with such great aplomb, the great royal events which occurred during her watch.
Personally, I found Sarah simply a pleasure to work with. She is, I believe, taking a break before taking on other duties. I wish her well for the break, and for her future career, whatever it might be. In doing so, I welcome her successor. He has a hard act to follow, but I am sure that he will do it extremely well.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I add our warm welcome to Lieutenant General Ed Davis. He will find things in very good order, and I look forward very much to working with him on all the many facets of Black Rod’s unique role.
It is a privilege on behalf of my Cross-Bench colleagues to pay tribute to Sarah Clarke. While we have known Sarah simply as Black Rod, she has been fulfilling three distinct roles, all of which involve Cross-Bench Members. Black Rod is not only the Serjeant-at-Arms here in the House of Lords but the Usher to the Order of the Garter and Secretary to the Lord Great Chamberlain.
Sarah’s first Garter ceremony was at Windsor. Naturally, she arrived early, with her uniform in a grip bag. She and three others got into a lift, which promptly broke down between floors. Help was summoned, but Sarah took charge of the lift, for time was short. On instruction, the others in the lift turned to examine the lift walls while Sarah changed. Just as decency was restored, the lift creaked on, and the Windsor fire brigade was surprised to find an immaculate Black Rod with a dress as an ankle warmer. She stepped forth with her usual perfection and big smile, and the Garter ceremony was none the wiser.
The Lord Great Chamberlain, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, remarked to me on Black Rod’s modernisations of the State Opening of Parliament ceremony. One was to cut out the canter of 100 yards or so to the Commons from the Lords Chamber. Sarah has now arranged it so that the Lord Great Chamberlain waves his very long wand at Black Rod, already standing in Central Lobby, allowing Black Rod then to stride to the Commons with a dignity not available to other Black Rods over the centuries. The Lord Great Chamberlain’s new signalling method, while owing something to his inner Apache warrior, is a great testament to his dignity.
Sarah arrives at our House, as the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, does, on a bicycle, dressed modestly and with an instant humour. In difficult discussions in her office, her main weapons have been the chocolate digestive and her smile, and how effective these have been. We have already heard of the six State Openings, the seven Prorogations, the lying-in-state of the great Queen Elizabeth II and her funeral, and the Coronation of His Majesty the King. What we have not heard is that for these latter events, Sarah was on duty at 4 o’clock each morning, occasionally earlier. Each of those events was an outstanding success.
That apart, Sarah has been in charge of maintaining our proceedings in good order, including managing the access of many of the people who come to our House, allowing for their and our safety in equal measure. This has all happened seemingly effortlessly and with the great charm and warm smile that we know of our Sarah.
I know that Sarah would want me particularly to mention Neil Baverstock and Fiona Channon, her colleagues, who will be retiring later this year. On behalf of these Benches, I salute them as well.
In closing, noble Lords will note that I have not used the W-word—Wimbledon—but we were all thinking of it. If Sarah had still been in charge, there would have been no nonsense with the line calls this week.
Sarah is not going far. This is not “goodbye”; it is “au revoir”.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, as Convenor of the Lords Spiritual, I offer our heartfelt thanks to Sarah for the way she has welcomed and worked with those of us on these Benches over the past seven and a half years. As others have noted, although I will not repeat it, she has held office at a point of great change, from overseeing the response to the pandemic—during which I arrived here in a very pared-down Introduction—and keeping the Palace operational throughout, to managing those major royal events under two monarchs.
As the first ever Lady Usher of the Black Rod, Sarah’s very title embodies the process of change—a very welcome one. I am not sure that there was a viable alternative. While we on these Benches now have women Members who remain styled “Lord Bishop”, to have had to refer to Sarah as “Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod” may have provoked the kinds of arguments over sex and gender that have more recently occupied the time and energy of the Supreme Court; I am so glad that we were spared that.
A few weeks ago, as part of my induction as convenor of these Benches, I paid a visit to Sarah in her office, to be instructed in some of the more arcane duties that might befall me. I was struck by the fact that she was not in uniform, and nor was I. The formal garb of office that both Black Rod and those of us on these Benches wear in this Chamber serve as a daily reminder of the long centuries through which this House has served the nation. Indeed, your Lordships’ House is a place where change and tradition have combined to produce a form of governance that nobody would have invented but which has served and evolved over many centuries, and where ceremonial and formal dress combine with such state-of-the-art practices as the electronic voting system that many of us will use later today.
Like newly appointed Bishops arriving to be enthroned in their cathedral, Sarah’s duties, as we well know, have involved having the door firmly shut in her face and being required—just as we Bishops are—to knock with her staff of office to gain entry. Again, it is an important tradition, albeit one that contrasts so hugely with the open-door policy and collaborative style of working she has always maintained. Our prayer from these Benches is that, as she moves on in life, doors, unlike that at Peers’ Entrance at the moment, will always open and never shut at her approach.
We also wish Lieutenant General Ed Davis all the best in his new role. As we have just heard, we will be going back to a Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. We look forward to working with him.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, lastly and briefly, I pay my own tribute to Sarah Clarke for her dedicated service to this House. I wish her the greatest success in her future career.
Sarah has served Parliament with distinction for over seven years, most notably at the lying-in-state of Her late Majesty the Queen. In recognition of that, she was appointed a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, a richly deserved honour. I offer my own heartfelt thanks to Sarah for her guidance and support to me personally during the significant and demanding period around the demise of the Queen and the accession of His Majesty the King.
Sarah was, as has been mentioned, the first Lady Usher of the Black Rod in the 670-year history of the role, and I am sure that more will follow in her footsteps in the years to come.
I also extend my warmest welcome to the new Black Rod, Lieutenant General Ed Davis. I look forward to working with him and, on behalf of the House, I wish him every success in his new post.
Prisons: Early Release
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the long-term impact of schemes for early release from prison on public confidence in the justice system.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
The previous Government introduced the end of custody supervised licence scheme, which released over 13,000 prisoners without any impact assessment. It is clear that this Government inherited a prison system on the verge of collapse. We introduced SDS40, which was safely implemented thanks to our hard-working staff. A full impact assessment was published for our measure. We are now embarking on long-term sentencing reforms to place prisons on a sustainable footing so that we can protect the public and maintain public confidence in the justice system.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Rather than ending automatic early release of prisoners, many of whom now serve only 40% of their sentence in prison, would it not make more sense to shift to a system of earned early release, whereby prisoners can earn the opportunity to be released early based on good behaviour and completion of training, education, work and rehabilitation programmes? Does the Minister not agree that such an alternative approach would go further in restoring public confidence in the justice system?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Lord has obviously been studying the plans that we have been looking at, especially the Texas model, which I think he refers to. There are two ways of looking at how we can incentivise prisoners to behave when they are in prison and engage with purposeful activities and education. One is the Texas model, which I describe as going down the hill: for every week they are well behaved, they get time off their sentence. The other is going up the hill: if they behave badly, they can get extra days. The model we prefer is the latter. It is clear that if prisoners assault officers they should, via adjudication, receive extra days. I am a big believer in incentives and in looking at other examples internationally. The Texas model is one where I think we all recognise that there has been a dramatic reduction in reoffending of those released from prison.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that when a prisoner is discharged, particularly in early discharge, they have somewhere to stay when they have left prison? Secondly, can he assure the House that every effort is made to reinforce the conditions of their discharge, so that the general public can be sure that people who have been discharged from prison will be properly supervised and their behaviour will be kept under review?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The release scheme that we inherited from the previous Government was very chaotic. Far too many people left prison and were recalled very quickly, which meant that more victims were created. The SDS40 scheme was far more stable and organised, and probation colleagues had the time to find accommodation. The noble Lord is completely right: accommodation is one of the key factors in ensuring that when someone gets out of prison, they stay out. We have far too many people still leaving prison with NFA against their name, and that is totally unacceptable. The £700 million extra funding that we have secured for probation is important. A lot of that will go on accommodation, tagging, extra staff and technology.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, as I have suggested on a number of earlier occasions, the Government’s proposed policy on early release is flawed. Does the Minister now accept that the Government should expressly address whether technical or minor breaches of licence conditions by non-violent offenders should not result in recall to prison, whether for 28 days or otherwise? That would go a considerable way towards relieving pressure on our prison capacity.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The crisis we inherited in the justice system meant that, had we not acted, we would have run out of prison places, on the basis that the previous Government built only 500 prison places when the population of prisons increases by 3,000 a year. That is why, by the time of the next election, there will be more people in prison than ever before. On recall, it is important that our probation professionals use their judgment based on risk. When people leave prison, we need to give them all the tools possible so that when they get out, they stay out. I do not want them having a return ticket back to prison; I want them to have a one-way ticket. That is why accommodation and all the support services we put around people will ensure that there are fewer recalls.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the real route to public confidence in the prison system is, first, not to have overflowing prisons and lengthy court delays before trial, bequeathed by the last Government to this Government, and secondly, not just to lock people up for longer and longer but to ensure that the Probation Service is effective at reducing risk and protecting the public, as well as rehabilitation?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend is right that probation is where the heavy lifting in the justice system needs to be done. I would like to let your Lordships’ House know that last week I was in a women’s prison, where the average length of stay of a woman was 46 days. There was also one very ill woman who, on average, tries to take her life over 20 times a month. We are dealing with people who are both very ill and very complex, and often the best way to reduce reoffending of these people and deal with their offending behaviour is to punish them in the community and support them in the community.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Murray, referred to “public confidence”. On the basis that the Government are right that early release schemes have been essential to save our prison system from collapse, would that not be the ultimate disaster for public confidence? As well as working on their response to the Leveson report, will the Government now urgently implement David Gauke’s proposals for a presumption against short prison sentences, for more community sentences and for more early release on licence? Should the Government not also encourage a review of the sentencing guidelines with a view to bringing prison sentences here down to the level of those imposed elsewhere in Europe?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The review that David Gauke and his panel undertook will form a very important part of the reform of the criminal justice system that we need. We need a sustainable criminal justice system, and that includes the review that Sir Brian Leveson has published today. On short sentences, it is important that the judiciary still has the power in exceptional circumstances to send people to prison for short sentences. Victims must come first, and the worst thing for victims would be for us to allow prisons to run out of places. We cannot run out of prison places, and the action that we are taking will ensure that we have a sustainable prison system.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Is the Minister satisfied that the Probation Service is properly resourced to manage and supervise prisoners on discharge?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
At the moment, the Probation Service is really struggling. It is struggling because of the workload of staff and the lack of integrated technology—staff spend far too much time doing admin rather than spending face-to-face time with offenders. When it comes to resourcing, when I leave this place eventually and go back to running my business, I would like the Lord Chancellor to support me in negotiations, because the amount of money that we managed to secure for probation, £700 million, is a really important amount—nearly a 45% increase. That, along with the other reforms that I am planning to do on probation, will go a long way.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, nothing undermines public confidence more than miscarriages of justice, and there is no bigger miscarriage of justice than IPP prisoners. Can the Minister kindly explain why these people are not being given the same opportunity for early release as the people we are talking about today?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My noble friend has done fantastic work championing the cause of IPP prisoners. It is clear that people should be released when the Parole Board determines that they are safe to be released. We are using all the levers at our disposal to make sure we do everything we can so that IPP prisoners get released from prison and stay out of prison.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, how does the reoffending rate of those released early compare with that of those released after full term?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The early release scheme that we inherited from the previous Government had a high reoffending rate. On the controlled SDS40 releases, while we are still analysing the figures, the themes that I am seeing show that the reoffending rates were no higher than we normally see. My overall plan is to reduce reoffending rates generally, which is why I am pleased I managed to get that into my job title.
Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)
My Lords, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner has accused the Government of watering down the criminal justice system at the expense of victims’ safety. What assurance can the Minister give to women, given the PM’s commitment on VAWG, that abusers will receive and serve custodial sentences?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
We are not abolishing short sentences entirely, and judges will retain the power to hand down sentences of under a year in exceptional circumstances—for example, to provide a victim of domestic abuse with a period of respite. I know this is particularly vital to safeguard victims of domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. Breaches of protective orders linked to VAWG, such as stalking and domestic abuse protection orders, will also be excluded from the presumption against short sentences.
European Union Entry/Exit System
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pidgeon
To ask His Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to prevent the introduction of the European Union’s Entry/Exit System causing transport congestion and disruption to freight.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, the European Union’s Entry/Exit System, EES, is now expected to be introduced in October 2025, with checks taking place on UK soil at the juxtaposed controls at the Port of Dover, Eurotunnel and Eurostar. The Government continue to work closely with the authorities at those three places and the French authorities to ensure that EES is implemented successfully. In respect of freight, over 80% of HGV journeys from Britain to the EU are undertaken by foreign-registered vehicles. EU hauliers will not be required to complete EES checks.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
I thank the Minister for his Answer, but, given the significant risk to UK exports, particularly “just in time” produce, what work are the Government doing with the French authorities and the European Commission to ensure that pre-registration systems are in place ahead of implementation to alleviate congestion and support smoother freight flows?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Of course, the primary aim of government has to be to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is in place at juxtaposed portals ahead of the implementation of the system. The EES is an EU-wide system. Although the EU has expressed a desire to explore pre-registration and we continue to work with European colleagues to encourage the development and adoption of an app, it is still in the early stages and will not be available at the start of implementation. However, even if there were an app, passengers would still need to attend a kiosk, booth or tablet to enrol biometrics, but of course the app would reduce the time taken for individuals to undertake full EES checks at the border, so it would be very desirable. We are urging them as hard as we can.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a facility at Stansted Airport that currently takes live racehorses, exporting them to the rest of Europe and further afield? For good reason, that has been requisitioned for other purposes, but there could be a period when those racehorses will not be able to move from East Anglia to the rest of Europe. Will he use his good offices to investigate this to make sure that a comparable facility is available without any delay to expediting flights of live racehorses, which bring much joy as well as being good for the East Anglian economy?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am afraid it is a revelation to me that there is such a facility at Stansted, but, now that I know, I will go away and look at the noble Baroness’s remarks to see what can be done.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, Operation Brock causes absolute havoc around Kent, and the renewed and enhanced passport restrictions will inevitably cause delays. Can the Minister assure us that Operation Brock will not become a regular feature of life in that part of Kent?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Of course, one has to be very sympathetic about the considerable disruption that Brock causes. Since they took office, the Government have been thinking about what else can be done. My department has signed a contract with Lydden Hill racetrack to be a contingency site for the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum to incorporate into its traffic management plans, and we are also in negotiations with another site. But the primary thing that needs to happen is for the Port of Dover to finish its facility at Dover Western Docks. That was facilitated by an early action of this Government, and the work finally started in March 2025. It is in progress to be finished by 1 November, and it is monitored by my department and the Home Office weekly and by Ministers monthly.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, will the Government still require incoming freight vehicles to call at a place called Ashford Sevington to be checked, or will that be removed? At the moment, all incoming vehicles are supposed to be checked at Sevington but, of course, half of them just drive by up the motorway and are never seen again.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. I will have to take some advice on how that works; it is not immediately apparent that it is connected with the EES, but I will go away and answer his question in writing.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, following the concerns expressed about Operation Brock, it is worth recalling that the EU’s phased introduction of EES allows for temporary suspension at specific border points in the event of high traffic. Given that the UK’s traffic monitoring will give us advance notice of building problems at the juxtaposed borders in Dover and Folkestone, what assurance can the Minister give us that the Government have sought to ensure that French border officials will accept and use our traffic information when making a decision to suspend the EES?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is quite correct that there is considerable flexibility, certainly in the early days of the scheme, to suspend it for the benefit of traffic getting through. The juxtaposition of the French and British border controls is very helpful in that respect. With our current, better relationship with the French Government, I know that there is an intention both at the highest level and at a working level to do precisely what the noble Lord says so that the French can apply this flexibility at the right times for the benefit of traffic going through the ports and Eurotunnel.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, on the movement of trucks across EU borders, what developments, if any, have there been on sorting out the urgent question of cabotage for touring musicians, which the Minister’s department should be taking a keen interest in?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am absolutely sure that my department is taking a keen interest in it. Again, this is not immediately connected with the European Entry/Exit System, but I would be very happy to write to the noble Earl and say what progress there has been.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, given that the Channel Tunnel has quite a lot of capacity, what consideration have the Government given to the increased use of the tunnel for rail freight? Will the Government’s strategy for increasing rail freight in this country include a proposal along those lines?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an excellent point. In fact, the Government and I are very active in encouraging more freight through the tunnel—and, indeed, more railway freight generally. Of course, as the noble Lord will know from our discussions on the then public ownership Bill and subsequently, the Government intend to give Great British Railways a target to increase rail freight, particularly in respect of the use of Eurotunnel. Both Eurotunnel and HS1 have the facility to discount track access charges for new freight. When I meet the freight community, as I do probably more often than the passenger operators —at least as a group—I regularly encourage and unfailingly remind it of this so that we can use the surplus capacity to which the noble Lord refers.
Lord Inglewood (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, while most of this discussion has related to the south of England, the impact of these changes is at least as significant on the other bits of England—not least the north of England, because businesses up there are affected at least equivalently by the changes that may take place?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Indeed—we are very mindful of the fact that, done inelegantly and with the wrong result, this could affect business across the country generally, not merely in the south of England. The three juxtaposed controls are in the south of England, but they affect travellers and freight from all over the country. We are mindful of the effect on the economy as a whole; that is why the Government have worked so hard since they took office to check both that the arrangements in these places are adequate and that there is more capacity, as well as in collaboration with the European Union so that its end of this works as well as ours will.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister consider exploring the viability of processing and charging facilities on the M20 in the Ashford area, away from the coast at Folkestone, Dover and Thanet, to ameliorate the problem with congestion on the coast?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his suggestion. The juxtaposed portals work by having designated areas which are under the control of other sovereign nations. That would always require a lot of attention. The site in the Dover Western Docks was chosen after the Government took action to enable it to happen. We feel confident that it will work and that the authorities at Dover can sort out the difference between EU hauliers, who do not need to go through these checks, and hauliers from Great Britain, who do. It will depend on the dexterity of the Port of Dover, which needs to work hard to maintain its own business. What the noble Lord suggests is clever, but it would take a lot of doing, while the arrangements that we are putting in place must be there by the autumn.
Fujitsu: Government Contracts
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Fujitsu’s suitability to hold government contracts.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the impact of the Horizon scandal on postmasters and their families has been horrendous. The Government are determined to hold those responsible to account and will continue to seek to make rapid progress on compensation and redress. Fujitsu’s role in Horizon is one of the issues currently being reviewed by Sir Wyn Williams’s statutory inquiry. In January 2024, Fujitsu committed to withdraw from bidding for contracts with new government customers until the Post Office Horizon inquiry concludes. It will bid for work with existing government customers only where it already has a contract with them or where there is an agreed need for Fujitsu’s skills and capabilities. The Government are carefully considering volume 1 of the report, published yesterday, which is limited in scope. Once the inquiry has established the full facts, we will review its final report and consider any further action, where appropriate.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer. Given yesterday’s results from the official inquiry into the Post Office scandal, and the human tragedies which unfolded as a result of wrongful convictions of postmasters, what additional due diligence measures have the Government implemented or will the Government implement to ensure that contractors with a history of significant failures or legal issues can demonstrate that they have addressed these concerns before being awarded new contracts? In this, I am mindful of the bid by Fujitsu for the controversial trader support scheme in Northern Ireland.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend makes the most important of points, which is about the impact on people, and the victims of the Horizon scandal, a lot of which we heard yet again yesterday. It broke my heart and other people’s hearts.
On my noble friend’s specific question, the Procurement Act, which was passed by Your Lordships’ House in 2023, provides buyers with more scope to exclude suppliers who have performed poorly on previous relevant contracts. Previously, exclusion was possible only if poor performance had led to termination of a contract, damages or comparable sanctions. Due diligence on such failures is also more straightforward as the Act now provides for the sharing of information on poorly performing suppliers. This information is publicly available via notices published on the central digital platform.
With regards to the Trader Support Service contract, HMRC is currently undertaking a competitive procurement process for the renewal of that scheme, and it would therefore be inappropriate of me to comment further.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, Fujitsu has paid not one penny towards the victims of the havoc and misery that it helped to cause. Is the Government —is the country—over a barrel to Fujitsu? If not, why is Fujitsu still winning government work? If we are, what are the Government doing about it?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I want to put on record my personal thanks for the work that the noble Lord did in getting us to this point. Even with yesterday’s report, we would not have got as far as we have without his work and that of my noble friend Lord Beamish.
With regard to the role of Fujitsu and its contribution towards compensation and redress, it has accepted that it has a moral obligation to give funds, but the noble Lord will be even more aware than I am that we are yet to see a penny. The Secretary of State met the CEO of Fujitsu on 7 March. Fujitsu has agreed that it will have to make a financial contribution, but I am urged not to give a running commentary, although we will welcome any interim payment in due course.
With regards to ongoing contracts, the noble Lord will be aware that there have been 12 contracts in the last 12 months issued to Fujitsu. Some of that is to transition away from Fujitsu contracts, where we have to make sure there is a smooth transition process. I must remind and urge noble Lords that there are, as yet, no criminal proceedings against Fujitsu, and until then, we have to operate in a quasi-judicial way with regards to our approach to the contracts.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that I have asked quite a number of questions about the Fujitsu contracts, and she has repeated, word for word, quite a bit of what she said in her Written Answers. The Treasury was particularly shocking in its response. When asked why HMRC had retendered to Fujitsu and given Fujitsu contracts this year, it said:
“Contract opportunities are available to any economic operator that is able to meet the requirements of the procurement in compliance with the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 or the Procurement Regulations 2024, as applicable”.
That is a totally dead-bat answer to something quite shocking in my view. In the light of the Horizon report yesterday, which condemned Fujitsu’s conduct as a key contributor to the suffering of thousands of innocent people, is it not already clear that Fujitsu should be nowhere near any new contract?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an incredibly important point. Yesterday, we saw the first volume of Sir Wyn Williams’s 160-page report, based on 2 million pages of evidence, which included 19 recommendations, and we will come back to it in due course. The Government are committed to responding in full to the findings of the report by 10 October.
With regard to Fujitsu and the ongoing contracts, I believe that the Treasury contract is about the HMRC platform. Some of this is about continuity of service, to make sure that we are still able to have business supply secured. But I think everyone in your Lordships’ House would agree with the noble Lord’s sentiment that this is about how we operate in a way that is based on evidence going forward, so that we can ensure that those who need to be held accountable are held accountable and we do not make mistakes at the Dispatch Box, which I might by saying something that is unhelpful going forward as we progress after volume 2 is published.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, yesterday Sir Wyn produced the first volume of his report. It is worth all noble Lords reading section 2, because it gives a summary of individual cases of those who have been affected. I challenge anyone to read some of those without being moved: something that my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, and I have got used to over the years.
He also raises in the report the issue around compensation and Fujitsu. To date, the Government and taxpayers have paid over £1 billion, quite rightly, to those victims. Fujitsu has not paid one penny piece. It may have a moral obligation, but moral obligations do not pay compensation. I have raised on numerous occasions an issue that has been raised about ongoing contracts. I dispute the fact that some of these are ongoing contracts; some are new contracts. I have called, along with my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, for Fujitsu to at least pay some interim payments. When will the Government get on and force Fujitsu to act on its moral obligations, put its hands in its pockets and at least pay some interim payments?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for the work he has done and for his ongoing participation in the Horizon compensation schemes. I agree that all noble Lords should review the 17 cases Sir Wyn Williams has highlighted. Many of us will have listened again last night to the personal testimonies of Jo Hamilton and Seema Misra, which are totally and completely heartbreaking and give us an indication of the human cost of the Horizon scandal, including the 13 people who have committed suicide because of it.
We have urged Fujitsu to make interim payments. There are ongoing conversations with Fujitsu, including regular meetings with the Crown Representative, the Cabinet Office and DBT. We will continue to have such meetings.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, the Post Office Horizon IT scandal has seriously damaged public trust in procurement processes and, yet again, Fujitsu is right at the heart of it. Can the Minister tell the House exactly what the Government are going to do to finally hold Fujitsu to account and confirm whether the Government will be taking advantage of the new procurement regime enshrined by the previous Government, which allows the exclusion of suppliers from future procurement processes based on the grounds of professional misconduct?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely correct that the tools now exist because of the Procurement Act 2023. They came into effect on 25 February this year. But the process the noble Baroness describes is quasi-judicial and it is vitally important that we follow the evidence and make sure that we are acting appropriately with government money in the application of any investigation into Fujitsu. Obviously, there are also other accountability measures that are ongoing, including those currently being undertaken by the Metropolitan Police. There are many different levels of this investigation and the Government will respond in due course on our next steps after we have the full public inquiry findings.
Universal Credit: Two-child Limit
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the cost of abolishing the two-child limit for Universal Credit.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government do not routinely publish costings of policy alternatives. However, estimates have been produced by independent think tanks, including the IFS, the Resolution Foundation and IPPR. Their costings range from £2.5 billion to £3.5 billion a year in steady state. This Government are committed to tackling child poverty and will publish an ambitious child poverty strategy in the autumn.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is generally accepted that the abolition of the two-child limit and, many would argue, the benefit cap must be, in the words of the Children’s Commissioner, “the foundation” of the much-anticipated child poverty strategy. Does my noble friend therefore agree with charities in the field and former Prime Minister and Chancellor Gordon Brown that the immediate cost to the Exchequer must be weighed against the economic, financial and social costs of this key driver of child poverty, including the cost to the NHS, education, children’s care services, homelessness provisions, local economies and, indeed, to the Government’s own missions?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the Children’s Commissioner. She will be aware that the Government commissioned the Children’s Commissioner to look at the experience of children in poverty. I am sure that, like me, she has read their comments, and they make for uncomfortable reading. But we cannot tackle child poverty in this country if we are not willing to look in the face the reality of the lives of our children. Importantly, having set up a Child Poverty Taskforce, the Government have pledged to look at the full range of the underlying causes of poverty and will continue to do that work.
I reassure my noble friend that the Child Poverty Taskforce is continuing to look at all available levers to lift our children out of poverty. We are looking at everything, including social security measures, housing, education and health, and the Government will bring forward an ambitious child poverty strategy in the autumn. But I want to reassure her that the last Labour Government lifted the best part of 1 million kids out of poverty, and we have a manifesto commitment to tackle child poverty. The Prime Minister set up this task force very early in his time in office. We are determined to tackle this scourge in our country.
Lord Brownlow of Shurlock Row (Con)
I apologise to your Lordships for not being in as often as I would like; I have had some health issues, but I have been watching the proceedings of your Lordships’ House and the other place on television. Given everything that the Minister has just said could be brought forward, does she think she will have the backing of the Back Benches on the other side of the House?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am sorry to hear about the noble Lord’s health; we are very pleased to see him here today, and as often as he is able to make it. I wish I could be in two places at once, because then I would watch what is happening down the other end of the Corridor, as well as at the better end, but so be it.
Noble Lords will be aware that the Government set out a Bill looking at reforming support for sick and disabled people. It came in two parts, addressing PIP and the extra cost benefit, and universal credit. As the result of the proceedings in the Commons last week, the Government, having listened to comments from around and beyond the House, will now look again at the PIP part after the review being led by my right honourable friend Sir Stephen Timms, co-produced with disability charities and disabled people.
However, down the other end they are discussing a Bill, which will soon arrive in this House, dealing with important issues such as rebalancing universal credit. We will be looking at producing the biggest sustained increase in the basic standard allowance of universal credit since it was set up, but also at how to balance that by making sure the gap between that and the amount people get as a health top-up is less. It will introduce lots of other things, including a right to try, bringing forward regulations so that trying a job will never mean in and of itself that you get reassessed. There is a lot of welfare reform to be done yet. It is tough going but we are determined to keep doing it, and I hope to see the noble Lord at the debate, if he is well enough, in the next few weeks.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I thank the Minister for explaining the Government’s position, but it always seems to be that the real position is how much money we can save and how we can make the system financially viable. What analysis has the department conducted of the effects of the policy on children’s life chances, educational achievements and mental health? You cannot measure it all in how much money is saved.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
If the noble Lord is referring to the two-child limit, he will be aware that the policy was introduced not by a Labour Government but by a Conservative Government, and it is not a policy we would have introduced. We are working our way through the entire landscape we inherited. In tackling child poverty, we are setting out not to save money but to make children’s lives better. We understand that poverty is not just about one thing. Look at the things we have already done. We have announced a fair repayment rate to try to make sure that being in debt to the Government does not drive you further into poverty. Some 100,000 children will be lifted out of poverty by extending free school meals to all those on universal credit. We have raised the minimum wage by so much that an average full-time worker on the national living wage will get a pay rise of £1,400 a year on average. We are looking at the full range, and we have already taken steps to try to make the lives of our citizens better, particularly of our children. The child poverty strategy is not about money; it is designed to make children’s lives better, and I commend it to him.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, is there any evidence that the two-child benefit cap has contributed to the rapid decline in our total fertility rates? In its latest Fiscal Risk and Sustainability report, the OBR highlights this as one of the UK’s daunting challenges—and, notably, the shrinking of our future workforce in an ageing society. What policies, if any, are the Government considering to address this disturbing decline in birth rates?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a really important point. I am not aware of any evidence connecting those but, if he is, I would be interested in it. I periodically survey the global evidence. If the noble Lord has looked into this, he may know that a declining birth rate is a common problem in many developed economies. A number of different countries have tried different strategies to tackle it, but they have been remarkably unsuccessful. So I am not aware of evidence of clear policies that Governments can use to tackle this.
It is my personal view that women have children for all kinds of reasons. While it is possible to remove barriers, it is never about just a single thing. It will be about things like childcare, so the Government are investing heavily in providing childcare for working families to make it possible for families to do that. It is about making sure that work pays enough to support a family, so we are investing in the minimum wage. We are doing a number of different things, but this is a House full of expertise and if any noble Lord has good ideas or evidence on this, I am open to it.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Following on from the question from my noble friend Lord Brownlow, what decisions are being made and what coherent plan will there be to tackle the welfare Bill? It is extraordinary that the Timms review will report—before any legislation —two years and three months after the last general election, with no meaningful progress having been made at all.
My question is on the two-child cap. Can the Minister remind the House what the exceptions are to that policy, meaning that difficulties or hardship arising for those who have chosen to have more than two children can be mitigated substantially with extra funding from the taxpayer?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, since the noble Viscount’s Government brought in the policy, he probably does not need me to remind him there are exceptions—for example, those involved in kinship care and those who have produced a child as a result of non-consensual conception, who can be exempted if they can produce evidence of having been raped and the conception being the result of that, or if they can find another way to account for that. However, this is not the driver behind the Government’s action. This Government want to make the lives of children and families better. I make no apologies for starting off by looking at the terrible rise in child poverty over the last 14 years, and I cheered the Prime Minister when one of his early actions was to set up a cross-government child poverty task force and a unit to look at the full range of drivers of that. If our children grow up in poverty, it has a scarring effect that they do not recover from. If we do nothing else in our time in government, we need to find a way to address this, and I hope this could eventually be the cross-party view.
During the last Labour Government, I worked in the Treasury advising Gordon Brown and had to tackle child poverty. We set up Sure Start and invested in all kinds of programmes, and I sat in this House and watched many of them being dismantled when I went into opposition. If we are going to find a way to make the country better for all our children, we surely need to agree on how we tackle child poverty and stop it recurring generation after generation.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, reference has already been made to the Children’s Commissioner’s report published yesterday, which gives voice to the experiences of children and young people in poverty. It makes for harrowing reading, including one boy who was faced with the choice of going hungry or eating mouldy food, and many other such difficult stories. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that all the Government’s work on welfare will be based on the human dignity and equal value of every person in this country?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for that, and, indeed, for the work that he and his colleagues do in this area. Like him, one of the reasons I was so glad to see the report, even though it is hard reading for the Government and for everyone, is that it talks about individual stories and the experience of individuals. There is always a risk when we are trying to make decisions at a macro level that we forget how they are experienced at the micro level of the individual. One of the things the task force has done is to have lots of encounters with families and children. It has worked with Save the Children to hear from children, and it has worked with the Children’s Commissioner. I was very grateful that, as part of the process, his colleague the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby welcomed me to Derby to meet a range of faith organisations working on many different aspects and trying to join up the support given to families with children. His point about, in essence, the inalienable worth of every individual is one I am very happy to approve.
Combined Authorities (Adult Education Functions) (Amendment) Order 2025
Baroness Blake of Leeds
That the draft Order laid before the House on 19 May be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 7 July.
Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) (Threshold Amount) (Amendment) Order 2025
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Order laid before the House on 13 May be approved.
Relevant document: 27th Report from Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 7 July.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Wednesday 9th July 2025
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-R-II(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (8 Jul 2025)
17:08 - Division on Amendment 13A (to Amendment 13) - Ayes: 284 / Noes: 239 - Amendment 13A (to Amendment 13) agreed.
18:23 - Division on Amendment 17 - Ayes: 265 / Noes: 247 - Amendment 17 agreed.
Lord True
“Unsalaried MinistersNo one who is a Minister of the Crown shall be eligible for membership of the House of Lords unless they are in receipt of, or have been offered, a salary under the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that unpaid Ministers would not be eligible for membership of the House, effectively requiring all Lords Ministers to be paid.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, before speaking to Amendment 13, I should explain that I have tabled Amendment 13A on the supplementary list to put beyond doubt a point that may have been an unintended effect of the original drafting of Amendment 13. Amendment 13A ensures that the proposal in Amendment 13 would not apply to any existing Member of this House, but only to future ministerial appointments of new life Peers. After all, we on this side do not favour the forced expulsion of any Member of your Lordships’ House, and indeed your Lordships voted to support that important constitutional principle only last week. It has been agreed in the usual channels that, if the clarifying Amendment 13A is supported in a Division, Amendment 13 will be accepted as a consequential, so there will be only one vote on this issue.
The purpose of this is to send a clear message to the other place and to all Governments—I emphasise “all Governments”, and will come back to that—that service as a Minister in your Lordships’ House should be properly remunerated. There are other issues that need to be addressed, including pension and severance pay, but this amendment is about pay.
I spoke at some length on this in Committee, and I do not need to repeat all the arguments here, but let me set out three firm principles on which surely we across this House should all stand. The first is a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work; the second is equal treatment for Ministers in both Houses; and the third is that no Member of this House should be prevented from serving their party, their House and their country for the lack of private means to do so. That is an unfairness that should have ceased to exist in the 18th century, let alone now in the second quarter of the 21st century. None of those basic principles that I have set out currently applies to Lords Ministers’ pay. Surely all Government Ministers in the House of Lords, whichever party is in office, should be paid. If they wish to renounce that pay, or any part of it, that is all well and good, but that does not affect the basic underlying principles.
In Committee, I spoke very frankly of my sense of shame—and, I might have added, anger—that I was unable to resolve this issue while I was Leader of the House because of, frankly, opposition at the top of both major parties. I exclude the noble Baroness opposite from this, who was extremely helpful and constructive in our discussions. I need not repeat those points today.
Towards the end of the last Government, 14 Ministers and Whips in this House were expected to work unpaid. The unpaid Ministers included my noble friends Lord Howe, Lord Minto, Lord Camrose and Lord Roborough. It is richly ironic that their public service and self-sacrifice then will now be rewarded by this Bill, as originally drafted, excluding them from our House.
As I said in Committee, I felt particularly keenly that it was a disgrace that my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, a consummate and internationally respected servant of his country, lost out doubly as being unpaid and unable to claim an allowance because he was so often unable to attend the House because of his duties overseas. Such things should not happen.
Today, the Downing Street website tells us—I take it directly from there—that the noble Baroness, Lady Gustafsson, of Chesterton, and the noble Lords, Lord Hanson of Flint, Lord Timpson and Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, all work as Ministers of State unpaid. The noble Lords, Lord Moraes, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield, Lord Katz and Lord Leong, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, all work as Government Whips unpaid, according to the government website this morning.
Perhaps only those of us in this House understand the immense burden and workload that falls on Whips in your Lordships’ House. It is quite different from what happens in the Commons. We admire them all greatly, and each of those Ministers I named are greatly admired and respected by their colleagues on this side of the House.
But no one should be required to do all that work without pay. No one in any other workplace would tolerate that as a fair way to treat labour. Where is the clause in the massive Employment Rights Bill to right the wrong that is done not just to those individuals but, frankly, to the dignity of this House?
I take nothing away from the sense of public duty. I admire it tremendously because it has led noble Lords under successive Governments to give public service here without reward. But not everyone in this place has the means to do that. That is an unfairness and an injustice, and it should end.
The problem results from two 50 year-old statutes: the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 limits the total number of paid Ministers to 109, and the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 allows for up to 95 Ministers in the House of Commons. If the Commons takes up its full allocation of 95 ministerial places, the effective, legal statutory limit for paid Ministers in your Lordships’ House under that limit of 109 is just 14. Clearly, that is not enough. The system must be changed. Of course, it could be changed by a simple Bill agreed across the parties to amend paragraph 2 of Part V of Schedule 1 to the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 Act. I am sure we could agree that very swiftly.
The self-sacrifice and sense of duty of those who serve for nothing should be respected. However, it need not for ever be repeated. We cannot neglect this issue, I submit, for the dignity and effectiveness of this House. This amendment would force the hand of all future Governments and all parties in the other place to address the issue. Now that the Bill has now been amended and is going back to the other place, I hope we may agree to send this important message down the Corridor.
On the basis of my experience and my sense of the rightness and fairness of this House, it is high time to open up the opportunity to every one of us here who may wish to serve their party and country as Ministers or Whips in this place but cannot afford to do so without pay to have that chance.
On our side, we will work across the House to agree and expedite a fuller solution going beyond this initial step, which will redress the balance between Commons and Lords Ministers. In the interim, I commend this first step to the House, with the firm belief that if no message is ever sent, the same experience that I and former Leaders of the House have had will go on recurring and people here will be asked to work for nothing.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords—
Amendment 13A (to Amendment 13)
Lord True
“(2) This section does not apply to Ministers of the Crown appointed before the day on which this section comes into effect.”
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as explained, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I apologise for jumping the gun, but the enthusiasm I feel for this amendment from my noble friend goes back to the previous Parliament: I pay tribute to the Leader of the House and to my noble friend for the efforts that were made in the last Parliament to right this wrong. Perhaps I could just make a few punchy points.
There is a limit, as my noble friend has explained, on the total number of Ministers. I was very indebted, in the last Parliament, to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, who pointed out that there seems to be an increasingly inflationary effect on the number of Ministers who are needed to run this country. When I was Secretary of State, pre-devolution, we were responsible for everything, not just the devolutionary matters in Scotland, and we did it with one Secretary of State, four Ministers and two law officers. There are now 29 Ministers in the Scottish Parliament.
I am looking at my noble friend Lord Clarke. He and my noble friend Lord Fowler ran the Department for Transport in 1979 with two Ministers, and in 1979, that department was responsible for British Airways, the ports and the National Freight Corporation, none of which applies to the present or the previous Government’s Department for Transport, just to show that I am being non-partisan. In 1979, there were two Ministers, but by 2023 there were five Ministers in the Department for Transport, with much less to do.
The same was true of the DHSS, which had five Ministers in 1979. The DHSS was then split into two departments: the Department of Health and the DWP. The DHSS had five Ministers in 1979, but the two departments between them had 12 Ministers. You could argue that things have got more complicated, but there does seem to be an inflationary effect which even beats the Bank of England in the ability to create this kind of growth.
I think that it is very important that the principle that my noble friend has enunciated should be upheld: no one should be unable to be a Minister because they do not have the private means to do so. But just to follow up on my point, it looks to me suspiciously as though ministerial appointments in the other place were being used as a means of patronage by the previous Government to make sure that people would go through the Lobbies.
This Government do not really need much patronage —until recently, at least, they had a huge and loyal majority—but it looks as if that is what is happening. If we add to that the appointment of people who act as trade envoys and so on, it looks as if appointments are being used to increase the power of the Executive at the expense of the elected Chamber and this House. I think that my noble friend’s amendment and this principle is very important, because it goes to the heart of the ability of Parliament to hold the Executive to account.
This is not the only anomaly in the way this House is treated in respect of remuneration. Our Select Committees, if they go and do their work outside the House, can claim only half a day’s attendance, yet if people participate in our Questions remotely, they can claim a full day’s attendance allowance. I am sick to death of reading in the newspapers how we in this House are paid £371 for just turning up. No one points out that, out of that £371, people are expected to make a contribution to their overnight allowance and expected to cover their own secretarial and research costs. I point out that in the other place, the allowance for secretarial and other support can go up to £250,000 and the housing allowance up to £25,000.
Yes, MPs have constituents but, in this House, we often sit long after the other place has gone because we are clearing up the mess which is left when Bills have not been properly considered. Ministers in this House—God bless them—are expected to stand at the Dispatch Box, although they do not always do so, and answer questions not only on behalf of their departments but for the whole of the Government. This is an onerous task, and the idea that people should be expected to do that unpaid is, frankly, utterly outrageous.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as probably the most recently retired unpaid Minister, I acknowledge the shop stewarding role of the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Forsyth. Clearly, they raise an issue of principle. As they have set out, the issue is around a Prime Minister’s management of MPs in the Commons and both Acts of 1975. Although I do not think this amendment is really appropriate in this Bill, it is a substantive issue and it is clearly unacceptable that Ministers of the Crown are unpaid. It reduces the talent pool from which to choose, and it has a flavour of cricket 50 years ago and gentlefolk amateurs. That is quite unfair, but it gives a flavour of those compared with professional politicians.
How can this be solved? Of course, Prime Ministers could exercise rather more restraint over the number of Commons Ministers who are appointed—good luck with that. As the noble Lord, Lord True, said, we could also bring forward a little Bill to increase the number of paid Ministers allowed. I cannot believe—and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, put his finger on it—that a Government would ever increase the number of paid Ministers in the febrile atmosphere in which we currently operate.
It is worth acknowledging that the inflation has gone down a bit. Research from the Library shows that in 2010, the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, had 118 Ministers, which, by my reckoning, means at least nine were unpaid. The noble Baroness, Lady May, had a similar figure in 2015. Mr Johnson had nine unpaid in December 2019, according to a Parliamentary Answer. My figures show that Mr Sunak increased it to 17 unpaid Ministers, 15 of whom were in your Lordships’ House.
Frankly, I am very dubious that we will see any improvement until we come back to the fundamental issue of substantive reform of your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, may shake his head, but the reality is that the Lords is treated in the way that it is because we are not legitimate at the moment. I am afraid that the sorts of amendments from the Lib Dems on an elected House, and even tinkering around in terms of the numbers, is not going to cut the cake until we decide what the role of the second Chamber should be, its powers, how its membership is arrived at and whether Ministers would be appropriate to serve in such a reformed second Chamber.
Finally, the question which noble Lords and all other commentators will never answer is: what are the respective powers and relationships between the Lords and Commons, and how do you resolve differences? Let us get down to the real business and not go ahead with this proposal, which, I am afraid, is for the birds.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support these amendments because arrangements in a free economy involve an exchange of labour in return for payment. Since time immemorial, we have accepted that the labourer is worthy of his hire. Not only does payment represent a benefit to him for work done, but it reflects the obligations on the employer to meet certain conditions and take certain responsibilities, as it does on him.
In the case of ministerial salaries, as my noble friends have pointed out, this has long been recognised in law, with limits put on the number of Ministers, of course. The Ministers of the Crown Act 1937 regulated the salaries payable to Ministers. As we have heard today, the 1975 Act expanded on that and on the limits on numbers.
Unpaid Ministers in the House of Lords should indeed be entitled to claim parliamentary allowances under the prevailing rules of Parliament, but they are not. As we have heard, many lose out even on the attendance allowance if they are on business abroad. There is good reason to pay people for work expected of them and done. In my view, it is thrice blessed. It blesses he or she who gives their labour, he or she who takes the money and he or she who benefits from the labour.
I am in no doubt that without payment—I speak as a former director of a think tank and an employer—we cannot expect clear responsibilities to be fulfilled without Lords Ministers and the public being clear about the obligations on all Ministers, including those in the Lords. Parliament and the Executive will not be seen to be responsible to their paymasters.
We need to be clear about what the duties are in this Chamber. We know what they are, but the public are not aware of them. We have heard today about the long hours and the serious grind that is put in by Ministers of the Crown. Therefore, it is in my view very important that this work and this contract of employment—for that is what it is, even if it is not stated—should be set out. People should freely see what is expected of Ministers and that they fulfil their duties. It is very good for democracy, for our constitution and for accountability, so I support the amendments. I also echo what was said by my noble friend Lord True, that they can denounce the payment—I add that they could give it to charity—but the principle should be implemented.
Lord Markham (Con)
I was very happy to add my name to this amendment as someone also with personal experience. My noble friend Lord True set out three principles which I think we would all agree with. I think there is a fourth: meritocracy. The best person selected for a position should be selected regardless of race, gender, religion, sexuality or wealth. We all believe in the principle of equality in this House, so why should it not apply in the case of Ministers?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I too was happy to put my name to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord True, and agree with the points that my noble friends have made so far.
In contrast to the rest of the Bill, where we have been debating complex and profound elements of our constitution, this—as we have heard—is a much more common-sense amendment. It could be fixed with a single clause or even, to placate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, a sunset clause attached to it if others agreed that more reform was needed. In addition to the points made about being paid fairly for the work that one does, attracting the best talent from the widest pool and adopting an approach of meritocracy, as my noble friend Lord Markham said, I will make a couple of other points.
The first is stability. Both the previous and current Governments have been able to attract people of great talent, reputation and achievement, but historically that has not always been a stable ministerial model. Stability is important for delivering and executing a Government’s policy effectively. If a Minister changes every year, that is unhelpful, and I know that a number of previous Ministers have felt unable to continue in their role, despite the unquestioned expertise that they brought to it.
As has been touched on, there is also an effectiveness point. I was fortunate to be a Minister in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education. In the Department for Education, I did pretty much all my visits on a Friday because I needed to claim my expenses—or allowance, whatever it is called—for attending your Lordships’ House. As has been noted, colleagues in the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and so forth were not able to.
An article in the Times in 2023 reported a Conservative Back-Bencher—I am dying to know who it was—as saying:
“You can always find ambitious flunkies who will do it—but it is much harder to find anyone good”.
I have to say that I have never thought of myself as an ambitious flunkey, and I worked with excellent fellow Ministers. For me, being a Minister, although I was unpaid, was the highlight of my career. I would do it again like a shot, paid or unpaid, but it is not a choice we should ask potential Ministers to make.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I rise to give strong support to the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend. Like other noble Lords, I do so on the basis of some experience.
In November 2021, I was invited to join the Government as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Northern Ireland Office. I had been involved in the affairs of Northern Ireland since the mid-1980s and advised six Secretaries of State, so it was familiar territory for me. At the time, however, it was made clear that there was no salary. Ministers of the Crown are rightly forbidden from having outside interests. As has been pointed out, some are fortunate enough to be independently wealthy. Alas, I was not in that category. As a result, for reasons that will be understood across the House, it was necessary for me to attend your Lordships’ House each sitting day.
Being an effective Northern Ireland Office Minister requires a significant amount of engagement and visibility within Northern Ireland itself, but I was severely constrained from doing that for a year. For that first year, invitations to attend events or meetings from Monday to Wednesday—or to substitute for other Ministers who might have three-line Whips in the other place—had to be declined.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the ongoing significance of US involvement in the affairs of Northern Ireland and of the importance of engaging directly with Irish America. Of the ministerial team of three— I assure my noble friend Lord Forsyth—at the NIO at the time, I had by far the most experience in these matters and the best network of contacts. So in March 2022, then Secretary of State Brandon Lewis asked me to accompany him on the annual week-long St Patrick’s visit, which typically involves high-level meetings at the Executive Office, the State Department, the House Speaker’s lunch and the President’s reception at the White House. I see the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in his place; he will be familiar with those events. It is essential that the UK Government’s voice is heard during this frantic week. Unfortunately, however, I had to decline the invitation in order to attend your Lordships’ House. It was, to put it mildly, a less than satisfactory situation and, as has been referred to, a number of my noble friends had similar problems when they were in government.
It cannot be right that Members of your Lordships’ House have to face the challenges with which I grappled for a year and be expected to perform as Ministers without a salary—frankly, it is absurd. The Prime Minister himself is certainly aware of this issue, as he discussed it with me as a problem to be resolved during an event that we both attended at Hillsborough Castle in April 2023. I strongly support my noble friend and urge the Lord Privy Seal, herself a distinguished former Northern Ireland Office Minister, to accept this sensible and necessary amendment.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made a very eloquent speech, but I am puzzled by it. He did not dispute the merits of what is proposed in this amendment or the mischief that it is addressing; his point appeared to be that nothing will be done by government until there is fundamental reform of this House. But we all know that that will not occur—at the very least, not for a very long time. Because of that, over recent years this House has regularly addressed specific mischiefs and improved them. This is another one, and we should act on it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest: for five years, I was an unpaid Lords Minister and Whip in the coalition Government. When we have a coalition Government—we may very well find ourselves with a rather messy coalition after the next election—there may be an argument for having a larger number of Ministers, because we have to spend some of our time marking each other, so to speak.
My responsibilities were in the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Office, and I did indeed spend quite a lot of time outside the country. That enabled the Foreign Office to send someone to a number of countries that would otherwise have been entirely neglected without the most junior Minister, as it were, being sent there. I was lucky enough—and still am—to have an academic pension and a wife who has an academic pension, which means that we are moderately comfortably off. Maybe if we were of the Conservative variety, we would find that we needed more to live on, but one can manage not too badly on an academic pension. I did not mind missing some of the days in the House.
We have heard a number of interesting speeches, which have ranged very widely, including on the relationship between the two Houses. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I am reading a book on the House of Lords in the 17th and early 18th centuries, when we had conferences between the two Houses; maybe he would like to suggest that we move back towards that. Here we are on Report for a Bill that has been deliberately designed to be as narrow as possible, but we are talking about the relationship between the two Houses, the way in which government is structured and how many Ministers we need.
The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is absolutely correct that keeping the Back-Benchers in order has led to an expansion of government patronage. He did not make as much about the expansion of PPSs in the House, as well as trade envoys, which has meant that the House of Commons has ceased, in effect, to do a lot of its scrutiny job. Indeed, some weeks ago I met a Labour MP, elected last year, and she said that she wondered what the purpose of an MP is in the House of Commons now, as they are not expected to change legislation or to get at the mistakes that their own Government are making. There are some very broad issues here, but those issues are broader than this Bill.
We all know what the impact of this amendment, if passed, would be: the House of Lords would have fewer Ministers. That would damage this House very considerably, because the current Government are highly unlikely to shrink the number of Ministers in the Commons. If we want to shrink the number of Ministers, we should be agitating, but, of course, part of what has happened is that as local government has got weaker and central government has taken on more of what used to the role of local democracy, Ministers have expanded in all the things they do.
So, from these Benches, we will not support the amendment. Yes, we do favour much wider parliamentary reform. Yes, we favour much more thoroughgoing reform of this House. Yes, we are immensely disappointed at the timidity of this Government, with respect to this Bill as in so many other areas. But here we are, with a Bill that is concerned with a small change in the nature of this House, and unable to persuade the Government, without a much longer conversation, to change the 1975 Act, to change the way the Commons operates and, in that case, those of us on these Benches will vote against the amendment if a Division is called.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I was sitting here with unusual patience, but the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has encouraged me to intervene to make just one point. The Bill says it is to:
“Remove the remaining connection between hereditary peerage and membership of the House of Lords; to abolish the jurisdiction of the House of Lords in relation to claims to hereditary peerages; and for connected purposes”.
Whereas I agreed with almost everything that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, it is nothing to do with this Bill, and I do not understand, with due respect to the clerks, how they agreed these amendments. I think it is a disgrace.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I was going to intervene briefly anyway, but, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I do not think it is customary for any Member of this House to start to question the clerks, who do not have the ability to speak for themselves. As the noble Lords knows, if this amendment were not allowed, it would not have been possible to table it.
The only point I want to add was prompted by something my noble friend Lord Caine said. I do not think it has been reflected in this debate. Before we decide how to respond to my noble friend pushing his amendment, the noble Lord Caine made the point that, when a Member of this House becomes a Minister, even an unpaid Minister, they have to give up all their outside interests. There is another factor that it is worth us being aware of: the same Ministers are also subject to the ACOBA restrictions for two years after they stop being Ministers. So their employment prospects also have some constraints put on them, after they have not been paid for two years and they have had to give up any outside interests as well. That is something else we should take account of.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord True, for raising this issue again, following the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson. It is one of those issues. He and I have discussed it many times, including when he was Leader of the House. I think the principle of paid Ministers is an absolutely sound one and I welcome the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Forsyth, to the Ministers’ union, for which I am happy to supply application forms in due course. As much as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is an unlikely shop steward, I am sure he would be very welcome.
This comes to the heart of the issue. I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes; the clerks did rule it in order as an amendment. There was some surprise about the range of amendments we have had on the Bill, but that is not to say they are not in scope. We have to accept they are in scope, however wide they go from the original title of the Bill.
I am glad the noble Lord, Lord True, tabled his Amendment 13A. I think he did so, recognising that the consequence of Amendment 13 would be that not only would we lose Ministers from the Government if it passed, but we would lose them from your Lordships’ House as well. They would have to go immediately, as Ministers, so I welcome his amendment.
First, it is right to say that the work of a Lords Minister is one of the most difficult jobs in government.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My noble friends agree with me—both paid, I hasten to add; both Foreign Office Ministers and our Defence Ministers are paid Ministers but are still here in the Chamber, recognising the duty and responsibility they have to the House, as well as to their departments and the Government.
As I say, the work Lords Ministers do covers not just their ministerial work in the department but any other work related to the Government, and they will answer questions on behalf of any issue affecting their department. I have great pride in the Ministers we have in our Government, and indeed I think the House has always respected Ministers from all the three parties who have been in government in the past.
I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, when she quoted somebody else who talked about it being “hard to find someone good”. Actually, we do find good people, but they make a sacrifice in order to do so—she is nodding that she did quote somebody, and I accept that.
Baroness Barran (Con)
To be clear, I also completely disagree with that, which is why I went on to say that I had worked with excellent Ministers, and we have excellent Ministers today.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I did not think that was what the noble Baroness said; I thought she was quoting somebody else.
On the points made about ministerial pay, again, there was a very spirited and valuable defence from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I have to say that the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Hunt, went rather wider than this particular issue, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, in talking about the respective merits of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. That just shows the appetite for looking at these issues across government.
As the noble Lord, Lord True, confessed, we have been able to make some improvements in this Government. Before the general election, there were 31 Ministers in government in your Lordships’ House, of whom only 17 were paid and 14 were unpaid. We have been able to improve that situation; we now have only nine unpaid Ministers out of 20 Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, asked for an assurance from me that I would use my best endeavours to persuade colleagues to try to find a way forward in delivering this. He will know, as does the noble Lord, Lord True, that I have done so since I have been in post and did so before, which is partly why the position is so much better than it was under the last Government. I look forward to further improvements in that regard.
The noble Lord, Lord True, gave his three principles. The first was a fair day’s pay for work done, and the second was equal treatment. Actually, there is not equal treatment between the two Houses. He will be aware that the ministerial salaries that Ministers receive in the House of Commons are in addition to their salary, whereas in the House of Lord there is a choice in the sense that Ministers who are unpaid claim, or can claim, the daily allowance. So if we say that they are completely unpaid, we understand what we mean by that but those outside the House may not.
However, it is also worth looking at the fact that, since 2010, there have been no incremental or cost-of-living increases in ministerial salaries. That has meant that Ministers whom we term unpaid, particularly if they live in London, can be earning more than Ministers who are paid. So there are a number of issues to be addressed. I am not citing exact figures, but it is a very similar amount. I am pointing out that there are a number of issues to be addressed in the inequalities between both Houses. I think we all agree that no one should be prevented from serving.
So I am not disputing the principle behind the amendment; I am saying that we cannot support the amendment. If the noble Lord had as his amendment that he wanted to amend the Ministerial and Other Salaries Act to increase the number of Ministers overall, that would certainly help guarantee an increase in the number of Ministers. But it has always been the case since then that there has been a small number of unpaid Ministers in your Lordships’ House; it grew under the last Government. However, if this amendment was passed, it would not mean that any currently unpaid Lords Minister would receive a salary—it would have no impact. It would not increase the number of salaries available for Lords Ministers, therefore it is not a practical solution to what we all agree is a problem. It would also put limits on the ability of the Prime Minister to choose the Ministers he or she seeks to choose.
This amendment would have no effect and we cannot support it. It is an issue to be addressed, and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth—who is leaping to his feet as I speak—sought an assurance that we are addressing it. He can take some comfort that this is a significantly better situation than under the last Government. Before I ask the noble Lord, Lord True, to withdraw, I will take this urgent intervention.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she help me on a procedural point? If Amendment 13 were to be passed, Amendment 13A is clearly sensible. We are going to consider Amendment 13A first. Will it be possible to agree Amendment 13A and then vote against Amendment 13?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. My understanding—I look to the clerk—is that we will vote on Amendment 13A first, and the noble Lord, Lord True, has said that he regards Amendment 13 as consequential and would not seek to press it. It would have to be a vote for or against Amendment 13A, rather than Amendment 13.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I am most grateful to the Leader of the House. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, may have some validity. He said that, in practical terms, it probably means increasing the number of Ministers in order to deal with this issue. That would be a one-clause Bill that could be agreed between both Front Benches and would go through very quickly, I would suggest. Will the Leader explore with her colleagues the possibility of doing that? My noble friend Lord True tried this with the last Government and, unfortunately, there was a view taken at the top of the party, which did not understand this place, not to agree to it. In fairness, there is overwhelming support, and anyone in the House of Commons who understood this issue would surely find it possible to vote for such a Bill without difficulty.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point. I know the draft Bill under the last Government that he refers to. We were never approached about that draft Bill—I am not aware of any discussion. The noble Lord, Lord True, spoke to me about it, but, as a party in the other place, we were never approached about it and it was never discussed.
There are two ways of dealing with this: an overall increase in the number of Ministers, or some way to ring-fence the number of Lords Ministers within the total number of Ministers. The noble Lord made an important point when he said that the number of Ministers overall in government is growing and asked whether that is necessary. A discussion could take place around those two issues—that is the better way—but we want to secure, for this House, the right number of Ministers to do the work that is required of us.
Having said that, this amendment is not a way to achieve this. It would not take us any further forward. The noble Lord’s suggestion is actually better, and I would be happy to take that forward. I urge the noble Lord, Lord True, to withdraw his amendment.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who spoke in this short debate. I have been struck above all by one thing: absolutely nobody who spoke has disagreed with the principle behind this amendment. It has had universal support. We had a startling intervention from the Liberal Democrat Benches, to say that they supported the principle but would vote against the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord said his amendment has universal support, but it does not. I talked about the principle of supporting our Lords Ministers, and said that I preferred the way forward suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I do not support the amendment, but I do not think anyone disagrees with the principle of ensuring that we have the right support for our Ministers.
Lord True (Con)
That was exactly my point, and the noble Baroness has reiterated it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
If I may also correct the noble Lord, I pointed out that the consequence of this would be a reduction in the number of Ministers in the Lords, which would be extremely bad for this House.
Lord True (Con)
That was also incorrect; it need not necessarily do that at all. I must say that I was surprised when I heard the strictures from the Liberal Democrat Benches—“We cannot support this because this is a very narrow Bill”. Were those not the Benches that pressed two Divisions on the Bill to redesign the House on a democratic basis? They have the gall to now come forward and say that your Lordships should not ask that our Ministers be paid. The intervention was even more startling having heard the explanation from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
The intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who is universally respected in this House, was germane, and I thank him too. I had not realised that he was also on the list of unpaid Ministers, which would have been 10 up until a few weeks ago. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, immediately and skilfully picked up the key point that he made. He said that there is never going to be a Bill that comes along to deal with this. Frankly, as I said, we have had the Employment Rights Bill—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I served as Whip on the Bill in 1999 and I was present for every session. I keep the flame that, one day, we will deal with these issues in a substantive way. I still stick to my point that we will make no progress in this area whatever. I know that the Leader may not agree with me but the idea that a Government would bring forward a Bill to say that we are going to increase the number of paid Ministers is completely naive. That is why, in the end, we should get down to the real business of sorting out what this place should really be for.
Lord True (Con)
The noble Lord absolutely makes my point for me. When an opportunity arises, let us put aside all the ardour of this and that, and whether or not we like hereditary Peers. We have a Bill that concerns our House and the better workings of this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, if there is a mischief that might be addressed, let us use this opportunity to address it. The Bill has already been amended. It is not a Bill that is intacta. It is not a Bill that is not going back to the House of Commons.
Under successive Governments, for all the striving of the noble Baroness opposite, the House of Commons has continued, and will continue, to ignore the voice of the House of Lords in respect of our request. If we support my amendment, it will force the House of Commons to consider this point and to consider whether there should be a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work in the House of Lords. It will force the House of Commons to consider whether meritocracy should apply and whether the absence of wealth should not deny one the opportunity to serve one’s country in Parliament. It will force the House of Commons to consider the principle that no one should be prevented from serving their party or this House for the lack of private means. Those are critical principles that should be laid before the House of Commons. This amendment would enable that to be done.
I beg Peers from all sides to stand up for their fellows—perhaps silent fellows—in this House who secretly would like to come forward and serve but, as we have heard from these Benches and the Benches opposite, have to look at their bank balances and say that they cannot. Yes, we can. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“Retirement from the House of LordsIn section 1(2)(b) of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, after “peer” insert “or a person holding a lasting power of attorney for that peer”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment allows for a person holding a lasting power of attorney for a peer to sign on their behalf when notifying the Clerk of the Parliaments of the peer’s retirement.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in Committee, it was pretty much acknowledged that this amendment addressed a genuine problem and that the House as a whole would benefit from a solution. That problem, in a nutshell, is that the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 clearly states that a notice of resignation
“must … be signed by the peer and by a witness”.
Therefore, if a Peer has lost mental capacity and the Clerk of the Parliaments does not feel able to accept an attorney’s signature, there could be the perverse situation where a Peer’s attorney could arrange medical care or sell a Peer’s house but could not submit a notice of resignation on their behalf, thus leaving that Peer free to speak or vote in the House when they really should not. This is undignified for the Peer and bad for the reputation of the House.
Amendment 16 would amend the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 to allow a person holding a lasting power of attorney to sign a letter of resignation on a Peer’s behalf. Following the debate in Committee, I do not think the intention is controversial and I will not spend more time on it.
I thank the Leader of the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments separately for spending time with me to discuss this amendment. The Leader has done what she said she would do in Committee and has, together with the Clerk of the Parliaments, come up with a solution—the issue is whether it is the best one. In the decade or so since the passing of the 2014 Act, the Clerk of the Parliaments and his predecessors have accepted legal advice that it would not be lawful to accept a notice of resignation by a Peer’s agent or attorney. The Leader recently commissioned further advice from the Government Legal Department, which I am informed admits that there are good arguments on both sides but now advises that an attorney may submit a notice of resignation on behalf of a Peer.
Armed with the new government lawyers’ advice but conscious of the good arguments on both sides, the Clerk of the Parliaments has changed his mind and said that he is now prepared to accept the legal risk of accepting a resignation from an attorney, subject to certain safeguards. I emphasise that the unfortunate Clerk of the Parliaments is only implementing a system that we have created but is forced to take the legal risk by accepting the new advice instead of the previous advice. He may later be found to be correct in accepting the advice or he may not.
What would happen if a successor Clerk of the Parliaments disagreed with his interpretation of the advice? What would happen if a court found that the advice was incorrect? Why should we leave the Clerk of the Parliaments to bear the risk that we have created? Surely it would be better if we made the situation clear by amending the 2014 Act in the way the amendment suggests. The Government are already amending that Act in Clause 3(4).
As we all know, legislative time is at a premium, so adopting the amendment is a perfect opportunity for this House to do its duty to revise legislation and remove doubt. In the words of the Leader of the House when she was Leader of the Opposition,
“there is an obligation on us to do what we can to improve legislation. That is our role”.—[Official Report, 31/1/23; col. 636.]
Baroness Browning (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, I fully understand why he is suggesting this and I have a lot of sympathy with it, but, for clarity, I would like to know about a detail in his discussions with the Clerk of the Parliaments. For the attorney to exercise an attorney’s power, they would have to make sure that the person they were representing had lost capacity. What steps have been included to assess that capacity? I served on the Mental Capacity Act committee for many years, and under the Act there is a procedure to assess someone’s capacity. Particularly in respect of very elderly people, sometimes people are deemed to have lost capacity when in fact they are suffering from things like urinary tract infections. For that power to be exercised legally, what has my noble friend agreed will be the way in which capacity is legally assessed?
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)
As far as I understand it, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 says that an attorney established under a lasting power of attorney must think about the code of practice within that Bill when they make decisions on the other person’s behalf, so they are under a duty to abide by the code of practice that is contained within that Bill.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Forgive me, but within that code of practice is a clear code of conduct for how capacity is assessed and by whom. There should be an assumption of capacity before that process starts.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)
Exactly. The attorney under a lasting power of attorney has duties. If he or she was exercising that duty within the realm of the Act, they would be acting lawfully, and they would establish capacity using the advice that is contained in the code of practice. I beg to move.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I will be brief because I cosigned and spoke to this amendment in Committee. The amendment seems to me to be bathed in common sense and one that this House should accept without question. It is a timely amendment that is also based in humanity. As I explained last time, there are two types of powers of attorney, but Section 1 of the 2014 Act does not seem to come within either of them. Therefore, to avoid the confusion that currently seems to be abroad, we should make that confusion go away by agreeing to my noble friend’s amendment.
We have heard something of what the Clerk of the Parliaments may or may not think, but, with the greatest respect to him, what he thinks is neither here nor there. This is a government Bill, and presumably the Government’s policy is not to permit this amendment. They must justify their refusal to accept the noble Lord’s amendment, and they cannot hide behind their lawyer or our clerk.
The simple point is: are we to be humane? Are we to allow those who have lost their capacity to be released from the burdens of membership of this House of Lords, or are we to leave them to hang on in some undignified way? My noble friend’s amendment is sensible, humane and timely, and I support it with great vigour.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. I suggest, in addition to the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that the position is even worse. We are not relying on the Clerk of the Parliaments; the Government are relying on legal advice which has been received that none of us have seen. I cannot understand, on a matter of this importance which goes to the integrity of the House, why we are denied access to legal advice which, as I understand it, the Government are relying on in order to respond to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ashton. This is a matter on which certainty is essential and I, for my part, without seeing this legal advice, cannot accept that the best solution is not to put the matter, with clarity, in legislation.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I join with others to support the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Ashton. The constitutional role of this House is to review and improve legislation, and this is a clear case of improving legislation. I make only two points. First, to repeat the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, we have never seen the second set of legal advice that has now been provided by the Government Legal Department. There is absolutely no convincing reason why confidentially should not be waived in respect of that legal advice. It is impossible for us to make any judgment without that happening. It is equally clear that there remains real doubt as to the advice received. The Clerk of the Parliaments has talked about being willing to take a risk. There is only a risk where there is uncertainty.
The second point I wish to underline is that mental incapacity does not necessarily proceed in a linear fashion. I take the simple example of George III: periods of pronounced mental incapacity may be followed by clear and lengthy periods of lucidity. Indeed, in the case of George III that led to constitutional problems, because when lucid he went on to question some of the steps taken in the regency. Here, you also have the case of someone who suffers a massive nervous breakdown and fully recovers, only to discover that they have been resigned from this House—an irretrievable step. They cannot go back, so what do they do? They seek to challenge and review the decision on the grounds that it was unlawful, and they may well succeed.
What happens if, after one or two years in court, it is determined that that person was entitled to continue as a Member of this House, and they then say, “Well, I would have acted in the following way with regard to primary or secondary legislation that passed through this House during the period when I was unlawfully prevented from contributing to proceedings”? It seems to me that it just leads to a constitutional problem, one that is simply resolved by a very straightforward amendment to the 2014 Act.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I have seen two of these instances happen before. On legal advice given to a Minister not being revealed to this House, I can remember a huge row about it, and the House adjourned for 10 or 20 minutes while everyone recovered their composure because the row got so bad. It has been longstanding legal advice, and whether it is a good or a bad thing, this is probably not the place to break it, unfortunately. I do agree that it would have been very helpful to the House on the other occasion if the Minister had been able to say what that advice was. It is a good question whether we should do it, but I do not think this is necessarily the place or time, although there is long precedence for that.
On the question of powers of attorney or legal capacity, I have met this too to do with a will and things like that. The answer, very simply, is that you get advice on the question of legal capacity. If you want to push it far enough, it can end up in the courts or the Court of Protection; probably, the power of attorney would end up in front of the Court of Protection, if someone wants to push it that far, and it would be very unfortunate. If, in the George III case, the person recovered somewhat and two years’ later said, “No, I wish I had not been chucked out”, I am afraid he would not have been sitting for two years, so he would be disbarred from the House by reason of non-attendance. So that might just solve the problem.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend’s amendment. I want to make a slightly different point in addition to the legal arguments that have already been made. It is a shame to be speaking before hearing the Leader of the House set out her case, but, as my noble friend said, she was very clear in Committee that she takes this matter very seriously, as I know she does. As we discussed in Committee, all of us who have led our groups or been Chief Whips have had to deal with this issue, and I think we are united in knowing that it needs addressing.
The thing I find hard to understand is why we would not use the opportunity we have right now to put this matter beyond doubt. There are very few opportunities to do that, and one is presented to us right now, so I hope that the Leader of the House will take it. If she does not and my noble friend presses for a Division and is successful, I hope that, in the period between now and the Commons considering any amendments we pass, she will use the opportunity to make the case for this amendment to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues. As the Leader of the House sometimes reminded me when I was sat where she is, the Leader has a responsibility not just to bring the Government’s arguments to this House but to represent the arguments of this House back to government. This is one of those occasions when the House would look to her to take that lead.
I would simply add that, on this occasion, this is not political or partisan; it is about serving the public interest, not just the interests of us as individual Members. I hope that the Leader of the House will act in accordance with that if my noble friend divides the House and is successful in passing his amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the point raised by this amendment is very short, and I will therefore make only three short points on it. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, it is unfortunate that we do not have sight of the relevant legal advice. Here, the Government are not relying on legal advice that is covered by the normal principles of confidentiality; this goes directly to how the House is going to vote on this matter, and it is unsatisfactory and unfortunate that we do not have sight of that legal advice.
Secondly, whatever view one takes on the underlying position, we now know that there are two contrary and conflicting legal opinions out there. That necessarily gives rise to ambiguity, which is something we should avoid if we possibly can. That brings me to the third point: we can avoid ambiguity here, because this amendment makes very clear what the position is going to be going forward, and we have the ability to put the matter beyond any doubt. Given that the Bill is already going back to the other place in respect of a number of points, I suggest that this amendment ought to be accepted. If the Leader of the House is unable to accept it, these Benches will support my noble friend in the Lobbies.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for that, and perhaps I can offer a helpful way forward. This amendment is identical to one tabled in Committee, except that it seeks to permit Peers to retire by allowing a person holding a lasting power of attorney to sign the notice of retirement, which is then given to the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The debate we had in Committee was very useful. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said, it was an example of the House at its best, coming together to resolve an issue concerning the dignity of our Members that we all need to be resolved. There was cross-party support for addressing this issue, which has lingered unresolved for far too long, and which the House should have addressed a long time ago.
At the Dispatch Box last time, I made a commitment to report back to the House, and I am able to do so positively today. I will give some of the background of why this matters to me: I was concerned about it before I was Leader of the House, when I was Leader of the Opposition. I know that previous Leaders and Chief Whips were given the same advice as I was—that it was not possible for somebody to be retired by lasting power of attorney or by power of attorney.
I had a case with a colleague whose health was declining, the family wished that Member to retire, and when they approached the Clerk of the Parliaments they were told that the Member could not be retired but he could take a leave of absence. I found that completely and totally unacceptable, because we did not give that Member the opportunity to leave this House with dignity. I investigated further, and I was shocked to discover that they would not even accept a power of attorney. Given that the circumstances in which a power of attorney is accepted are significant, for this House not to accept it seemed rather strange, and I thought it was unacceptable. You can sell your family home, you can resign somebody as a director of a company, but you could not retire from the House.
I raised this matter with the Clerk of the Parliaments, but I also sought my own government legal advice. I have discussed the matter with noble and learned colleagues around the House and the Clerk of the Parliaments, and we reached an immediate practical solution. Members may or may not have seen the Procedure and Privileges Committee’s report. The Clerk of the Parliaments contacted me to say that, having reviewed the legal advice available to him and his predecessors, subject to safeguards—which I will come on to—he would be willing to accept the notice of resignation submitted to him on behalf of a Peer who has lost capacity, holding either a lasting power of attorney covering property and affairs, executed under Section 9(1) of the Mental Capacity Act, or an enduring power of attorney made prior to the 2005 Act coming into force. The safeguards were that the clerk would see the power of attorney, which is a standard procedure in all cases, and that if there was any doubt or any concern, he would raise that with the Whips.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I have a number of other points to make that might be helpful.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
As to the noble and learned Lord’s impatience, I ask him to bear with me as I go through this.
The basis of that is the legal advice received on that. I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about not sharing legal advice, even though that is a commonly held view in government, but I will come to that as I may have a way forward that will help him. I think he understands the risks of sharing legal advice and knows full well why the Government do not share it.
We have moved on, and it is now possible. There are families of noble Lords who presently are looking at this to ensure they can retire Members who are ill. That decision is based on a lasting power of attorney or an enduring power of attorney, so we are clear that we can accept both of those.
The noble Lord referred to the risk that the position may change again. The matter has already been considered and approved by the Procedure and Privileges Committee, of which the noble Lord, Lord True, is also a member. The report that I showed was published on 24 June with details, and the relevant amendments have been made to the Companion. To state the obvious—I am sure that noble Lords understand this—to reverse that would require further consideration by the committee and then notification to the House. I am confident that the position is practical and sustainable and will not be reversed. The House has a clear view on this matter: Members should be able to retire with dignity through power of attorney. We should let that work through and ensure it takes full effect.
Having listened to the discussion that has taken place, I want to proceed further. I have long held the view, and have discussed it with noble Lords across the House, that this House should take some responsibility for managing its own affairs. The question is: does this have to be in statute in order to take effect? As I have said previously on issues such as retirement and participation, I want the House to step up to its own responsibilities.
I question whether we need primary legislation to resolve this, and I do not think we should pass legislation that is not needed, but I am also concerned that as drafted, the amendment could risk unintended consequences. Unlike the report of the Procedure and Privileges Committee, this amendment makes provision only for lasting power of attorney. This is part of a broader area of law that involves both enduring power of attorney, which is recognised in the Procedure and Privileges Committee report, and other forms of legal authority, such as the ordinary power of attorney, more regularly used when someone manages an individual’s affairs when they are temporarily abroad or unwell.
There are also the provisions that the noble Baroness referred to in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and legislation prior to that which was carefully developed and set out when a lasting power of attorney or an enduring power of attorney should or should not be relied upon. Those ensure that safeguards are in place. By singling out just the lasting power of attorney and making it so that a notice signed by a person holding one is effective in all circumstances, the amendment makes no provision for the wider context. This is a complex issue. I have to admit to noble Lords that when I first embarked on this, I thought it was a straightforward issue, and the more I have looked at it, the more complex it has become. I am wary of looking at simple legislative fixes for what are complicated issues.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The noble Baroness has been extremely helpful. In the period before Third Reading, if the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, agrees with that approach, would she be prepared, at the very least, to share with the House, or with those who are interested in this issue, the substance of the legal advice, so that we can understand what the issues and uncertainties may be?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I think the best way forward would be for the government lawyers to talk with lawyers in the House with an interest, including the noble Lord, so that we can find a way forward. It is in the interests of the House to resolve this and for lawyers to talk to lawyers. I am not a lawyer and I have no intention of becoming a lawyer, although the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, once accused me of being a lawyer —I say that with some pride—but I think we are all in the same place and want to find a way forward.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
Before the noble Baroness the Leader sits down, has any thought been given to the fact that the law of Scotland may not be precisely the same as England’s? I was not able to catch what she was saying in her original statement as to what the formula is she is using, but care has to be taken to see that the law of Scotland would be covered by whatever solution is being put forward.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord is right and I am grateful to him for the discussions we have had on this point. In the legislative solution, there would have to be reference to Scotland as well. That is why I am confident that our current position, for the Procedure and Privileges Committee, is the right one and works.
However, I accept the views of noble Lords who want to put this matter beyond risk. If it is possible to do that through discussions then, as I have said to the noble Lord, I am happy to delay Third Reading to enable those discussions to take place. That is a way forward on this. I hope it is available to the noble Lord, because we want to get this right. None of us wants to be in a position in which a noble Lord whose family think it is appropriate for them to retire is in legislative limbo and cannot do so. If we pass this today, we would be in that position. I am very happy to have discussions with government lawyers between now and Third Reading to resolve the matter. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank everyone who spoke in this debate, including my co-signatories—a formidable legal team. I repeat my thanks to the Leader of the House, who spent a lot of time discussing this with me. I am very grateful for her offer to work further on this matter over the coming weeks, and I am willing to accept that. However, I am afraid I do not think the commitment she has made, though generous, is enough, and I noted that it quite understandably included the ominous phrase “if agreement can be reached”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sorry to intervene on the noble Lord. To be clear, if he puts his amendment to the vote, we cannot support him in that amendment and therefore we cannot have discussions on it between now and Third Reading, because it will be part of the Bill. We would have to wait until ping- pong and have discussions then, which is why this is a better route forward. I am sorry if noble Lords do not quite understand the procedure around how we would have to manage this, which is why I suggest we have discussions. We are even prepared to delay Third Reading to allow for those discussions to take place, so that we can reach a solution that satisfies the whole House. It is a perfectly reasonable way forward.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)
It is a shame that it is take it or leave it, as far as discussions are concerned.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord is a former Chief Whip and he will understand the procedures of the House. If he puts his amendment to the vote today and it is not agreed, the vote we had in Committee stands and the clerk has accepted it. If his amendment is agreed, it is therefore part of the Bill and we cannot address that until it has been to the House of Commons. It is not that we are saying take it or leave it; we are saying that we are unable to do so within our procedures. The way that the House can have the discussion is at Third Reading. It is in the noble Lord’s hands.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)
I do not agree with that exactly. It would be perfectly possible to have discussions, even if it was in the Bill. Even if there are particular problems, once it is in the Bill it can be brought back at Third Reading.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, to assist the House, paragraph 8.153 in the Companion says that:
“An issue which has been fully debated and voted on or negatived at a previous stage of a bill may not be reopened by an amendment on third reading”.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Non-Afl)
There is still ping-pong. However, I accept what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has said.
I am quite surprised there is such controversy about what I thought was a fairly common-sense amendment. We would like to get a solution that everyone could agree on. There is a principle here that errors or problems with legislation should be addressed by legislation. If we have something that we all agree is wrong in a Bill then it should be corrected in the Bill. I have accepted what the noble Baroness has said about having discussions before Third Reading and that the Third Reading could be delayed to enable those discussions. I am sure that we will come to an agreement if we discuss this sensibly. I am therefore prepared to withdraw my amendment.
Lord True
“Rights of life peers to sit in the House of Lords(1) Section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) is amended as follows.(2) At the end of subsection (1) insert “, and, as the case may be, the incidents specified in subsection (2A) of this section”.(3) Omit from “and” in subsection (2)(a) to the end of subsection (2)(b).(4) After subsection (2), insert—“(2A) A peerage conferred under this section may, if the letters patent so state, during the life of the person on whom it is conferred, entitle him, subject to subsection (4) of this section, to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly, and shall expire on his death.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would make it possible to create a life peerage without a seat in parliament under the Life Peerages Act 1958.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, in preface, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for her readiness on that amendment. We have reached a good point as a result of that discussion, and I thank her for that—though there is no doubt in my mind that there is a matter to resolve.
Amendment 17, in my name, seeks to amend the Life Peerages Act to place absolutely beyond doubt what I and many others consider probably is beyond doubt: the untrammelled power of the Crown to create a peerage that does not bring with it a summons to attend your Lordships’ House.
Throughout the passage of this Bill and over many years, if not decades, we have heard arguments about the size of the House, complaints about people who take peerages and then do not attend the House, reference to people who accept a peerage and then very swiftly retire, and on many occasions criticism of previous Prime Ministers’ extensive peerage creations. This one is not doing too badly, and I have no complaint—it was perfectly reasonable, to my mind, that the Labour Party should create more Peers in this House. That has always been my position, and I stand by what I said when I was in government and at this Dispatch Box. We welcomed all these new Peers in the good spirit that is customary in our House.
However, we all know that not all who receive the supreme honour and dignity of a peerage for life in many walks of service—business, the Armed Forces, the arts or even sport, and many others—want to be working Peers in this place, or even feel that they may be equipped to do so. Some come and then swiftly retire. Some very rarely pass those brass gates but, in the statistics, they still count among our number. Neither of those things serves the interest of the House as a whole.
This is one of many reasons why I submit to your Lordships that there is an overwhelming case for a modernising reform of our system of peerages, so that those who are worthy of being honoured in this way for their services to public life, with this extraordinary high degree of honour, but who do not want or may not be able to fulfil the obligations to attend here, may receive a peerage for life without being required to take a seat here.
He is not in his place, but I have often heard the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, make this point and I have always agreed with him. My noble friend Lord Lucas argued it very ably in Committee, and I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, supported the sentiment in Committee. He argued that
“separating the honour from the obligation is an important part of how we should be moving forward”.—[Official Report, 12/3/25; col. 796.]
I agree with him, and I hope that now the Bill is going back to the other place he will be as good as his word and support what he called this important part of moving forward—though, having heard earlier that the Liberal Democrats’ policy on the Bill is to vote against principles they support, I wish I could be more confident that he would follow me if I chose to divide the House. I will obviously listen carefully to the debate.
As I argued in Committee, it is probable that the right to create a life peerage of this type already exists. Indeed, such a life peerage was created as recently as 2023 in the case of the present Duke of Edinburgh, and there are many historical precedents, as I explained in Committee. When we hear a new Peer introduced in the House, we hear our clerk intone these words every time, after the reference to the Life Peerages Act:
“And of all other powers in that behalf us enabling”.
These affirm the undoubted and full range of powers inherent in the monarch to bestow peerages and other honours.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I have just a practical question, really. There is a Peer who came into this House and did not make a maiden speech for 10 years because he considered the peerage an honour. Then, one day, the Prime Minister said to that person, “By the way, with your experience, I’ve got a bit of a job I want you to do”. That Peer came in and made his maiden speech and worked inside the Government. That would not be possible with this kind of amendment.
Lord True (Con)
It would. If such a rare case applied, a second, life peerage under the 1958 Act could be conferred—it would be very simple.
Like much constructive reform, this may not be a great innovation. It is an extension of a principle that exists under the royal prerogative, an extension to the 1958 Act so that non-sitting life Peers may be created through a statutory process as well. This would be helpful to Prime Ministers who wish to honour distinguished men and women but not necessarily to swell the ranks of this House.
There are many Peers who currently do not have the right to sit in your Lordships’ House, and I found the arguments put against this proposition in Committee faintly risible. A clear and unequivocal reform, enabling the creation of non-sitting life Peers under the 1958 Act, would be no more or less confusing than the current position, but it would relieve us of the potential difficulties both for individual Peers and for the House, to which I have referred. It might save some future Peers, and indeed your Lordships’ House, from the unnecessary embarrassment of including people who do not want to be here or to stay here for very long. I cannot think for the life of me why any Government would wish to resist it.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I will risk the possibility of being called risible by the noble Lord, Lord True, for disagreeing with him, but I think he has failed to spell out precisely one point that he should have done. He prayed in aid various people, including my noble friend Lord Foulkes as someone who thought we should separate membership of this House from the peerage. I agree with that—it is a very good idea—but there are of course two ways of doing it.
One way is to say that you do not require a peerage to be in this House, nor do you need a title—we could be called Members of the upper House. That deals with the problem just as effectively as the problem he has constructed, which I do not think is a serious one, to create a new category of Peer. This is the last thing we want to be doing in a Bill of this sort, which tries to simplify and clarify membership of this House, however far from that we have strayed.
According to my reckoning, if we were to make the mistake of following the advice of the noble Lord, Lord True, we would then have six categories of membership of this House. We would have hereditary Peers here for at least another 40 years, maybe longer, due to the amendment we have carried; some Law Lords remaining from the previous legislation; Bishops; life Peers; and we would still have—though not as Members of the Lords—hereditary Peers, who are not able to sit in the Lords. He is adding a further category of life Peers who are not able to sit in the Lords.
If he tried to explain that in “Understanding the House of Lords” to the average 18 year-old studying the British constitution at the moment—or the average anybody—it would sound like the ultimate in making a mountain out of a molehill. We do not need additional categories of membership of this House; we need fewer.
Lord True (Con)
I am not proposing an additional category of Members of this House; the whole point of this amendment is that those people should not be Members of this House. By the way, any life Peer who retires from this House is still a life Peer and a Lord, so is the noble Lord confused by that?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
If the noble Lord, Lord True, cannot see the difference in category between a life Peer who can sit in here and legislate and a life Peer who cannot, then we are going to have considerable difficulty in having a sensible discussion. They are obviously fundamentally different, just as there is a fundamental difference between a hereditary Peer who cannot sit in this House because he is not one of the favoured 92, and a hereditary Peer who can. Believe me, they know the difference—and I am sure the life Peers would, as well.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
Just to help the noble Lord’s confusion, there are the courtesy titles of the younger sons of certain levels of the peerage.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, my support for this concept is not new. Indeed, this was one of my recommendations to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his report. If Prime Ministers had created fewer Peers so that we were not so numerous, I would continue to resist this concept of creating Peers with no right to sit in this House making laws.
However, our numbers are perceived to be a problem. We must recognise that Prime Ministers need to grant peerages not just because they need bodies in this House, legislating, but because they need to reward achievement in the same way as others receive other honours, like knighthoods and other gongs.
Being granted the title of Lord or Baroness is a great reward in itself, but I can see merit in Prime Ministers being able to grant a peerage and the title of Lord or Baroness to someone who would not be entitled to sit in the Lords and make laws, but in recognition of the good they have done in their own particular field. I cannot define a category of these people, but it may be like an even higher version of a knighthood.
This suggestion may give Prime Ministers the flexibility they need to create peerages and reward people for their great work without flooding this House with new Peers. Perhaps the noble Baroness the Leader of the House would like to make this suggestion to the new Lords Select Committee and ask it to report back with recommendations, because I believe there is merit in having non-legislative Peers.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but I have to do so because this is a concept that, like the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I have proposed in your Lordships’ House on many occasions. I have not heard that support for it from the Conservative Benches in the past, but I have put it forward because I believe it would be a useful component of a wholesale reform programme of your Lordships’ House.
However much I agree that it is useful, I cannot agree that we should vote for it tonight. If I had written the Labour Party manifesto, I might have included it, with many other things, and if I had been the parliamentary draftsman for this Bill, I might have looked much more widely and had a much wider Bill —but I am neither of those things.
We have before us a very specific, narrow Bill. I do not believe that I shall argue later in today’s proceedings even about the content of the agenda for the Select Committee—but this should not be included in it, because it is not based on a manifesto commitment in any way. It is completely piecemeal, and I have not heard support for it in the past as part of a wholesale package of reform. Therefore, however much I might be tempted by the idea, I shall be happy to vote against it if the noble Lord, Lord True, puts the question to the House.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Thinking of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I trust that no wives of these new Lords will take the title “Lady”. That just creates a whole lot—we have wives of Knights who call themselves Ladies, we have wives of noble Lords who call themselves Ladies, and now we have some of us who call ourselves Ladies. If this was to go through, I trust that the new Lords—who I am against, by the way—should not be able to give that honorary title, unless my husband could become Lord Hayter.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the combination of titles with membership of the second Chamber is one of the many things that we have inherited from the medieval period and the 16th and 17th centuries. It is very pleasant, most of us enjoy it and I particularly enjoy the title that I have, because the village in which I live is a special one, a world heritage site, and people love to come and visit us. But I am occasionally confused—some years ago I was at a conference in Japan from which I had to return early. As I shared a taxi to the airport with a senior Japanese diplomat, he asked me in a most polite way, “Are you returning to your estate”? I wanted to say, “No, to my allotment”, but did not feel that he would entirely understand the subtlety of that reply.
We in the Liberal Democrats are in favour of a working and modern second Chamber. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord True, in his quirky way, described this as a modernising move. It seems to us to be adding another area of complexity, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, to our already highly complex honours system. There are plenty of honours around: there are knighthoods, damehoods, and members of the Order of the Companions of Honour and the Order of Merit. We are not quite sure why—perhaps for the Conservative Party in particular—if one wants to award one’s more generous donors with something, the title of a peerage is particularly important.
The noble Lord, Lord True, did the honour of quoting what I said at Committee. I emphasise that, in terms of modernising the role of the second Chamber, we are in favour of thoroughgoing reform in which the title would be separated from membership of this House. What would then happen to the title is, to us, a matter of secondary importance. I know that the noble Lord, Lord True, has a particular problem with the existence of Liberal Democrats, which relates to events in Richmond in the past. It is even more difficult now that the Liberal Democrats are at roughly the same level as the Conservative Party in the polls.
I note that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, used to object to the appallingly high number of Liberal Democrats here at a point when we had, as he would point out, fewer than 10% of the number of Conservative MPs in the Commons. Now that we are at two-thirds of the number of Conservative MPs in the Commons, I look at those very full Conservative Benches and wonder whether the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord True, really wish to defend the gross imbalance between Conservatives in this House and the other forms of representation. I remind the noble Lord, Lord True, that not only in Richmond, but throughout England, the number of Liberal Democrat councillors is about to overtake the number of Conservative councillors, so there are a range of areas that are a source of underlying problems for the noble Lord, Lord True. No doubt he wakes at 2.30am and thinks about the Liberal Democrats in a devilish fashion.
What my party wishes is to separate the honours system from membership of this House. We value the work of the House as a second Chamber, we see it as a working second Chamber and we do not think it should be muddled with the honours system in the future.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
I do not wish to be unkind to the noble Lord, but my recollection of the coalition Government is that every time the Government wanted to get agreement on a policy, the Liberals demanded more peerages, which is why we got those numbers. Therefore, for him to argue against this amendment is a particular example of how the Liberals behave in politics.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
That was an imaginative idea from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, but it is the first time that I have heard it. I am not sure where his sources may be.
I do not wish to detain the House. This seems to us to be an unnecessary amendment, and we will not support it.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 17 is identical to Amendment 35 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Committee. There was a lively debate on this proposal in Committee, as we have also seen today. However, I would point to our extensive, comprehensive and long-standing honours system that seeks to recognise and promote the outstanding contributions made by individuals from the length and breadth of the country, and all sections of society. With the sovereign as the fount of honour, honours are awarded based on merit, regardless of background, for those who give service above and beyond to better the lives of others. I would have thought that this was an answer to the apparent problems suggested by the noble Lord, Lord True.
Many of your Lordships will agree that it is an honour to be appointed as a Peer, but that quite rightly brings with it responsibilities to the work of your Lordships’ House. Peers are appointed in recognition of their skills and expertise, and how they can be put to the service of your Lordships’ House. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said last week, party leaders should be mindful of this when making nominations.
The Government do not support the decoupling of a life peerage conferred under the Life Peerages Act 1958 from membership of your Lordships’ House. We have a manifesto commitment to introduce a participation requirement, to ensure that all Peers contribute to the work of the House, which many noble Lords have been clear that they support. I do not think that creating another layer to the system, to provide for the creation of non-active Peers, is in keeping with the mood of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord True, and others, have consistently advocated for a thoughtful and measured approach when implementing constitutional changes, to avoid unintended consequences. It is not clear how this new honorific peerage would work in practice. It is not clear what HOLAC’s role would be in this two-tier system, whether there would be a role for another honours committee, whether such a system would necessitate the need for additional governance structures or who would remove such a title if we got to that point.
In addition, to create a new class of Peers with the same titles as the ones who sit and vote would exacerbate the confusion that already exists amongst the public regarding the difference between honours and peerages. In essence, this amendment raises further questions that have not been given due consideration, especially when we already have an established and much respected honours system to recognise excellence. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am disappointed by the response from the party opposite. Is this not the great reformist party? Is this not the party that speaks about its accomplishments in changing Britain?
We have heard from the Front Bench opposite that they cannot support the idea that anybody could be a Peer and not have to come and swell the ranks in your Lordships’ House. That is not the way that your Lordships’ House, in its evolving thinking, has been going. We have an important and interesting debate which is being put to us later by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. The feeling of the House is that we should find ways to reduce the numbers, and one way of reducing the numbers is by reducing unnecessary entries by people who have no intention of being working Peers.
I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said. As a matter of fact, if you google me, you will find that I have repeatedly, over many years, proposed this reform, and have even done so from the Dispatch Box opposite.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
Perhaps I was not clear enough. The proposition to which I have always given support is that there should be a complete separation of honours and titles from membership of your Lordships’ House. For that, I have not had support from the noble Lord’s Benches.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the amendment includes a separation.
Do we have such a low view of the public that we think they cannot tell one person from another? In a previous debate, the Attorney-General offered the argument that it was so confusing. Does he think that the public could not tell an Attorney-General from a major-general? Are they so confused?
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
A constant argument of the Conservatives against any changes to our electoral system has been that the public would be unable to understand a voting system in which one put “1”, “2”, “3” and “4”, rather than simply “X”. If that is the Conservative view of the public in relation to voting, I think the noble Lord would find it hard to argue that, without much more complicated citizenship education, the public would be expected to understand the distinctions he is making.
Lord True (Con)
I am again startled, as always, by an intervention from those Benches. The noble Lord may remember that we had a referendum on proportional representation; the public well understood the proposition being put to them and they rejected it. For the noble Lord to say that the public would not understand this, he is digging a bigger hole for himself. As for the Lib Dems, I love the Lib Dems. One of the most beautiful things about Britain is its eccentricities, and we love the Lib Dems’ charming eccentricities. All we ask is that they are always charming—which is not always the case, although they have been today.
Let me return to the case in point. My noble friend Lord Blencathra skewered it when he pointed out, very fairly and properly, that this matter was put to the Burns committee. It is in tenor with the way the House is going in trying to find ways not to swell our ranks artificially. It is therefore an extraordinary idea—we have heard it already—that the Government support something but cannot support it today, and yet they might support it sometime in future. That is a nonsensical argument, as is the argument that the public might be confused.
I remind the House that this is not an unheard-of thought; many people have argued for it over a period of years. It would be a useful addition to the honours system. It would prevent the House being burdened and embarrassed by those who, frankly, do not want to come here but who deserve a high honour. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
The Earl of Kinnoull
“Non-attendanceIn section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014 (non-attendance)—(a) in subsection (1), after the second “Lords”, insert “for 10% or more of sitting days”; (b) in subsection (2), after “Lords”, insert “for 10% or more of sitting days”;(c) in subsection (2)(a), leave out “at no time during the Session attended the House” and insert “attended the House for fewer than 10% of sitting days during the Session”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that Peers would be required to sit at a minimum for more than 10% of the House’s sitting days in order to maintain their membership of this House.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, each of us receives, on appointment and at the start of each subsequent Parliament, a Writ of Summons. The writ says:
“We strictly enjoining command you upon the faith and allegiance by which you are bound to Us that considering the difficulty of the said affairs and dangers impending (waiving all excuses) you be personally present at Our aforesaid Parliament … to treat and give your counsel upon the affairs aforesaid”.
These words have a natural meaning, and everyone who is in the Chamber tonight is living up to their writ. I have observed in the various debates, starting in November last year, that those Peers who are in our House only very rarely are not living up to the words or the spirit of their Writ of Summons. Legally speaking, the minimum attendance is governed by Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. This provides that every Peer must attend at least once during a Session that lasts more than six months, or they cease to be a Member going forward.
There have been quite a lot of statistics on attendance during the passage of this Bill. I am, as I think many are, very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his work in this area. I have run a few fresh statistics for this current Session. Up to last Friday, 122 of our 834 Members had attended less than 10% of the time. Looking at how close people of the 122 are to the 10% line, at the whole-House level, it is entirely reasonable to think that, were this amendment to be enacted, 83 Peers, or 10% of the House, might choose a retirement option.
I have looked very carefully at the Cross-Bench position once again; the 10% hurdle is one that would allow a very important part of the Cross Benches to continue their valuable work in the House without threat. Examples of this cadre would be senior lawyers still in practice and senior academics. Having looked at the statistics for this session, which I did not have available in Committee when I made a similar point, I can say that nothing has changed. I feel the 10% hurdle is set with the interests of the House in mind. I believe this is the correct level to move participation to, from that set in 2014 of just one day.
I further note that, thanks to the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, we were able to debate this at some length in Committee. I am very sorry, I have the wrong draft in front of me, but I think my point is made. We have been able to debate this a number of times. I can say, having been present at every single one of the debates, that throughout the House there has been general agreement about people who do come and do not fulfil their obligations under the Writ of Summons, which is a very serious document. There was not a single person who did not feel that this was wrong. The only real debate was how high the bar should be set.
I made the point that, in the selfish interests of the Cross Benches, we have a number of people who are not able to come more than 10% of the time, or significantly more, and so, for us, we would want a lower bar. However, it is the case that we would have a haircut of a number of Members. A lot of us feel that there are too many Members of this House. Certainly, with the facilities that we enjoy—the number of offices and desks and the sheer cramming when I go to buy a sandwich in the River restaurant downstairs at lunchtime —that would be a benefit.
Anyway, I hope this will be a very interesting debate. The Leader and I have discussed this over many months, and I am very grateful. In fact, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I have also discussed it, as well as various other interesting ways around. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I tried to deal with this problem when I was convenor in 2018. In that year my noble friend Lord Burns produced his report, which received quite a lot of support across the House, and I was persuaded that it was one of my duties as convenor to see whether I could persuade some Members on the Cross Benches to retire so that we would achieve the balance that my noble friend was seeking. What I did—it was my own choice—was to choose a 10% level, which the noble Earl has chosen in his amendment. I was conscious that the only way I could deal with this was by writing letters to people who were below the 10% bar, suggesting to them that it might be better for them to retire if they were not really able to make use of their privilege of membership of the House.
I received a mixed response—I do not think I was particularly popular in making that suggestion. But some of them responded, and a number decided to retire. The result was that I was able to achieve the balance that my noble friend Lord Burns was proposing, and I was able to maintain it during the rest of my tenure as convenor into 2019. I was greatly helped by the fact that the Prime Minister at the time was the noble Baroness, Lady May, who had very little interest in proposing new Members of the House, certainly as far as the Cross Benches were concerned, so the balance was quite easy for me to achieve.
Looking back, I am conscious of two problems. The first was the lack of authority. I really had no authority whatever, particularly as convenor; the convenor is much respected, but he does not have any authority among the Cross-Benchers. Just because I said it was time to retire, that was not necessarily something that they should follow—it was merely advice. Therefore, if we are to follow this suggestion that attendance is to be a qualification, we need the backing of something to enable the proposal to be enforced. Whether that is by legislation or by standing order is a different matter, but some kind of backing is necessary if the noble Lord and his successors are to be able to maintain the idea that attendance below 10% is not acceptable any more, and therefore people should retire.
The other problem—I am anticipating what my noble friend Lord Burns will tell us in the debate on Amendment 23—is the balance being upset by new Peers coming in whose number exceeds that of those who are retiring. That is a different issue, which we will come back to on Amendment 23.
My main point in support of the noble Earl is, first, that the 10% figure was one that I had decided was the right one in my time—we may want to debate it, but it seemed a sensible one—and, secondly, that we need some kind of authority across all the Benches seeking to enforce the idea. I offer my support for that.
I have just one footnote. One of the people to whom I wrote and who decided to retire was an academic who did not live in London and had very good reasons for finding it very difficult to get here to attend. Looking back, I thought it was a shame that he retired because if he had been a little more active, he would have made a major contribution. His attendance was at only 1%, and I thought, “Well, okay, it’s not really a margin”. If he had been at 9%, I might have said, “Look, let’s just drop it and try a little harder”, but his attendance was so far below that I felt there was no chance. If we have a cliff edge at 10%, there is the question of some people dropping over the edge of the cliff who really should not do so, and the committee should probably discuss that quite carefully.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I have sympathy for the amendment and I am happy with the percentage suggested, but there is a difficulty. I spent most of 1995 running an NGO in Rwanda. In the winter of 1997-98, I was engaged in military operations in Bosnia; fortunately, it was a peacekeeping operation and it was for only six months. In 2003, I was engaged in a war-fighting operation. Fortunately, because of our military success—initially, anyway—I did not need to spend very long there. There could be very good reasons why a noble Lord is unable to attend, and we will have to find some way of dealing with that, but I support the general principle of the amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I signed the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and I rise briefly to support him. The House may recall that in Committee I presented three options for the removal of Peers who attended infrequently, and the mood of the House seemed to coalesce around the 10% one. I say to my noble friend Lord Attlee that leave of absence should deal with the problem he has just described.
If we were not being constantly told by the Government that there are too many Peers, I might not necessarily advocate this measure. If a Peer turns up for just 5% of sittings, he is not getting an allowance for the 95% of sittings when he is not here, so there is no burden on the taxpayer. However, there is a burden on all the rest of us doing all our committee work, as we will find out when our hard-working hereditaries are removed and the Whips start calling around for volunteers to fill the slots they were previously filling. We will then realise how much our hereditaries have been doing. Of course, I think this issue will now be considered by the new Select Committee, and I look forward to seeing its conclusions.
I just want to flag up two points. First, I note that this amendment suggests amending the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. That proves the point I made to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, last week: we may need legislation to do these things, and it cannot be done just by internal Standing Orders. Secondly and finally, when the Select Committee makes recommendations on attendance, how will we pass them into law? If we cannot use Standing Orders, we have to use either primary or secondary legislation to do it. In the debate on my Amendment 23A, coming up shortly, I shall lay out a quick, simple and painless way to do it with secondary legislation; I commend it to noble Lords and hope they will all be here to support it.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, when the noble Baroness comes to reply to this amendment, can she assure us that her new committee will look at the question that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised as to whether the House of Lords already has the powers to do this? As the Convenor of the Cross Benches said, we all agree to the terms of the Writ of Summons. There is a very strong argument that that inherently gives this House the power, through its Standing Orders, to achieve what this amendment sets out to achieve. It is clear that this question has never been settled or established. The noble Baroness’s committee would be an ideal forum to do that, and I very much hope that it will.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am puzzled by the intervention just now by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. For some time now, if a Member of this House has been posted abroad or for some other reason is unable to attend the House regularly, they apply for a leave of absence. It is as simple as that.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I hesitate to rise in this debate and was not intending to, but since no other Member of this House has spoken in opposition to the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, I shall do so very briefly.
I hesitate to do so because when I was Education Secretary, I introduced legislation to deal with persistent absentees, and therefore it might be thought that I was in sympathy with the intent behind this amendment. But one of the reasons why I am very cautious about seeing this amendment go further is this. It is based on a false premise that we hear often, which is that this House has too many Members and new schemes must be found somehow to identify those who should be expunged or removed at any point. If we look at the Division lists in the votes that we have just had, the numbers are lower than one would expect in some of the Divisions in the other place. The suggestion that there are too many Members can often be a means of trying to get rid of those Members whom the Executive or others, for whatever reason, ideologically or otherwise, find inconvenient—a stone in the shoe. We in this House should not be seeking to reduce the range of voices, to limit the number of Members or indeed, potentially, to forfeit expertise.
That takes me to my second point. Many of those Members of this House who will not be here for 10%, 11% or 12% of the time—or whatever arbitrary percentage figure we choose—will be people of eminence who will be occupied outside in deploying their expertise for the public good or who will have achieved eminence in a particular role. They may be, for example, former Prime Ministers. Would it be right if we found that, for example, Theresa May—the noble Baroness, Lady May —had attended this House for only 8% or 9% of Sittings in a given year and should somehow be expelled? That would be an outrage, but that is what would happen if we followed this arbitrary proposal.
That takes me to my third point. I know that this amendment comes from a place of courtesy and consideration and that the Cross Benches are anxious to ensure that this House can accommodate the request for reform that comes from the other place and from outside. That is why I am so cautious in pushing back. But, rather than seeking to bend the operation of our House to those who are not in sympathy with it, we should seek to ensure that it operates effectively in challenging faulty legislation and in making sure that expertise is deployed—not in attempting to regulate our numbers but in attempting to regulate the flow of legislation that comes from the other place which is faulty and which benefits from the expertise here. If we lose a single voice that is expert and authoritative in challenging that Executive, we undermine the case for this place. That is why, with the greatest respect, I oppose this amendment.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, we undermine respect for this House if we continue to have people who do not turn up more than once in each Session. The answer to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Gove, about previous Prime Ministers is that the rule is not absolute, because Section 2(3)(b) of the legislation being amended provides that the House may resolve that the period of attendance should not apply to the particular Peer
“by reason of special circumstances”,
so there is already a statutory provision that allows for exceptions.
My other point in answer to the noble Lord is that we have already accepted the principle. Section 2(1) requires that each Peer must attend at least once during a Session, so we have accepted that people who do not comply with the timing position must go. The only question is whether that is a realistic limit. I entirely agree with the convenor that a once-in-a-Session provision is not an appropriate rule. A much more appropriate rule is to require people to be here 10% of the time.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support the principle behind this amendment. We have debated the concept at some length and, in my view, it is essential that we now move to a position where there is a rule that means that people who play no part after a period cease to be Members of your Lordships’ House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talked about persuading non-attendees to retire, and I too have done that. One case is seared in my memory: I went to see a member of the Liberal Democrat group with my Chief Whip to try and explain to him that he had done absolutely nothing for a considerable number of years and it might be appropriate for him to retire. He was extremely sweet; he smiled and said, “I never thought of that. Could you give me a bit of time to think about it?”. Years later, he still had not thought about it. So I am absolutely certain that we need to move.
As for the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Gove, the people we are talking about are not the stone in the shoe; they are never in the shoe. When they are in the shoe, they are normally sand at best, because they do not do anything. The idea that we would lose voices of any consequence by saying that people had to be here rather more than they are at the moment is just wrong, I am afraid, as far as legislation is concerned. In my experience, the number of people who normally are not here and suddenly turn up to play a full part in a Bill is immeasurably small.
My only problem with the amendment, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, knows and as I have said before, is that this issue should be considered first by a Select Committee, for a number of reasons that have been given—10% may be the right answer, but it is worth thinking about that. The other thing that has been put to me—it will be contentious, but at least we ought to think about it—is whether the requirement applies retrospectively. Some people have said that, unless it applies retrospectively, we will get flooded with people who have never been here before. There are arguments for and against it, but we need to discuss that; we have not done so at all.
So, for those reasons, while I absolutely support the principle, if the noble Earl were to press this amendment to a Division, I do not think we would be able to support him in the Lobby.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, when I was appointed to your Lordships’ House, I was summoned to an interview conducted principally by the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Jay. He said to me at the end, “There’s one thing I want to ask you: if we were to appoint you to the House of Lords, would you come and would you contribute? We look really stupid when we appoint people who then don’t bother to come—who take the title and swan off into the evening”. I said, “I tend not to take on anything unless I’m going to do it properly”.
I very much support my noble friend because, looking around your Lordships’ House, I see people who are here the whole time, who care passionately and who feel that it is an honour and a privilege. Picking up on what the noble Lord, Lord True, said on another amendment about a fair amount for a fair day’s work, I say that the reverse is true. If you do not bother to come and do not work, you do not deserve to be here. I will support my noble friend.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I remember what you might call the good old days before the first reform, when a lot of hereditaries got chucked out. In those days, although there were nominally a lot of Peers—many more than now—people turned up when they knew something. There was a hardcore who turned up to run things for the two parties, but other people turned up when they knew something; they would suddenly appear. Sometimes you would get quite a swelling on something.
Some experts turned up only when they only knew about something. I remember that, once, they were talking about decommissioning the North Sea oil rigs, and very few of us knew anything about it. I have never forgotten how someone up on the Back Benches stood up and gave the Government a talk on it all that completely destroyed everything they had in the Bill. He showed that the people who had drawn up the stuff knew nothing about it, and the Government stood up and said, “Yes, I think we’d better get together and discuss this. Could you come and advise us?” That was the end, and I think it all got sorted out afterwards.
You have to be careful that you do not knock out people who are experts on something. I know that a lot of the stuff that I have done in this House has not been on the Floor but when legislation is coming up and you are preparing for it. I have been in IT, and I remember the identity cards stuff and how a lot of the things were impractical—people do not think about things—as well the digital economy, online identity and all those things. We did briefing papers and stuff, which take a lot of time behind the scenes. That needs to be taken account of, but I do not know how you would do it. But, in principle, I can see the point of this. If someone does absolutely nothing, yes, they need to move on.
Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will briefly respond to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If we voted for this amendment now, it would probably apply from this Session, because of Section 2(6). We would probably have to amend that to ensure that it applied from the next Session.
Has the Leader of the House considered whether any change of the rule of non-attendance would necessarily require a legislative change? At the moment, that rule is provided for in statute.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his amendment and the time that he has devoted to considering this issue, not just since our debates in Committee but over many years. It is an issue that has occupied his mind and those of many of his predecessors as Convenors of the Cross Benches—we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, as well.
Earl Attlee (Con)
This is the problem, though. When I was running an NGO in Africa, if I had taken a leave of absence and come back to the UK on R&R —some opportunity—but there was a debate about Rwanda, I would not have been able to take part.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
That is true, but it would have been open to my noble friend to make the decision that he felt was best in terms of how he could best serve his country: by continuing the work or by bringing that experience to the debates that were present before your Lordships’ House. This is why we have the leave of absence provision. Those who serve in the Diplomatic Service make use of it at the moment.
As I said in Committee, we understand the no-less-noble demands on the time of our colleagues who serve as husbands and wives, as parents and grandparents, and as carers—they help reflect the population we all serve—but the Government and the House are right to insist that we all take our duties here seriously and that we are seen to be doing so. We already have a minimum attendance requirement through Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. That, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, requires just one day of attendance per Session, which he and others have rightly argued is not really commensurate with the command that we have received from our sovereign.
That Act became law in 2014 thanks to a consensus and an initiative taken here in your Lordships’ House. Incidentally, the initiative was taken by a former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Lord Steel of Aikwood, who would, I think, be staggered to hear the argument advanced by the leader of the Liberal Democrats here today that he supports the principle but does not want to take this opportunity to make this change. If that is the pace of change favoured by the Liberal Democrats, it is no wonder that they have not finished the job they set out to do in 1911.
Under the 2014 Act, which your Lordships decided, 16 noble Lords have been removed for failing to clear the very low hurdle that it established. We do not criticise them; we know that some of them were seriously ill. Perhaps that Act helped them take a decision that it would have been rather painful for them to take more actively. However, it still leaves a large number of people who, in the words of the Government’s manifesto,
“do not play a proper role in our democracy”.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, reminded us that we are summoned here to give counsel not just on the topics on which we consider ourselves experts but on the certain arduous and urgent affairs that change throughout the course of a Parliament. Also in Committee, my noble friend Lord Bethell reminded us how the collective deliberative act of parleying that we all undertake here requires getting to know one another and establishing bonds of trust and understanding—not just turning up and disappearing into rival Division Lobbies. That is how we establish the consensus that the Leader of the House rightly wants us to achieve.
There is, I think, an emerging consensus in your Lordships’ House that the current attendance requirement of a single day per Session, without having to speak, vote or sit on a committee, is too low. Thanks to the spreadsheets compiled by the Library at the request of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, we know who we are talking about without having to name names or point fingers. We can proceed calmly and empirically. The Convenor of the Cross Benches is among those who have looked very closely at those numbers and been satisfied that a 10% requirement would not affect what he called in Committee the
“low-frequency, high-impact Members”—[Official Report, 12/3/25; col. 719.]
who bring sparing but specialist experience, particularly to the Cross Benches.
I have to say to my noble friend Lord Gove—sadly, he was not yet among us in Committee, so he missed my quoting “Evita” in citing the example of our noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber—that I have much sympathy for what he says. Lord Lloyd-Webber was driven from your Lordships’ House and attacked for being a composer first and a politician second; as I said in Committee, I found it disappointing that he was not able to be here with us, when the pandemic hit, to give his experience on behalf of our performing arts, the West End and the theatres around the country that were facing plight. I must say, the 10% threshold that the Convenor of the Cross Benches has looked at would raise the bar slightly but would not prevent us having the expertise of people like Lord Lloyd-Webber joining us sparingly, but importantly, for our debates. I think that my noble friend Lord Gove will find that our noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead will clear that bar quite easily.
There are certainly some further questions that the House will need to address in future—for instance, how we turn attendance into more active participation so that we are not encouraging people to game the system by simply making speeches for the sake of appearing in Hansard, and so that people are not just turning up and reciting speeches written by lobby groups into the pages of the Official Report. We are all embarrassed by our colleagues from all corners of the House who turn up to lurk below the Bar for a few paltry minutes or skulk off after the first Division of the day—it would be a disgrace for us to expel hard-working Members from your Lordships’ House and not address that problem—but we can do this in bite-sized chunks, as the Leader of the House said.
There is no reason why proper consideration of those issues, whether through a Select Committee or future debates on the Floor of the House, should prevent us taking this initiative today, saying that we expect better and raising the bar a little higher. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, put it earlier, here is another mischief that we can rectify through this Bill. I think that this amendment, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, would be a sensible and timely upgrade to the 2014 Act. We have seen that Act in operation for a decade now. We can strengthen it in the light of what we have seen over the past 11 years. It would provide the authority that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, says will be necessary if we are to make progress on this important issue. We can allow ourselves the time to consider other matters without delaying taking a step that would, I think, genuinely improve the standing and function of your Lordships’ House.
I do hope that the noble Earl will press his amendment when the debate is concluded and that we can all embrace this important, timely and modest improvement to the functions of your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this issue again today. I am grateful for the discussions that we have had on it and, indeed, for the discussions that we have had in your Lordships’ House on a number of occasions. My sense is that there is a lot of support—I have been encouraged by it—for a participation requirement, although I do not think that there is consensus on what the level should be. The noble Earl seems happy with 10% but, in our previous debates, a number of noble Lords have been against 10% and been concerned that attending once a fortnight, as it would turn to be, might cause ridicule to the House. I have to say, I do not know what the appropriate figure is, but it is right that we discuss it and look at what it could look like.
Noble Lords have raised a number of issues in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others said, requiring attendance once in a Session does not really invite participation. There is an issue here: we all think that we know what we mean when we talk about participation and what levels are appropriate, but quantifying that is different. This is why I think that having a debate around one particular field—in this case, the figure of 10%—is very helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Gove, said that it would reduce the range of voices. It does not reduce the range of voices if they are the voices of people who do not attend this House. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that the noble Baroness, Lady May, would easily score on that point as well. We have to consider how best to address this issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked an important question about something that I raised last time— I just want to emphasise that. I have said a number of times that if the House can take responsibility for its own behaviour and actions then it should do so. As for what the House could do with its Standing Orders, that is not 100% clear. There are lots of things that we can do via Standing Orders and, where we can, we should take responsibility and do it. However, it would be appropriate for a Select Committee to look at participation/attendance and retirement in the round and to find an appropriate way forward, and at what needs legislation and what could be done prior to or without legislation. That would be a valid way to move forward and one that I could commit to.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is very keen to set a figure in stone and in statute. I am not keen to do that. I have gone round the houses a little on this and said it before, but this Bill is before the House as it is because the principle of this was discussed 25 years ago, and the Bill completes that part of the reform. On attendance and participation, particularly the areas that have been discussed, there is consensus that something should be done, but I have not seen consensus around the House on a particular number. It would be worthwhile for Members across the House to look at this and see how it could be done. It may be that 10% is the appropriate figure, but we have not said what it should be for participation. That is something which the House needs to look at. How do we do it? Should it be in statute?
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised what might happen at the other end. If we sent an amendment to the other place saying that we want 10% attendance, those in the other place who attend a lot more regularly might think that 10% was difficult to justify and might have other views on it.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The other place did pass the 2014 Act, which requires us to turn up only once per Session.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
That was a long time ago. I do not think that it anticipated that people would turn up just once per Session.
Despite the inventive proposal from the noble Lord, Lord True, to have Peers who do not have to attend at all, as the Prime Minister stated recently—the Opposition have said something similar—our expectation is that Members of this House want to play a role in this House, participate in our activities and engage, as the noble Lord said, with other Members. It is not just about sitting here listening to other people debating but about playing a full role. The point about expertise is an important one, though we are not all here just for our expertise, as we do not have an expert on every single issue. We are here for the judgment we bring, having listened to debates.
The timescale for a committee of the House to look at these issues is important. If we let the momentum drop when so many noble Lords are keen to progress on this, we would be failing in our duty. I anticipate setting up such a committee very soon after Royal Assent, to look at these issues in the round and make proposals for your Lordships’ House to consider, and to consider whether we can move more quickly on things that can be done without or prior to legislation.
I assure the noble Earl that I am very keen that we make progress and deal with these issues as quickly as possible. I hope that reassures him that I have no intention of putting this issue on the back burner. All the points that he has raised are entirely valid. It is not just the reputation of the House we are concerned about but the value of the work that we do. It is impossible to do that work if somebody turns up only occasionally, possibly just to vote or to be here for only one amendment. If we are dealing with legislation, they probably should see that legislation through in its entirety, as a number of noble Lords do.
I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this and hope that it is a view that he will put to the committee when it discusses these issues. I respectfully ask that he withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, this is the fourth time we have had a very similar debate on this topic in the last nine months. As ever, it has been of high quality, and I am very grateful to those who have participated.
I referred earlier to the many meetings that I have had with the Leader. I know how busy she is, and she has been very helpful on this topic. In those meetings we have talked about the committee and whether it could go a bit wider and deeper. I suspect that, when we come to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, the subject of the committee will be raised again, as it has this issue within it.
I have had extensive discussions with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, around what Standing Orders could do within the House. Many noble Lords will not be that familiar with Standing Orders, but Standing Order 2 regulates the minimum age for being in the House. The minimum age of 21 is nothing to do with statute but is in the Standing Order. That is an example of how powerful the Standing Orders can be. However, they cannot strike down primary legislation. They could never strike down Section 2 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, but they could be added on top of it, as long as they are consistent with the Act itself. I am of course a hopeless lawyer, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is not, and it did seem that there is considerable promise in the Standing Order route.
That route brings another difficulty. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, looked at the statistics some years ago. I have now looked at lots of statistics and we have come to the same answer. I take comfort in that. However, putting 10% in statute would mean that, if it turned out that 10% was the wrong number and that it should have been 9.2%, it would be very difficult to move that around. If it was a Standing Order, it would be rather better.
That might sound as if I am not for my own amendment. Of course I am, as anyone would be. My feeling is that the words “personally present” and
“treat and give your counsel”
from our Writ of Summons are simply not taken seriously enough by a large number of fellow Members of the House.
At the end of all of that, and after an awful lot of discussion and thought, I have decided that I should beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Viscount Thurso
“Expiry of right to receive writ of summons(1) The Life Peerages Act 1958 is amended as follows.(2) In section 1(2)(b) omit “subsection (4)” and insert “subsections (4) and (5).”(3) After subsection (4) insert—“(5) For peerages granted after the end of the Parliament in which the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Act 2025 is passed, the right to receive a writ of summons expires on the twentieth anniversary of the introduction of the person holding the peerage into the House of Lords.”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a term limit for peerages created after the end of this Parliament by limiting the right to receive a writ of summons to 20 years. It has no effect on existing peerages.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 21 is substantially the same amendment that I tabled in Committee and seeks to achieve the same purpose but with one substantive difference, which is in timing. The amendment I tabled in Committee would have come into effect during this Parliament, whereas this amendment would come into effect in the next Parliament. I will explain briefly in a moment why I came to the decision to change that.
The amendment itself is the same, so I will not repeat the explanation, save that it seeks to create term limits of 20 years. I am not hugely hung up on 20 years, 15 years or 25 years. I am concerned with the principle that nobody should have the right to sit in this place for ever. There is obviously a discussion to be had around retirement, which we have had. I listened very carefully to the comments of the Lord Privy Seal in that debate last week, and think that around that the Select Committee will do a good job. However, I am not sure that it will entirely be able to do the job that is required.
The reasons why I have gone for a new timing are, first, that it would be only fair to allow the current Government the freedom to do what they wish during the lifetime of this Parliament and to perhaps make up for some of the more egregious excesses that happened in the last Parliament. It is a little unfair to remove the current system and, as it were, at half-time change all the rules. That was the first reason, which may just be me being a bit overly fair, but I thought that it was. Secondly, if during this Parliament there is further reform, and if the Government are able to take through legislation which gives us a different landscape, this amendment coming into force in the next Parliament could be got rid of or scrapped.
I want to make it clear at the outset that my primary choice would be a democratically constituted House of Lords, which is what I have said in many of our debates and, on and off, in different guises for the best part of 30 years. I took part in the debates in the other place in 2012 and the consideration of the draft legislation and was happy to vote with the majority in the House of Commons for that Bill to achieve a Second Reading. But I recognise that having got that far up to the hill and been marched back down again by our then leader, there is little chance of anything substantive happening. I rather suspect that the Select Committee will do its work and discussions will continue, but that at the end of this Parliament we will not be greatly further forward than we are now.
The amendment is a real longstop in the sense of if we arrive at that situation, and if, as has been pointed out by a number of noble Lords, the electoral results for the next Parliament are somewhat more surprising than they might have been at the last general election. Indeed, one poll I saw showed that what would be the largest party in the House of Commons would have no representation in this House—although there were one or two speeches last week that sounded remarkably like a job application from the Benches across—while the largest party in this House would be the fourth party in the Commons, which is a completely ridiculous situation. My amendment does not solve that in any way, shape or form, but it would put a burr under the saddle and make sure that if we were in that circumstance, the Government of the day would need to do something about it.
My amendment very much ties in with Amendment 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, which I hope to speak to briefly later, with one exception which I will leave to that point. However, there is an opportunity in this legislation, which may be the only legislation that would affect no one in your Lordships’ House during this Parliament or any of the operation of this Parliament or fetter the Prime Minister in any way during this Parliament but that, if none of the hoped-for reforms came through, would in the next Parliament take effect and oblige, I rather suspect, some action.
I will say two other things in moving the amendment. The first is in response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and his comments earlier about how function should come before form. I take the diametrically opposite view and always have done, and it was a point that was thrashed out in the Committee of both Houses when we looked at it in 2012. I think the function comes from the form; if you introduce a democratic element, the form will change. That also follows the history of what has happened in the relationship between the two Houses over the years. If you have long discussions about the function, you will end up never changing anything and never changing the form. But, most of all, what I would say is—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot resist intervening. How on earth can one go ahead and say we will elect the House of Lords without looking at the powers the House would have? We have the conventions, which, in essence, are voluntary constraints on what we do. The conventions would not last one second with an elected House. It would be wholly irresponsible to simply go ahead with an elected House without sorting out the powers, and particularly what we do when there is a dispute between the two Houses. Would the courts have to be involved? What other mechanism would you have to decide on? You cannot go for an elected House without sorting that out.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, one of the great joys of being a chalk stream trout fisherman is to land a fly on top of the fish and watch it take with such vigour. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having done so. I am not going to engage with him in this debate on my amendment, because it is not part of it, as I did not engage when he made the point earlier. If he would like to meet me in the Bishops’ Bar at any time, I will take him through the detail with the greatest of pleasure.
I say to the Lord Privy Seal that if by any chance she were to make me an offer as generous as that which she made to the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, earlier, she would not have to repeat it and I would grab it with both hands. I genuinely hope that the Government might reflect on this. It has been put to me that this is not necessary because if we get our elected House, we will not need to have this form of term limit. That is absolutely true, but my amendment is not about if we get an elected House; it is about if we do not get an elected House.
Finally, I agreed with the Lord Privy Seal when she said, as she once agreed with me when I said it, that we are here not for our expertise but for our judgment. I do not have vast expertise other than in running hotels and trout fishing, but I think I have good judgment. My judgment is that if we fail to do this at this juncture, we may well end up regretting it and not having the kind of reform that we all really would want to have. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I must point out to your Lordships that the new clause proposed by Amendment 21 would be in substitution for the new clause “Rights of life peers to sit in the House of Lords” agreed by the House earlier today in Amendment 17.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, I oppose the amendment, and I should perhaps declare an interest as one of the many Members of the House who has had the privilege to be in the House for over 20 years, but that is not the reason for opposing the amendment. The reason is that I do not accept the argument that contributions to the House decline the longer you have been here. In fact, in many cases the opposite is true. In the period I have been in the House, some of the most distinguished contributions have come from former Ministers, former civil servants, former judges and former distinguished people in many careers who, over time, bring their experience; and that experience and the memory of past legislation and previous government experience are an extremely valuable part of our legislative process. The premise of this is mistaken. Of course, people may wish to retire at a certain age, but for those who have the faculty and the desire to continue, longevity and age should not be a barrier.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is absolutely right to make us think about whether time limits for service in your Lordships’ House are a way of looking at when retirement should happen, rather than the hard stop of a particular age. I am particularly grateful to him; I think he is giving me grandmother rights under his proposal, and I have been here a very long time.
This is undoubtedly one of the issues that the Select Committee the noble Baroness is putting forward should consider, even though she has been talking about retirement, because the question is rightly being put about the contributions that can be made. Even in the very short debate we are having now, it is very obvious—I would not be happy with a single term of office. It is important that a proportion of people serve longer than the 15 or 20 years proposed as a period of office.
If you look at the House of Commons and the value of the people who have been there for decades, such as the Mother of the House and the Father of the House, and the contributions they make, you cannot simply say that one size fits all. This is a useful contribution and I hope it will be considered by the Select Committee, but I am afraid I cannot support the noble Viscount’s amendment to the Bill.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 21, which, as the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, would require that from the next Parliament all life peerages be created for a fixed term of 20 years. I looked up the debate that introduced the Life Peerages Act 1958 to see why it was decided that a new Peer should be created for life. I found that Viscount Hailsham, Viscount Stansgate and Earl Attlee participated at Second Reading on 3 December 1957—plus ça change.
It was difficult to see that the issue of why new creations should be for life was ever discussed apart from in the introductory speech by the then Leader, the Earl of Home, who said:
“We … have willingly modified the hereditary principle by the introduction of Life Peers”.—[Official Report, 3/12/1957; col. 615.]
As hereditary Peers were there for life, that principle was applied equally to life Peers so that they would be there on equal terms. Actually, there was much more of a discussion as to whether the daily allowance of three guineas would be enough to attract people of the right calibre. Now that there will, sadly, be no more hereditary Peers who are here for life, the original logic of making the rest of us here for life falls away.
The need for experience, which is a feature of your Lordships’ House, needs to be balanced by the equally important need for that experience to be up to date. Is someone who was at the top of their profession 20 years ago of more value to the House than someone at the top of their profession today? The amendment would allow the House to refresh and renew those qualities that make it different from the other place, which is why I support it.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I have been a Member of your Lordships’ House for 28 years. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for sparing me from the noose he is gently preparing for others. I absolutely agree with him that we need to move to a position where the House is refreshed, which is why we have spent so much time talking about other ways of doing it—the central one being, of course, retirement. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I think there is now consensus across the House that being here for life is no longer acceptable, because we no longer wish to see people who are in declining years decline in your Lordships’ House.
The question that this amendment raises is, what is the best way of achieving that refreshment? I rather agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that for some people—I would like to think I am one of them, but other people may well disagree—being here for quite a long time can bring benefits. I completely agree that it also brings disbenefits—one’s expertise, to the extent that one ever had it, is more in the past. On the other hand, there are things about the parliamentary process and the way we do business, particularly in a curious body such as this, that you accrete over a long period. Although I am absolutely in favour of a retirement age and might even favour a younger retirement age than some other Members of your Lordships’ House, if somebody were appointed at the age of 50, I am not sure I would want them necessarily to be required to retire at 70.
My noble friend says that the advantage of passing this amendment is that it would be the burr under the saddle in case the Select Committee makes no progress and does not do all the things we will ask it to do. It is incumbent on us all to try to make sure that the committee is a success. This sort of burr will not help or hinder that process. It requires us to agree—broadly speaking, I think we have—that we want to make changes around retirement and participation and that the best way of getting there is via a Select Committee. So, although I have complete sympathy with what my noble friend is trying to achieve, I am afraid I cannot support it because I do not think it is the best way of getting to the end that he wants.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly as the issue of term limits was covered extensively in Committee and touched on briefly last week. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
There have been a number of proposals for reform of your Lordships’ House during the debates on the Bill. In common with many of those other proposals, and indeed even those being mooted for consideration by a Select Committee, the noble Viscount’s amendment would apply only to new Peers. The reason for that is the perennial problem, as my noble friend Lord Parkinson observed in Committee, that any debate on House of Lords reform very quickly descends into self-interest. I agree with that aspect of the noble Viscount’s amendment because, as we on these Benches have repeatedly stated, we fundamentally disagree with the removal of active parliamentarians from your Lordships’ House by the Executive.
Not only does the Bill remove some of the most active, knowledgeable and experienced Members of this House, it fails to respect the existing rights and expectations of our long-serving hereditary colleagues. I have, for my sins, been involved in many negotiations with trade unions and their leaders and representatives, many of whom now sit on the Benches opposite, and I have the greatest respect, and indeed admiration, for the way they fought for their members. Notably, they would always argue for grandfather rights and against the removal of any rights or privileges for existing members. I hope that those on the Liberal Democrat Benches have therefore come around to our way of thinking and that perhaps they will display the same kindness and consideration to our hereditary colleagues in future votes.
Of course, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, may have another incentive for not making his amendment retrospective. If a 15-year term limit were introduced without the grandfather rights this House has proposed for our hereditary Peers, 59 Liberal Democrat Peers—more than 75% of their number—would have been removed from your Lordships’ House by 2029.
I will not repeat all the reasons why we disagree with this amendment, except to emphasise that we are a House of knowledge and experience; we should respect and appreciate public service. As such, we should not seek to prevent those who are actively and effectively contributing, and who wish to continue to do so, being able to serve. While I thank the noble Viscount for explaining his amendment so clearly today, I am afraid that it does not have the support of our Benches.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 21 tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is similar to his amendment in Committee. With regard to a term limit of 20 years, it may be of interest to your Lordships’ House to know that the current average length of service for noble Lords is 13.7 years, which suggests that 20 years may or may not be something the House will want to consider.
The Government agree with the principle that membership of this House should not be for life but respectfully disagree with this approach. As set out in our manifesto, the Government believe that a retirement age is the most effective way of realising this principle while also achieving the objective of reducing the size of your Lordships’ House.
As the Leader of the House set out at the beginning of Report, we want to see further reform of your Lordships’ House, and we are determined to maintain the House’s enthusiasm and determination to implement the manifesto proposals on retirement age and participation. We think this can best be achieved by establishing a Select Committee, and we will work with the usual channels to put forward a proposal for the House’s approval. We believe that looking at these matters in bite-sized chunks is the best way to progress reform of your Lordships’ House.
I also reiterate that that your Lordships’ House should feel confident to take greater ownership over the management of our affairs. That means we should consider where we can implement solutions without the need for further legislation, if that sort of approach has the agreement of the House. Of course, if there is an agreed view that legislation is a better route forward, the findings of the commission may help pave the way to take the relevant legislation forward, because we will have agreed that view. With all these issues in mind, I respectfully ask that the noble Viscount withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have taken part in this short debate, which highlights the important issue of the size of your Lordships’ House and the fact that, if more people are constantly coming in than are going out, it is always going to get bigger. I rather disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, that people should be enabled to come here for as long as they wish; a time limit of a certain length is a fair way of ensuring current expertise and not having the bed blocking that would otherwise happen.
I am grateful for the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I knew she was not going to support me, but I am grateful for the sympathy that she generously gave to the point that I was making. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and I were co-conspirators in the other place on many attempts to get a democratic outcome. It was very nice to have his support, notwithstanding the comments of his Front Bench here today.
As always, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Newby for his comments. I respect his faith in the Select Committee; I have to say that my faith is not quite as strong as his, but we will see where we go with that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, missed the point with considerable style. It is not about 15 years; my whole point is that this was about laying it in the next Parliament to allow people to look at it there.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, that, yes indeed, if you are going to eat an elephant, it is best to do it in bite-sized chunks. However, this elephant has been around for 114 years or whatever it is, and I have a strong suspicion that it will still be galloping around in another 114. However, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
NHS 10-Year Plan
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Health Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“There are moments in our national story when our choices define who we are. In 1948, the Attlee Government made a choice founded on fairness: that everyone in our country deserves to receive the care they need, not just the care they can afford. It enshrined in law, and in the service itself, our collective conviction that healthcare is not a privilege to be bought and sold but a right to be cherished and protected. Now it falls to our generation to make the same choice: to rebuild our National Health Service and to protect in this century what Attlee’s Government built for the last. This is the driving mission of our 10-year plan.
In September, Lord Darzi provided the diagnosis: the NHS was broken by 14 years of the Conservatives’ underinvestment and by their catastrophic top-down reorganisation. In the past year, Labour has put the NHS on the road to recovery. We promised 2 million extra appointments; we have delivered more than 4 million. We promised 1,000 new GPs on the front line; we have recruited 1,900. We have taken almost 250,000 people off waiting lists, cutting them to their lowest level in two years. We have launched an independent commission, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to build a national consensus around a new national care service to meet the needs of older and disabled people into the 21st century.
Today, the Prime Minister has set out our prescription to get the NHS back on its feet and make it fit for the future. Our plan will deliver three big shifts. The first is from hospital to community. We will turn our National Health Service into a neighbourhood health service. The principle is simple: care should happen as locally as it can—digitally by default, in a patient’s home if possible, in a neighbourhood health centre when needed, and in a hospital where necessary.
We will put neighbourhood health centres in every community, so that people can see a GP, nurse, physio, care worker or therapist, and they can get a test, scan or treatment for minor injuries, all under one roof. The NHS will be organised around patients, rather than patients having to organise their lives around the NHS. It will be easier and faster to see a GP. We will train thousands more, end the 8 am scramble, provide same-day consultations and bring back the family doctor. If you are someone with multiple conditions and complex needs, the NHS will co-create a personal care plan so your care is done with you, not to you.
Pharmacies will play an expanded role in the neighbourhood health service. They will manage long-term conditions, treat conditions such as obesity and high blood pressure, screen for disease and vaccinate against it. We will also reform the dental contract to get more dentists doing NHS work, rebuilding NHS dentistry.
Over the course of this plan, the majority of the 135 million out-patient appointments done each year will be moved out of hospitals. The funding will follow so that a greater share of NHS investment will be spent on primary and community care.
The second shift is from analogue to digital. No longer will NHS staff have to enter seven passwords to log in to their computers or spend hours writing notes and entering data. Our plan will liberate front-line staff from the parts of the job that they often hate, so that they can focus on the job they love—caring for patients. For the first time ever, patients will be given real control over a single, secure and authoritative account of their data. The single patient record will mean that NHS staff can see medical records and know a patient’s medical history so they can provide them with the best possible care.
Wearable technology will feed in real-time health data, so patients’ health can be monitored while they stay in the comfort of their own home, with clinicians reaching out at the first signs of deterioration. The NHS app will become the front door to the health service, delivering power to the patient. You will be able to book and rearrange appointments for you, your children or a loved one you care for; get instant advice from an AI doctor in your pocket; leave feedback on your care and see what feedback other patients have left; choose where you are treated; book appointments in urgent care so you do not wait for hours; and refer yourself to a specialist where clinically appropriate. Of course, patients can already do all that, but only if they can afford private healthcare. With Labour’s plan, every patient will receive a first-class service—whatever their background and whatever they earn.
The third shift is from sickness to prevention. Working with the food industry, we will make the healthy choice the easy choice to cut calories. We will roll out obesity jabs on the NHS. We will get Britain moving with our new NHS points scheme, and we will update school foods standards so that kids are fed healthy, nutritious meals. We will tackle the mental health crisis with support in every school to catch problems early, 24/7 support with virtual therapists for those with moderate need, and dedicated emergency departments for patients for when they reach crisis point.
The science is on our side. The revolution in artificial intelligence, machine learning and big data offers a golden opportunity to deliver better care at better value. New innovator passports and reform of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency will see medicines and technology rapidly adopted. Robotic surgery will become the norm in certain procedures, so patients recover from surgery at home rather than in a hospital bed. The NHS will usher in a new age of medicine, leap-frogging disease so we are predicting and preventing, rather than just diagnosing and treating. It is therefore the ambition of the plan to provide a genomic test for every newborn baby by 2035. Thanks to my right honourable friend the Chancellor, this plan is backed by an extra £29 billion a year by the end of the spending review period, as well as the biggest capital investment in the history of the NHS.
Alongside investment comes reform. This plan slashes unnecessary bureaucracy and devolves power and resource to the front line. It abolishes more than 200 bodies, because listening to patients, guaranteeing safety and protecting whistleblowers is core business for the NHS and should never have been outsourced. The plan commits to publishing league tables to rank providers. We will intervene to turn around failing providers, and we will reinvent the foundation trust model in a new system of earned autonomy. Pay will be tied to performance, so excellence is recognised and failure has consequences. Tariffs will be reduced to boost productivity. Block contracts will end, with funding tied to outcomes. The plan gives power to the patient, so hospitals are financially rewarded for better service. It closes health inequalities by investing more in working-class communities, and it establishes a national investigation into maternity and neonatal services to deliver the truth, justice and improvement that bereaved families deserve.
I am sometimes told that NHS staff are resistant to change. On the contrary, they are crying out for it. They suffer the moral injury of seeing their patients treated in unfit conditions. They are ones driving innovation on the front line, so their fingerprints are all over this plan. The public are desperate for change too. Each of us has our own story about the NHS and the difference it made to our lives. We also know the consequences of failure. To succeed, we need to defeat the cynicism that says that nothing ever changes.
We know the change in our plan is possible because it is already happening. We have toured the length and breadth of the country and scouted the world for the best examples of reform. If Australia can effectively serve communities living in the outback, we can surely meet the needs of rural England. If community health teams can go door to door to prevent illness in Brazil, we can certainly do the same in Bradford. We know that we can build the neighbourhood health service, because teams in Cornwall, Camden, Northumbria, and Stratford—where I was with the Prime Minister and Chancellor this morning—are already showing us how to do it. We will take the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS. We will apply the best examples of innovation from around the world to benefit people here at home. Above all else, we will give power to the patient. This plan fulfils Nye Bevan’s commitment in 1948 to put a megaphone to the mouth of every patient. It will restore the founding promise of the NHS to be there for us when we need it.
Of course, we know that there are those on the right who are willing us to fail. They will exploit the crisis in the NHS in order to dismantle it. The honourable Member for Clacton—Nigel Farage—and his cronies argue that universal healthcare could be afforded in the 20th century but not in the 21st. Labour rejects their declinist pessimism and so do the public. But that is the choice—it is change or bust, and we choose change.
We know that the British people are counting on us. It falls to us to ensure that the NHS not only survives but thrives, and we will not let our country down. Of course, if we succeed, we will be able to say with pride that will echo down the decades of the 21st century that we were the generation who built an NHS fit for the future and a fairer Britain where everyone lives well for longer. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, before I begin, it is the first opportunity for me from these Benches to wish the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, a speedy but restful recovery over the summer. I look forward to seeing her back after recess. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As she will appreciate, for many questions that have been asked on health in this House in the last few months, the answer has often been, “You have to wait for the 10-year plan”. As the 10-year plan is here, now is the time to have some constructive debate. We will ask questions but also perhaps suggest some improvements. It gives us a chance to scrutinise and, I hope, to work constructively to make sure that the Government can deliver on the plan.
Let me be clear that the Government welcome aspects of this plan—sorry, the Opposition; it has been a year now and I am still getting used to it. I am sure that the Government welcome it too, but we have many questions. First, I know there is the Casey review, but surely, we have to understand that we must get social care right if we are to unblock many of our beds. Some 13% of NHS beds have patients waiting for discharge. It is not about the financing of social care; it is about making sure people can go into the community.
Secondly, we completely agree on the use of technology. I was the Minister for Technology in the Department of Health and Social Care, and we will support pushing through technological change as quickly as possible, but we also want to make sure we can save both time and cost and improve the patient experience. Far too many functions are duplicated, but, at the same time, if you fall off your bike in an area where you do not live, surely it ought to be easy for the clinicians and paramedics there to pull up and view your record. We still have not quite got there.
How will the single patient record link with the NHS summary care record and the National Care Records Service? Will there be duplication, or will the Government be merging the SCR and the NCRS into a single patient record? The plan rightly places a lot of emphasis on the NHS app. I am proud that a Conservative Government introduced that app and welcome the fact that the Government are going to build on it.
Page 121 talks about wearable medical technology being integrated into the app, which is very welcome. We know that many people already have these wearables and that they integrate them with apps other than the NHS app, but what about the concerns of some patients who worry about where else their personal data will be shared when they share it with the app? How will the Government reassure those people that the data from their wearables will not be shared elsewhere? Will patients be able to see who has accessed their records and when, so that they can have greater confidence in the idea of data sharing?
Turning to the shift from the hospital to the community, which is something that we also agree with. On page 36 it says:
“Our aim is to establish a Neighbourhood Health Centre … in every community”,
and on page 32 it says that a neighbourhood will consist of 50,000 people. However, in his answers on the Statement, the Secretary of State said:
“We aim to go for 250 to 300 new neighbourhood health centres by the end of this plan and 40 to 50 over the course of this Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/25; col. 449.]
If the Government create 300 neighbourhood health centres that each serve 50,000 people, the total served by these neighbourhood health centres will be 15 million people. England has a much larger population of about 57 million people, so, far from there being one in every community, simple maths suggests that there will be 42 million people without one.
To help noble Lords understand, can the Minister explain some of the maths behind this assertion about neighbourhood health centres and what this really means? There needs to be some clarification. If they do not serve the whole population and we are not going to have neighbourhood health centres everywhere, on what basis will they be set up? Who decides where they will be? How do we make sure that they are located on the basis of need or deprivation rather than the politics of a local area? Will they complement existing GP practices and surgical hubs, and how do we make sure that there is no duplication?
On prevention, we all know that we must tackle the obesity crisis and the ill-health crisis. The problem is that quite often we are tempted to go for top-down solutions. We like to say, “Let’s ban this and let’s ban that”, but when I speak to local community civil society organisations, which work with people in local communities to encourage them to eat healthily, they are very sceptical of a lot of these top-down measures. I think of a project like BRITE Box, near where I live in south London, which goes into family homes and delivers healthy ingredients and an easy-to-read menu that children can enjoy and teaches families to cook healthily together. Surely we need to get healthy eating, healthy cooking and the sharing of meals into family homes, particularly those in deprived communities, rather than adopt a top-down solution from Whitehall or Westminster. I would have liked to see more about how we engage the power of the community and civil society at local-community level to tackle many of these issues.
Finally, there is one omission in this plan: fracture liaison services. There is only one mention of it, on page 165. That is rather disappointing, because I remember in June last year, before the last election, the current Secretary of State for Health said that he would take “immediate action” on fracture liaison services. Of course, we had to give the Government time to bed in, but it has now been a year, and we have got the 10-year plan, and there is nothing concrete on fracture liaison services. This is an easy win for the Government, because the savings to be gained from the rollout of fracture liaison services will be realised in two or three years—easily within the political cycle and easily before the next general election.
If the Minister does not have the answer to all these questions, she can write to us and deposit a letter in the Library. We look forward to her replies.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Minister to her place. I know that, when I say that we hope that she is not too long in her place and that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, is with us again soon, she will understand that I say it in the nicest possible way.
From these Liberal Democrat Benches, our unwavering commitment to the NHS remains absolute. We welcome any stated ambition to improve the health service, particularly with a focus on prevention, leveraging technology and moving care closer to people’s homes. However, our support is contingent on plans being genuinely deliverable, properly funded and, crucially, addressing the interconnected crisis in social care. We have long championed that you cannot fix the NHS without fixing social care.
I confess that, as I read the Government’s new 10-year plan, a familiar echo resonated through my mind. Having started my career in the early 1990s as a manager in the health service, much of what is proposed sounds eerily familiar. This plan speaks of a network of new neighbourhood-based care that provides services between general practice and traditional general hospitals. This mirrors strikingly similar initiatives from previous governments—echoing, for example, the advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, for polyclinics in 2007.
What does history teach us about such wholesale shifts of care from hospital? It tells us that this inevitably involves running the old and new systems simultaneously, which is, without exception, expensive. Hospitals will continue to perform their essential functions, and their fixed costs will remain. The new community service demands significant new investment in buildings, staff and technology, and there are no immediate savings to fund the shift. Let us not forget the stark reality: we currently lack the capital simply to repair our existing crumbling health estate, let alone build numerous new hubs.
Crucially, for any plan that speaks of shifting care out of hospitals, the most frequent users of the NHS are our elderly population. Keeping them well and out of acute settings profoundly depends on effective social care, yet this essential pillar remains largely absent from this new plan. We search in vain for a decade-long funding and development road map for social care, or for a stand-alone, fully resourced social care strategy. This is a crucial strategic failure, undermining the very foundation upon which this shift to community is based.
Moreover, while the enthusiasm for digital transformation is understandable, the detailed implementation plan of how to do it is absent. The app is a diagnostic tool; it does not provide direct care, it does not give the jabs and it does not provide the treatment. The King’s Fund has shared its concern on this:
“AI scribes can only transform the productivity of the NHS if staff don’t need to spend 30 minutes every morning logging into multiple out-of-date IT systems”.
The fundamental question remains unanswered: how will this be delivered? The plan is ambitious, but it has been launched into an incredibly chaotic delivery environment marked by significant structural change within the health system bureaucracy. The key question for the Government is how this will be delivered. I therefore have a few questions for the Minister.
What precise funding strategy is embedded within the 10-year plan to deliver the necessary reform and integration of adult social care? Given the dual running costs of new neighbourhood health facilities, can the Minister provide a year-by-year financial breakdown of expenditure and demonstrate how these investments will lead to overall system efficiencies and net savings? Will the Minister commit to publishing within the next four months a comprehensive, independently overseen delivery road map for this 10-year plan that details specific year-by-year objectives and names leads and mechanisms for public reporting on progress? While we wish the ambitions well, the key challenge for this Government is how they will deliver and being open and transparent on that.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I also start by sending my very best wishes to my noble friend Lady Merron. No one more than me is looking forward to her making a very speedy recovery. I am very pleased to hear from her that she is making good progress, so we look forward to her return. I think it is appropriate that I declare an interest: my son is a GP, which I think is perhaps slightly relevant to the debate before us today.
To recap before I go into more of the details, I emphasise that this plan is different in so many ways to the NHS plans that have come before it. As we have heard, it is a road map for radical reform that is built on three fundamental shifts. Those of us that have been around the health agenda for a while recognise the past aspiration for some of these measures, but there was never a bold, innovative, collaborative plan to take our ambitions forward.
From hospital to community care, bringing care closer to home and making access to GPs faster and simpler is absolutely fundamental, particularly in the current climate—and from analogue to digital, giving staff modern tools and patients the kind of convenience and control they expect elsewhere in their lives. All of us have heard heartbreaking stories of patients who go from one specialist to another, and there is not that join-up. This has to be changed. There is no reason why this cannot apply across all the experiences the public have, regardless of where they are seeking services.
Many of us have been talking about the need to move to prevention in so many areas of life. Where better than people’s health, looking at the root causes of poor health and making healthy choices? It is the easy choice, but at the moment it is not that easy.
The new NHS has patients at its heart, will deliver equity and quality, is devolved and decentralised so that we are more responsive to local community needs and the front line is freed up to harness innovations, and the rules and incentives in the system support clinicians and lead us locally to be able to make the right decisions. This means that there is no simple chapter or section within the plan for individual conditions or groups setting top-down actions. The impact on particular services and outcomes will be through successfully transforming how our health ecosystem works. As we will come on to with the more specific questions, this is very much a work in progress. I am delighted by the reach the consultation has had over the last year. That has informed the debate and the outcome that is seen in the plan, so there have been no surprises. Many people who have been involved recognise what is in the plan.
The plan is backed by £29 billion per annum of extra investment by the end of the review period and, crucially, by a drive to cut unnecessary bureaucracy and empower front-line staff, giving them the tools to do what they do best: caring for patients.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for his very constructive comments; they were exceptionally helpful. Across the House, we all look forward to taking this extremely seriously and moving forward.
Turning to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, on social care, he and I share a very positive background in local government, and nothing could be closer to our hearts than working out how we are going to bring the two together. That is fundamental. Both noble Lords made the point very clearly, and we welcome that.
Over the next three years, we will focus on the neighbourhood health approach to those most let down by the current system. That includes older people with frailty and those in care homes. Social care professionals will work alongside NHS staff in local teams, supporting recovery, rehabilitation and independence. We have examples from around the country where this is already happening: services are joined up and the cultural differences between the NHS and local government have been successfully broken down. We need to make sure this is replicated and spread to every part of the country. We need to enable care professionals to take on many more health-related responsibilities, such as blood pressure checks and reducing avoidable hospital administrations. Of course, pay terms and conditions have to be improved through fair pay agreements.
In the longer term, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will produce an interim report next week, but it is very much a work in progress.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Sorry, I meant next year—I was just testing that everyone was still with us—in anticipation of the in-depth work she is already involved with. There will be cross-party discussions and a real engagement with stakeholders.
On the single patient record, I will have to write to the noble Lord about how the merging of the different systems will be achieved, but it will very much be about the patient being in control and giving a full picture for staff moving forward. The digital red book for children is absolutely fantastic.
On the shift to the community, as we have made clear, we will initially prioritise those living in areas of greatest deprivation. We will be opening neighbourhood health centres in places where life expectancy is low. There will be principles that we will follow, bringing all the multidisciplinary teams together.
On the fracture liaison service, I will have to respond in writing. I am sorry but I do not have the specific details in front of me.
Returning to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, and his comments about social care, it is critical that we get this right and make sure that local leaders are right in there, responsible for delivery, proactive, providing a co-ordinated response and building on the work already being done.
On the funding, £29 billion is quite a significant amount of resource to work from. We recognise that there are challenges, and it would be wrong of me to pre-empt the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. But I know she has been encouraged to work with the best of the best, and I look forward to the outcomes.
I have to finish—I am sorry; there is never enough time. Our health system is in crisis, and we need to act now. We must make sure that the NHS continues as a publicly funded service free at the point of use. We need to seize the opportunities provided by all the new technologies and medicines outlined in the plan, go forward with innovation and make sure that the patients are at the heart of everything we do.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, from these Benches, we too send best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron.
The stress on prevention in this plan is welcome, but it does not adequately address the commercial determinants of ill health. On every high street there is alcohol for sale which does not have minimum unit pricing, and that is not coming in. There are vape shops and betting shops, and poor quality ultra-processed food is the food available for purchase. Putting the onus on the individual under the name of choice is unfair when they do not have anything reasonable to choose from that they can afford. I really push the Government to look at these broader commercial determinants of ill health.
I was disappointed that palliative care was mentioned only once, because the Commission on Palliative and End-of-Life Care has shown that good care is less costly than poor care. It can avoid inappropriate admissions to hospital and support people to live well. When at peace emotionally and physically comfortable, they can gently let go of life and die gently in the place of their choice, which is usually their home. But for care at home, they need support 24/7. My concern has been that the plan does not really emphasise that there are times at nights and weekends when AI and technology are not the answer. You need a person who is available to come out and provide help and support to someone in the home. I hope that in the neighbourhoods, the 24/7 need will be addressed and that there will not be an excessive reliance on AI, thinking that it will be the answer to everything. I look forward to hearing the response.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her questions and for her best wishes to my noble friend Lady Merron—I am sure that she will receive them. I thank her for bringing up the commercial determinants of health, which are critical. I reassure her that, outside of the health scenario, an enormous amount of work is happening. The NHS is going to work much more closely with local government—which has responsibility for trading standards, for example—and other local public services. We have certain things in place. Come the autumn, we will be bringing back the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, for example, with its huge opportunity to create a smoke-free generation. We are restricting junk food advertising targeted at children, banning the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to the under-16s, and we will be the first country in the world to introduce mandatory health food sales reporting for all large companies in the food sector.
The noble Baroness raised a few questions. I have to be brief to give other people the opportunity to come in, but palliative care is a real priority moving forward. I will leave it there, but I am happy to pick up anything that I have missed with her outside the House.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to her place and, like others, send good wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Merron.
I welcome very much, as others have done, the three aspirations in Fit for the Future. I think that they are significant and that they are the right ones. I think they are bold and visionary. However, while I welcome the move from analogue to digital, for me, the document raises significant questions. We are looking to build a National Health Service which cares for whole people, not machines. We need, therefore, to be concerned for physical, mental, emotional and spiritual health, at every stage of life, across the NHS. That demands continuous investment in people, including, of course, chaplains.
I have specific questions around the ethics, governance and provision of technology. Where will process and governance responsibility lie for data storage? Will the Government continue to outsource this to Palantir or another provider, or will we build and maintain the NHS’s own secure provision? I am mindful that our data stored by the NHS is a hugely valuable commercial asset. Where will the ethical debates take place around, for example, the proposal that newborns will undergo wholesale genetic sequencing from birth from 2035, which seems to raise massive issues for our society? The document as it stands, it seems to me, is wholly positive about technology—it is techno-optimism. Will the Minister please balance this by telling us about the safeguards, reservations and governance that the technology needs in order to deliver the human, humane and kind care that we need?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his very thoughtful contribution. It is particularly of the moment, and I completely recognise everything he said about this needing to focus on people.
We have to look at this technology as enabling better care and freeing up time. How many of us go to the GP and experience frustration at the restriction on the time that we are allowed to spend with the GP, because so much of their time is taken up with admin? Of course, data protection is central. The health service is not the only area where we are looking at systems of data protection, and the normal protection methodology will be brought to bear. We have to make sure that, in governance, there is a much more transparent and open style, which, frankly, we all have to admit has been missing in some cases. This is an opportunity to look at that.
I must admit that I will have to have a conversation about where the ethical discussions will actually take place, but I know that, throughout the professional bodies, these considerations are taken into account all the time. It is fundamental. The direction of travel is to have people at the centre, building the workforce, so that they have the opportunities to thrive and do their jobs to the best of their abilities for their patients.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lord, this is a pot-pourri of worthy aspirations, with the most extraordinary sense of déjà vu: hospital to community; sickness to prevention; a patient-driven NHS; league tables; foundation trusts; funding following the patients and outcomes. I was a contemporary of Alan Milburn, and he is behind this; these were all measures that we were discussing long ago. Maybe they have not been sufficiently implemented—and I so welcome the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, asking where the timetable and implementation plan are, and how this is going to happen.
But I must leap forward to the most serious issue of the day. We are all united on the importance of the NHS. It is incredibly difficult to change it, manage it and lead it. How can it be right for resident doctors to be taking industrial action for five days later in July? They have had an incredible increase compared with other members of the public sector, and the Government have said that they will help them on their work conditions. For those who say that their greatest pride is in helping patients, this is a shocking state of events—in a career that people want to join and that has long-term respect. Will the Minister ensure, very specifically, that the department checks up on whether any junior doctor taking industrial action then moonlights in another health authority, or in a private health provision, so that while they are taking industrial action they are also earning, at a premium rate, making up the gap left by the other doctors on industrial action?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
As someone who has been involved in the plan, I start by saying to the noble Baroness that although it might echo things that have happened in the past, there is an enormous difference now. There is a depth of collaboration, bringing people together and recognising the different cultures in organisations. Of the 200 bodies that are going to be dismantled, Healthwatch is one; it has been very positive and has contributed to the future plan for how this is all going to look. There has been a step change in how we get out and work with people. It is a very ambitious plan, which I am pleased about. I am also very optimistic, because, quite frankly, too many professionals have gone too close to the edge and they realise what is on the other side if we do not all pull together and do something about this.
We are disappointed about the BMA decision to strike. The majority of resident doctors did not vote to strike, and threatening strike action that could harm patients will set back progress. I assure the noble Baroness that no one on these Benches is welcoming the strike. The basic truth is that, thanks to this Government, resident doctors have received a 28.9% pay rise compared to three years ago, and the highest pay award in the entire public sector this year. The Secretary of State met the BMA yesterday. Although he has made it very clear that the Government cannot go further on pay than we already have this year, he has offered to work with resident doctors to resolve issues they might face around working conditions. It will, of course, be down to their managers to work with staff to come up with a plan to deal with the action that is being proposed.
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Lab)
My Lords, I add my welcome for this 10-year plan. I also welcome my noble friend to her position and send my best wishes to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron; I hope she recovers very quickly.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I can see some echoes—or important themes—that the 10-year plan picks up. I was particularly interested to think about how the themes in the 10-year plan will dovetail with what I hope will be a new cancer plan that will come out in the autumn. I am particularly interested in how, for example, prompt diagnosis will be promoted. Are we going to think about stratified screening, with faster diagnosis targets, or faster access to clinical trials for patients with cancer, or speeding up access to modern medicine so that we can have those cutting-edge treatments widely available?
All that is set out in the 10-year plan and the investment—particularly the capital investment, which I welcome—leads me to believe that I can feel very optimistic about what is coming down the track in the autumn. I hope the Minister can give me some assurance. After all, one in two of us may go on to develop cancer in our lifetime, and that is an awful lot of the population.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her interest. Of course, the 10-year health plan sets out how we will fight cancer on all fronts. She is quite right that the national cancer plan is going to be published later this year, setting out in detail how we will increase survival rates through early diagnosis and access to better-quality treatment, and how we move forward with care in the community to help with lives beyond cancer. There is a great deal of detail behind this; I cannot go into it now, but I am happy to discuss it.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the emphasis in the plan on community mental health services and the shift towards 24/7 neighbourhood working. But for this to work, it will have to be achieved by significant rebalancing of resources towards community services. The share of overall NHS spending on mental health has fallen for the last two years and is expected to fall again this year. Although I looked hard in the plan for any reference to the mental health investment standard, I could not see it. Can the Minister tell us what is happening to the standard?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I do not have that specific information to hand, but I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness. Mental health is written throughout the plan, for both adults and children. All the work we are doing in schools—opening up access and making sure that mental health is treated in the way that it needs to be—is one of the major commitments that we have made through the plan.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has very kindly said that she will write to my noble friend Lord Kamall about fracture liaison services. I declare an interest as someone with a rather painful bone condition, and I am delighted that they were mentioned in the 10-year plan. In her letter to my noble friend, can she include an explanation as to an implementation plan and when it will be introduced? When will follow-up pump-priming to support the implementation plan be announced?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I would be delighted to add those details to the letter. I am very sorry to hear about the noble Lord’s condition and its pertinence to this part of the debate.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I welcome this plan. As some will know, my colleagues and I have been working in this space for over 40 years, trying to encourage a move into our communities of a more joined-up approach. Are colleagues in the health department talking to colleagues about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill? Our work is now right across the country, in many communities, and we still see that lessons are not being learned. You still have major developments where the health centre is at one end of a site, the nurse is at another, the school and the community buildings are somewhere else—none of it is joined up. All this disconnection is at great expense. How, at this important moment, can steps be taken to try to join up these conversations? How can we try to ensure that in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill there are messages from the health service about the important need to enable this?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am very aware of the noble Lord’s work in this area, particularly on regeneration. As the plan outlines, looking at the new neighbourhood provision, and how to bring different neighbourhood and community services together, gives us a fantastic opportunity to make sure that the whole community is considered—for example, it will look at connectivity with the centres, which has not always been the case in the past. It is a great opportunity and I am very much aware that our colleagues in planning, and MHCLG generally, are involved in our discussions.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I recently had a major operation by robotic surgery. It was very successful; I was out and at home within two and a half days. How will the rollout of this happen? For example, I happen to know that the Royal College of Surgeons at the moment offers only one online module on robotic surgery, which seems to me to be not adequate. What conversations are going on to make sure that this can be delivered?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Robotic surgery is one of the areas generating enormous excitement, and I was very interested to hear of my noble friend’s experiences. I assure her that conversations are taking place, and I know that they will be part of the plan when we come to talk about delivery.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, if so many people want to speak, we should have a full debate on this plan, which is generally welcome. On digital, the plan summarises various digital improvements. There is also a red book for a child’s health, and feedback from Fitbits and data, which is all very good. However, there is no timescale for any of this and no plan to make patient records from GPs or hospitals available and viewable on the NHS app by the patient, as is the case in other countries. When will the Government give patients open access, as opposed to control by NHS professionals?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I hoped I had made it clear that this is the broad outline. Of course, more specific details will come forward and we will have the opportunity to debate them as they do so. The noble Baroness raises important points about challenges as well as great opportunities. I look forward to those debates; I think we are on a very positive way forward. However, I hope everyone understands that this is a 10-year plan for very good reason. We realise the scale of the challenges that face us, and we look forward to getting on with implementation.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, we are not going to resume until 8.42 pm, so we have four minutes.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, we have had three Cross-Benchers; perhaps we could hear from a Liberal Democrat.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, we are not due to return to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill until 8.42 pm. The time allocated for Statement repeats is very clear in the Companion: 20 minutes for Front-Benchers and 20 minutes for Back-Benchers. We have now exceeded that allotted time so, as we were not due to return to the Bill until 8.42 pm, the House will adjourn during pleasure until that point.
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Wednesday 9th July 2025
(4 days, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberHouse of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 View all House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 49-R-II(a) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (8 Jul 2025)
22:18 - Division on Amendment 23A - Ayes: 139 / Noes: 158 - Amendment 23A disagreed.
23:11 - Division on Amendment 27 - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 126 - Amendment 27 disagreed.
Lord Burns
“Restriction on nominating new life peers(1) In the period between the commencement of this Act and the first General Election thereafter, the number of recommendations made to His Majesty for the granting of new life peerages under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 (power to confer life peerages) must not exceed one new peer for every life peer who leaves the House through retirement or death. (2) Following the first General Election after the commencement of this Act, and for as long as the membership of the House of Lords exceeds the membership of the House of Commons, the number of recommendations made to His Majesty for the granting of new life peerages under section 1 of the Life Peerages Act 1958 must not exceed one new peer for every two life peers who leave the House through retirement or death.(3) Once the membership of the House of Lords is equal to or less than the membership of the House of Commons, recommendations made to His Majesty for the granting of new life peerages under section 1 of that Act must not be such that they would cause the membership of the House of Lords to exceed the membership of the House of Commons.”
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I welcomed the statement from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, at the beginning of Report and her proposal to establish a dedicated Select Committee to undertake future work once the Bill becomes law. She highlighted two specific proposals in the Government’s manifesto—on retirement and participation—on which she would like to make progress in the Select Committee. She suggested that there seemed to be consensus in the House on these issues and I think many of us would agree.
However, in response to a question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the Leader did not include controlling the size of the House as one of the topics that might be considered by this Select Committee. She suggested that it could possibly be covered by a subsequent committee. To me, this was surprising, as the manifesto also stated that the House of Lords is “too big”, which could, at a bit of a stretch, be interpreted as a commitment. I am grateful to the Leader for several useful conversations on this matter in recent weeks.
As the House knows, my view is that if we are to address the issue of the size of the House, we must address appointments as well as departures, either in this Bill or subsequently. Both matters are important. However, during the debate on the Bill, considerably more attention has been given to measures that would increase the number of Peers leaving than to the number of appointments. The cross-party committee which I chair for the Lord Speaker concluded that these measures to increase the numbers leaving may be in vain if no action is taken also to constrain the number of appointments.
The manifesto states that the reason the House is too big is that “appointments are for life”. However, an additional and more important reason for the present size of the House is the Prime Minister’s power of patronage in the appointment of Members. With rare exceptions, there has been a persistent tendency for the number of appointments to exceed the number of leavers, on occasions by very large amounts. There are no guardrails on appointments, as we seem to call them these days. Prime Ministers can make more appointments than Members who leave, and often do. To make matters worse, they can appoint disproportionately to their own party when in office, and often do. As the saying goes, you do not have to gaze into a crystal ball when you can read an open book—or even a Select Committee report.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 23, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I will add a brief footnote to his speech.
When this country is confronted with a controversial issue, it frequently turns to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for an answer. Those of us with long memories recall his Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in 1999 and his Independent Commission on Freedom of Information in 2015. No sooner was that completed than we had the Burns commission on the size of the House in 2016. That followed a debate on 5 December 2016, in which the House agreed, without a Division, that
“its size should be reduced and method should be explored by which this should be achieved”.
The Burns report recommended that the size of the House should be reduced to that of the other place—then 600, now 650—and that the target should be achieved over time by a two out, one in rule. It suggested that, when it reached the cap, new appointments should reflect the result of the last election and be on a one in, one out principle. The report was welcomed by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place.
We debated that on 19 December 2017; 72 noble Lords spoke and there was general approval. Winding up, the noble Lord, Lord Burns, said:
“The question I asked myself and members of the committee asked themselves was whether we should wait to make any progress on these other issues until we had a slot for legislation, or should try to put together a system that could be worked on on a non-legislative basis, but which legislation could be brought to bear on at a later point. That certainly remains my position, having heard the points that have been made today”.—[Official Report, 19/12/17; col. 2106.]
That is what then happened. We proceeded on a non-legislative basis and it clearly has not worked—the House is bigger now than it was then. That is not because noble Lords have not risen to the challenge by retiring—or, indeed, dying—but because, with the notable exception of my noble friend Lady May, Prime Ministers have been overgenerous with their appointments.
As the non-legislative option proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has not worked, we are left with the other option—legislation—and that is now before us. Winding up for the Lib Dems, their then spokesman Lord Tyler confirmed his party’s support for legislation, if the voluntary scheme failed. He said:
“Unless the Prime Minister is willing to abide by this constraint, we might as well give up now, and without a statutory scheme her successors cannot be held to her agreement in law either”.—[Official Report, 19/12/17; col. 2098.]
I then looked up what the current Leader said in that debate, when she was Leader of the Opposition. I quote:
“are any of the objections that have been raised insurmountable?”
These are the objections to the Burns report. She went on:
“I do not consider that they are but there is one insurmountable issue: the role of the Prime Minister and of the Government. This will work only if the Government play their part. It is not about giving up patronage or appointments but about showing some restraint, as it used to be”.
Since then, there has been no restraint. She concluded:
“If the House and the Government are to show respect for the work they”—
the Burns committee—
“have done, we will take this forward. I noted that a number of noble Lords quoted from songs and plays. I will quote Elvis Presley, when he sang, ‘It’s now or never’”.—[Official Report, 19/12/17; col. 2104.]
Clearly, then it was not “now”, but nor need it be “never”. If we meant what we unanimously voted for in 2016, we should support Amendment 23. We may never get the opportunity again.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of this amendment, to which I have added my name. The noble Lord, Lord Burns, has come up with an elegant formulation—as he did several years ago in the committee he chaired—for a way out of the conundrum that we have. However good our provisions in terms of people leaving the House are, if we do not have any constraint—any guardrails at all—on people coming into the House, when we have a general election where there is a large majority, we will always see the ratcheting effect. We have seen that recently; there is every possibility that we will see it again in the future. It is tremendously important that we try to take some steps now.
The size of the House overall does matter. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Gove, is in his place, and I am delighted that he obviously has become deeply affectionate and committed to the work of this House. I disagreed with most of his speech, but one thing he said that was incorrect was that the House was in danger of being bullied by those outside into thinking that it was too big and had to change. That is not the situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, just said, this House has repeatedly recognised the need for it not to grow exponentially, and has repeatedly recognised the danger of it being larger than the House of Commons. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Gove, that other second chambers across the world manage to find the right combination of expertise and experience without rising in their overall numbers to pretty near four figures—which is where we are in danger of going.
I believe it is tremendously important. There are those who say, “Oh, it doesn’t matter. Look at the average attendance figures. People aren’t claiming their allowances. None of this matters”. I spent five years as Lord Speaker and, in those five years, I do not know how many speeches I made about the House of Lords. The thing that most people knew about the House of Lords was not that it was brilliant at scrutiny, and not that it had fantastic Select Committees, but that only China’s National People’s Congress, in the whole world, had more members.
That issue of reputation should not be the only one that drives us; we should recognise that we need a House peopled with enough Members to do the job we ask it to do, but we do not have to have an expert on every single issue in the world. We have Select Committees that can call for evidence; we can hear that expertise. We need a House of a reasonable size and I suggest that it should be no larger than the House of Commons. Others have suggested much smaller Houses. They look at the United States Senate. They look across the world and say that other people manage with less. I believe that, as a part-time House, we need larger numbers because not everyone is here all the time and that is important—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Smith of Basildon) (Lab)
The noble Baroness saw me shaking my head. I was doing so only because I always refute that we are a part-time House. We are a full-time House with long hours, but many of our Members do not have to be here full-time.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
I am rightly castigated by the Leader of the House. I did not mean what I said about being a part-time House; I meant a House that does not have Members who are expected to be full-time in performing their parliamentary duties.
I very much believe that the elegant solution that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, has put before us is the right way forward. However, alongside other issues we have debated in the course of this narrow Bill, these are very wide and important issues. I also recognise that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House wants, to use her phrase, to take this in bite-size chunks, and I very much welcome the setting up of the Select Committee. But it is incumbent on us all to recognise that, with the effects of the Bill, which will reduce the numbers and the membership of the House, and the effects of anything done on retirement—whether that is based on 10%, 5% or 20% attendance, and whether it is done by age or by term limits—we will be reducing the size of the House. That is an opportunity to get down to a rational and defensible size while, at the same time, putting right the imbalance that currently exists between the opposition party and the government party in their party-political representation.
It is a big opportunity but it will be short-lived if we do not take on the responsibility of looking to the future and at how we stop ourselves getting into this situation again, whether by the unbridled use of the prerogative by a Prime Minister or because of the electoral effects of a big change at a single general election. It is incumbent on us to take that into account when we look at those other two measures that the noble Baroness has suggested the Select Committee consider. They will have an impact on the size of the House and that impact should not be short-term but enduring. We saw that the very principled and welcome attitude of the noble Baroness, Lady May, had a short-term effect, but it did not last because it could simply be reversed by the next incumbent. We need some guardrails, and I hope that if the House does not decide tonight to adopt the details of this amendment, the Select Committee will look at the issue in some detail.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, briefly, I support the noble Lord, Lord Burns, having added my name to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, expressed perfectly my views, therefore I will not rehearse them again.
On an earlier amendment I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Gove, who expressed a view which, if taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that you could go on putting people into the House more or less for as long as you like. There has to be a limit at some point; we do not want a House of 1,000, 1,500 or 2,000. Therefore, at some point, there has to be a mechanism that puts some brake on, such that what goes out and what comes in are in balance.
As the noble Lord, Lord Burns, set out so well in introducing his amendment, the problem is that each incoming Government find themselves at a disadvantage, having been in opposition, compared with what has gone before. Therefore, they have to do something to restore that imbalance if they are to come remotely close to getting their business through. I therefore think that tackling the size of the House is one of the most important things we can do.
I would make one small suggestion—it is not a quibble—to the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I might have left out proposed new subsection (1) in his amendment, which is what is happening over this Parliament. That will not come as a surprise, since my previous amendment sought to put it into the next Parliament. As I said in that debate, it would be rather unfair if we were to change the rules at half-time, as it were. I think the current Government deserve to have a reasonable number of Peers, but that simply underlines the necessity of having the guard-rails in place to ensure that, going forward, the House cannot go beyond a certain size and should be reduced, with something like the size of the Commons being broadly appropriate.
I do not know whether the noble Lord will press his amendment. If he did, I would happily support him, but I suspect that, like me, he might take a more pragmatic decision. In that case, I very much hope the Select Committee will be able to do its job, although my doubts previously expressed—that it will not be able to do enough—remain.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly add one argument in support of my noble friend’s amendment. There is widespread criticism of the competence and indeed the commitment of some of those who have been appointed to this House. Many of us think that some of those criticisms have been justified. If there is a limit on the size of the House, the leaders of the political parties will be concerned to ensure that the people whom they recommend for appointment will pull their weight in the House and do stuff for their party. That can be achieved only if there is a constraint on those appointments.
The criticisms of some of the appointments that have been made have been bad for the reputation of the House, as has been the concern about numbers. My noble friend’s amendment would deal with both these aspects, but the aspect of ensuring that party leaders want their appointments to be of good quality is another very important argument in favour of a constraint.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, it is quite clear that legislation is needed if we are to control people coming into the House. I support very much the line of thinking that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, outlined. There is just one point that troubles me, and perhaps I can dare to mention it. When this Government came in, the Prime Minister made a number of appointments to strengthen the Front Bench of the party, which was obviously going to have to deal with ministerial issues and represent the Government at various stages in both legislation and debates. It struck me that the appointments that were made—I will not mention names—were well chosen and that the Front Bench was strengthened, to the advantage of the House. The reason I say this is that there is great force in the point that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, is making: that we need to discuss this in more detail.
I am very much in support of the principle that lies behind this, and I did my very best to make it work, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, did in his case. It was, of course, ultimately the Prime Minister’s patronage that made it impossible to continue to make it work—that is the real issue we have to deal with. That brings me right back to the flexibility to strengthen the Front Bench. I am not talking about broader appointments, but is it right that the Prime Minister should not be able to appoint somebody from outside who has particular expertise to enable the Front Bench to perform its function to the best of its ability?
I mention this simply as a pointer towards the point that the noble Lord, Lord Burns, made at the beginning: this really does deserve discussion, and it would be very helpful, since all these issues are intertwined, if the Select Committee could discuss it as well.
Lord Beith (LD)
I draw to the attention of the noble and learned Lord, whose interest in this matter is much appreciated, the fact that, when we considered this in the Burns committee, it was clear that there needed to be some way in which Ministers could be brought to the Front Bench—by being admitted to a peerage—and that that could be done out of the quota their party ought to have been getting in any case; that is, they should be taken from that number. The other possibility that could be considered, of course, is that, as some of those who may take such appointments do not really wish to remain here for the rest of their lives, it might be appropriate for them to be time limited as well.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment; I feel that it is only fair to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, who is smiling because I have lobbied him on this issue on most of the opportunities when I have bumped into him in the corridors.
Whatever might be said about the number of Peers who have been appointed—it is very difficult; you feel rather impolite once you have been accepted into your Lordships’ House—we have never, thankfully, had a situation where the constitutional convention has been busted that the Government have the largest group but not an overall majority in this House. All of us here I think are believers in the parliamentary democratic system, but, if we were to have people involved in politics and, perhaps, in power who did not agree with that unwritten convention, we would be in a situation where the Prime Minister of the day could, within a few weeks of coming into office, appoint hundreds of Peers, placing the House of Lords Appointments Commission—and, potentially, even the monarch—in an unusual situation. We would therefore have a situation where the Executive would be in charge, having, obviously, not only a majority in the Commons but a commanding majority in the Lords. Of course, we have never before had the situation of having a Prime Minister who does not feel bound by that convention.
Lord Moore of Etchingham (Non-Afl)
Can I ask the noble Baroness something? The most important reform that ever took place in the House of Lords was caused by the threat of the Liberal Government to create hundreds of Peers. They had that right and they knew that they had that right, and the King agreed that they had that right. Had they not had that right, they would not have been able to bring in the 1911 Act. Does the noble Baroness therefore think that nothing like that should ever be repeated?
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that, but we are now in the situation where we have the Parliament Act. I was just moving on to the point that any Prime Minister of the day could reform and make the situation a unicameral situation, but that would of course require the Parliament Act and would mean a delay of a couple of years. We all know how important it is to take your time in politics sometimes, particularly when you are doing constitutional change.
This is more analogous to the situation that happened in Hungary in 2010. Hungary set up its constitution with a President, obviously, but also with a unicameral situation, with a two-thirds supermajority needed to change the constitution. It never envisaged, of course, that one party would bust that majority, but it happened. Subsequently, the EU no longer fully regards Hungary as a democracy. It would be such a shame—I try not to use melodramatic language, but it would be a tragedy—if the Mother of Parliaments ended up in the situation of having what is described now in Hungary: you govern by law, so the Executive just bring their legislation to Parliament and rubber-stamp it.
I say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman: it really matters that we, as a Parliament—at a time when, for very sad reasons, we thankfully have primary legislation—might not be looking at the main thing that we need to ensure. So I fully support the noble Lord’s amendment.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I feel compelled to rise again on the principle that there is no argument so impeccable that it does not deserve to have at least one voice raised in opposition. Among your Lordships, there seems to be a consensus that the House is too large and that a variety of measures should be introduced—new guillotines and new tumbrils—to ensure that the numbers are limited. The arguments, put forward in good faith by many wiser figures than me, deserve to be opposed.
One reason why it is vital that we oppose them—following on from my noble friend Lord Young’s point about Elvis Presley, I suspect that I will find myself “lonesome tonight” in making this case—is that the arguments that have been advanced so far do not stand up to scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, talked about the sometimes foolish use of the royal prerogative by Prime Ministers who appoint people to this House who may be ill-qualified or bring it into disrepute. I am not going to mention any names or speculate on whom he might be thinking of. However, if the Prime Minister acts in such a way, the sanction of a general election, the sanction of democracy punishing that Prime Minister—as it punishes any Prime Minister for any act of folly—is the appropriate way of checking any misuse of power or the Executive not behaving in a manner consistent with the dignity of their office or with the public will.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. First, was Elizabeth I wrong when she faced a huge Privy Council and said, “It is too large for good governance”, and immediately reduced it to 30? The noble Lord says that numbers do not matter and that what matters is what we do here, but out there they are all saying that we are too large. Sometimes you do not need big bodies to do the job efficiently. Was Queen Elizabeth I right?
Secondly, nobody has said that the Prime Minister could not vote. It is not in this amendment. As I understood it, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, these promises and views that we have heard unfortunately have become promissory notes on tissue paper, put into a Trojan horse which also is made of tissue paper.
Lord Gove (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord for his intervention, but I do not believe that if we reduce the size of the House to meet the criticisms of some, the fundamental opposition of many to the operation of the House would diminish. More importantly, the principal criticism that can be directed at any legislature is not about its size but its effectiveness and the willingness with which it operates to ensure that new laws that come there are properly scrutinised, and the more voices that are capable of being deployed in that debate and the more arguments that are effectively made, the better.
That takes me to my final point. I do not believe that there has ever been a recorded set of votes in this House where when you add a Division’s Contents and Not-Contents, they have been higher than the full composition of the other place. This House is flexible; our constitution is flexible. These attempts to impose external rigidities to meet some Charter 88 rationalist view of what we should be doing is an utterly mistaken course to go down, and I urge your Lordships to reject it.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
On the noble Lord’s last quip about some Charter 88, irrational view of the size of the House, I think that if he read the Burns report, he would learn how much thought went into choosing that size as providing enough person power to do exactly the jobs that he has discussed, to which I am as committed as he is. I believe that the size of the House, and the view outside of it, are not the most important factors, but they stand in the way of appreciation of what the House actually does and that it is not defensible to those who have not studied it in any detail.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, I am ever so sorry, but given the hour, I thought it would be helpful to remind noble Lords that this is Report and any interventions need to be short, please.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for his amendment and the way he introduced it. He raised four very substantial issues—much more substantial than most of the issues we have spent most of the day debating. Should there be a maximum size of the House? How do we get there? How do we then stop recidivist Governments breaching it? Once we have got there, how do we balance the new appointments between the various parties?
The first and third questions are very straightforward. Yes, there should be a limit. Yes, it will mean that no Prime Minister can then threaten to flood the House with 100 new Peers, but the last time that was tried was over 110 years ago, and it has not proved to be a necessary part of public policy-making in the interim. Is the noble Lord, Lord Gove, right when he says the more voices, the better? Clearly, there is a point at which that ceases to be the case, and what we are arguing about is where that should be. If there were 5,000 people here, there would clearly be too many voices, and we would not be able to do anything. Those of us who have spent many hours debating here, including everybody who has been involved with the Burns amendment, have formed the view that the place would be better if it had a cap on its numbers. So, yes, there should be a cap on the numbers. It should be a legislative cap. If we have that, it solves the problem of how we stop future Prime Ministers ratcheting up the numbers again—they will not be allowed to do it by law.
How do we get to that number, 650 or whatever it is? Actually, if we do what we say we are going to do in terms of retirement and participation, we get beyond that number; we get below it. In fact, one of the arguments about having a straightforward retirement age is that we are taking out too many people, so I do not think that the bit of the noble Lord’s amendment that deals with how we get to the number would be needed in practice.
If we agree that there should be a limit and that it means you cannot ratchet up again, and if we say that we get to the limit by the combination of retirement and participation limits, the difficult question that remains is: once you have got below the limit, how do you decide on the balance of appointments? The noble Lord says there is a convention that the Labour Party and the Conservative Party should have broad parity of numbers. That may be fine, but there are some others of us here, both on these Benches and the noble Lord’s. What are we going to do about all that?
In his original report, the noble Lord came up with an elegant proposal to deal with the balance that related to votes and seats over a period of three general elections. It would have had the advantage of being a stabilising force while still reflecting the fact that the House has to move with the country. I supported that at the time, as I think the Government did, and would support it again.
On how we implement all this, if we could agree on it all, given that the debate about retirement is in part a debate about numbers, one of the issues will be how quickly we do it. If we require primary legislation to deal with retirement, I do not see why it would be illogical to include something about numbers in that.
How you deal with my point about how you rebalance over time once you have got below the cap, whether you do that by convention or statute, is a matter for another day. The only thing that worries me slightly is that framing a statute that could not be amended in the light of changing political circumstances might be quite difficult.
These are hugely important issues. There is quite a lot of consensus on some of them, but I hope we are able to debate them sensibly and make progress on them during the course of the Parliament and in the context of the other debates we are having, not least on retirement.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in many ways this is the most important amendment we are considering today, because it is the only attempt to curb the power of the Executive over Parliament. The Bill, as the Government drafted it, shifts the scales rather dangerously in their favour. It leaves the Prime Minister the sole person responsible for deciding who comes to this House and who leaves it. If we were to throw out the small number of excepted hereditary Peers in the way that the Bill as originally drafted put it, which the House has now voted against, every Member of this House would be appointed by, or subject to the approval of, the Prime Minister of the day—a situation found in no other democratic Chamber.
As we have heard from our debates in Committee and last week, the House of Lords Appointments Commission, HOLAC, has no power to insist on the nominations it makes, and no guaranteed number or guaranteed timescale. While this Parliament has already seen the introduction of 45 Labour Peers, 21 Conservatives and three Liberal Democrats, the independent commission has not been permitted to make any nominations under the present Prime Minister.
In our debate last week, the Leader of the House confirmed that the four Cross-Bench Peers announced last month were people of the Prime Minister’s own selection, not the House of Lords Appointments Commission’s. Moreover, in the statement the Prime Minister made alongside that announcement, he made clear that, like his predecessors, he would be prepared to overrule HOLAC in exceptional circumstances if it objected to one of his nominations on the grounds of propriety.
Even the Lords spiritual, notwithstanding the changes made under that great Presbyterian Gordon Brown, pass through Downing Street on the way to their episcopal throne. Crucially, the procedural changes made by Mr Brown are not set in statute and so could be undone by a future Prime Minister with a snap of their fingers.
I have served in government in different capacities under four Prime Ministers. I have seen the power of patronage and the seductive temptations it offers to Prime Ministers as their other powers wane. We have seen the current Prime Minister wielding that power already—that is not new and not unique to him, but the Bill he has sent us would leave him more powerful than any of his predecessors and leave him and those who follow him free to succumb to those temptations without, as noble Lords have put it, any guard-rails.
At the beginning of his premiership, Sir Keir Starmer began by appointing new Peers at a faster rate than any Prime Minister for three decades. I am glad that he has now slowed down, but he could change speed again whenever he wants. The Leader of the House has argued, and I can see will argue again, that that is because of the profligacy of his predecessors—following the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about the ratchet effect that leaves us in this situation after every general election. In doing so, she and the Prime Minister have given the game away that the Bill is not just about ending the hereditary peerage but about removing a large number of Peers from beyond the Government Benches.
The Leader has told us repeatedly that, even with that excision, the Labour Party will form only 28% of the seats in your Lordships’ House. Can she tell us today, with the same clarity, that she expects and intends the Labour Party to form the same proportion by the end of this Parliament, or does she see why so many of us, like Elvis Presley, have “Suspicious Minds” about that?
More worryingly still, we have seen the power of executive patronage in action throughout our debates on the Bill. I am sure I am not the only one to have noticed the conspicuous number of abstentions in some of the Divisions so far, or to have been surprised by the arguments of noble Lords who are usually so robust in asserting our role as a revising Chamber advising that on this Bill, which has such profound consequences not just for your Lordships’ House but for our constitutional settlement, we should not make any amendment at all or disagree with the House of Commons, who have still—the majority of them—sat for only 170 days. I detect a certain nervousness, not just among our hereditary colleagues or those over or approaching the age of 80, about voting for things that might annoy the present Government. I know the Leader will want every Member of your Lordships’ House to know that they can and should perform their legislative scrutiny on this Bill, as on any other, without fear or favour, so I hope she can reassure us that no one, even those who would vote on the Bill in a way that she would rather they did not, will suffer any ill feeling or consequence from the Government.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
This is the first time I have been angry in this debate. The noble Lord is casting malign intent on me and others in my party about the Bill. I hope he will retract and rethink what he said.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am sorry if I have angered the Leader, but this comes from conversations I have had with noble Lords in other corners of the House about amendments on the Bill. They worry—and I know she will take this seriously, because she will not want them to worry—about the consequences of how they vote and how they are perceived to vote, particularly hereditary Peers sitting on other Benches with their future uncertain. I am sorry if that has angered her. It should anger and concern us all. I know she will say it should not need saying, but I know she will also not want any noble Lord to have that fear as they approach this Bill or any other.
The noble Lord, Lord Burns—who, as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham has pointed out, performs his duties here without any fear or favour—has been asked to look at many important issues for our nation. He has worked harder and longer than anyone to find a way to tackle the question of the size of your Lordships’ House, not least in chairing the Lord Speaker’s committee established by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. The recommendations that he and his colleagues from across the House made show that it is possible to address the size of the House without changing the law, and the Prime Minister at the time, my noble friend Lady May of Maidenhead, showed that it was possible too with the restraint that she exercised. The actions of subsequent Prime Ministers of both parties show that not all occupants of No. 10 have been persuaded to do that, and the current occupant of No. 10 has not made any commitment, notwithstanding the words that the noble Baroness used when she was Leader of the Opposition in winding the debate on the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Burns.
If the House is serious about reducing its size and asserting its independence in the face of the Executive, I hope the noble Lord will continue to press the matter that he has been pressing on behalf of a House that asked him to do it for so long, and I hope the noble Baroness will be able to give us the reassurances that I know we all want to hear. I am sorry if it has angered her to ask for them, but I think it is important that she is able to reassure noble Lords on that point.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I can reassure noble Lords on a number of items, but I will say that that is the first time in this debate that we have had such discourtesy from a Member of the party opposite, with his allegation that somehow I will punish those who take a different view on this. He should look at his words again and rethink them, because the tone of the debate has not been like that throughout. I am sorry that he descended to that level.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, for bringing this forward. He has been consistent throughout about the issues of the size of the House and prime ministerial patronage. Others are perhaps more recent converts on those issues, but he has had consistency. He and his committee looked at these issues forensically in a way that the House could respect, because it was based on facts and numbers, and they looked at this in a sensible way.
On hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said earlier, I am tempted to ask whether perhaps he was thinking that I should say we should do it “My Way” and no other way. For the final time, to follow a theme, “A Little Less Conversation” sometimes could be more helpful—I just like to lighten the mood.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, in addressing some of the other comments that have been made, that I think it would be completely wrong if departures from this House, whether by hereditaries or due to retirements or participation, should merely create vacancies to be filled. We have manifesto commitments, and I think it has been the will of this House, that we should reduce the size of the House—not because of the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Gove, and the things he put forward, but because we are all looking at how we as a House do our best work. How do we properly contribute to debates? How do we ensure voices are heard around the House? When the House gets too large, there are concerns that not all Members are playing a role. When he talks about reducing the size of the House, he is right to say that temporary reductions are not what the House is looking for.
I have reflected on the comments I made when I responded to my noble friend Lady Hayter previously. I have a concern that if the Select Committee becomes a kitchen sink of issues, it becomes a talking shop and no progress is made. I think everybody is trying to avoid that happening. But I do think—and I spoke to her and the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on this—that retirement and participation are obviously two major drivers for reducing the size of the House. It is implicit in that that, if we are looking to reduce the size of the House, we do not then seek to merely create vacancies to be filled. It is an opportunity to reflect on the ideal size and look forward to that.
There is always an issue about how much you constrain the Prime Minister’s patronage, and that has to be taken into account in the committee as well. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said the Prime Minister is the sole person who proposes Members for this House. He knows that is wrong, as I know that is wrong, as the Prime Minister passes on the nominations from other parties. It was made clear in the Statement—which I think the noble Lord was quite disparaging about—that the ability to nominate Cross-Benchers will remain and, through the Prime Minister, those nominations of people who have first-rate public service can also come to the Cross Benches as well.
I will address some of the other points. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said—and I may have misunderstood her when she was speaking, so she can correct me—that it has always been accepted that the Government would be the largest party but not the overall majority. My party is not the largest party, though we are in government. I have used these figures before in your Lordships’ House, and I think it is part of the reason we are now discussing the size of the House. The relative size of the parties—the relative numbers across the board, including the Liberal Democrats—is as important as the size of the House. After about 12.5 years of a Labour Government, my party, the then government party, left office with, I think, fewer than 30 more Peers than the Conservative Party. When the Conservative Party left office in 2024, there were over 100 more Conservative Peers than Labour. I find that totally unacceptable. It has never happened before in that way, and the disparity between parties is partly why we are discussing these issues now.
The noble Lord made it as a party-political point about hereditary Peers; it long predates that. The Grocott Bill that we tried to put forward previously was rejected by the party opposite—not by everybody, as I had several noble Lords today ask why their party did not take advantage of this before. There has to be an issue about how you get a balance of numbers across the House. I have the view that this House does its best work when the two parties of government—the main party of government and the opposition party—have roughly equal numbers and we abide by the conventions of the House. That is when I think we have the most respect, we work at our best and that works well. The only other time—
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
The Leader of the House has been consistent in saying this in opposition and in government. Is that therefore a firm commitment that she does not want to see the Labour Party outnumbering the main party of opposition in this Parliament?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am not in a position to make a firm commitment. The House absolutely does its best work when the two main parties have roughly equal numbers, but it also depends on the House fulfilling its responsibilities and abiding by the conventions of the House. The noble Lord will know that, when we were in opposition, we would never have got up to the shenanigans that we have seen from the party opposite. I do not think, for example, that we ever proposed a closure Motion halfway through discussing an amendment—that was the first time I had seen that happen—so we do abide by the conventions. The noble Lord, Lord True, used to say to me regularly that what goes around comes around; I think he was right in principle, but perhaps not in action these days.
Lord True (Con)
The Minister loves this word “shenanigans”; whenever I see a briefing in the newspapers, I know where it has come from. She cited one shenanigan; can she give another? The Opposition have made repeated offers, and we are negotiating in the usual channels to deliver the Government’s legislation. The Minister knows the commitments that we have given. We do not discuss usual channels on the Floor, but can we please put “shenanigans” to bed and get back to good relations?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am afraid that my use of the word “shenanigans” has been copied by many others since, and it was not original on my part. To go down a bit of a rabbit hole, we have seen a lot of raw degrouping of amendments in this Session of Parliament. That aside, we are all looking for the House to do its best work, and to be treated responsibly, listened to and engaged in legislation.
The only time I recall a threat of introducing so many new Peers—we have talked about in the past—was when Jacob Rees-Mogg was Leader of the House of Commons. I had just become Leader of the Opposition, and we were threatened with 1,000 new Peers on the Brexit issue, but it never materialised. It was recognised then that the best way of dealing with things is in the way that the House normally does.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, made a very good point about quality. Appointments should consider quality and commitment. We are not just a House of the great and the good; we are people who are committed to the work that we do, and we bring judgment to the issues we debate. The noble Lord is right to look at that. The comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on Front-Bench appointments in particular is one of the issues that deserves further consideration. This is an issue that the Select Committee would look at more broadly to ensure that we do not just create vacancies to go back to a larger House.
I understand the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and I completely accept the purpose of putting it forward. I would say that one flaw in it is that his proposals—and I think this might have been the point that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, was making—do not take into account the relative strength of political parties. Under this proposal, when a Peer departs, the party of government could always appoint a member of their party and not look at the balance of the House overall, and we do need to look at the balance of the House overall. Therefore, I understand the sentiment and I think the noble Lord is right to say that this needs further consideration, but I would ask that he withdraw his amendment. This is something that merits further discussion.
Lord Burns (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate, and indeed for the degree of support for the principle of constraints on appointments and the need for guard-rails. I appreciate the remarks of the Leader of the House, who I think indicated, as I hoped, that we would be in a position with the Select Committee to discuss the issue of the relative size of appointments and those who are leaving. I do not want to press this to a Division today, as it is not the right vehicle for such a change. The amendment also needs to be considered in the context of other proposals to encourage departures and allocate appointments, as the Leader of the House has said.
Although I did refer to it in my remarks, at this stage I have not tried to deal with the issue of the allocation of vacancies to the different parties. That was set out in the Lord Speaker’s committee report, which said that the allocation between the parties should be made according to the number of votes and seats that they achieved at the previous general election. I still believe that that is a very effective mechanism. It is one that stabilises the numbers and allows for a shift in the proportions depending upon the political success of the parties during an election, so you get movement.
Lord Blencathra
“House of Lords select committee: implementing recommendations(1) Where a select committee of the House of Lords has been established for the purpose of reporting on possible retirement ages for peers, minimum attendance and participation thresholds, and that committee makes recommendations to establish or change—(a) the age at which peers must retire,(b) a minimum attendance requirement, or(c) a participation requirement,a relevant Minister must, within 12 months of the committee reporting, take the action set out in subsection (2).(2) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend the following Acts, as appropriate, in order to give effect to the recommendations in statute —(a) this Act;(b) the Life Peerage Act 1958;(c) the House of Lords Reform Act 2014.(3) The recommendations in this section include a motion to approve the recommendations of a select committee, including any amendments to this.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to place changes to the composition of the House recommended by any new select committee on a statutory footing.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, despite the late hour, I make no apologies for returning to the subject of implementing any conclusions reached by the new House of Lords Select Committee in considering possible retirement ages, attendance thresholds and participation rates. The excellent announcement of this Select Committee by the Leader last week was welcomed by all sides, and I am certain that it will provide workable solutions. My amendment would ensure that these solutions are delivered into law expeditiously and without the need for new primary legislation.
The Leader said that she hoped the committee would be up and running by October and would probably report by the end of July 2026, but let us say September 2026 to be on the safe side. We all know that our Select Committees excel in what they do, and I am absolutely certain that this committee will have firm recommendations on some sort of retirement regime, possibly around the age of 85 but with various tweaks. It will most likely recommend an attendance threshold of some sort. Attendance is about those Peers who may turn up for fewer than a set threshold of 5%, 10% or 15%, whatever it might be.
Participation rates are far more difficult. Participation will need to tackle the abuse of those who may turn up for 20%, 25% or 50% of the time and then do absolutely nothing or very little. Determining what and how many contributions will be adequate will be very difficult, and the committee may not reach any conclusions or may have various options for this House to consider as a whole.
However, I believe that, by the autumn of 2026, this House will have before it a report with recommendations, which we will debate and possibly amend, so that by the end of 2026 or early 2027, this House will have agreed by a majority a way forward on retirements and attendance, and possibly participation.
I ask my noble friends not to tell the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, but I may on this occasion be in full agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Newby. If we get attendance, participation and retirements right, we may not need a fancy formula to reduce overall numbers—but that is an aside.
What will the noble Baroness the Leader do with those decisions of this House? She and her noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, said in our debates before dinner that we will attempt to use in-house measures—that is, Standing Orders—where we possibly can, and we all agree with that. They also said that we will need to consider the best legislative route for those issues where Standing Orders were not sufficient and legislation would be required. The subtext was that that legislation would be primary.
The noble Baroness would be faced with two options for primary legislation. One is that she could say to the Select Committee, “Thank you very much—very good work. We will now consult on the second stage of Lords reform, maybe consider a partly elected Chamber, possibly with regional elements, and we will add those conclusions to a Bill in due course”. We all know that, if the noble Baroness says that, the whole thing will be kicked into the long grass. The second option is that she could say, “Thank you very much. I will now go to the Parliamentary Business and Legislation Committee and seek approval for a specific Bill to deliver these recommendations”. For noble Lords who are not familiar with the PBL, it is a committee of the most powerful Cabinet business managers who decide which bids from departments get approval for the next stage—that is, putting a Bill team together then briefing the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, which will draft the Bill. I can tell those noble Lords who have never appeared before it that it can be quite scary at times. It is currently and usually chaired by the Leader of the Commons, with both Chief Whips, the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the Attorney-General, the Leader of the House and the Minister for the Cabinet Office.
The first question that the committee will ask the Leader will be whether the Bill is a manifesto commitment. Yes. That is a good. Is it short? Yes. That is also good. Can it be easily amended? Yes, because the Lords is much more flexible and can permit a wide range of amendments. The committee will then say, “So, Lord Privy Seal, are you telling us that all this Bill does is put a retirement age and an attendance threshold on Peers, and that they could debate a wide range of amendments in primary legislation?” The noble Baroness, being honest, will say that that could happen. The committee will ask whether there are any votes in it, and the answer will be no, not really.
We all know that the Leader is very able and persuasive, but I suggest that, with possibly just 18 months to go before a general election, she will have no hope whatever of the PBL approving a Bill to implement what our Select Committee decides, at a time when there will inevitably be the annual Home Office criminal justice Christmas tree Bill in the wings, and maybe something on health, employment, immigration and all the other big political issues that will take priority. Does anyone in this House seriously think that any Government would introduce a Bill on changes in the Lords in a King’s Speech in 2027, to be debated in 2028, maybe months or a year before a general election? I simply do not think so. That is why we need my Amendment 23A.
The amendment is self-explanatory. It would simply build in a statutory instrument power enabling the Government to implement any Lords Select Committee recommendations voted through by this House. It would provide that, if this House amends any of the Lords Select Committee recommendations, we can vote that through. It would enable the Government to amend this Bill when it is an Act, the Life Peerages Act 1958 and the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, should that be necessary. I do not know if it will be, but the Public Bill Office thought that we should have the power to do so, just in case it should prove necessary. Of course, amending those Acts is a Henry VIII power, but I do not think that any Government can complain about Henry VIII powers, since all Governments use them excessively in all Bills.
While it may be possible to deal with attendance through Standing Orders, as I think was hinted at earlier, I have not heard any suggestion from any noble Lord that we could invent a retirement or participation regime that we could implement by Standing Orders alone. If that were the case, the Government would have been shouting about it from the rooftops from Committee onwards. It is assumed that these things will require some form of legislation.
Without my simple amendment, we could find ourselves in the ridiculous position of having proposals on which the majority of this House agrees, and with which the Government also agree, but we can only deliver bits of them through standing orders, and have to wait for primary legislation to do the rest—primary legislation that might never come. It will be fascinating to see what reasons the Government use to reject this new clause. It does nothing to undermine the thrust of the Bill. The noble Baroness the Leader introduced the idea of a Lords Select Committee to come up with recommendations. How can the Government possibly reject this simple solution to deliver into law the recommendations of the committee she has proposed? I beg to move.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to know I do not agree with him. We discussed this before and my view, oft repeated, is that we should, wherever we can, proceed without legislation. We can do that with a number of the issues we are debating. As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, pointed out, the minimum age at which a person can be a Peer was never legislated on—admittedly, it was a bit ago that that was introduced. We need to look at whether it might be possible to introduce a retirement age without fresh legislation. Either way, I do not want to commit to giving the House of Commons the whip hand over what we do about our own rules when we can change those rules ourselves.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I am intrigued by my noble friend’s amendment. Yes, it would make good some of the failings of the Government, who have not honoured their 1998 pledge to bring forward their proposals for reform before they remove the hereditary Peers. Nor have they delivered on their promise in the manifesto of 2024 to bring forward proposals for reform on composition, in terms of retirement age, participation obligations and so on. It would perhaps be a good way of making good the problem we face, which is the removal of over 80 of the Peers who are most effective in scrutinising the Government and holding them to account. One cannot help but agree with those who see this Bill as vindictive for that reason, and a partisan attack on the ability of this House to fulfil its constitutional function.
However, dare I part company with my noble friend Lord Blencathra? I feel it is a very bad move to have government by committee—even a Select Committee of this House. By their very nature, committees do not have a sense of the feeling of the whole House, or indeed of the country, which is more important. For this reason, I would worry about such powers for a Select Committee.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am always very touched when people call for the Front Bench. I am very happy, if I am so popular, to go over to the other side, if that is what the other side would like.
This has been an important debate, although brief, on the next stage of reform. It is really a coda to the very interesting debate provoked by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. All this flows from the firm promise in the Labour manifesto that another Bill would be enacted in this Parliament to exclude Peers who reach the age of 80 before the end of this Parliament, and other promises in the manifesto to address issues of participation and conduct.
In Committee, my noble friend Lord Blencathra was tirelessly ingenious in the proposals for improvement that he put before the House. He spoke from his great creative experience as Chief Whip in another place, his knowledge, which he alluded to again today, of the often unintended, unbankability of government promises, and also his profound love of Parliament. So, I was surprised—but actually, on reflection, I was not—when the noble Lord’s carefully thought out and clever amendment suddenly appeared on our Order Paper following our debates last week.
Many noble Lords who heard the statement of the Leader of the House last week wanted to hear more detail of the scope of what is planned, and also to have more security in what will be the role of this House in determining what happens next. We have had a few advances on that, but no conclusion. My noble friend’s amendment actually offers the House a route to do that.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. I will start with the basis of why I first suggested the Select Committee, as it may help your Lordships. The noble Lord is right that it is always difficult to get extra time for legislation, but it is important that this House has an opportunity to consider how we as a House might want to implement the two proposals—I have always referred to three stages; this was the second—on a retirement age and participation.
I will not repeat things that I have said in the past, but if there is an opportunity for the House to come forward with a view, and a Select Committee to bring forward proposals to your Lordships’ House for consideration, that does not make those proposals easier. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, helpfully interjected earlier and asked me whether there were things we could do more quickly by standing orders, as indicated by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. That would be something for the committee to look at.
There is an opportunity for a Select Committee to look at those issues, to come forward with proposals for your Lordships’ House, and for us to consider those proposals and decide whether some could be taken forward more quickly. Where it requires legislation, if the House has a view on something on which all noble Lords agree, it would be much easier to persuade the Government by saying, “There’s agreement on this and we want to bring forward a focused Bill to deliver something that the House of Lords broadly agrees with”. That is why it was proposed in the first place.
The noble Lord opposite said that we may not co-operate because there are lots of other things around the issue. I am not quite sure what he means; perhaps we will debate that later. I was clear to the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that it is implicit that, if we are looking to reduce the size of the House—if we are looking at exits—considerations need to be made about size. That was clear.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, implied that this is being done for political reasons, to make it more difficult for the party opposite to hold the Government to account when hereditary Peers have left your Lordships’ House. Even after the hereditary Peers depart, there will still be 243 Members of her party in this House. My party before the election had 171 Members here, and my colleagues held the Government to account very effectively with that number. I am disappointed if the noble Baroness thinks that—
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
May I finish my point? Do not get too excited—I will give way soon. I am surprised that the noble Baroness thinks that with those additional Members—some 70 more Members than we had when we were in opposition—her party would find it very difficult to hold my Government to account.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for letting me put my point again. I was referring to all the contributions of the hereditaries on all Benches. I am talking about effective contributions that will now be silenced. I fear that will affect the House.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
That is actually not the point that the noble Baroness made at the time. Many Members of your Lordships’ House make effective contributions, and she should recognise those as well.
I enjoyed the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra; he is always inventive and engages well on these issues. However, I say to him that I do not recognise the veto that the noble Lord, Lord True, referred to. My reading of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, is that if a Select Committee makes recommendations:
“The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, amend the following Acts, as appropriate … to give effect to the recommendations in statute”.
The Government must then lay those regulations. In practical terms, if a Select Committee were to charge the House with something—if it said, “We would like the House to consider the following options”—how on earth do a Government legislate for all the options a Select Committee may recommend? That is what he would have in his—
Lord Blencathra (Con)
I hope I made it clear in my speech that the House would consider the options. The House would then come up with a firm vote on what they may be, and not give the Government a range of options to legislate on. It would be the decision of the House on the retirement age, the participation rates or the threshold. We would consider the options and end up with firm recommendations.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
The noble Lord’s amendment is uncertain, because I did not read it like that. It says:
“Where a select committee of the House … has been established for the purpose of reporting on possible retirement ages … and that committee makes recommendations to establish or change”
certain conventions,
“a relevant Minister must, within 12 months of the committee reporting, take the action set out in subsection (2)”.
Therefore, the noble Lord will not be empowering the House; he will undermine the House by removing it as a body from the equation. Even aside from that point, however, I disagree that matters of this importance should merely be considered by the Select Committee through a statutory instrument. I am sure our statutory instruments committee would have quite a bit to say about that power and whether it was relevant at all.
The establishment of a Select Committee is a matter for the House; if the House does not want it, it will not be set up. It seems to me that it is a good way forward for the House to provide a view on these issues. Where we can take things forward more quickly, we will do so. Where we can act prior to legislation, we could do so. Where legislation is required, an agreement from your Lordships’ House makes that a smoother process. I think the amendment before us today is unworkable in practice and risks undermining the very role of this House by trying to bypass the House. It may not be what the noble Lord intended, but it is what his amendment would do. It would bypass the House; what happens in a Select Committee is then enacted by secondary legislation. That would be an extraordinary move and one that this House has never seen before. I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, in view of the hour and the mood of the House, I intend to be brief. I merely say to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, who said we should pass our own rules where we could, that I agree entirely. My amendment deals with those areas where we cannot pass our own rules.
Lord Newby (LD)
Surely the noble Lord’s amendment requires a statutory instrument to cover every single recommendation of the Select Committee.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Yes, it is one way to guarantee that it happens, but if this House can bring about some of the rules we want through our own Standing Orders, so be it. The legislative power is there; it does not have to be implemented if the House has done it its own way.
It simply comes down to this: are we going to implement the recommendations of the Lords Select Committee that the noble Baroness herself has created, as we may amend them, or are going to hang around hoping we will get a government Bill in due course to do it sometime? I have said before, and I need not repeat it: I simply do not see that happening.
It was rather disingenuous of the noble Baroness to say the amendment is not technically perfect. I am talking about the general concept here of implementing what this House decides through a statutory instrument, and if the amendment is not technically correct, it is a simple—
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Statutory instruments are not amendable; that is to say that this House would not be able to change whatever was in the statutory instrument.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
Of course, my noble friend is right. I was not suggesting that we would wish to amend the statutory instrument. My amendment seeks to say that when this House votes on proposals on retirement, possibly on participation and possibly on attendance, the Government would then be under an obligation to bring forward a statutory instrument to implement those proposals. My noble friend may ask what would happen if the Government did not do what we asked for. In that case, this House would vote it down.
It is nonsense to suspect that a Government will bring forward primary legislation to deal with little things such as the age at which Peers should retire, and how often they must turn up before they will be slung out of this House. I cannot see that being in a Labour election grid for the next election; it is not going to happen. I also disagree with the noble Baroness because, in a normal Bill, these two little things would be statutory instruments. They would be secondary legislation, and the secondary legislation committee would certainly not disapprove of them. These things are important to us, and I am still convinced that my original assertion is right: the only way we will get these changes through, if this House approves them, is to have my innocuous new clause on a statutory instrument. I cannot understand why the Government are opposed to it, and therefore I intend to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“(3) Any peerage claim is to be made to His Majesty in Council.(4) A claim under this section must be made in accordance with such rules as His Majesty may by Order in Council prescribe.(5) Section 3 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833 (reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council of appeals to His Majesty in Council) applies to a claim under this section as it applies to an appeal to His Majesty in Council from a court.(6) The Judicial Committee may require an applicant to give such security for the costs of the proceedings as the Judicial Committee may direct.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the future of claims to a hereditary peerage as it was originally drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for the House of Lords Reform Bill 2012.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 24 seeks to place in the Bill the Government’s intentions in respect of the determination of peerage claims. Can I say what a pleasure it is to see such a large turnout from the Government Benches when we are discussing the role of the Privy Council? It is heartwarming to see what a focus the Government Benches have on this important matter.
As I explained in Committee, the Bill removes the role of your Lordships’ House in determining peerage claims, but it leaves behind a statutory lacuna. My amendment—I emphasise this point—does not depart at all from the Government’s intentions as set out in the Explanatory Notes. It would put those intentions in the Bill. If we do not add this amendment to the Bill, the peerage claims determination process will still be undertaken by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council where the case is complicated, but it is possible that other arrangements may be made by future Governments. We need an effective system for peerage claims. Since this House has had a role in this process up to this point, it is only right that we in this House should be concerned about this debate, and we should seek to secure a proper future for that process.
Given the hour, I will not say any more about the Irish peerage issue—I made this point in Committee, and I know that the Government Benches are very focused on this—save to say that I am very pleased that we could get a confirmation from the Government that, as the Attorney-General said in Committee,
“the position will be precisely the same in respect of disputed Irish peerages”.—[Official Report, 1/4/25; col. 177.]
I am grateful to him for that confirmation.
In responding to my amendments in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General also told your Lordships that the
“power to refer claims to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council … already exists in Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833”.
I accept that he is right about that, of course, but, with respect, I do not think that that counters the case for my amendment.
More convincingly, the Government made the case that requiring
“all peerage claims to be made to His Majesty in Council … would therefore result in a significant increase in claims already considered beyond the stage of consideration by the Lord Chancellor to be entered on the Roll of the Peerage”.—[Official Report, 1/4/25; col. 177.]
Given that question of proportionality and the impact on the work of the Privy Council, I am not going to seek to divide the House on my amendment today. However, I will take this opportunity to ask—I do not know who will be responding for the Government; it looks as though it will be the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson—whether the Minister can foresee circumstances where a body other than the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could take over the role of determining complex peerage claims. Can she confirm whether Parliament would be consulted on that matter before any changes are made? I hope that that confirmation can be given; it would be extremely helpful.
While I am on my feet, to save time, if I may—I know that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, will soon speak to his amendments—I will say something more. Obviously, I recognise the complexity and strength of feeling that arise in any debate on primogeniture. I am aware of families that are at risk of losing their family home as a result of the rules of succession, as well as entails attached to certain properties. I am not going to explain at this hour what an entail is—Wikipedia is available—but this is a serious issue that needs to be looked at. I should say that I am grateful for the conversations that the noble Earl, Lord Devon, has had with me and with others, and grateful that he has taken a circumspect approach to these amendments in seeking to initiate a report on gender equality in the inheritance of peerages. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the House greater clarity on the Government’s position on this issue but, so far as the amendment in my name is concerned, I beg to move.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I applaud his efforts to formalise the procedure regarding the determination of peerage claims, which I broadly support.
I shall speak to the two amendments in my name in this group, Amendments 25 and 27, which seek to ensure equality in that process. They would address gender parity in hereditary peerages once Clause 2 of this Bill for ever ends our jurisdiction to determine such claims. As I explained in Committee, equality of succession is an issue about which I care deeply, both for personal reasons and because it is a principle that Earls of Devon have championed since our inception.
Given the late hour, your Lordships will be pleased to hear that I am sparing the House my stories of the Empress Matilda and Queen Mary I, in the service of whom the earldom was first earned, then lost and recovered. We were addressing and fighting real Henry VIII powers in those days, not the fantasy ones we talk about today. Nearly 500 years later, there is still so much work to do on gender parity and I would be failing in my inherited duty if I did not pursue these amendments. I had hoped to change the law to remove the deeply embedded discrimination in the vast majority of hereditary titles, while I enjoyed the privilege of a seat in your Lordships’ House, but that is no longer possible with my pending abolition. The best that I can therefore offer is these two amendments.
Amendment 25 directs the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to exercise the functions that this Bill transfers to it in a non-discriminatory manner. Amendment 27, which I am minded to push to a vote, requires the Secretary of State to consult on the challenges that the JCPC faces in doing that and to recommend legislative changes accordingly. When we debated similar amendments in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General generously indicated that the Government approved the rationale of these amendments. He stated that the Government very much share my
“unease at the inequality baked in to so many hereditary peerages”.—[Official Report, 25/3/25; col. 1558.]
However, he raised a number of specific objections to the form of the amendments as originally drafted, not least the unconstitutional burdens that they placed upon the JCPC. I have taken those form objections on board and revised the proposed amendments, in the faint hope that the Government will accept them this time around. I fear that they may not, and that the Minister will probably revert to the Government’s oft-stated objections that this Bill is not the place to address the question of female succession, that they are not minded to amend the Bill in any form and that the issues raised are far too complex for us to address in this or any other legislation.
The Government are wrong, for a number of reasons. First, this is exactly the Bill in which to address the exercise of jurisdiction over hereditary succession, as it is the Bill that removes that power once and for all from your Lordships. If we do not legislate for gender parity in this Bill, Parliament is proactively passing to the JCPC a power and jurisdiction that all agree to be discriminatory, validating and therefore approving the ongoing exclusion of women from hereditary titles. This Bill bakes in gender discrimination.
Secondly, this is the very last chance for hereditary Members of your Lordships’ House to opine on this issue before their abolition, and thus for Parliament to benefit from the views of those directly impacted by this deep-rooted cultural misogyny. It is also therefore highly likely to be the last time that anyone will be sufficiently motivated to pursue this issue. If we do not address it now, it will be left to fester as a stain on our national culture.
As to the complexity of this issue, Amendment 27 seeks to require the Secretary of State to consult and to review how principles of gender equality should be applied when determining such claims, and to recommend legislative solutions. Any complexities will be consulted on and remedies proposed. Just because the matter is complex does not mean that it should not be addressed. As I stated before, patriarchy puts up many barriers to its dismantlement, but that should not deter us. Noble Lords may recall that the Crown once passed under the principle of male-preference primogeniture. Indeed, it did so for centuries, until the law was changed in 2013 with the Succession to the Crown Act, which altered the method of royal succession to gender-neutral primogeniture. If we can do it for the Crown, with all the complex traditions, conventions and rights inherent therein, surely we can do the same for our simple hereditary peerage. It simply cannot be that complicated.
However, this issue goes much wider than the gender of those who succeed to hereditary titles, as it is a point of general and important principle. Since the debate in Committee, in which a number of noble Lords spoke in support of my amendments, I have been contacted by an array of campaigners for equal rights, who have pointed out that our country will never have gender parity while we preserve privilege and property rights within the upper reaches of our society only for men. Those who campaign tirelessly to end violence against women and gender-based discrimination of all types note that, if we are unwilling to remove gender discrimination everywhere, we will never remove it anywhere.
By passing the Bill with Clause 2 unamended, this Government, who, allegedly, are committed to the principle of gender equality, are simply condoning gender-based discrimination at the top of our society, in effect, saying that it is okay to deny women the right to bear titles and the property rights, privileges and status inherent therein, solely on account of their gender. Is that really what the Government stand for?
As stated, I am minded therefore to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 27. It is a modest amendment that simply calls for a report into the application of gender equality. It may be that this is a quixotic campaign and that I am tilting at windmills to call a vote so late at night on the last day we debate the Bill, but if we do not seek to make a change now, it will never happen and the hereditary system will for ever remain biased. I will reflect on the debate before determining whether to move the amendment to a vote, and I particularly look forward to the Minister’s response. I once more challenge the Government to be brave, to channel Baldwin, the first Earl of Devon, who stood up for the rights of women to succeed and to lead. Please support these amendments. After 900 years, it is about time.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, on a debate such as this, the House really misses the Countess of Mar—if only she was still here. I can recall her one day bringing a delegation to a department where I was a Minister, and after she left, I told the civil servants, “One day, I will be a Back-Bencher and she is my model”. That is what I have tried to do. As the noble Earl, Lord Devon, spoke, I thought back to the one-woman awkward squad in this House—the Countess of Mar. She is much missed in a debate like this.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, if I could share my recollection of the Countess of Mar, I was Agriculture spokesman for the last Government, and she had some strong opinions. Whenever I received my brief in answer to her questions, I would sit with her and she would point out where the brief was wrong, and then I could get it right before I had to answer. That made it much easier. She was a great power.
I honour the noble Earl, Lord Devon, for bringing these amendments forward. Lord Diamond was in the lists on the Labour Benches when I first joined the House. I took my turn at it. My noble friend Lord Northbrook has done the same. We have been trying for a long time to get this dealt with, never with any success. I do not share the noble Earl’s opinion that we are the upper reaches of society. None the less, I do not think that this kind of gender discrimination should be allowed to persist anywhere. That it is a tiresome, small, insignificant but none the less continually noticed bit of gender discrimination ought to allow the Government to give the issue some time to get rid of it.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Wolfson. He has already made the case about the need to clarify the process for future claims to a hereditary peerage when hereditary Peers no longer sit in your Lordships’ House. My noble friend highlighted the complexity of this process in Committee and even went as far as questioning whether the House currently has to resolve a claim in line with the recommendation of the Procedure and Privileges Committee.
From my own experience, I can assure him that the House of Lords can overturn a recommendation from the Privileges Committee. The House of Lords has the power to debate and vote on the recommendations of all its committees, including the Privileges Committee. This means that the House can ultimately choose to accept, reject or modify any recommendation made by the committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, will no doubt want to understand exactly what I am talking about, so, in 30 seconds, I will give him a brief example of evidence in the Moynihan case, which was a comparison of the DNA of my late Liberal Party member half-brother who, while alive, personally left a sample of his blood with a Harley Street physician, despite not legally being allowed in the UK. This in turn needed to be released and his DNA matched to a blood sample I witnessed being taken from his alleged young son from his fourth wife, a young boy who I had no proof was the boy in question when he arrived to give a sample at the dust-filled clinic of the Makati Medical Centre in Manila. One of the three phials of blood taken stayed in my briefcase as I continued to travel to China on business, making the most of fridges in my hotel rooms. It could be argued that that became contaminated, and I am sure that had the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, sat on the Committee for Privileges at the time, he may well have raised that issue.
The fact is that the House of Lords, as a sovereign body with the power to regulate its own affairs, including the ability to review and decide on its reports and the reports of its committees, could have challenged that process. While the Privileges Committee’s recommendations are taken seriously, they are not binding on the House. The House ultimately retains the authority to decide on the course of action, including its consideration of the publication of the Privileges Committee’s report. In the Moynihan case, the House accepted the committee’s report without debate.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Noble Lords will be disappointed that I do not have a line from the Box on one thing, so they may have to bear with me.
I thank noble Lords for this surprisingly short debate on some very important issues. To clarify, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and as he so entertained us in Committee about his family’s stories, the last complex case to be discussed by the JCPC was in 1997. There have been fewer than 10 complex cases in the last 50 years and routine claims are around 12 cases a year, which I hope gives noble Lords some context to what we are discussing.
On Amendment 24, from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General set out the Government’s position on peerage claims in great detail in Committee. To put it briefly, Clause 2 abolishes the jurisdiction of this House in relation to hereditary peerage claims. In future, it is intended that any complex or disputed claims that would have been referred to this House by the Crown will instead be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
To reiterate the statement made by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, under the power in Section 4 of the Judicial Committee Act 1833, as was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, His Majesty may already refer matters to the judicial committee for consideration and advice. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that where it is necessary to duplicate legislative provisions, we should avoid doing so. Notwithstanding the way in which the noble Lord regaled us in Committee with his bitter experience of the Pet Abduction Act 2024, I expect the other place will be some somewhat less exercised by this matter.
The noble Lord’s amendment would result in all cases, including straightforward cases, which are usually dealt with only by way of application to the Lord Chancellor, being referred to the JCPC. This would not be the best use of its time, as there is no dispute or legal complexity in these claims. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
The noble Lord asked me a very important question, which was whether I could foresee circumstances other than the use of the JCPC and, if we did, whether Parliament would be consulted. Having consulted my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, who thankfully was sitting to my left, I can say that we do not foresee this moving away from the JCPC, but my noble and learned friend assures me that although this issue has not been raised before—so we would have to consider it in more detail—we would seek to consult on principle if there was going to be a move away from the JCPC. If, on reflection that is not the case, we would inform your Lordships’ House at the earliest opportunity. That is as far as I can assist the noble Lord.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
To be clear, when the Minister says that the Government would seek to consult, is that consult generally at large, so to speak, or consult with Parliament? Obviously there is a difference.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
With Parliament. I am glad to be able to assist, even at this hour.
I turn to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Devon. The noble Earl has raised an important point that was touched on in Committee by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General. Noble Lords will not be surprised that the Government’s approach has not changed on this issue since Committee, and I will briefly reiterate the rationale for that. While I am sympathetic to the noble Earl’s concerns, as is the Lord Privy Seal, the Bill deals only with the membership of this House. The Leader of the House has written to him to explain some of the complexities of addressing that.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
The Bill addresses the determination of hereditary peerages and transfers that power to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, so it is not accurate to say that it addresses only membership of your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I am not sure that I completely agree with the noble Earl but, in order to continue at this point and to give him the answers that he seeks from the Government, I am going to move forward. As I was about to say, my personal view is that those complexities should not stop us addressing the issue, but it is not an issue for this Bill, which is about membership of your Lordships’ House.
I note that Amendment 25 has been refined by the noble Earl since Committee, but it still seeks to assert how the Judicial Committee should exercise its jurisdiction.
On Amendment 27, while the Government may consult on how the principles of gender equality should apply to determining hereditary peerage claims, without legislative changes the law as it stands distinguishes between sexes, as the noble Earl is clearly aware, in the case of succession to hereditary titles, and it is the duty of the courts to give effect to it. As I have said, that is something that many Members in both Houses, including me, are not comfortable with, but I do not believe that to be a matter for this Bill. The role of the courts is to apply the law, and in doing so they treat all litigants equally. However, the law itself distinguishes between sexes, as the noble Earl is clearly aware, and in the case of succession to regulatory titles it is the duty of the courts to give effect to it.
In summary, the amendment on peerage claims is unnecessary and the amendments on primogeniture are not for this Bill. I therefore respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, especially for her reassurances. I think Moses spoke to the Almighty face to face, but I interact with the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General through the Minister, so I thank the noble and learned Lord via her. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Earl of Dundee
“Review: impact on the effectiveness of the House of LordsWithin 12 months of the day on which this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the report of a review detailing the effect of this Act on the ability of the House of Lords to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require a review of the impact of this Act on the ability of the House of Lords to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, within this grouping, Amendment 26 would enable a review of the impact of this Act on the ability of the House of Lords to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government to account.
Your Lordships will agree that the membership composition of a reformed House must sustain and continue the high legislative scrutiny standard of the present House, and thus, conversely, that future membership composition should be designed to serve that priority aim.
If, within the temporal membership of a reformed House of 600, the political Members were to be 450, the non-political representation appointed either by HOLAC or by Parliament itself would then be 150 Cross-Bench Peers.
As a result, within that total of 600 temporal Members, respective proportions could then become: the government and opposition parties at 175 political members each; next, the independent, non-political Cross-Benchers at 150; and, next, all other political parties at 100.
These respective proportions would then provide a good balance for sustaining and carrying out our present high standard of legislative scrutiny in a reformed House.
Your Lordships may well additionally consider that, rather than direct public elections, indirect elections of 450 political Members would, in the first place, the better ensure continuity of high standards of legislative scrutiny.
That is because direct elections of 450 political Members would instead lead to conflict and jockeying for position between the House of Commons and a reformed House of Lords.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the Leader of the House, favoured parity of numbers between the government and opposition parties, such as perhaps 175 each; while the Leader of the Opposition, my noble friend Lord True, observed that each of the Government and Opposition should have more political Members than the Cross-Benchers would have non-political Members, such as maybe reflecting an appropriate respective ratio of 175 for each of the government and main opposition party to 150 for non-political Cross Bench membership.
Also in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, pointed out in particular that a reformed House must be properly representative of the regions and nations of the UK; and that, in general, the public ought to be consulted on different options for House of Lords reform.
Does the Minister therefore concur that a key option to be put forward for public approval or otherwise should be the implied prescriptions of Amendment 26?
These comprise, first, that the high standard of legislative scrutiny demonstrated by the present House should continue in a reformed House; if so, and secondly, that indirect elections would assist that purpose better than direct elections.
Thirdly, that also assisting this aim is parity of numbers between the government and main opposition parties at perhaps 175 each; fourthly, that equally sustaining legislative scrutiny quality as well is the inclusion of independent non-political Cross-Benchers at 150, thus at one-third of all temporal and political members at 450. I beg to move.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is always a privilege to follow the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and it is nice to see Devon and Dundee legislating until the end.
I will speak to Amendment 28 in my name. It once more considers whether the name “House of Lords” remains appropriate once we have removed the hereditary Lords from these red Benches.
Over recent months, during the passage of this Bill, we have heard from all sides of this House how indefensible is the hereditary principle within a modern parliamentary democracy. We have heard criticism of hereditary Peers, their predominantly male gender and their relatively privileged birth, and heard particular disparagement of their feudal roots. Mine has been one the few voices raised in defence of the indefensible, but, if we are to accept, as reluctantly I do, that the 1,000 years or so of hereditary presence within our legislature should draw to a close, should we not remove the gendered, privileged and feudal name of the House itself?
I am concerned that, in keeping the name “House of Lords”, along with its aristocratic nomenclature and the traditions and pretentions that go with it, we are removing the best bits—the hereditary Members of your Lordships’ House, who contribute so much—and keeping the worst bits: namely, the gendered, discriminatory name and intentions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, stated in Committee,
“Words have power and names shape perceptions”.—[Official Report, 25/3/25; cols. 1554-55.]
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General criticised my citation of a dictionary reference for “Lord”, suggesting it could do with some updating. In preparation for this debate, I therefore consulted the Oxford English Dictionary, which confirms the definition of a Lord as a title of nobility or high rank often associated with land ownership and power, particularly in feudal contexts. It can also refer to a man who has achieved mastery or leadership in a particular field, or can be used as a term of respect. In Christianity, Lord is a title for God or Christ—in other words, a deity. Given that names shape perception, and the disparity that has been noted throughout Report between the excellent work that takes place in this House and the terrible public opinion we suffer, should we not be looking at the departure of the hereditary Peers—the Lords, as the Oxford English Dictionary defines them—as an opportunity for a rebrand? Surely it provides the perfect chance to step away from the negative associations of nobility and high rank with land and power; an opportunity to remove the rich aroma of feudal and patriarchal privilege that pervades many aspects of this venerable institution.
Lord True (Con)
I am enjoying listening to the noble Earl, although I find it hard to forgive the fact that his collateral ancestors participated in the deplorable and bogus Latin Empire of Constantinople. Some of us remember that, so he should be careful.
On a serious point, we heard earlier the great scale of confusion on the Benches opposite at the different uses of the word “Lord”. Has the noble Earl considered that a better argument for his amendment—which would appeal to the confused elements on the other side who we heard from earlier—is that it would help lift the confusion on the Labour Benches?
The Earl of Devon (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention, and I agree. There are many reasons why the nomenclature that we use is very significant. Perhaps, by way of concession, this issue of nomenclature could be considered by the special Select Committee that is being established to consider the constitution of your Lordships’ House. On that basis, and with that invitation to address the issue, I commend my amendment to the House.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, these amendments call for a review of your Lordships’ House to consider the effect of the expulsion of our hereditary colleagues, and indeed to consider its very name. I thank noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions. The need to reflect, scrutinise and reassess is a defining virtue of this House, and our duty is to test, examine and refine.
The amendment from my noble friend Lord Dundee seeks a review of the impact of the Bill on the effectiveness of your Lordships’ House. This is a fair challenge. If this House is to be judged, let it be judged on its ability to scrutinise legislation, revise policy and hold the Government to account. We have consistently warned of the danger of excluding in one stroke so many active, knowledgeable and experienced Members—individuals whose contributions have been vital to this House’s effectiveness.
The strength of this House has always been that it evolves over time and reflects experience and judgment. Its legitimacy is grounded in the capability and dedication of our Members. This is why we have argued throughout that it is critical that reform and review should be carried out through consensus and with full discussion, and why we seek to retain the wisdom and experience of long-serving hereditary colleagues who have brought unparalleled insight to our deliberations over the years.
Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, invites review and consultation on the appropriateness of the name “House of Lords”. As I have said before, this is an intriguing suggestion. I was interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—who is not in his place—was toying with this in our debate on Amendment 17 earlier, and that the former Lord Speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, also brought it up in the course of today’s deliberations.
As the noble Earl says, the title of this House evokes centuries of history and tradition, and it is certainly reasonable to ask whether it still reflects the institution as it is today, but the reputation, credibility and authority of this House will never be determined by its name alone. They will be determined by its actions, the quality of its debates, the sharpness of its scrutiny and the seriousness of its deliberations. Scrutiny must lead to improvement and must not be a distraction, and I am afraid there is a danger that such a review would become a distraction from the important work of your Lordships’ House.
In conclusion, I recognise the intent behind the amendments to assess the consequences of the Bill. However, if we are serious about the future of this House, let us focus on what really matters: scrutiny, legislation and the real business of holding the Government to account.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, from Devon to Dundee: as we approach Recess, it suggests a delightful holiday we may all want to consider.
Both amendments in this group seek, in different ways, to place a duty on the Government to review the impact of legislation after it receives Royal Assent. Amendment 26, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to produce a report before both Houses, detailing the effects of the Bill within 12 months of it coming into force. Much like the noble Earl’s Amendment 96 in Committee, albeit more focused, this would place a duty on the Government to conduct post-legislative scrutiny on the Bill.
Amendment 28, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to consult with the public on the implications of the provision in the Bill on the appropriateness of the name of the House of Lords. This amendment is identical to his amendment in Committee. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury observed that amendments to require a formal review of the Bill were unnecessary and disproportionate. It will not surprise noble Lords to learn that the Government have not altered their view of these new amendments.
With respect to Amendment 26, we agree that post-legislative scrutiny or reviews can add value to the legislative process, but it would be of limited value in this case. Ultimately, the Bill does not alter any functions of your Lordships’ House; nor does it make a fundamental change to how we operate as a House.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Newby, described the Bill as a “tidying-up measure”. On these Benches, we agree. Given the approach taken with the 1999 Act, which removed a far higher number of Members from your Lordships’ House and did not have any post-legislative scrutiny, I cannot see the case for post-legislative scrutiny of this Bill.
On Amendment 28 from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, my response will be the same as the one my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General gave the noble Lord in Committee:
“The House of Lords will continue to be called the House of Lords following the passage of the Bill”.—[Official Report, 25/3/25; col. 1556.]
Save for the Lords spiritual, this House will still consist of Peers of the realm once the hereditary Peers have left.
While I acknowledge that, as the noble Lord describes, the language we use to describe ourselves can seem anachronistic to some, particularly given that neither I, nor my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, nor the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, are Lords. But we need to appreciate that, outside your Lordships’ House, it is very clear what the House of Lords is and how it relates to the other House.
The purpose of the Bill is clear and uncomplicated, and I do not believe that post-legislative scrutiny or reviews would provide the House with any further insight. Therefore, I respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks. On legislative scrutiny and holding Governments to account, perhaps there may be consensus in three major respects.
First, the high standard of the present House in achieving legislative scrutiny should carry on in a reformed House. Secondly, and conversely, if possible, future membership composition ought to be designed to serve that priority aim. Thirdly, following this consideration, our present high-quality function of legislative scrutiny should still be able to be performed by a revised House of 600 temporal Members, whether wholly elected or through some combination of being appointed directly and elected.
Beyond this consensus, there are differing views on how the reformed House could achieve desirable democratic effects in different ways.
Such divergence of opinion may be illustrated by the case for having direct elections. This was advanced with conviction by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, in the context of seeking to reduce the unwelcome effects of elective dictatorship. For direct elections to a reformed House of Lords would certainly enable it to stand up much more to the House of Commons, not least when Governments of the day there might happen to have very large party-political majorities.
However, in association with Amendment 26, as already indicated, indirect elections are advocated instead. These would be for 450 political Members within a reformed House of 600 temporal Members, of whom 150 would be non-political, independent Cross-Benchers, either appointed by HOLAC or else indirectly elected by Parliament itself. As already alleged, these respective proportions would then provide a good balance for sustaining and carrying on our present high standards—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I am ever so sorry. Can the noble Lord clarify what is happening in terms of the next stage of the Bill? I think the noble Lord might be repeating some of his opening remarks.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
I was hoping to put this in context; my noble friend Lady Finn in her remarks did just that too, saying that we really want to make sure that we can continue the very high standard of legislative scrutiny of our present House in a reformed House.
I will just finish my remarks. As already alleged, these respective portions would provide a good balance for sustaining and carrying on our present high standards. This formula could also seek the backing of public consultation and approval to which the noble Baroness very helpfully referred in Committee.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but the debate has concluded and I think he is just about to say whether he wishes to press his amendment to the vote.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for her interest. I am not going to be tempted to press to a vote, but if I could possibly finish my remarks, we may be able to round off the context.
I am grateful too for the contribution from the Opposition Front Bench and from my noble friend Lady Finn, and within this grouping for the useful amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, on post-reform House of Lords nomenclature. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 26.
The Earl of Devon
“Report: principles of gender equality(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act comes into force, undertake a consultation on how principles of gender equality should be applied when determining hereditary peerage claims which were formerly determined by the House of Lords.(2) The Secretary of State must publish a report following the conclusion of the consultation which must address—(a) the expectations of existing heirs;(b) heirs born to unmarried parents;(c) families with adopted children.”Member’s explanatory statement
In the light of the fact that hereditary peerages often pass to eldest sons, this amendment requires that the Secretary of State must, within six months of the commencement of this Act, consult on how principles of gender equality should be applied when determining hereditary peerage claims.
The Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, given that so many have remained until this stage of the evening, I would hate to disappoint, as well as given how many resounding words of support I heard for my Amendment 27 when we debated it, including I think from the Government Front Bench. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 27.
Lord Strathclyde
“Whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation:”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is copied from the preamble to the 1911 Parliament Act to highlight that Labour's plans for “an alternative second chamber that is more representative of the regions and nations” constitutes the same ambition for a popular basis for the House of Lords and that this Bill, like the 1911 Act, is another holding position because the intended substitution still “cannot be immediately brought into operation”.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I think that some of my noble friends have been waiting a long time for this moment. It is late at night, so I assure noble Lords that I will not test the opinion of the House.
I move this amendment with a certain amount of humility, which some may feel is not my natural state, but it really is on this occasion. The words of the amendment are taken from the original Parliament Act 1911 and its preamble, and it is worth reading it to your Lordships:
“And whereas it is intended to substitute for the House of Lords as it at present exists a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”.
Those are fine words and a fine aspiration.
I said at an earlier stage that the difference existed less between the parties than within the parties, which is why I suspect that the ambition of the 1911 preamble has never been enacted. However, I rather wish that, in 1999, when we passed the House of Lords Act, that I had thought of this amendment then and sought to replicate it in the 1999 Act. I did not do so then, but I am making up for it today.
The beauty of this amendment is that it does not actually ask the Government to do anything; in fact, it does not ask anybody to do anything. Instead, it is a reminder of the original intention behind the 1911 Act. I understand that the Prime Minister has said that he is keen on an elected House in due course; he has mentioned that on several occasions. Certainly my party, over the last 20 years, has also mentioned that, both officially in manifestos and by supporting the 2012 Bill. Of course, the Liberal Democrats have stated that as well. I feel that there is plenty of support for the fundamental idea that lies behind this preamble, even though it cannot be immediately brought into operation.
So I hope that, at this last amendment, on the last day of Report on this Bill, the Government and the noble Baroness can perhaps smile beneficially on the amendment and accept it. As I said, it is moved with due humility as a humble amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, may I follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, and thank him for that unusual and welcome display of humility?
I will put a question to him. He knows that, following the 1911 Act, the Bryce Commission was set up in 1917. It was essentially a conference of both the Lords and the Commons, and a large number of Members took part. The recommendation was that the Lords should be indirectly elected through regional meetings of Members of Parliament in the Commons, who would nominate people coming to the House of Lords. That died a death, and nothing happened. Does the noble Lord think that we could reconstitute the Bryce Commission in current circumstances?
Secondly, if the preamble was so helpful and successful in 1911, what makes him think that putting it in this Bill will lead to any substantive reform at all? I would observe that, in the interventions I have made arguing for substantive reform, I seem to have lacked a certain degree of support among Members of your Lordships’ House.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, described the preamble as “fine words”. He will know the saying, “Fine words butter no parsnips”. Well, these words have buttered no parsnips for over a hundred years and, personally, I have had enough of fine words on their own.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am slightly disappointed that this is the second time this evening that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has failed to put the case for election when he was talking about the best way to deal with limiting the size of the House and prevent it growing. The best way is to have a constituted, elected House where the people decide how the numbers in the House change. Now, again, he has failed to align himself with the long-held wish of his party to see election. At this late hour, my noble friend has elicited a notable reticence from the party opposite in pursuing its electoral objectives.
Lord Newby (LD)
The noble Lord seems to forget that I moved an amendment for an elected House of Lords and, unless my recollection is faulty, he chose not to support it.
Lord True (Con)
Well, that is true. The elements are greatly mixed in us, as Shakespeare taught us. There is that terrible duo word of “PR” that always lurks around in any proposition that comes from the noble Lord, Lord Newby.
I do not think that this is a time for reflection on the progress of this Bill. We will have a chance for that next week on “Bill do now pass”. I am pleased that, in general, the conduct of the debates has been good and important issues have been raised. I fear that a more appropriate preamble for this Bill would be something along the lines of, “Whereas it is desired to create an all-appointed House, and no proposals have yet been presented to restrict growth in the power of the Executive over such a House, it is politically expedient to exclude immediately over 80 Members of Parliament who do not support the Executive”. I think that would probably be a reasonably accurate preamble.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the patience and willingness to engage with the House that she has again shown in the Chamber this evening. I liked my noble friend’s impish and humble address to the House, but I think that, when the time comes, he should probably withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord—I think it has been good natured generally, apart from one slip-up that I referred to earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, is not in his place—I have scared him off. He will not do that again.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing his amendment. It was the most unusual introduction I have ever heard to an amendment in your Lordships’ House. He started by saying that it does not do anything and does not ask the Government to do anything. That is an unusual way to introduce an amendment to any legislation. He seeks to put a preamble at the start of the Bill, as he said.
The substantive issue that he addresses here is introducing an elected element into a second Chamber. The recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, does not fail him: only last week the House rejected that proposal, although the proposals in the Labour Party manifesto for an alternative second Chamber do not mention elections, so I fear that putting something like this in—although it would make no difference—seeks to pre-empt any outcome of further discussions.
This kind of preamble is now obsolete—although it may have happened in 1911, and I know there is a tendency in your Lordships’ House to look backwards at what happened. There have been some excellent historical references in the House this evening and indeed last week. There is a good reason why this has become largely obsolete: it is completely unnecessary, because the Long Title indicates the purpose and substantive clauses are provided in the legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who took similar legislation through your Lordships’ House in 1999, said:
“Words that do not mean anything have no place in modern legislation”.—[Official Report, 26/10/1999; col. 276.]
Taking the noble Lord’s own introduction—saying that it does not do anything and does not mean anything—I ask that he withdraws his amendment.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, I cannot hide my disappointment that the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—the Leader of the House—have not accepted my words. But I am pleased to have heard the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, ask some totally appropriate questions and remind us of what happened at the end of the First World War with the Bryce Commission. Of course it would be possible to recreate a Bryce Commission and, under the Labour Government that ended in 2010, a Joint Committee of both Houses sat and discussed this. Prior to that, there had been a royal commission. There have been many occasions over the last 100 or so years when people have referred to this preamble and looked at what could be done to put in place some kind of elected House—and none of them has come to anything.
My purpose was simply to continue that historical reminder that this was the broad intention. This is an echo of the noble and learned Lords, Lord Irvine of Lairg and Lord Falconer of Thoroton. So many other Peers have referred to it over the last 115 years. However, I recognise that I am beaten on this one. I said I would not call a Division on it and I will not. Therefore, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.