Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
I would like to make a brief statement. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Defence for his statement yesterday. This episode raises significant constitutional issues. I have therefore asked the Clerks to consider whether any lessons need to be learned from this case. If so, I will report back to the House in due course.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
The UK Labour Government have announced the largest nuclear building programme in a generation, investing £14.2 billion in Sizewell C and selecting Rolls-Royce SMR to build the UK’s first small modular reactors. The memorandum of understanding between the Welsh Government and Sizewell C Consortium could bring £900 million-worth of jobs into the Welsh nuclear supply chain. The Government also recognise Wylfa as one of the UK’s top sites for future nuclear development.
John Lamont
I thank the Minister for that answer. Nuclear must be an important part of our energy security strategy. It is both clean and reliable, and creates good jobs for local communities. What more can the Secretary of State do to encourage and incentivise new nuclear power in Wales and across all parts of the United Kingdom?
Dame Nia Griffith
As the hon. Gentleman will know, Great British Energy Nuclear has confirmed that, subject to final Government approvals and contract signature, it has selected Rolls-Royce SMR to build the UK’s first small modular reactors. No decisions have yet been taken on siting. We will be setting out our plans in due course. Further to that, as I have already mentioned, the project at Sizewell C will create enough power for 6 million homes and in the peak of construction support 10,000 jobs. It will boost supply chains across the UK. Some 70% of the construction value is predicted to go to 3,500 British suppliers, including companies such as William Hare Group in south Wales, supporting new jobs in construction, welding and hospitality.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
I was thrilled to hear that Boccard will today be opening its new nuclear manufacturing facility in north Wales. Does the Minister agree that north Wales has the skills and the sites to realise the economic potential of our nuclear industry, and two Labour Governments ready to deliver on it?
Dame Nia Griffith
Absolutely; I agree with my hon. Friend. I am very pleased indeed today that Boccard is opening its new nuclear manufacturing facility in Deeside. This is an example of the UK Government and the Welsh Government working together to onshore our nuclear supply chain, thus safeguarding 59 jobs in this instance and creating in excess of 150 new positions.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
Through the spending review, we are providing a record £22.4 billion per year on average for the Welsh Government; investing at least £445 million in Welsh rail; investing £211 million a year in local growth funding; and providing £118 million of new funding for coal tip safety. This Labour Government are investing in Wales’s economy, public services and people. We have ended Conservative austerity.
Christine Jardine
I was pleased to see funding for a number of transport projects in Wales in the spending review, not least because my city of Edinburgh is now linked directly by rail to the Secretary of State’s city of Cardiff. Lumo, which runs services in Scotland through open access, is hoping to begin a service through south Wales. Does the Minister agree with me that the spending review presents a fantastic opportunity for such projects, which create jobs, strengthen the Union and boost the UK’s economy?
Jo Stevens
I very much agree with the hon. Lady about the benefits to the Union of the significant investment that this Government are making in transport. I am very happy to take away her comment on Lumo and open access, and talk to the Rail Minister on her behalf.
Ben Lake
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State explain in evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee last week that Wales will receive a Barnett consequential of some £200 million as a result of transport announcements for English mayoral combined authority areas made in the lead up to the spending review. Could the Secretary of State clarify whether she was referring to the transport for city regions funding, which was announced on 4 June? The Chief Secretary to the Treasury stated in an answer to a written question that it was not possible to identify the specific Barnett consequential arising from that programme.
Jo Stevens
My understanding is that the just over £200 million figure that I referred to in my evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee relates to the combined mayoral authority announcements that were made prior to the spending review.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I am delighted that the £500 million announced for the steel industry in the spending review has already been translated into boots on the ground and high-vis jackets with the commencement of the building of the electric arc furnace, safeguarding 5,000 jobs. Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the fantastic progress that has already been made in the steel industry and in supply chains all across Wales?
Jo Stevens
I thank the Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee for her question. Monday was a really significant day for Welsh steelmaking. I was at the groundbreaking ceremony to begin construction of the electric arc furnace, which will be one of the largest in the world, securing 5,000 jobs and the future of steelmaking in Port Talbot for years to come. It has been made possible by £1.25 billion of investment, including £500 million from this Government, as well as our £80 million to support workers and the wider steel community, and will benefit not just Port Talbot but downstream sites. This has been a really challenging time for steelworkers across Wales, but I think this week marks a real turning point, securing a bright future for years to come.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
As a result of the UK Government’s half a billion pound investment in the future of steel in Port Talbot, construction has now begun on the new electric arc furnace. Will the Secretary of State share what this fantastic news means for Port Talbot and the surrounding communities, like my own of Neath and Swansea East?
Jo Stevens
The Government’s investment in the electric arc furnace shows how serious our commitment is to the steel industry, not just in south Wales but across the UK. It is why we have slashed energy costs for steel producers and other energy-intensive industries through the industrial strategy, strengthened procurement rules to use even more UK steel in construction, ensured that the UK is the only country in the world not paying 50% tariffs to the United States, and boosted trade defences to protect the sector against foreign imports. The steel strategy, which we will publish later in the year, will also deliver up to £2.5 billion of investment to help to maintain jobs and growth.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
The UK Government say that Wales is getting record-breaking funding to tackle NHS waiting lists, but for my constituent Melanie Walker, the reality is the opposite. After waiting 59 weeks for a hip operation, she has now been told she must wait another 45, because Powys Teaching Health Board is artificially extending waiting times for patients treated in Shropshire and Herefordshire to match lower Welsh averages—a cost-cutting move driven by the Welsh Government. Does the Secretary of State think that is fair to Melanie or consistent with her Government’s pledge to reduce waiting times?
Jo Stevens
I am very sorry to hear about Melanie’s situation. However, I would say to the hon. Gentleman that his party were in government with the Conservatives during the coalition years. That Government delivered horrible austerity on Wales, which lead to public services in Wales being degraded. His party was the architect of that.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Chancellor says that cutting red tape for bankers will trickle down to households. [Interruption.] The 2008 financial crash taught us that that is utter nonsense. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State has just mentioned things that happened in the past; in 2023, she said:
“12 years of ‘trickle-down’ and ‘trickle-out’ growth strategies have failed to deliver for Britain.”
Does she stand by what she said in opposition, or does she now toe the line for the sake of the Chancellor’s friends in the City?
Jo Stevens
I apologise to the right hon. Lady; I am afraid I did not hear the start of her question. On tax and what the Chancellor has talked about, we stand by our manifesto commitment not to increase income tax, employee national insurance contributions or VAT. The Chancellor has said that it would be irresponsible to write future Budgets months in advance, especially given the global situation. There are clearly costs and implications to every decision this Parliament makes, but we remain focused on growing our economy in Wales and across the UK.
Liz Saville Roberts
That is one way of avoiding answering the question, Mr Speaker. My point is that Labour’s skewed sense of fairness does not stop at prioritising the interests of the banks over others; it is also hitting our farmers and rural communities. The Farmers Union of Wales has warned that Labour’s planned reforms to agricultural property relief will do irreversible damage to the Welsh family farm. Looking ahead to next week’s Royal Welsh Show, will the Secretary of State agree at last that what we really need is a tax on extreme wealth, instead of a tax on those who feed us and sustain our rural economies?
Jo Stevens
At the autumn Budget, we demonstrated our commitment to our fiscal rules while maintaining high levels of investment to rebuild our public services—an investment in farming as well—after the mess that the Tories left behind. We have repeatedly said that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the greatest burden, and that has been reflected in the decisions that we have taken so far. Tax changes, as the right hon. Member knows, are a matter for the Chancellor.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
Our industrial strategy will unlock growth right across Wales and support tens of thousands of new jobs. We will target areas of strength from aerospace in north Wales to the world’s first compound semiconductor cluster in south Wales. We have announced a new centre for doctoral training in compound semiconductors led by Swansea university, plus a new defence growth deal and £30 million for a local innovation partnership fund—to name just a few developments.
Sarah Edwards
Like many Members in this House, I welcome the Government’s industrial strategy and its focus on growth for our local communities. Across Wales, we have a number of former mining towns, which face the challenge of retraining and upskilling their local workforce. My constituency of Tamworth, a former mining town, faces similar challenges. Will the Minister tell me how the industrial strategy will support former mining towns across Wales and in my constituency of Tamworth?
Dame Nia Griffith
There are many job opportunities coming to Wales through the industrial strategy. We are also ensuring that local communities have the money available to secure the safety of the coal tips, which is the industrial legacy of those communities. That means £118 million of additional funding on top of the £25 million that we have already dedicated to those areas. As my hon. Friend will know, we are also forging ahead with the industrial zones and freeports in Wales and also the supply chains for the various industries that I mentioned in my previous answer, and they will include, I know, industries in Tamworth.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Let us have some reality. Today, inflation hit 3.6%, the highest across the G7. This UK Labour Government have a glossy shine on their so-called industrial strategy, but it is simply proving that their actions and ethos deliver only worse outcomes for Wales. Businesses across Wales are now facing a disgraceful double whammy, as just this week Labour in Cardiff passed plans to impose a dire tourism tax. Has the Minister actually carried out any meaningful assessment with the Welsh Government of how many jobs will be lost, as the vital 100,000-strong Welsh tourism sector will be impacted by this tax and by the failing approach to Wales by the two Labour Governments?
Dame Nia Griffith
The Welsh tourism sector is thriving. Last year, British residents took over 7 million overnight trips to Wales and spent more than £2 billion. As the shadow Secretary of State will know, more than 40 countries and holiday destinations around the world, including Greece, Amsterdam, Barcelona and California, have introduced a form of visitor levy, and many of us have paid taxes abroad without even noticing. If a visitor levy were introduced by all Welsh local authorities, it could raise up to £33 million, which would help support the long-term thriving industry in Wales, as well as provide facilities such as toilets that local people can use. I am confident that the Welsh Government will work with businesses and tourists alike to get this right.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
We are investing at least £445 million—an historic investment—in Welsh rail, to right the years of underfunding by previous Conservative Governments and to unleash Wales’s economic potential. This funding will support the permanent closing of level crossings on the north Wales main line, enabling increased services across north Wales that will improve cross-border connectivity, create jobs and boost economic growth.
Mrs Blundell
The Chancellor’s announcement of at least £445 million for Welsh rail will be transformative for Welsh passengers and Better Connect workers with jobs across north Wales and Manchester, but only if we are pulling in the same direction. What steps will be taken by the Wales Office to ensure that national Governments, devolved Governments and our combined authority in Greater Manchester are working together to improve connectivity and bring the people of the north-west and north Wales closer together?
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I was pleased to see the Welsh Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Transport, Ken Skates recently launch Network North Wales in Wrexham. That really exciting plan will better connect communities in north Wales and north-west England through more rail and bus services and greater integration. Benefits will include 50% more timetabled services on the north Wales main line, boosting cross-border connectivity and driving economic growth between north Wales and north-west England. In addition, the investment in rail infrastructure will boost capacity on the Wrexham to Liverpool line.
Dave Robertson
Bore da. Does the Secretary of State agree that the introduction of the midlands rail hub project, which will see an additional train per hour from Cardiff in south Wales to the midlands, is a great sign that this Government are investing not just in Wales and the midlands but in the whole country?
Jo Stevens
I thank my hon. Friend for his question—and for his very good Welsh. The first phase of the midlands rail hub will enable additional trains between Birmingham and south Wales, strengthening cross-border connectivity between Wales and England. That is absolutely what this Government’s investment is about: creating jobs and growth and connecting Wales and England.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
Let us have another reality check. Information provided to us by the Department for Transport confirms that Conservative expenditure on Welsh rail exceeded £5 billion over our time in office, underpinned by our plans to deliver the north Wales main line. Yet in a January sitting of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Welsh Secretary roundly criticised Welsh rail before claiming:
“That is a direct consequence, I am afraid, of the last 14 years of underfunding”.
As usual, this Government’s words and beliefs and the reality are poles apart. This Labour Government are now offering peanuts—just a miserable £400 million over an entire decade. Will the Secretary of State retract her past claims to the Welsh Affairs Committee and the similar ones that have been made on the Wales Office Government social media accounts?
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
The hon. Member will know that that was an error made under the previous Conservative Government. Heavy rail infrastructure is reserved in Wales and, like every heavy rail project in England, Barnett consequentials do not apply. The UK Government’s rail network enhancements pipeline funds East West Rail—or Ox-Cam rail, as it is more commonly known—and also directly funds projects in Wales, such as the historic at least £445 million investment in rail in Wales that was announced in the June spending review.
Mr Forster
The Government have claimed that listing the Oxford to Cambridge rail line as “England-only” on past documents was just an accounting error by the Conservative Government and that the project has not been reclassified to deprive Wales of funding, but four separate Government documents list it as “England-only”, and over £1 million in Barnett consequentials were already paid to Wales on that basis. Does the Secretary of State honestly stand by her claim that it has just been reclassified and that this is not intended to deprive Wales of fair funding?
Jo Stevens
As I have just explained, an error was made by the previous Conservative Government. Heavy rail was and always is reserved. The Welsh Government will not be required to re-pay any Barnett consequentials provided to them as a result of any error that took place under the Conservative Government.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Welsh Government allocated over £1 billion to transport in their recent Budget. This investment comes after 14 years of critical under-investment by the Conservatives, and it should hopefully provide funding to stations such as Ely Mill in my constituency. Can the Secretary of State tell me why the Welsh Conservatives and Plaid Cymru voted against this investment, which would mean extra funding to fix our roads, build new trains and improve our buses?
Jo Stevens
The Opposition’s decision to vote against the additional funding was inexplicable, as was their decision to vote against extra money for the NHS, for education and for businesses—I could go on. They stand here and criticise this Government while they vote against extra money for Wales.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
The Government are steadfastly committed to family farms in Wales, which is why we protected the farm budget at its current level and allocated £337 million to the Welsh Government at the autumn Budget. Furthermore, at the UK-EU summit on 19 May the Prime Minister announced that the UK would deliver a new agrifood deal with the European Union. Routine sanitary and phytosanitary border checks will be eliminated, with less paperwork and fewer costs. British goods such as dairy, fish, eggs and red meat currently subject to 100% documentary checks and up to 30% physical checks will see those removed entirely.
Gregory Stafford
Although the aims of the sustainable farming scheme are laudable, many farmers across Wales are expressing real concern about its complexity, the potential reduction in food production and the adequacy of the financial support on offer. What assurances can the Minister give that the scheme will be simplified, sufficiently funded and implemented in a way that supports both the environmental goals and the economic viability of Welsh farming communities?
Dame Nia Griffith
The scheme will have a transition period, with the basic payment scheme available for those not in the SFS, although that will be reduced by 40% next year. The Welsh Government are prioritising their money on the SFS to encourage farmers to join the scheme and start benefiting from it. The Farming Union of Wales has said that the plan provides
“workable payment rates and much needed stability for the sector.”
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The Welsh Government’s budget contains over £300 million to support Welsh farmers. Is it not the case that Plaid Cymru and the Tories put Welsh farmers’ livelihoods at risk by voting against that crucial money?
Dame Nia Griffith
Indeed, it is absolutely shocking that Plaid Cymru and the Tories in the Senedd voted against a budget that is giving that money to Welsh farmers.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
In June, the Crown Estate announced that it will partner with Equinor and Gwynt Glas to develop floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea. Those projects will create over 5,000 new jobs and will leverage £1.4 billion in private investment. This will deliver generational change in Wales. We are supporting the industry with an £80 million investment in Port Talbot port and a £1 billion clean energy supply chain fund to support offshore wind across the UK.
Perran Moon
Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker—or should I say “Diolch yn fawr”? The proposed floating offshore wind farms in the Celtic sea lie between the two ancient Celtic nations of Wales and Cornwall. The Celtic sea not only will be a valuable source of renewable energy but has the potential to create thousands of jobs across south Wales and Cornwall. Does the Secretary of State agree that local funding for economic development is essential to realise that potential and that, working hand in hand with Cornwall, Wales will play a key role in helping to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger?
Jo Stevens
My hon. Friend is right that floating offshore wind presents significant opportunities for Wales and the UK. In the leasing round that just took place we had a first-mover advantage in this technology of the future. Earlier this month, the Energy Secretary granted development consent for the Mona offshore wind farm, which will bolster north Wales’s offshore wind industry. All of that is contributing to securing our energy independence and bringing down bills for people in Cornwall, Wales and the rest of the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I know that cheer was not for me, Mr Speaker. When it comes to offshore wind in Wales, the waters in which that offshore wind energy will be generated are the same waters that flow by Northern Ireland, the same waters that flow by England and the same waters that flow by Scotland. Is it not time to have an offshore wind strategy for the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? If we do it together, we will do it better.
Jo Stevens
I always believe that we do things better when we do them together.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
We are committed to spending 5% of the UK’s GDP on national security by 2035. The spending review invested to keep our people safe, with a £10.9 billion real-terms increase to the Ministry of Defence budget. This will help grow the Welsh economy and our thriving defence sector, which is home to over 160 companies employing more than 20,000 people right across Wales.
Olivia Bailey
This Government’s commitment to spending 5% of GDP on national security will be transformational for Wales and for my constituency, where thousands are employed in the defence sector and where we welcomed a £15 billion boost for the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Do the Secretary of State and the Minister agree that both our national security and our local economies are better off with Labour?
Dame Nia Griffith
Absolutely; our ambition is to become a defence industrial superpower by 2025. We are making defence an engine for growth, boosting prosperity, jobs and security for working people across the UK. As part of this, we will establish the UK defence innovation fund, with £400 million to fund and grow UK-based companies. We are also launching the new regional defence growth deals across the UK, including a cluster in Wales.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
There has always been support across this House for the United Kingdom fulfilling our obligations to Afghans who served alongside British forces. We warned in opposition about Conservative management of this policy, and yesterday the Defence Secretary set out the full extent of the failings that we inherited: a major data breach, a super-injunction and a secret route that had already cost hundreds of millions of pounds. Ministers who served in the Conservative Government have serious questions to answer about how this was ever allowed to happen. The Chair of the Defence Committee has indicated that he intends to hold further inquiries. I welcome that and I hope that those who were in office at the time will welcome that scrutiny.
President Macron’s state visit last week saw us secure historic agreements: co-ordinating our nuclear deterrents; a major investment in Sizewell C; and a landmark returns deal, which is a crucial next step in restoring order to our immigration system. Tomorrow I will host Chancellor Merz for further talks on our security and the economy. 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.
Jacob Collier
Families in Burton and Uttoxeter are watching their smart meters like hawks, and dreading the moment when their energy bill lands on the doormat. I therefore welcome Labour’s warm home discount, which will mean £150 off energy bills for millions of people across this country, providing meaningful support in these difficult times. Will the Prime Minister set out how that will help support families in my constituency and across the country?
The Prime Minister
I met my hon. Friend’s constituent Nicola in her kitchen, and she told me how hard she is working to support her three children, but that the past decade has let her down, with false promises and public services a wreck. She told me about the difference the warm home discount will make, and that £150 off her energy bills—she had a meter in her kitchen, if I recall, recording how much energy she was using—would make all the difference to her. I promised Nicola and my hon. Friend that there is much more to come.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
Yesterday, the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility warned the Government that higher and higher levels of taxes are bad for growth. Does the Prime Minister agree?
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, I will tell you what is bad for growth: 14 years of a Tory Government. That meant stagnant growth for 14 years, leaving a £22 billion black hole. In the first quarter of this year we have achieved: the highest growth in the G7, which we promised before the election; investment of £120 billion in this country, which is a record in the first year of any Government; and three trade deals, all of which will boost growth.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is talking about what he has achieved, but we have just heard that inflation is up again—the worst in the G7. We left him with 2% inflation. We have borrowing up, unemployment up and taxes up under his Government. The fact is that the Prime Minister does not get it, so let me tell him. His Budget last year had high taxes. That is why the economy is contracting. The Government have said that they will not put up taxes for people on modest incomes, but they also seem incapable of explaining who is in that category, so can the Prime Minister clear up the confusion and tell us what he thinks a modest income is?
The Prime Minister
I think of the working people across this country who put in every day and do not get back what they deserve. That is who we are working for, and that is who we are fixing the country for. They are the sort of people that work hard but have not necessarily got the savings to buy themselves out of problems. That is who we are working for, and that is why we put the national living wage up, with an extra £1,400. The national minimum wage is up, with an extra £2,500 a year. The triple lock means pensions went up by £470. And of course, we are extending childcare, opening free breakfast clubs and extending free school meals. We know exactly who we are working for. The right hon. Lady comes here every week and just talks the country down.
Mrs Badenoch
I am not talking of the country down; I am talking the Prime Minister down. I asked him what a modest income was. He answered with what a working person is. He does not know what a modest income is, and they cannot even define who working people are. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that working people are people who get a payslip, but millions of self-employed people do not get a payslip, so are the self-employed next in line for a Labour tax raise?
The Prime Minister
The self-employed were the very people who suffered repeatedly under the Conservatives’ watch, particularly during covid, as I remember, when they did not get the support that they needed. The right hon. Lady talks the country down and she cherry-picks. Since we have been in government, we have created 380,000 jobs, the employment rate is up and inactivity is down—the complete opposite of what we inherited.
Mrs Badenoch
I do not know where these 3,000 jobs are coming from. Unemployment has gone up every month under his Government. Perhaps the Prime Minister should speak to farmers and small business people and find out what those working people think about his Government. But that is not all, because we know that the Chancellor is launching a review into pension contributions. It is as clear as day why this is. It is because the Government are considering taxing them. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that a tax on pension contributions is a tax on working people?
The Prime Minister
We made absolutely clear manifesto commitments, which the right hon. Lady asked me about last week, and we are keeping to them. I am not going to write the Budget months out from the Budget. I am proud of the decisions that we took to invest in our NHS and to invest in our public services—all decisions that the Conservatives opposed. It is no wonder that after the first year of a Labour Government, business confidence is at a nine-year high. That is longer than she has been in government—[Hon. Members: “Withdraw!”] I am not withdrawing that; I am going to repeat it. Business confidence is at a nine-year high.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister says that he is not going to write the Budget, but his Chancellor is on the front of the Daily Mirror talking about what she is going to do on taxes, so why can he not do the same in the Chamber? I asked him about pension contributions. The truth is that he does not want to talk about pension contributions. It is all right for the Prime Minister, because he has his own special law to stop his personal pension from being taxed. But let us be honest: this is really about choices. My party knows that there is an alternative to tax rises: cutting spending—something that the Government are too scared, or perhaps too weak, to do. We offered to work with him to reform welfare and make meaningful savings, but his refusal sent a signal and now the cost of borrowing is rising. The Budget is in November, which is months away and the markets may not wait. What will the Prime Minister be doing over the summer to get a grip on the cost of borrowing?
The Prime Minister
The Conservatives left the most incredible mess in the economy, and now they think that they can lecture others. Just last week their chairman said that they had done the necessary apologising for the 14 years of failure. I did not hear an apology for the lowest living standards in living history. I did not hear an apology for the £22 billion black hole. I did not hear an apology for the Liz Truss mini-Budget. Maybe the right hon. Lady would like to stand up and make that apology now.
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister is not planning to do anything this summer to fix the economy. The shadow of the last Budget is hanging over the entire country. Just yesterday, only the Conservatives supported the two-child benefit cap, because only the Conservatives believe in living within our means—not Labour, not the Liberal Democrats, not Reform.
But it is the end of term, so why don’t we go through the Prime Minister’s end-of-term scorecard? The economy is contracting, inflation is the highest in the G7, unemployment is up every month under this Government, spending is out of control, borrowing costs are more expensive than in Greece—and this is just the first year. The Labour party should be ashamed of what it is doing to the country. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shake their heads as much as they like, but the fact is that this summer they will have to go to their constituents and explain why the Government have been making such a mess over the past 12 months. And is it not the case, given that this is just their first year, that the worse is yet to come?
The Prime Minister
We are happily going to go to our constituents. We will tell them that we promised 2 million extra NHS appointments and have delivered 4 million extra appointments. I have to upgrade that—it is now 4.5 million extra appointments, so we will tell our constituents that. Then we will tell them about the free school meals we are rolling out, the free breakfast clubs, the free childcare, and school uniform costs. We will tell them about that. When we have done that, we will move on to affordable houses and tell them about the £39 billion we are investing. When we are finished with that, we will tell them about the rail and road upgrades across the country, the £120 billion investment and, of course, the three trade deals—and we are only just getting started.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Prime Minister will never know exactly how much it meant to victims of the troubles in Northern Ireland, from right across society, when he came, looked them in their eyes and promised them that no murderer would be immune from prosecution. Can he tell us when he last spoke to the Taoiseach about the shared approach to this issue, and will he recommit today to those victims, to ensure that no murderer will be seen to be above the law?
The Prime Minister
This is a really important issue, and can I begin by saying that I have a profound respect and debt to our veterans who served? This is a complicated issue and we have to get it right. Veterans are at risk because of the false promises of the last Government. Let us be clear: the last Government made a false promise of immunity that does not exist. It was unlawful, it was struck down, and it was undeliverable. Their failed legacy Act leaves veterans exposed with no settled process. We will create a secure, transparent system that protects veterans from unjustified persecution and gives victims, families and survivors the confidence they need in the process.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s words about the shocking Afghan data breach under the previous Government, which was kept secret for three years? He will have our support if he decides to pursue a public inquiry.
I know that the Prime Minister will agree that the shocking rise of antisemitism that we have seen since Hamas’s 7 October terror attacks has no place in our society. British Jews should not have to live in fear of hatred, racism and abuse on our streets or online. A new report from the Board of Deputies’ commission on antisemitism, chaired by Lord Mann and Dame Penny Mordaunt, has set out 10 recommendations to tackle this appalling scourge. Will the Prime Minister study this report, and will his Government respond to it in full?
The Prime Minister
Yes, we will. We must fight antisemitism wherever we find it, as we must fight all hate offences, crimes and incidents wherever we find them.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. I hope that we will see more action to tackle antisemitism.
Turning to the middle east, the world is looking on in horror at the scenes from Gaza, and now Netanyahu’s Ministers want to lock the whole population of Gaza into what is effectively a giant prison—a plan that would clearly amount to ethnic cleansing, as former Israeli Prime Minister Olmert has said. Does the Prime Minister agree that that is utterly abhorrent and unacceptable? Will he make it clear to the Israeli Government that the UK will not stand idly by and will act, starting by sanctioning Prime Minister Netanyahu himself?
The Prime Minister
I am appalled by the suggestions in relation to Gaza, just as I am appalled by the reports of yet more civilians being killed while trying to access aid. On both fronts, I am appalled by what we are seeing and hearing, and we raise that regularly, as the right hon. Gentleman would expect. In relation to the civilians being killed, I would expect that to be fully and transparently investigated, with full accountability for any failings. Israel must clearly put in place measures that properly protect civilians, in line with international law, and that is the case that we are pressing repeatedly. Alongside that, we want to see an immediate ceasefire, so that the remaining hostages can be brought out, aid can be got in at volume and at speed, and a political process can be opened, which in my view is the only way in which we are going to get a lasting solution.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I send my deepest condolences to Eli’s friends and family. I join my hon. Friend in urging the new Reform council to think again and change its mind on damaging cuts that hit children and young families. My hon. Friend is doing a much better job than his predecessor, the Conservative party chairman under Liz Truss, who has now joined Reform. That proves once again that if people vote Tory they get Reform, and if they vote Reform they get the Tories. While both parties are cutting services at home, we support families with free school meals and free breakfast clubs, and by extending free childcare.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The failed legacy Act was struck down by the courts in Northern Ireland, and that leaves veterans exposed. We are creating a secure, transparent system that protects veterans from unjustified persecution, but that also gives victims, families and survivors the confidence that they need in the process.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is an excellent champion for Rochdale and, I know, a strong supporter of his local police and trading standards teams. Since we came to power, we have ramped up enforcement raids on illegal working. Arrests have gone up by 50%, and we are tightening the law on delivery drivers. Digital ID will help us to tackle illegal working, and we are rolling out the use of e-visas to have digital records of immigration status and allowing on-the-spot checks of anybody’s right to work.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this really important issue. I am obviously incredibly sorry to hear about the tragic case that he mentions. As he will know, the availability of this drug is regulated across the NHS by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, which makes decisions on which treatments provide the best care for patients while maintaining value for money for the taxpayer. I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to see what more can be done to get this treatment to patients who need it.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are delivering the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation, and we are proud to do so. Our £39 billion investment will deliver around 300,000 social and affordable homes, with at least 60% of homes delivered for social rent. While we do not intend to remove the right to buy, which helps social tenants to get on the property ladder, we are reforming the scheme to protect social housing stock and encourage councils to deliver more new homes.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that contribution, because parents and children have been failed far too often. We are committing an additional £1 billion to SEND, but there must be meaningful reform alongside it, and new teachers must have the appropriate training. We are committed to reviewing that and to working with parents and teachers, and we will take away his suggestion. I invite him and others across the House to work with us on this important reform, because I think this issue has been raised with me more than any other at Prime Minister’s questions. It is clearly a broken system; it needs reform. If we can work together across the House to get it right, I think that is the least we owe to parents and children across the country.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his work on the all-party parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs, championing the plight of British nationals facing the most difficult circumstances overseas? We routinely raise these cases with international counterparts, as he would expect, and we are deeply committed to getting them home and united with their loved ones. As part of our work to strengthen support for British nationals overseas, we are working at pace to get the envoy role set up, and I will make sure that he is kept updated about that.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman’s points about good value for money and accountability are really important. They are embedded in the work we are doing with the NHS at the moment, which is improving on our watch—not only the waiting lists, but in other respects. The 10-year plan for the NHS, which is intended to ensure that the NHS is fit for the future, has a number of principles, including the principle of local accountability.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter. It is a deeply concerning time for the workers and their families in Falkirk. I agree with him, and we are working with mayors and local leaders to develop a pipeline of future orders for zero emission buses, which is an important aspect of this issue. The Minister for local transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), is hosting an urgent meeting of the bus manufacturing expert panel.
While Labour mayors in England are ordering Scottish buses, the SNP is ordering buses from China, just like it ordered ships from Turkey and Poland, not from Scottish shipyards. The SNP should be backing Scottish workers.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Graham Stuart
Could the Prime Minister recommend a summer recess read, in order to take all our minds off the calamitous journey on which he and the Chancellor have embarked?
The Prime Minister
From looking at the Opposition Benches, I think most Conservative Back Benchers are already on their summer recess. We are very proud of our manifesto—it was a very successful manifesto, giving us a landslide victory—and now we are very proud to be implementing it.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, I am appalled by reports of more civilians being killed in Gaza, particularly when they are trying to access aid. Each of those incidents needs to be fully and transparently investigated, with accountability for any failings. That, of course, has to happen alongside the ceasefire that is desperately needed and that we are working hard with others to achieve, in order to release all of the hostages who remain, but also to protect civilians and get much more aid into Gaza at speed and at volume.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. If this carries on, there will be no more. Come on, Lincoln Jopp.
Lincoln Jopp
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Following the magnificent success of the England cricket team earlier this week and the triumphal return of Mr Jofra Archer, does the Prime Minister agree that what he needs from his Ministers over the next 12 months is more pace and less spin?
The Prime Minister
My Ministers have delivered on the NHS, on the economy, on rail, etc. The hon. Gentleman needs a break.
Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is doing a superb job for Northumberland, and I am happy to set out what we have delivered. We have delivered more than £400 million of funding for Northumberland county council this year—a 5.8% increase—as well as an 80% increase in the number of homes on which construction has started in my hon. Friend’s area, a near £13 million increase in funding for Northumbria police, and 14 free breakfast clubs in Northumberland, supporting more than 3,000 children. That is the difference that a Labour Government makes.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. We are proud to have offered or extended sanctuary to more than 300,000 Ukrainians and their families throughout the operation of the visa scheme since the invasion in 2022. We do need to provide certainty and security for Ukrainians in the United Kingdom, and we will provide an additional 18 months’ permission to remain in the UK as well as continued rights to live, work and study here.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
In 2017 I led a Select Committee inquiry that warned of an emerging disaster in special educational needs and disability services. Those warnings went unheeded by the Conservatives, who left behind a broken system, which even they have since admitted is, “Lose, lose, lose.” Can the Prime Minister confirm that this Labour Government’s rebuilt SEND system will be shaped by listening to the needs of SEN families, never again ignored but served in the best traditions of a Labour Government?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right. I think there is general agreement across the House that the system is broken, just like almost everything the Conservatives touched at the end of 14 miserable years. It does not work for parents and it lets children down, and we will reform it. We are already investing an additional £1 billion, but we need a system that truly supports every child. We are developing proposals, and I want to work across the House in order to secure the right outcome.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Yet again, we are suffering record-breaking heatwaves and drought. That is worrying people in my constituency, which is both the fastest-growing and the most water-stressed area in the country. The proposed fens reservoir is important, but will provide water only for the already ambitious house building plans, not the thousands of new homes that the Government propose. Does the Prime Minister agree that the water crisis in Greater Cambridge is a deal-breaker for the Government’s growth plans, and will he, as a matter of urgency, help me to convene a ministerial roundtable with the Cambridge water scarcity group?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the drought and, more generally, the question of reservoirs. It is shocking that a new reservoir has not been built for a very, very long time—none at all in the previous 14 years. We are building now, and we are doing that alongside the infrastructure and housing that we also need to build. We will work across the House on that.
Sudan
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister if she will make a statement on Britain’s response to the worsening situation in Sudan.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
Sudan is the worst humanitarian crisis on record. Over 30 million people need aid, and 12 million people have been displaced. Famine is spreading fast, and new reports confirm that the situation will deteriorate in the next three months. Cholera is also now widespread.
Lifesaving assistance continues to be blocked by the parties. Last month, five aid workers were killed in an appalling attack on a UN convoy that was delivering lifesaving aid to those fleeing violence in El Fasher. The deliberate targeting of aid workers clearly violates international law. As the United Nations Security Council penholder on Sudan, the UK led calls for accountability for such attacks, including through the UK-penned press statement on 12 June. Last week, the International Criminal Court’s Office of the Prosecutor found reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity may well have been, and continue to be, committed in Darfur. The perpetrators must be held to account.
The UK continues to play a leading role in ensuring that aid gets to where it is most needed. In April, the Foreign Secretary brought together a broad coalition of partners to build consensus on strengthening humanitarian access. The co-chairs’ statement called on the parties to facilitate humanitarian access in accordance with their commitments in the Jeddah declaration. Over £810 million of funding for Sudan was announced, including £120 million of UK aid, which will support over 650,000 people this year.
In the absence of a ceasefire, the humanitarian situation will only worsen. We continue to call on the warring parties to place the interests of the Sudanese people over their pursuit of a military victory. The UK is working with our international partners to push the warring parties to return to the negotiating table and commit to a meaningful, sustainable ceasefire.
Any process that follows must be inclusive. We underline the importance of a return to civilian rule that is democratic and representative of the whole country. Moves by the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces to establish their own parallel Governments will only exacerbate de facto splits, and could lead to the permanent partition of Sudan. That is in no one’s interests.
We will continue to use all diplomatic tools at our disposal to protect civilians, get aid to those who need it most, and support a Sudanese-led peace process with civilians at its heart.
Sir Andrew Mitchell
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question today.
I make no apologies for raising the dire and desperate straits of the Sudanese people again in this House, not least because Britain leads on the Sudanese situation at the United Nations on behalf of all other nations. As the Minister said, the people of Sudan are in the throes of the worst humanitarian catastrophe in the world and the situation is worsening, even if such things can hardly be imagined. Earlier this month, the United Nations and international organisations reported the mass displacement of tens of thousands of people following the combatant forces advancing across the Kordofan states. There have been months of increased mobilisation of fighters, including the recruitment of children from across Darfur. As fighting expands, the Kordofan states are the next deadly front.
In the recent and welcome ministerial conference hosted by the Foreign Secretary, much-needed money was raised, but the goal of a high-level contact group to drive political efforts towards achieving a ceasefire and protecting Sudanese civilians met with an impasse. We must accept that despite our efforts the past two years have been a story of faltering international endeavour where world events have cast Sudan into the shadows as its people have faced only deepening peril.
I ask the Minister three questions. First, what lessons have the Government learned from the siege of El Fasher and the overwhelming of the camp for displaced people at Zamzam to prepare for and protect civilians from the spread of violence across the Kordofan states? How are the Government supporting the local emergency response rooms? Secondly, can she confirm that the prevention of atrocities remains a key pillar of British policy and is unaffected by the recent cuts in the development budget? Thirdly, and finally, what are the Government doing to advance international efforts to protect civilians alongside their pursuit of a ceasefire? Are we to assume the Jeddah process is dead? What discussions has she had with her counterparts in the United States over recent weeks?
Catherine West
I thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for his questions and his long-standing interest not just in Africa in general, but particularly in this awful conflict in Sudan. Of course, Sudan is also a personal priority for the Foreign Secretary, which is why he brought together Foreign Ministers to try to find a resolution. The Prime Minister has reiterated that the UK will continue to play a key humanitarian role, evidenced by the £120 million of UK aid announced for Sudan this year.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s question in relation to the work post-Jeddah, we are working to sustain the momentum of the actions agreed at the conference. We continue to work with multilateral institutions, including the African Union, to ensure strong African leadership in response to the conflict. We have also joined the EU-convened consultative group on Sudan in June and we have initiated a friends of Sudan grouping in Geneva to advance our work on the protection of civilians, because the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that international law in this regard places a heavy emphasis on prevention of conflict and of atrocities. We continue to identify opportunities to use our role as penholder on Sudan in the UN Security Council and to galvanise UN Security Council action on the conflict in Sudan.
The right hon. Gentleman also specifically asked about the situation in the El Fasher camps and I want to reassure him that the UK is doing all it can, but the question is always about access. We have the money, we have the workers; it is access that we need in order to provide that lifesaving aid. That is the nub of the issue, which we are working on.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Not a single person in my Sudanese diaspora community in Sheffield has not been affected by the horrific violence in Sudan, but the most harrowing part for them is not the regular communication jams blocking parent from child and brother from sister, or the multiple displacements of millions of the most vulnerable people, or indeed the famine ripping through the population; the worst part is that while this, the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, is breaking every boundary we know, world powers continue to look away.
The UK Government have a unique position as penholder for Sudan, and at the UN Security Council I appreciate that we called for a ceasefire through a resolution, but the resolution set no deadline for concluding the ceasefire and authorised no enforcement mission. So, Minister, what are we doing to enforce accountability for the shameful complicity of states backing the warring sides, and when will we push for an agreement to a ceasefire so the people of Sudan can be free from this horror?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a loud voice here on behalf her Sudanese diaspora. The most important things the UK can do to build on the momentum of the important London Sudan conference—bearing in mind that we were the first to have such a conference—are to continue to base our work on the statement from its co-chairs; to continue, as she says, to use our role at the United Nations; and to work through the new friends of Sudan grouping to keep pushing at the highest level, using our position on the UN Security Council to galvanise its action and continue the important supply of aid into the region.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for pursuing this matter.
The situation in Sudan is dire. We are deeply concerned by the International Criminal Court’s findings last week that there are reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity may be being committed in Darfur. The humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate, with the UN warning on 30 June of drastic cuts to life-saving food aid for Sudanese refugees fleeing to neighbouring countries. Sudan has been identified as the global hunger hotspot of highest concern, and without immediate humanitarian assistance, the risk is terrible. With recent attacks on UN aid convoys, can the Minister provide her latest assessment of the situation and the extent of aid blocking? How is she ensuring that UK aid—including the £120 million announced at the April Sudan conference—will reach those who need it, and that aid workers are protected?
More broadly, what new measures are the Government taking to compel the warring parties into a ceasefire, to allow more aid in and to facilitate deconfliction for its delivery in the meantime? How has the Minister supported Sudanese civilian and political forces to engage in constructive dialogue processes such as the Cairo conference, and what is her assessment of the effectiveness of these processes? Despite the spending review, we are yet to understand what the 0.3% figure means for bilateral aid, so will she confirm the bilateral spend for Sudan this year?
Sudan matters. It is not in the UK’s national interests for the crossing of red lines in this conflict to persist, to have the displacement of people on this scale, nor to see the further destabilisation of this region of Africa.
Catherine West
The right hon. Lady asked about the last week’s ICC finding. We acknowledge the ICC Office of the Prosecutor’s critical findings that there are reasonable grounds to believe that war crimes and crimes against humanity may have well been committed, and are continuing to be committed, in Darfur. This is an important milestone in the ICC’s investigation into crimes committed in Darfur, and the UK remains steadfast in its commitment to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected and breaches are called out and investigated. The UK remains committed to securing accountability for those responsible for atrocity crimes. This includes reporting the fact-finding mission’s mandate and the ICC’s ongoing investigation.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the attack on El Fasher and the targeting of aid workers. That is an absolute disgrace and a clear violation of international law, and we condemn it. She asked what more we have been doing recently. We attended the important consultative group on Sudan in Brussels on 26 June, and contributed to discussions with the UN Secretary-General’s personal envoy on Sudan, Ramtane Lamamra, on his plans to convene proximity talks with the warring parties, including on protection issues.
Finally, the right hon. Lady raised the important question of the spending review. As I am sure she is aware, we have a lot of lessons to learn from last time the aid budget was reduced, because the National Audit Office criticised the way those reductions were made in-year, without consultation, and questioned whether that was value for money. Instead, the Government will take a long-term look at this, and have a glide principle over the three remaining years of this Parliament.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
That this urgent question could have been relevant at any time in the past 20 years is a damning indictment of the failure of the international community. This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) and I hosted Sudanese community voices alongside Médecins Sans Frontières, the British Medical Association and others, and we heard harrowing stories about what is happening on the ground. Medical centres and hospitals are becoming battlegrounds and, as ever, women and children are bearing the brunt of the devastation. The United Nations has called what is going on the “world’s largest humanitarian crisis”. There are credible allegations of genocide, backed by both the US and the UN, and there are well-documented cases of war crime. This is a war on civilians.
The UK, in its role as the UN penholder, must lead by example and convene international actors and leaders to urgent, concrete action. Will the Minister set out what urgent action she plans to take in the next week, particularly given that Parliament will not be sitting again until September, by which time many more lives will have been devastatingly lost?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend her for her important work in pulling together groups—in particular aid workers whose focus is on medical relief—and for her role on the Foreign Affairs Committee. I am sure she shares with me the worry about the news of a cholera outbreak in the region. I thank her for her important work in that regard. She also impresses on the House the importance of the UK’s support to women and girls.
The Foreign Secretary visited the Sudan-Chad border in January to raise awareness of Sudan, speaking directly to refugees, including survivors who shared harrowing stories of sexual violence and torture, and in March, Lord Collins, the Africa Minister, chaired a UN Security Council briefing on committing to the prevention of violence against women and girls in Sudan, but my hon. Friend is quite right to say that this week, as the House comes towards its rising, we must do even more. I will undertake to share this particular dialogue in the House with the Minister for Africa, so he can redouble his efforts in the month of August to ensure that the UK is well represented in international discussions.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The ongoing war in Sudan is the world’s largest humanitarian catastrophe and the biggest since aid began. I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, but I regret that in the past seven months there has been only one statement on Sudan from the Government.
Local and community-led emergency response rooms are central to the on-the-ground response. Will the Minister outline how the UK is increasing support to those ERRs? Since the London conference, what bilateral conversations have the Government had with regional actors and the US about Sudan? War crimes are being committed on an almost daily basis. The two principal warring parties oppose a democratic Sudan, so what are the Government doing to support Sudanese civilian groups and civil society fighting for the democratic future?
Since 2023, The New York Times has repeatedly reported that the United Arab Emirates is funnelling weapons to the Rapid Support Forces, and the UN’s expert panel on Sudan deemed those allegations credible. What are the Government doing to address the proliferation of outside weapons in Sudan, and to uphold and expand the arms embargo? How are they clamping down on the illicit international trade in Sudanese gold, which is financing this war? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the American judgment that chemical weapons are being used in Sudan?
Catherine West
The hon. Lady quite rightly pushes us to say more in this House. There have been lots of questions from Members when the Foreign Secretary has been answering broader questions, such as on G7 or NATO meetings, so Members across the House have asked questions under the umbrella of international affairs and the Foreign Secretary has replied to them, but we can always do more.
As the hon. Lady is aware, we need to keep up the momentum from the London Sudan conference. She asks who we are working with. We are of course working with the African Union. This is, first and foremost, a question of promoting leadership of African countries to deal with issues in Africa. The Foreign Secretary has redoubled his efforts as a well-respected Foreign Secretary within the African Union dialogues, and recently joined the EU-convened consultative group on Sudan in June, which I know the hon. Lady will appreciate and think is a worthwhile forum for us to be in. As mentioned, the friends of Sudan group in Geneva will also advance the work to protect civilians.
The hon. Lady mentions the UAE. Our message to any partners who may have an element of involvement in the conflict is clear: we need to press for a peaceful solution. All those supporting behind the scenes need to come together in the spirit of the London Sudan conference and talk about a peaceful solution for all.
On the hon. Lady’s last question, which was about gold in Sudan, I shall have to write to her.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
In response to an urgent question in April, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer) confirmed that the London Sudan conference included a commitment from the UK Government to provide a further £120 million of aid for 2025-26 to support 650,000 people, which the Minister referenced earlier. With that in mind, can the Minister today confirm to the House what progress has been made in the intervening few months to ensure that the additional aid reaches the most vulnerable people in Sudan fleeing conflict, sexual violence and famine?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend raises the most important point. It is not just about money; it is about access, our diplomatic heft and knocking heads together so we can get that aid through to the people most in need. He mentions the £120 million for this financial year. A portion of that uplift provides support to local responders, both through the Sudan Humanitarian Fund, which supports the emergency response rooms, and the Mercy Corps-led Cash Consortium of Sudan, which provides direct cash assistance to mutual aid groups on the ground. The reason for that is that there is often a de-banking situation in conflict zones—formal banking collapses. That is why it is so important that the UK is able to assist the smaller groups on the ground to get that vital aid in.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Such an enormous civilian price is being paid in Sudan, but one of the greatest horrors is the use of rape and sexual violence against women and children as a weapon of war—and it is being used systematically as a weapon of war. I appreciate that the Minister has limited options, but I urge her to look at every single way that we can be more robust and stronger, and really lead the charge to ensure that vital aid—not only to combat hunger but to help people who have been raped and who have suffered so much—is delivered as quickly as possible. Let us please lead the way.
Catherine West
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. The UK funds support for the protection, prevention and care services responding to gender-based violence and conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan, and they provide emergency support to survivors. Longer-term UK programmes also work to tackle female genital mutilation, and to empower women and girls.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I echo the words of my hon. Friends the Members for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) about the terrible and desperate suffering of women and children. I thank the Minister for her update, in which she highlighted the outcome of the London Sudan conference and the urgent need for access for aid. When I speak to my constituents from the Sudanese diaspora community, they talk about their desperate sadness in the conversations they have with their friends and family who are still in the region. Will the Minister update the House on the consular arrangements for the friends and family of my constituents?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner on behalf of her constituents in Westminster and the City. I encourage her and her staff to use the MP hotline, because that is the best way of getting through in order to get consular advice and to reassure our communities in the diaspora of Sudan.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for securing this urgent question on the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. I welcome the leadership steps that the UK Government are taking, but will the Minister tell the House what conversations are being had with both the African Union and the United Nations about the possibility of surging peacekeepers into Sudan to protect civilians?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Lady for her leadership role in the previous Parliament as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Sudan and South Sudan and as International Development Minister.
There are a number of partners; she has mentioned some of them. The participants at the London Sudan conference included Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, South Sudan, Chad, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda, and of course the like-mindeds: Norway, Canada, the USA and Switzerland. It was a perfect moment and the hon. Lady asks how we can continue that. We will redouble our efforts to work with the multilaterals such as the UN and the League of Arab States. There is quite a lot on their agenda at the moment, but it is very important that Sudan is not brought down the agenda just because it is in Africa. That is a fear, which is why it is so good to see the reporting in the Financial Times, The Guardian, and many of our other mainstream newspapers, to keep it in the spotlight. We will ensure that we work bilaterally with the countries we work with in normal times, and on a multilateral level to maintain our leadership role.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The humanitarian situation in Sudan is horrific, with the growing perpetration of atrocity crimes against civilians. This is part of a growing pattern of mass atrocity crimes being perpetrated across the world, but the UK Government’s strategy on prevention of and response to mass atrocity crimes has not been updated since 2019. Does the Minister agree that it is time for a fresh approach to this vital issue?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend knows of what she speaks, with her role before she came to this place. I shall take that as an action from today’s dialogue.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Will the Minister explain to the House what, in practical terms, the Security Council could do, even if all its members were neutral on the question of backing one side over the other? If two sides are determined to fight one another and neither is dependent on outside military assistance to pursue the conflict, is there anything practical that the Security Council could do, even if it was united and in agreement on the need for an intervention?
Catherine West
The UN Security Council is not just about military intervention, in terms of the security; as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, it is also about the impact of the diplomatic solutions. As the penholder, the UK has the most important role to try to bring everybody together around the table, which is why we had the London Sudan conference. There were some who threw their hands up and said, “We haven’t achieved anything,” but I think the important thing was that we laid down a marker, and that we are now following up with other partners and being seen as leaders in the area. It is by using the UN Security Council leadership role that we will eventually get to a solution. However, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there are a lot of fingers in the pie.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
What is happening in Sudan—in Darfur, in particular—is one of the world’s deepest and longest-running humanitarian crises. Unfortunately, we are seeing rising tensions and military action in neighbouring South Sudan, particularly in the Upper Nile region. The Ugandan army has recently entered South Sudan, and there is a real risk of regional conflict and civil war, which would create a much deeper humanitarian crisis across the whole region. What is the UK doing to de-escalate that potential conflict, such as talking to Uganda and South Sudan?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the longer the war lasts, the greater its ripple effect. We should give credit to countries like Egypt, Chad and South Sudan, alongside others nearby, for managing this crisis and for taking so many people in. There has also been aid from countries like the UK, but the impact within the region is devastating. I will certainly take back to the Minister for Africa my hon. Friend’s point about the impact on South Sudan and reply in writing with what we are going to do this month—not waiting until September, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) said.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
As a former aid worker and resident of Darfur, I feel deeply for the people of Sudan. Will the Minister say whether there are plans to increase the amount of spend for the emergency response rooms? They are clearly doing very valuable work at the moment.
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Gentleman for all the work he did before coming to Parliament and his important support for so many countries; I have been in debates with him on Myanmar and others. It is important that we lay on the record that £120 million is a lot of money, and that we have to follow that money. As I explained before, de-banking sometimes occurs in certain contexts, which is why we need to have those relationships on the ground with the sorts of aid organisations that my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow spoke about, covering the situation as it is today and how to maintain those relationships. My personal view is that it is not always just about the impact of the budget; sometimes it is about the diplomatic work that goes on around the funding so that we can maximise that money.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The brutal violence being perpetrated against Sudanese civilians is only fuelled by external actors from the UAE, Egypt, Russia and beyond. Will the Minister ensure diplomatic interventions with each of those nations and report back to the House on the outcome of those dialogues? Will she also ensure that the UK leads on banning the use of mercenaries in areas of conflict? We have not signed a convention as the UK Government, and it is time that we led a new convention on the use of mercenaries.
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for her work as the chair of the APPG for Sudan and South Sudan. We have now heard from both the former chair, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), and the current chair. I know that my hon. Friend has a Sudanese diaspora in her locality, too.
May I just emphasise that the UK is not protecting any country with an interest in this conflict? We have been very clear that we expect all countries to comply with existing UN sanctions regimes and the arms embargo, and we continue to work closely with partners at the UN Security Council to enforce them. We need to move on to the political resolution of the conflict. I also ask for my hon. Friend’s patience; I will fold the second part of her question into the challenge I had from my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) on updating some of our policies and procedures that have not been updated since 2019.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers to all the questions and her strong words on our commitment. I believe those words will encourage us all, and hopefully thereby encourage our constituents. Sudan ranks fifth on the Open Doors world watch list for Christian persecution, with more than 100 churches and Christian buildings forcibly seized in the conflict, with the latest church destroyed just last week. Christians are afraid to practise their faith, and the recent murder of 300 people in North Kordofan has underlined the valid reason that they live in fear. How can the Government assist? More importantly, will the Government intervene and help the people of this region, who are being exterminated just because they are Christians?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his relentless work in this House on freedom of religion or belief. Of course, the region used to be so much more diverse, but the space for religious freedom has really narrowed. He is quite right to challenge that. With his permission, I will share his thoughts with our freedom of religion or belief champion, my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), so that we can work together on this issue and shine a spotlight on the lack of freedom for Christian communities in particular, but also for other minority communities in the Darfur region.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I am sure all hon. Members will want to praise British diplomats for all they are doing on this difficult issue. The potential catastrophic loss of ever more civilian life—not merely in the armed conflict, but in the resulting humanitarian catastrophe—means that the conscience of the world must lead to action, first and foremost through diplomacy. Have the Government considered working with allies to ensure that all options remain on the table, given concepts like the responsibility to protect? Given that Sudan has previously seen a genocide in Darfur, does the Minister agree that we must ensure that the international community does not once again have to say, “If only we had acted more robustly,” or, “Never again”?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for his extensive work in civil society on these sorts of issues. The current position is for us to engage extensively through diplomatic means to encourage all parties to come to the table. We are very aware of the complexity of this particular conflict and the fact that it is not just two sides within the region, but a lot of other players. We are uniquely positioned with our role on the United Nations Security Council and with our other partners; for instance, we do a lot with the League of Arab States and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation. We are using our diplomatic efforts double time at the moment, but I do hear what my hon. Friend says.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
Given that certain UN initiatives and efforts to address this humanitarian catastrophe have encountered a degree of reluctance, if not opposition, from states such as Russia, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government are working closely with regional partners. Will she elaborate on the work that is being done to support countries such as Egypt and multilateral organisations like the African Union to address this humanitarian crisis and, if not to broker a ceasefire, to ensure the unblocking of humanitarian aid?
Catherine West
I thank the hon. Member for his long-standing interest in development. I know that he will be pleased to hear that the participants with whom we worked at the London conference continue to be our partners in this endeavour. They include Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, South Sudan, Chad, Kenya, Ethiopia and Uganda. Within my own brief as the Indo-Pacific Minister, I am able to talk about terrible conflicts such as those in Sudan and Myanmar with like-minded people, including with those in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which also cares deeply about their brothers in Sudan and Myanmar. We must redouble our efforts to have on our agenda in future diplomatic interventions those terrible ongoing conflicts that are not enjoying the spotlight of public attention.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her responses so far. She will be aware of the indiscriminate aerial bombardments in the conflict and the failure to distinguish between military and civilian targets. Are the Government considering further targeted sanctions on those leaders responsible for, or accused of, atrocities and war crimes in the area?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. Since the outbreak of the conflict in 2023, the UK has frozen the assets of nine commercial entities linked to the parties involved in the conflict. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, the UK has also sanctioned two generals of Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces for their crimes against civilians in November 2024. He is also right to emphasise the use of drones in this particular conflict and how difficult it is for civilians to know how to shield themselves against them. This new method of war is very much at the top of our agenda when we speak with like-minded people.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
May I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for keeping the plight of the Sudanese at the forefront of our thoughts. We often hear the adage, “out of sight, out of mind”, and, unfortunately, the conflict in Sudan does not engage the mainstream media in the way that it should. We know about the recent harrowing events in North Kordofan, where 300 civilians, including children and pregnant women, were massacred. We know that, historically, there have been international peacekeeping troops on the ground. Will the Minister explore that opportunity with the relevant nations? Does she believe that that is something that can be considered?
Catherine West
Just last month, we joined the UN-EU consultative group on Sudan for the first time, alongside our partners from the US, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the African Union and the League of Arab States. That was at the top of the agenda. Our role at the moment is very much focused on being the penholder at the UN, but all channels are open and we are listening to all views. The important thing is that we try to get round the table again and maintain the momentum that we had for that brief moment at the London conference.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
With 150,000 men, women and children dead, 13 million people displaced, attacks on humanitarian workers, and reports of ethnic cleansing and genocide, Sudan is undoubtedly the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today, yet almost nobody knows about it. We have had no marches on the streets, comparatively little media attention, and very few statements and urgent questions in the House. Will the Minister set out what more the Government can do to raise awareness of the desperate need to address this conflict?
Catherine West
I thank my hon. Friend for his spotlight on this issue. The UK condemns the growing body of evidence of serious atrocities being committed against civilians in Sudan: the escalation of violence; the killing of civilians; the sexual assault of women; and the restriction of humanitarian access. That is why the Foreign Secretary visited the Sudan-Chad border to raise awareness of the conflict in Sudan and its impact on neighbouring countries. He spoke directly to Sudanese refugees, including to survivors, who shared harrowing stories of sexual violence and torture. The Minister for Africa, for whom this is probably the highest priority area, hosted an event with his Dutch and Swiss counterparts to discuss the alarming rates of conflict-related sexual violence in Sudan and the inadequacy of current responses, and we will redouble our efforts following this urgent question to ensure that we follow that up.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The unfolding scenario in Sudan almost defies description. The Minister has quite rightly spoken about the importance of accessibility. Does she agree that, for accessibility to work in terms of aid, resources and assistance, there needs to be a comprehensive international approach in order even to offer the prospect of hope and delivery within the next few months?
Catherine West
The hon. Member is absolutely right to talk about the importance not just of our bilateral meetings, but of working at that multilateral level. At the same time, we need to provide support in that important area of gathering facts as we go along, because the fog of war can prevent that. Let me give one example. The UK provided £989,000 to the Sudan Witness project started by the Centre of Information Resilience, which investigates attacks against civilians and works with Sudanese civil society organisations as well as the United Nations fact-finding mission to support evidence gathering and accountability, so that, one day, justice will be served.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her answers today, and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for bringing this urgent question to the House. The events in Sudan are undoubtedly an ongoing stain on the conscience of the global community. I am deeply concerned about increasing the accountability of those who are complicit or guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity. Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce), can the Minister assure me and my constituents that she will leave no stone unturned in making sure that people face justice for the things that they have either enabled or taken part in?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend is right to say that the reports coming out of Darfur are horrifying. Some of the violence has shown the hallmarks of ethnic cleansing and may amount to crimes against humanity. The Foreign Secretary heard this at first hand from survivors when he was in Adre in January. Irrespective of any determinations in the International Criminal Court, we know that we will strongly and always support its active investigation into the situation in Darfur, including allegations of crimes committed since April 2023, and that is why the UK has provided technical support in this regard.
Financial Services Reform
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall update the House on the content of the Leeds reforms.
The reforms encompass the Government’s financial services growth and competitiveness strategy, which is our 10-year plan for financial services. This plan will make the UK the global centre of choice for financial services investment by 2035, with all parts of the country benefiting from its success, building on our thriving regional financial services clusters around the country.
The financial services sector is one of this country’s largest and most productive sectors. It is worth 9% of total economic output and provides 1.2 million jobs across the UK’s nations and regions. Our strategy will unleash the potential of the sector to catalyse growth, enterprise and opportunity in the rest of the economy. That will mean that working people will get better returns on their savings, that home ownership will be unlocked for tens of thousands more people, and that more businesses will get access to the capital that they need to grow.
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade recently presented to this House our modern industrial strategy in which financial services was identified as one of the key eight growth driving sectors on which the Government will focus. This builds on the successes of our first year in office, which I am proud to highlight: the fastest growth in the G7 in the first quarter of this year; four interest rate cuts; faster wage growth in the past 10 months than the previous 10 years of the last Government; the FTSE100 yesterday at a record high; and business confidence at its highest in nine years. [Interruption.] I will not take lectures from the Conservatives, who presided over inflation at 11% and debt rising year after year.
Our vision is of an active state working in partnership with business, and the Leeds reforms were co-designed with industry. The Chancellor and I undertook extensive engagement in its preparation, and I was pleased to see financial services firms across the country and the Confederation of Business Industry welcome our reforms publicly. The reforms reintroduce informed risk taking into our financial services system to deliver prosperity for working people. We will always ensure that financial stability is a prerequisite for economic growth, and we continue to uphold our commitment to the high international standards that underpin the resilience of the global financial system.
I will briefly set out the details of our package to the House. First, the Government are delivering a competitive regulatory environment to attract investment and drive growth. We have set out plans to deliver the most significant reform to the Financial Ombudsman Service since its inception, ensuring that it no longer acts as a quasi-regulator and returning it to its original purpose as an independent, impartial dispute resolution service for complaints between consumers and financial services firms.
We are also streamlining the senior managers and certification regime to reduce the burdens imposed on firms by 50% and to reduce approval times. We have tasked the Financial Conduct Authority to report back by September on how it plans to address concerns about the application of the consumer duty for firms primarily engaged in wholesale activity.
Secondly, our reforms unlock capital for investment into our infrastructure and businesses. We are doing this by supporting the Bank of England’s changes to MREL—the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities—and by confirming our approach to Basel 3.1, implementing lower capital requirements for domestically focused banks from January 2027 while preserving flexibility in our approach for international banks to ensure that the UK remains competitive and aligned with international standards.
We are also committing to meaningful reform to ringfencing, while maintaining the aspects of the regime that support financial stability and protect customer deposits. We welcome the Financial Policy Committee’s review of the overall bank capital levels needed for UK financial stability and its decision to ease its loan-to-income restriction on mortgage lending. I am delighted that this decision will enable up to 36,000 additional first-time buyers to access mortgages in the first year.
Thirdly, we are making the UK the location of choice for fintechs to start up, scale and list, and we want the wider financial services sector to embrace innovation too. The FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority will launch a scale-up unit to ensure that fast-growing businesses have the support they need to grow. The regulators will also introduce a new streamlined authorisation regime that will enable innovative firms to start operating while they await full approval. We are modernising and future-proofing the regulatory framework for payments and e-money, including stablecoin, and we are establishing a new model to deliver next-generation retail payments infrastructure.
Fourthly, we are seizing opportunities in key areas of UK leadership, from speciality insurance and asset management to sustainable finance. Our insurance sector has been world-leading for centuries, and we are committed to staying at the front of the pack by creating a new captive insurance framework and holding an industry showcase event later this year to sell the sector globally. We are also future-proofing the regulatory regime for our asset management sector, which is the second largest in the world, and we will publish draft legislation on that early next year.
The UK is already a leading global hub for sustainable finance. We have set out plans for a stable regulatory framework, and we are giving industry clarity by deciding not to pursue a green taxonomy and by focusing instead on ambitious policies that support investors to invest in the transition. I look forward to continuing to work with Lord Alok Sharma and the Transition Finance Council, which he chairs, to make the UK the leading international hub for raising transition finance.
Fifthly, we want to go further in building a new retail investment culture and boosting our capital markets’ competitiveness. We have taken great strides to reform our pensions system, led by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), so that people can have better savings in retirement. We want savers to get the best returns on their savings. For too many their money is not working hard enough, and for too long advice on investments has been the preserve of only the wealthiest in society. To address this, the Chancellor has announced the biggest reform of the financial advice and guidance landscape in more than a decade and the introduction of targeted support in time for the new tax year. The Chancellor and I welcome the steps being taken by industry to help consumers engage with investing. I particularly thank Chris Cummings of the Investment Association for the work he is leading on that.
We are also considering reforming the individual savings account system to ensure better outcomes for both savers and the UK economy. We are allowing long-term asset funds to be held in stocks and shares ISAs next year. This will allow more individuals to invest in assets that will support the UK’s success while seeing better returns on their savings. To ensure that our capital markets support British business, we are announcing a new listings taskforce with the Office for Investment to attract world-leading businesses towards initial public offering in the UK. We are publishing a wholesale financial markets digital strategy to harness innovation as well as our ambitious design for the digital gilt instrument pilot.
Finally, we are taking steps to enhance the UK’s leadership in financial services, ensuring that the UK remains the most open and connected financial centre in the world. We will launch a concierge service—the Office for Investment: Financial Services—to attract international financial services firms to invest in the UK and grow their business. We are further facilitating cross-border activity with the publication of guidance on our overseas recognition regimes and a memorandum of understanding with UK regulators, a copy of which I will place in the Library in both Houses.
Through these steps, the Government have placed financial services at the heart of our growth mission. Our 10-year strategy is ambitious, includes the most far-reaching reforms to financial services for a decade, and will unleash the fantastic potential of our world-leading financial services sector. We are backing British businesses, unlocking home ownership for tens of thousands of people across the country, supporting savers to get better returns, and investing in our shared future. I commend this statement to the House.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for advance sight of her statement. There is much in these Leeds reforms—many of which were formerly known as the Edinburgh reforms—that can be welcomed, and some of the details were laid out by the Chancellor in her Mansion House speech last night.
The Conservatives will always support reforms to our financial sector that ensure that the City of London remains a global powerhouse, but the Chancellor’s rhetoric last night about growth and stability obscures the truth of this Government’s record of delivery. Inflation is now at 3.6%—the highest in the G7—and growth has all but stalled. Despite yesterday’s fanfare for reform, the reality is that having run short on other ideas, the Government are now forced to turn once again to the City of London for inspiration—a last throw of the dice, hoping that it will provide an engine for the growth that their policies are stifling.
Last night the Chancellor described her Government as a “beacon of stability”, but let us not forget the actual legacy that was handed over to her. We enjoyed near record levels of employment. Unemployment was at historic lows, and inflation was under control. That is the stable foundation on which this Government were handed the keys, yet they now preside over instability. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the OECD and the Bank of England have all sounded the alarm that our growth prospects have collapsed. The Government claim to be cutting red tape for industry, but let us remember that their plan to make work pay would in fact burden employers with over 70 new regulations, reminiscent of the 1970s.
The Chancellor’s talk of unleashing the power of the City comes even as her party threatens to smother businesses in paperwork and expense. When it comes to proposals for financial services, the Conservatives welcome much that gives the sector confidence and clarity, but warm words must be matched by careful delivery. On reforms to the Financial Ombudsman Service, there is agreement that it should return to its impartial roots as a fast and effective dispute resolution service, not a quasi-regulator, but so many business and consumers are awaiting clarity, so can the Minister confirm whether these changes will limit the FOS’s power to make backdated legal determinations, and what impact will the reforms have on ongoing legal proceedings, such as the crucial car finance case before the Supreme Court?
Streamlining the approach of the FCA and the PRA may remove unnecessary friction, but we must ensure that this does not become window dressing while critical challenges remain. The FCA and the PRA must accept that stability in the markets is not the only way to deliver growth. Both their objectives must be aligned and equally ambitious in their drive for reform.
The Chancellor trumpeted reforms to ISAs, including new rules for long-term asset funds, which we welcome if that broadens access to higher-return assets for ordinary savers, but there is still no certainty on the future of the cash ISA. Without clarity, the Government risk undermining their own ambition to promote home ownership and inclusive investment, which again was trumpeted by the Chancellor during her Mansion House speech last night.
On capital investment policy, we welcome MREL reform, which was a change I championed during the recent passage of the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025. This will help challenger banks to compete and expand lending.
We cautiously welcome the Government’s review of ringfencing rules, but will they confirm that all options are being considered, including alignment with the US and the EU, which, as the Minister knows, never implemented ringfencing rules?
More broadly, the history of the last Labour Government reminds us that good intentions are never enough. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, introduced by the then Chancellor, along with the tripartite system, was well conceived but badly implemented, contributing to the events of the 2008 financial crisis. It falls to this Government now to demonstrate that they will not repeat those mistakes.
Finally, at Mansion House last night the Chancellor missed a crucial opportunity to be straight with the British people and rule out further tax rises. Will the Minister guarantee that working families and businesses will not face more tax increases? Will she rule out any further surprise raids on the British taxpayer?
Britain’s financial services sector has always thrived when reforms are clear. The test of these reforms will come when the full details emerge, but ultimately growth will come only when the Chancellor realises that hard-working people and businesses across the country are the real engines of economic growth.
Emma Reynolds
Well, half of that was all right, I suppose. I do want to start constructively and thank the hon. Member for his welcome for some of the reforms. I will answer some of his specific questions before I come to the wider points.
On the Financial Ombudsman Service, we have set out in great detail what we will do. As he will be aware, some of the changes require primary legislation. We are proposing an absolute time limit of 10 years, but with discretion for the FCA to give longer periods in the case of products with a longer lifetime. I cannot comment on the ongoing car finance issue, which as he knows is working its way through the courts.
The hon. Member talked about the regulators’ different objectives. We have been very clear with the regulators that we expect them to embed their secondary objective to facilitate economic growth and competitiveness while obviously complying with their other objectives. He will see that in the remit letters that the Chancellor sent to the regulators at the last Mansion House speech last November.
On ISAs, I welcome what the hon. Member said about long-term asset funds, which we think will unlock great opportunities for savers. We continue to consider reform to ISAs. We would like to ensure that more people have the opportunity and confidence to invest, which is why we hope that targeted support, which will be introduced by firms by the end of this tax year—we have worked at pace on this—will really shift the dial and give people that confidence to invest.
I think the hon. Member said he was in favour of what we are doing on MREL, and I know that he agreed with the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act, which we put through the House and is coming into force today. I thank him for his support on that.
On ringfencing, we have detailed which areas we will look at. I am happy to write to him further on that, but one area, for example, is sharing resources across the ringfenced and non-ringfenced parts of banks. We want to ensure that we strike the right balance between growth and stability.
I turn to the hon. Member’s points about economic stability. I will take no lessons from the Conservatives—I hate to say it. We had inflation at 11%, people paying extremely high mortgage rates and debt rising year after year. The only thing that was stable under their Government was wages, which were flatlining.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for the statement and look forward to the Treasury Committee talking to—or interrogating—her, and indeed the Chancellor, about the detail as it emerges. Since the election, one of the things the Government have been talking about, leading on from the previous Government, is the secondary remit letters to the regulators about encouraging growth as a secondary objective. Can she tell us when the Government will be clear about their own appetite for risk in the sector so that both firms and the regulators know how far the Government will be prepared to go? She and I know from our experience in this place that if too many consumers suffer under any changes, this place is where that will be raised, and then there is a tendency for the Government to turn around and say, “Well, you went too far.” For the sake of the sector, the regulator and our constituents, will she tell us—or will she tell us when she can—where the Government’s line on risk will fall?
Emma Reynolds
I thank my hon. Friend for that thoughtful question. I am happy to talk to the Committee about that in more detail. What I will say is that the Leeds reforms regulate for growth instead of seeking to eliminate risk from the system altogether. We know that in order to get greater returns, there is a need to take informed risk. The reforms will enable firms and consumers to take informed risks. But we will always support the regulators and legislate in a way that protects consumers from bad practices and bad actors.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
There is much to welcome in the statement. I hope that it sends a strong signal to the fintech sector and sustainable finance that UK plc is open for business, but it is important to get the balance right between growth and risk.
We Liberal Democrats welcome the announcement of a scale-up unit. Will it have a mandate to look at liquidity and valuation, which are two of the challenges that prevent British start-ups from scaling up here at home?
On the retail investment culture, we welcome plans to reform financial advice and guidance and to launch a national advertising campaign. We believe that we should trust people to weigh up the risk and rewards of investment, if they are properly informed. But we also know that money habits are formed at a young age. Will the Minister advise whether the Government have any plans to introduce financial literacy as part of the school curriculum—indeed, from cradle to grave? Will the Government confirm when they will bring forward any reforms at all to cash ISAs? The uncertainty around the issue is undermining their own goal of incentivising more investment.
On mortgages, many renters have been crowded out of getting on to the housing ladder, so this announcement will sound exciting to them, but what reassurance can the Minister provide that this additional lending will not result in boom and bust? With inflation jumping today, how many of those up to 36,000 first-time homeowners will realistically get on the housing ladder in the next year?
We welcome the streamlining of checks on senior managers, but will the Government confirm that those changes will not expose financial firms and their customers to greater risk? If the Government want a step change in economic growth, this is a start, but they must go further and faster by having a better trading deal with the EU.
Emma Reynolds
We have a very good deal with the EU, which we agreed in May this year and will continue to build on. I was pleased to have invited the European Commissioner for Financial Services, Maria Luís Albuquerque, who was at the dinner last night at the Mansion House. I will try to get through all the hon. Member’s questions.
On liquidity and valuations, I point out that we have some of the deepest capital markets in the world. Last year, the amount of equity capital raised in London was larger than in the next three European exchanges put together. However, I recognise the issues she talked about.
On the advertising campaign, Chris Cummings of the Investment Association is leading the secretariat. He will also be looking at risk warnings. That is not to say there should not be risk warnings, but that there should be a balance in risk warnings to ensure that warnings are also informing people of the benefits of investing over the long term.
The hon. Member rightly talked about the importance of financial education and capability. We will put forward suggestions on that in the financial inclusion strategy, which we will publish in the autumn. However, as this is a cross-Government effort, I reassure her that I am speaking and meeting actively with the Minister for School Standards so that we are aligned with the Department for Education’s curriculum review.
The hon. Member asked about mortgages. May I reassure her? Obviously, we have had extensive regulations since the global financial crash and we are not going back to the bad old days when there were no verification checks on affordability and 125% mortgages. But the system we have got means that people on modest incomes are unable to get on the housing ladder. Nationwide has said that because of the Bank of England’s recent decision, it will be able to help an additional 10,000 people a year with its helping hand mortgage to fulfil their dream of home ownership. I think that is a great step forward and will mean that people across the country, like many in this House, can benefit from the security of home ownership, and particularly those on modest incomes and in generations that are being deprived of such opportunities.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call John Grady, a member of the Treasury Committee.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
The reforms are targeted at getting greater investment into British infrastructure and cutting red tape. Does my hon. Friend agree that it was a little bit rum for Opposition parties to criticise our Government for introducing red tape when they voted against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which creates projects that people can invest in and provides houses, which are a key restraint on house price inflation?
Emma Reynolds
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We are intent on building the 1.5 million homes that we promised at the election. I remind the chuntering hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench that even before the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, the OBR scored the first stage of the planning reforms as the largest increase in GDP by the end of the scorecard of any non-fiscal lever in its history.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Economic Secretary may want to have a look at Hansard and make sure she got the right soundbite on the record about the 10 months of wage growth and the comparison. My understanding is that wage growth was indeed slow after the financial crash. We tried to compensate for that by increasing personal allowances, but wage growth has bounced back since the pandemic. She may want to correct the record if that is the case.
On the reforms, which have migrated from Edinburgh down to Leeds, the Treasury Committee will scrutinise the implementation. Is it her vision that they should be implemented over the next year, before the next Mansion House speech, rather than on the 10-year basis of the strategy as she outlined?
Emma Reynolds
I refer the hon. Lady to page 63 of the strategy, which is very useful. It sets out an ambitious timeline for implementing the reforms that the Chancellor set out at the Mansion House last night and in Leeds yesterday morning, and shows her that we have already taken action to implement some of the decisions we took in November last year, such as introducing the private intermittent securities and capital exchange system. PISCES is a new private intermittent securities market that is open for business, and for which we legislated in May. That demonstrates how we are working at pace. Other things will take a little longer, and her extensive experience in this place and in government means that she will understand that some of those things require primary legislation. However, she will see through the two-page summary at the back of the strategy how we plan to implement the reforms at pace to unleash the potential of the financial services sector.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Too many of my constituents are trapped in the rental market, paying off someone else’s mortgage instead of saving for a home of their own. Average rents in Birmingham have now passed £1,000 a month for the first time, driven sharply upwards since the mini-Budget. I strongly welcome the Chancellor’s Leeds reforms, which will help 36,000 first-time buyers on to the housing ladder. Will the Minister say more about what the Government are doing to boost housing supply so that home ownership can become a reality for more people in cities such as mine?
Emma Reynolds
As was said previously, the package that we announced yesterday, as well as the announcement by the Bank of England and the FCA’s discussion paper, go to the heart of making sure that we have the right balance between ensuring people have affordable mortgage products and ensuring that those products are accessible to more people up and down the country. As she will know—I am sure that she is referring to this—the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and some of the other planning reforms that we set forward are some of the most ambitious for a generation. They will unlock the potential for those homes to be built so that we can get more and more first-time buyers on to the housing ladder.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Leeds reforms; they build on many of the things that were done under the previous Administration and I acknowledge the consumer-facing changes on mortgages and ISAs and the aspiration to get more people investing. Those are positive things.
I will just say two things. First, on the listing review, we did one about four years ago and it is all just about implemented. I urge the Minister to look at culture and fiscal issues as much as at regulatory issues. Secondly, on the PRA and the scale of ambition on that side of the regulatory framework, in conversations with senior leaders at Mansion House last night, it was felt that the FCA’s level of ambition is high but that there must be wariness about a constant shifting of the goalposts and a lack of real change, particularly on the internal rating base and how banks can get their regulatory capital treated differently more quickly. It is taking too long and that needs to change urgently.
Emma Reynolds
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we have not announced a listing review; we have announced a listings taskforce—[Interruption.] It is different, if hon. Members will let me explain. It is a joint piece of work between the Office for Investment, His Majesty’s Treasury and other Government Departments to make sure that we attract the best and brightest companies to list here in the UK. He is correct, though: many reforms were undertaken by his Government on listings, taking forward the Jonathan Hill and Mark Austin reviews, and we welcomed and supported those.
The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that yesterday the FCA published its final prospectus rules. Of course, we have to get the regulatory side of the equation right, but he is correct that there are other factors at play, which we are looking at. On the FCA and the PRA, all I will say to reassure him is that, as he knows, I hold the relationship with both those regulators as the Economic Secretary. We will continue to push them to be ambitious in supporting our growth agenda.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I just want to confirm that my name is Clive, not Cassandra, Lewis—and yet, I feel like the Trojan princess, forever warning of things that will go wrong but being ignored. Will the Minister provide reassurance, given that the Bank of England has repeatedly warned that loosening mortgage lending standards and allowing more people to borrow larger sums relative to their income can push up house prices and increase financial instability? I appreciate that these are not the same deregulations that took place before the 2008 crash, but given the state of the global economy, surely she will understand that many of us on the Government Benches are cautious about deregulating at a time of such instability. I understand that we want to get more people on the housing ladder and to increase growth, but there is a risk. I wonder whether that risk has been duly appreciated.
Emma Reynolds
I reassure my hon. Friend that our agenda is to streamline regulation and make it more proportionate, and that there remain firm guardrails and affordability checks for mortgage providers. At the moment, the level of repossessions is very low and banks and other mortgage providers do all they can to avoid repossessing people’s homes. As I said before, we will not go back to the bad old days of 125% mortgages and no verification of affordability. This is about rebalancing the system to make sure that more people can afford to buy their own home, but it is also about striking the right balance between ensuring that we take more informed risk while ensuring financial stability. He is right to ask the question.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Chancellor announced quite a list of reforms yesterday. I note that many were on the shopping list of industry, so the Committee will examine them closely to make sure they also work for the consumer and for the long-term stability of the economy. One change in particular, on ringfencing, will worry those with strong memories of the 2008 financial crash. The shadow Economic Secretary indicated that perhaps we need to look at removing the ringfencing entirely. That would be a big step backwards. These reforms were driven by the Liberal Democrat Vince Cable, and the idea was to separate everyday customer deposits from the risks of investment banking. Will the Minister give us assurances that the hard-earned savings of families across the country will not be put at risk by the speculative activity of people playing with other people’s money?
Emma Reynolds
It is always a great pleasure to come and give evidence to the hon. Gentleman’s Committee. I reassure him that the Government are upholding the ringfencing regime. We must strike the right balance between protecting financial stability and safeguarding depositors. Equally, we think that there are some flexibilities that should be explored within the ringfencing regime that will allow further growth and further capital to be deployed in the real economy.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and commend the work that she and the Chancellor have done on the wider Leeds reforms. I want to pick up on the forthcoming campaign to promote retail investment, which has the potential to reshape public understanding of risk, reward and financial planning. The problem with many similar campaigns is that they have failed to reach the people who most need them, so can the Minister provide a bit more detail about how the Treasury intends to work with both the financial services industry and civil society to ensure that the campaign delivers measurable benefits and improvements in financial capability across the whole population?
Emma Reynolds
My hon. Friend is a great campaigner on this issue, and he is absolutely right: this is not an easy nut to crack. We will work closely with the industry-led campaign. We need to give people who want to invest and save for the longer term the confidence to consider whether they can secure better returns through investing, rather than just holding large amounts—if they have those large amounts—of money in cash.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Whenever I listen to the excellent Times Radio and other commercial broadcasters, I am always favourably impressed by the fact that at the end of every positive advertisement for a financial product, three words are said: “capital at risk”. Can the Minister assure the House that in the review of risk warnings that will be undertaken, that fundamental red flag, at the end of people pushing us to invest our money in some grand and profitable enterprise, will not be left out?
Emma Reynolds
I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not suggesting getting rid of risk warnings. I think that is what he was asking me most directly. One of the investment platforms did some research into the wording of risk warnings, and he will probably know that there is quite a gender gap. If we look at the figures from the Financial Conduct Authority’s financial lives survey, we see that more men have the confidence to invest than women, for example. There are other demographic factors, too. We want to give people the option and the confidence to invest, but of course there will always be risk warnings. However, there is also a risk if someone holds all their savings in cash over the long term, due to inflation.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s inquiry into regional innovation and growth has repeatedly heard that access to capital outside London and the south-east is the biggest barrier to start-ups scaling up and delivering growth and jobs. The reforms that the Minister has set out to reintroduce informed risk taking, which I am sure will be prudently implemented, should realise capital to catalyse growth. Can she say a little about how this will deliver more capital investment into the productive economy of the north-east?
Emma Reynolds
I might not be able to give my hon. Friend the specifics about her region right now, but I will say that my colleague the Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), has secured an ambitious industry-led accord—the Mansion House accord—that commits 17 pension funds, representing 90% of active defined-contribution savers, to invest 10% of their funds in private assets, half of which are to be in the UK. They will be on the hunt for good firms that could be successful in the future and that need capital to start up and scale up. We are also working closely with the British Business Bank on these issues, as my hon. Friend will know.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
After 20 years in the City of London, over the last year I have had to endure a stream of what I would call financially illiterate verbal baby food. Today I hear the Chancellor talk about regulating for growth. You do not regulate for growth; you deregulate for growth. The genesis of our problems are the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority, which sprung from the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. This was a Labour Act that created the Financial Services Authority, which turned into the PRA and the FCA. Those two organisations have shut the City of London down. We are now a shadow of our former selves in terms of raising global capital, and I heard you say the opposite—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Please be seated; I am on my feet. You heard the Minister say that. You do not refer to the Minister as “you”. Please come to the question.
Rupert Lowe
My question is this: is the Minister aware of the concept of buyer beware, or caveat emptor, which used to be the basis of financial regulation? It is very risky to force people into more and more high-risk investments as you hollow out our economy with higher taxes and regulation.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. You meant, “as the Minister hollows out”, not me. Minister—a swift response.
Emma Reynolds
Well, what do I say to that? I think there is, with the exception of the hon. Member, cross-party support for the twin peaks financial services regulation that we have. Of course, we need proportionate regulation to ensure that there are protections in place for consumers. He seems to be suggesting that we get rid of the regulators altogether, which I think most Members of this House would be opposed to. I have heard of the concept of caveat emptor, and I am suitably patronised by him.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
One of the first visits I undertook after the election was to my local branch of Nationwide, which for generations has been providing good financial advice and advice to first-time buyers in my seat, as have many other mutuals. In one of the previous periods of financial deregulation by the Conservative party, we saw a movement that led to the demutualisation of the building society movement, creating uncertainty for thousands upon thousands of potential homeowners and people looking for financial support. Can the Minister reassure the House today that the co-operative and mutual sector will remain absolutely essential to the everyday financial services that working people need?
Emma Reynolds
Absolutely. This is something that the Chancellor and I—and indeed the Business Secretary and the Business Minister—are passionate about, and we are making sure that we deliver on our manifesto commitment to double the size of the sector. We have asked the financial services regulators to report by the end of the year on what more they can do to support the growth of the sector. We are supporting the industry-led Mutual and Co-operatives Business Council, which is chaired by the chair of Nationwide, Kevin Parry, and we have recently concluded a call for evidence on the credit union common bond, which is another form of mutual. We will be setting out our response on that issue in due course.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Given the news on inflation today, along with the ongoing increases in unemployment and the downgrading of growth forecasts, it is quite right that this Government are looking for other ways to stimulate growth. One of the reasons being put forward for these reforms is the poor rates of return on ordinary bank accounts and savings accounts, but what my constituents want are just decent rates of return on ordinary savings accounts. Martin Lewis and others have pointed out that that market remains stubbornly resistant to passing on interest rate savings and offering competitive rates. I understand why the Government want to encourage people to invest in other types of savings, but what plans do they have to tackle the poor rates of return that people are getting from their ordinary savings and bank accounts?
Emma Reynolds
I am engaging with Martin Lewis, who is a doughty champion of consumers across the country. I say to the hon. Member that, due to the consumer duty, banks and other providers have a duty to ensure that they deliver the best outcomes for their consumers, but I note what he has said.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and I note especially the new concierge service within the Office for Investment that will both court international development and act as a one-stop shop to promote the UK. What regional dimension might be considered within that for places such as the east midlands—the region for which I am an MP—where there is significant potential for jobs and investment?
Emma Reynolds
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the concierge service will be working across the country. This is about ensuring that the UK has a single shop window for international firms looking to either set up or invest further in the UK. As we set out in the Leeds reforms, the benefits of that investment and of unleashing the potential of the financial services industry should be felt across the country, in the east midlands and beyond.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The grim truth is that people’s living standards in Wales have still not recovered from the 2008 crash, which resulted in a Labour Prime Minister bailing out the banks and the Tory austerity experiment, so why are the Government risking a repeat of the mistakes of the past when all the evidence shows—this is important—that growth will not trickle down from poorly regulated bankers?
Emma Reynolds
I gently say to the right hon. Member that we are not talking about going back to 2007—we have come a long way since then. Of course, after the crash, financial services regulations and a new system of financial services regulation in terms of the twin peaks of the FCA and the PRA—conduct and prudential—were introduced. We are not talking about going back to then. We are not bringing back 125% mortgages, as I have repeatedly said. We are simply saying that we need to reassess where we are and that the pendulum has swung too far the other way. We need to rebalance the system so that both consumers and firms can take informed risks to drive growth across the country. That will make people better off and give them the opportunity to secure better returns on their savings. I encourage her to look at the detail of this. We are looking to rebalance the system, not go back to where we were.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial technology and a mother to a 17-year-old daughter who turns 18 this year and is considering how she can best save for and secure her future, I welcome this news with real joy as we try to bring more wealth to more people. I suspect this joy is shared by Ayesha Ofori, the founder of Propelle, a platform that encourages women into retail investing, which can start with some very small sums indeed; Nina Mohanty, who founded Bloom Money, which supports people from ethnic minority communities to build generational wealth through group savings and budgets; and Georgia Stewart, founder of Tumelo, which has a mission to bring shareholder democracy to the digital age, giving everybody a seat at the table, whether that is an institution managing billions or everyday savers. Does the Minister agree that this Government’s approach of encouraging investing should in turn give confidence to those who are considering investing in these female-founded fintech companies, so they can scale and reach more people to help them become wealthier and more secure?
Emma Reynolds
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who is a fantastic champion of fintech. We already have a thriving fintech sector, which is the second largest in the world—second only to the US—and we are determined to ensure that those companies access the capital and the authorisations and licences that they need from the regulators. Obviously, that is a decision for the regulators, but it should be done at pace so that these companies can get off the ground and start to scale, providing the opportunities for retail investment and, critically, providing innovative products for consumers across the country.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement. The No. 1 thing that my constituents raise with me is the soaring cost of the private rented sector. Does she agree that these reforms will help first-time buyers in Harlow get on the housing ladder? Working alongside the £39 billion of investment in social housing, that can only be good for my residents.
Emma Reynolds
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We want to ensure that the dream of home ownership is expanded across the country, including to his constituency of Harlow. Because of the reforms we are taking forward, and there will be more to come, the estimate is that 36,000 new first-time buyers will be able to buy their homes in the first year of this reform being in place.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
In her statement, the Economic Secretary was right when she alluded to the FTSE being at a record high yesterday, though many international indices, whether in the US, the far east or Europe, are also at record highs since the April low. She also alluded to the cash ISA problem. What will be done to instil confidence among the wider public who hold money and cash assets but are reluctant and fearful of investing, even in lower-risk collective investments that, over the longer term, would produce much better returns than cash ISAs, which are subject, as she rightly says, to inflation?
Emma Reynolds
I thank the hon. Member for his thoughtful question. We are doing a number of things. First, we are working at pace with the FCA to ensure that targeted support is in place by the end of the tax year and in time for the new ISA season in April next year. We are looking at the risk warnings and at the industry-led campaign on advertising the opportunities of investing. We are doing all that we can. It is good that hon. Members on different sides of the House are supporting us.
Obviously, different people will be at different stages in their journey through life. People who are retired may not want to invest in the stock market. I can understand that, from their perspective, they need more readily available cash, but if people who are younger or middle aged—I do not know where I fall in those categories—[Interruption.] Thank you. If people can even put a small amount away, they can invest in their future. It concerned me recently when a report suggested that many people did not know that their pensions were invested in the stock market and that that is how they get better returns in their retirement. We need to run a huge campaign with the private sector to educate people about the opportunities and to give people the confidence to invest. At the end of the day, it will obviously be down to people about how they choose to invest.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I welcome the Leeds reforms today. Like many of the best things, they started in West Yorkshire—[Interruption.] I see Conservative Members are still chuntering from a sedentary position. The reforms underline the important point that financial services are not just the preserve of the City of London, but of communities around the country, including many of my Calder Valley constituents who work for Lloyds Bank. Does the Minister agree that one of the most important things we can do to grow the economy is to focus on things that this country does well, including our financial services?
Emma Reynolds
That is absolutely right. We were at Lloyds Banking Group yesterday in Leeds, and Lloyds employs thousands of people in Leeds and the wider region. There are some great opportunities in not only the establishment firms, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) said, some of these new firms outside of London that are growing and providing innovative products. I was recently in Scotland talking to a group of fintechs about the support they are getting to work closely with some of the banks in Scotland to drive further investment into fintechs. That collaboration between the more established players and new players is positive to see.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for her statement. Listening to my neighbour on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), as charismatic as he is, he did not convince me that 11% inflation, a £200 increase in my mortgage payments and a revolving door of Prime Ministers and Chancellors is a record to be particularly proud of.
My question is about the 29 million people in this country who have deposits in low-yielding current accounts, while people who invested in the stock exchange over the last 10 years saw yields of 9%. How do we convince and educate those customers to give them the confidence to be able to reveal much better outcomes from their investments?
Emma Reynolds
That is similar to what the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) asked. There has been lots of different research, but AJ Bell recently found that if people had put £100 a year into ISAs for the past 25 years, they would be better off if they invested in a stocks and shares ISA than a cash ISA, so it is perhaps about showing people that sort of evidence. Obviously, the stock market ebbs and flows and can fluctuate, but if people are saving for the longer term, they should certainly consider investing. The industry-led campaign will look at how we can advertise the benefits. Of course, there still will be risk warnings, but we need to ensure that we get the balance right between telling people that there are risks and telling them that there are great benefits of investing, too.
Points of Order
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? The NHS announced yesterday morning the closure of the Mount Vernon hospital minor injuries unit in my constituency, which also affects my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), my hon. Friends the Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the hon. Members for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). The decision flies in the face of the 10-year plan for the NHS announced recently to this House. My letter of 24 April to the Secretary of State about the matter has gone completely unanswered. Given the impending recess, how can I place my concerns on the record and hold Ministers accountable for this action?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for Ministers’ replies to correspondence from hon. Members, but colleagues in all parts of the House are entitled to expect a timely response to their letters, especially from Ministers on constituency matters. He has put his point on the record, and I am sure that the Treasury Front Bench will have noticed his remarks and will pass that on forthwith.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance regarding the accuracy of the official report in Hansard. In my speech on Wednesday 2 July 2025 during the debate on the prevention and suppression of terrorism, I said the words, “We are all Palestine Action.” The video and audio recordings clearly confirm that the full sentence was spoken before the Chair intervened. However, Hansard has omitted the final word of that sentence. I have been advised that this is due to a long-standing convention not to report words spoken after the Chair intervenes, but in this case the record omits words spoken before the Chair’s intervention. I am also aware of precedents, which I can provide, where Members’ final words immediately preceding or overlapping an intervention have been included to preserve the accuracy of the record. Despite that, Hansard has not only refused to amend the entry, but has since removed the sentence entirely.
That blatant attempt of censorship and rewriting the record is deeply concerning and undermines the integrity of the Official Report. Can you therefore advise me and the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether there are formal mechanisms to challenge omissions of this kind, reinstate the accurate record and ensure that Hansard fulfils its duty to provide a full and accurate record of proceedings in this House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member has now twice put her words on the record, no doubt. If she is not aware—and for colleagues across the House who may not be aware—Hansard has its own editorial policy. If she wishes to have her words corrected, she needs to take that up directly with Hansard. That is not a responsibility of the Chair.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be most grateful for your advice, because during Prime Minister’s questions earlier today the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) misled the House—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We do not use language such as “misled the House” when talking about colleagues. The hon. Gentleman will have to check his words if he wishes to continue.
Richard Tice
I am most grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen may have possibly inadvertently misled the House with regard to Lancashire county council and nursery funding. The reality is that, unfortunately, as a result, the Prime Minister gave an answer based on that possible inadvertent misinformation. The truth is that Lancashire county council is carrying out a statutory consultation on whether to follow the example of Labour-controlled councils such as Blackburn and Blackpool in having a small, modest processing fee.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have already contacted the Member he referenced. If not, I have no doubt that he will do so forthwith. If only the Chair were responsible for the content of Members’ questions and answers, but unfortunately it is not. The hon. Gentleman has now put his words on the record and will no doubt get a response privately.
Bill Presented
Managing Agents (Regulation)
Wednesday 16th July 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberManaging Agents (Regulation) Bill 2024-26 View all Managing Agents (Regulation) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
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
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish an independent regulator of managing agents; to make provision about the powers and duties of the independent regulator; to require managing agents to comply with a code of practice and to make provision about that code of practice; to make provision for a licensing scheme for managing agents; to make further provision about the regulation of managing agents; and for connected purposes.
Labour Governments past and present have been underpinned by a motivation to stand up for the voiceless and disempowered—those let down by broken systems—so that they can take control over their own circumstances. I present this Bill to the House because the failure to regulate managing agents has rendered leaseholders—ordinary hard-working people—voiceless, let down and disempowered.
This Government’s commitment to end the broken leasehold system is a welcome pledge for many, including leaseholders in places like my Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency. Many have long been held hostage by exploitative management companies. In this Bill, we have the opportunity to take a further step forward in rebalancing the system, improving management standards and empowering leaseholders to hold their managing agents to account.
The Bill would establish a new independent regulator of managing agents. It would require managing agents to have mandatory qualifications and to pass a fit and proper person test. The regulator would be empowered to impose continuing professional development requirements. That would be underpinned by a clear code of practice set in statute, of which leaseholders would have clear sight and knowledge. The Bill would provide legal obligations and create a mechanism for redress for concerned leaseholders. The regulator would have powers to enforce compliance against managing agents and, ultimately, to remove them from the register of regulated agents. This would all be funded by the firms and individuals that are regulated. Those are reasonable and sensible steps forward.
Colleagues across the House have highlighted the plight of constituents who fall victim to unregulated managing agents, laying bare the failures of the current system. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven (Chris Ward) for their support and advice on the Bill. In my constituency, I have been supporting residents living in Union Park in Cowley. The developer has walked away from that development, and the residents are being presented with a bill of £100,000 by the managing company, Ringley. Communal boilers have been left broken for two and a half years, and leaks under floorboards remain unfixed.
Although my team and I continue to work to support and advocate for those residents, the reality is that without a proper regulatory framework, managing companies like Ringley—which are appointed by freeholders—remain free to provide inadequate customer service, charge extortionate fees without justification and ignore residents. They seemingly serve vested interests, not the leaseholders who pay their fees. I am proud to be a member of the Labour for leaseholders group, working with hon. Friends to advocate for leaseholders in our constituencies and put pressure on managing companies to do better. We need a clear and robust legislative and regulatory framework, such as the one suggested by Lord Best and proposed in this Bill.
Of course, the leasehold system is not new, but the challenges that it presents today require the Government to act. Without mandatory qualifications and regulatory oversight, leaseholders remain vulnerable to inconsistent service quality, opaque charges and a lack of recourse when things go wrong. Managing agents are responsible for a variety of complex and important areas, including health, fire and structural safety, building maintenance, major works projects, and handling building finances and insurance. In leasehold blocks, managing companies hold substantial sums of leaseholders’ hard-earned money. The current system—or lack thereof—not only allows but empowers unqualified and incompetent managing agents. The Bill is not about extending red tape for red tape’s sake; it is about protecting hard-working people and their money.
Let me be clear: I am not attempting to tarnish all managing agents with the same brush. I know that some leaseholders have had positive experiences. The Property Institute—the professional body representing 7,000 property managers and over 360 managing agent firms—seeks to deliver safe, secure and well-managed homes. Members of the TPI are required to obtain accreditation and follow a consumer charter that demands honesty, fairness, openness and transparency. However, when distressed leaseholders sit across from me at my advice surgeries, those are not the words they use to describe their managing companies.
I commend the TPI for its work to stand up for leaseholders, and I welcome the supportive role it has played in the Government’s consultation on leasehold reform. However, a voluntary accreditation system in place of regulation exposes serious failures in the current framework. Relying on good faith actors to seek accreditation voluntarily means, by definition, that bad faith managing companies continue to operate freely in this country. We cannot accept that. For every managing company failing in its duty, there are multiple leaseholders being ripped off. The facts are clear, and inaction is not an option.
Earlier this year, FirstPort had its TPI accreditation stripped due to breaches of membership rules. Yet just three months later, it was readmitted. I recently visited Sherleys Court, a retirement complex in Ruislip managed by FirstPort. I heard stories from residents who, after a lifetime of hard work, moved in expecting to enjoy the next chapter of their lives. Instead, they were met with extortionate service fees with little to no explanation or itemisation. Their serious concerns about how their money was being managed were falling on deaf ears, and their feedback on shoddy maintenance work was once again ignored.
The story of the St Andrew’s Park development in Uxbridge—which is also managed by FirstPort—is just as dire. Residents report flooding, damp and mould issues that are not remedied. I recently conducted a survey of residents; a staggering 50% of respondents said that they had not received a response from FirstPort following attempts to communicate with the company. If I went to those residents and told them that, in just three months, their managing company had lost and then regained accreditation, I am sure they would question what had actually changed, and they would rightly ask what process had led to that decision.
The readmission of FirstPort lays bare the limitations of the current system and the urgent need for a clear regulatory framework to define and enforce the standards expected of all managing agents. The Bill will introduce an independent property regulator, grant licences to agents based on checks, including the fulfilment of legal obligations, and mandate qualifications to ensure minimum competency standards for agents and property managers. Without those provisions, leaseholders and the sector as a whole bear the financial burden of a lack of regulation. Research by the TPI shows that introducing an independent regulator would be largely cost-neutral, with the benefits of improved professionalism, accountability and consumer confidence offsetting any additional administrative costs.
There is a significant cost of inaction: a human cost. Too many people have been ripped off for far too long, but after years that have been financially difficult for so many, this Government have a drive to make people better off and feel listened to, and when it comes to the plight of leaseholders, this Bill is a necessary step in doing just that.
Since this Government were formed, we have rightly heard a lot about the housing crisis and how it is our responsibility to fix it. The crisis does not begin and end with bricks and mortar, although building 1.5 million homes is an absolute imperative. It also comes down to a deeper concept: security in our homes, for those in the private rented sector and in social housing, and for homeowners too. This Bill can help towards delivering security for leaseholders, who for far too long have been left in a cripplingly insecure and exploitative situation. The total failings of the leasehold system extend beyond that which can be fixed by one piece of legislation, but the Bill will be a vital step forward in the Government’s mission to deliver justice for all leaseholders.
They say that your home is your castle, but for too long leaseholders have often felt that their home is a prison. They feel under attack by their management companies—the companies that are there to serve and protect them, and to whom they pay a significant sum in management fees for the pleasure. With this Bill, we can build defences through a proper regulatory framework, and by ensuring that companies are properly qualified and an accountability mechanism clearly exists. Those measures are all desperately needed.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Danny Beales, Joe Powell, Nesil Caliskan, Chris Bloore, Chris Curtis, Dr Rupa Huq, Sarah Russell, Rachel Blake, Andrew Cooper, James Naish, Daniel Francis and Cat Eccles present the Bill.
Danny Beales accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 12 September, and to be printed (Bill 287).
Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]
Wednesday 16th July 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberProperty (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 67-I Marshalled list for Report - (28 Apr 2025)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is a pivotal step in the evolution of our legal system—one that ensures that the law remains relevant and pre-eminent in the digital age. As we set out in our plan for change, this Government are fully committed to providing investors and businesses with stability and certainty. This Bill will help to provide that certainty for people and businesses who own and transact with digital assets. This will help drive economic growth by encouraging innovation, attracting investment and reinforcing the UK’s position as a global hub for digital finances and technology.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree with me that although the Bill is small, it is very much mighty? It is important that we get the Bill on the statute book because we want this country to be ahead of the game on these issues.
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right. We want the UK to remain the pre-eminent jurisdiction of choice for legal services, as it currently is. This evolution of our law will enable it to remain a global hub for digital finance and tech. Overall it is a Bill that reflects our legal heritage, embraces technological innovation and prepares our nation for the future.
To appreciate the significance of the Bill, we must begin with the foundations of property law in England and Wales. For centuries, our legal system has categorised personal property as two distinct types: first, things in possession—tangible items that can be physically held or possessed, such as a book, jewellery or gold; and secondly, things in action—intangible rights that can only be claimed or enforced through legal action, such as debts, shares or contractual rights. These categories have served us well for hundreds of years, providing clarity in ownership and facilitating commerce. They have helped to create legal certainty in matters ranging from succession and insolvency to trust structures and collateral arrangements.
The digital revolution introduced a new class of assets—digital assets—that do not fit neatly into either of the traditional categories. As things stand, we look to 19th-century case law, which sets out that a thing can only be property if it fits into the two traditional categories of things in action and things in possession. The unique characteristics of digital assets, like crypto tokens, challenge the boundaries of these legal categories.
Unlike physical objects, digital assets cannot be held in one’s hand. Unlike debts or contractual rights, digital assets have an independent existence in the world that is not dependent on their recognition by a legal system. Yet certain digital assets possess the characteristics that the common law recognises as making them suitable to attract property rights. For example, certain digital assets, like crypto tokens, are rivalrous, meaning their use by one person prevents simultaneous use by others. By contrast to crypto tokens, some digital things, like Word documents, are not rivalrous and so are not recognised by the common law as being capable of attracting property rights. For example, if I were to send you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a Word document, I retain a copy, but if I transfer a crypto token, I no longer possess it. This is due to the underlying blockchain technology that ensures immutability, scarcity and non-duplicability—features that make certain digital assets capable of attracting personal property rights even if they are not a thing in possession or a thing in action.
Recent case law has begun to recognise that certain digital assets can attract personal property rights. However, these decisions have not come forward in precedent-setting courts, and thus the legal landscape remains uncertain. This ambiguity risks stifling innovation, as innovators are unsure what protections they have or whether they will be able to monetise their creation. It also puts off investors from investing in crypto tokens in favour of more traditional and predictable forms of investment. If we do not act, we risk our global competitors getting ahead and putting in place the kind of certainty in their own legal systems that will divert investment away from this country.
Recognising the urgency of this issue, in 2020, under the previous Government, the Ministry of Justice commissioned the Law Commission to review the legal framework surrounding crypto tokens and other digital assets. The commission’s 2023 report was unequivocal: certain digital assets should be recognised as capable of attracting property rights, and legislation was needed to reflect this. The Government have responded decisively. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is the result—a concise yet powerful piece of legislation that affirms our commitment to legal clarity, economic growth and technological leadership.
The Bill contains a single operative clause. It recognises that a thing, including a thing that is digital or electronic, is not prevented from attracting personal property rights merely because it is not a thing in possession nor a thing in action. The Bill allows the courts to develop a further category of personal property through our common law.
Importantly, the Bill does not attempt to define which digital assets may qualify, nor does it prescribe the legal consequences of falling within this category. These matters are rightly left to the common law, which, with its flexibility and nuance, is best suited to assess each asset on its characteristics. This is in accordance with long-established common-law tests for property. This approach reflects the strength of our tradition. It capitalises on the adaptability and flexibility of the common law by empowering the courts to apply established legal tests to emerging technologies. This ensures that our legal system remains responsive, relevant and resilient.
We stand today at the intersection of law and innovation, where centuries of legal tradition meet the boundless potential of the digital age. The Bill is not just legal reform: it is an important step for our law and for the global digital economy, because digital assets are here to stay. From crypto tokens to voluntary carbon credits, these assets are reshaping how we transact, invest and interact—and yet, until now, our private law has struggled to keep pace. This Bill changes that.
First and foremost, the Bill provides legal certainty. It confirms that certain digital assets can be recognised as personal property. This is a fundamental shift. It means that individuals and businesses can now rely on clear legal rights and protections when dealing with things such as crypto tokens. That is because certain digital assets can now attract the same legal protection as other forms of property, which means that owners of things such as crypto tokens can enforce their rights if the asset is stolen. Whether it is theft, insolvency or inheritance, the law will now stand ready to protect those property rights.
By clarifying the legal status of digital assets, the Bill reduces ambiguity and streamlines litigation. That is because the courts will no longer have to spend time debating whether further categories exist or trying to force digital assets into the traditional categories. That clarity will save time, reduce costs and ensure fairer outcomes for all parties involved.
As I have said, the Bill also supports our ambition to be a centre of innovation and growth. It encourages fintech start-ups, scale-ups and global enterprises to choose English and Welsh or Northern Irish law for their transactions, knowing that these legal systems are equipped to handle the complexities of digital assets. The Bill thus unlocks practical economic benefits. It assists in allowing digital assets to be included in estates for inheritance and claimed by creditors in insolvency. These capabilities will fuel innovation, support new financial products and drive economic growth.
Crucially, the Bill does not attempt rigidly to define every type of digital asset. Instead, as I have said, it allows the common law to evolve, giving our courts the flexibility to adapt to technologies that have not yet even been imagined. That is one of the hallmarks of a progressive, forward-thinking legal system such as ours.
This Bill attracted significant cross-party support in the other place. For example, it was described by Lord Holmes as
“a short Bill, but one with significant impact for the UK, and indeed beyond our shores”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1695.]
It was also described as a Bill that
“sends a signal to all those involved in digital assets”
that
“London and the United Kingdom is an excellent place”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 1696, c. 845.]
to do business.
In the same vein, Lord Sandhurst noted that the Bill was “small but perfectly formed” and that it will
“make an important contribution to the development of the law...and assist judges and litigants in ensuring that necessary protection is given to activities and things in the digital sphere...which might otherwise fail to be protected”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1696.]
Those are not just words of praise: they are affirmations of the Bill’s importance, clarity and potential to shape the global legal and economic landscape. One noble Lord remarked on Third Reading that “the world is watching”, and rightly so.
We have a proud tradition of legal excellence and a thriving fintech ecosystem. With trillions of pounds in global economic activity expected to be transacted via digital assets by the end of the decade, we must ensure that our legal infrastructure is not only fit for purpose, but fit for the future. This Bill is a critical step in realising that potential.
Of course, the Bill underwent much scrutiny in the House of Lords, and two amendments were made to it. The first extended the territorial scope of the Bill to include Northern Ireland. We are glad that our laws can be aligned in this area and that the benefits of this Bill will be felt more widely. The second amendment was to the Bill’s long title. That was to ensure consistency between the title and the Bill’s operative clause. I am certain that we now have the best possible version of this Bill before us.
The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is a testament to the strength and adaptability of our legal tradition. It reflects our commitment to innovation, our respect for the rule of law and our ambition to lead on the global stage. It was described in the Lords as
“future facing, future-proofing, growth enabling ground-breaking and good for innovation, investment, citizen, consumer and the country”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2025; Vol. 845, c. 1297.]
I could not agree more. It is a Bill for the future—a future in which digital assets play a central role in our economy, our society and our lives. By passing this Bill, we are not only clarifying the law, but shaping that future. Let us seize this opportunity and send a clear message to the world that we are ready, willing and able to lead in the digital age.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I rise on behalf of the official Opposition to express our support for the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill. I do not have the benefit of being a learned Member like the Minister, so I have enjoyed getting to understand what property law looks like in the UK.
As the Minister said, this Bill comes before this House from the other place, where it has already received careful and considered scrutiny. I particularly acknowledge the contributions made there by the noble Lord Holmes of Richmond, whose deep expertise in digital and emerging technologies greatly enriched the debate, and the noble Lord Sandhurst, who rightly described this Bill as
“a necessary but appropriately constrained measure.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. GC284.]
This Bill both preserves the inherent flexibility of the common law and provides just enough statutory clarity to support continued innovation and legal certainty in a fast-moving world.
Recognising the need in 2020, the previous Conservative Government asked the Law Commission to examine how the law of personal property should respond to digital assets. The commission undertook extensive consultation and concluded that some assets defy current classification. In response, it recommended confirming in statute that assets need not be things in possession or in action to attract property rights, paving the way for a third category of personal property and ensuring that our common law can continue to evolve with confidence and coherence.
This may be a short Bill, but it carries significant weight for not just the UK’s legal framework, but our global reputation as a leader in digital innovation. As other jurisdictions watch how we respond to technological change, this Bill reaffirms the UK’s commitment to legal clarity, innovation and economic competitiveness. We have a world-leading fintech ecosystem, and with trillions of pounds in digital asset transactions expected globally by the end of the decade, the UK must ensure that it remains at the forefront, supporting innovation, financial inclusion and the future of capital markets.
This Bill also complements a wider programme of regulatory reform already under way in the UK. Since 2023, firms promoting crypto assets have been subject to Financial Conduct Authority rules, including mandatory risk warnings and a 24-hour cooling-off period for new consumers. Anti-money laundering rules apply, and crypto firms must register with the FCA. In 2025, the Government published draft legislation to bring a wider range of crypto assets activities, such as trading platforms and custody services, under full financial regulation. The FCA and the Bank of England are also consulting on new rules for stablecoins, prudential safeguards and the safe custody of digital assets, while the Bank explores the future of a potential central bank digital currency, the “digital pound”. Those efforts, taken together with this Bill, represent a joined-up and forward-looking approach to digital asset regulation in the UK.
As the Minister explained, for centuries the law has recognised two traditional categories of personal property: things in possession, referring to tangible objects such as a bar of gold, and things in action, such as debts or contractual rights enforceable only through legal process. However, the rise of the digital economy has introduced a growing range of assets that defy those historical classifications.
From crypto tokens and digital files to in-game items and carbon credits, individuals and businesses now interact with a third category of asset. This Bill introduces that third category of personal property by confirming what the courts have been increasingly willing to suggest: that a thing is not precluded from being treated as property merely because it does not fit the traditional mould. It does so in a deliberately modest way, allowing the common law to evolve with technological change, rather than attempting to predict or prescribe it.
As Lord Sandhurst put it in the other place, we should champion the flexibility of the common law and legislate only to reinforce and clarify developments already emerging within it. This Bill strikes the right balance: it is principled in substance but careful in its implications. It gives confidence to our courts, clarity to commercial actors and reassurance to individuals navigating digital ownership. We welcome the Government’s amendment in the other place to extend this legislation to Northern Ireland and the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly to that extension. I understand that the Scottish Government have consulted separately on the question of recognising crypto tokens as property under Scots law.
Let me take a moment to welcome the Government’s stated intention in the impact assessment of reducing the burden on businesses by improving clarity in this space. At a time when digital assets are increasingly used as a means of payment, representation or value storage, it is vital that our legal architecture keeps pace—not to control innovation, but to support it with the rule of law. We on the Conservative Benches are committed to ensuring that our legal system remains fit for the 21st century and can accommodate new technologies while safeguarding rights and responsibilities.
While we are pleased to support this Bill, let us not lose sight of the broader context. After a year of downgraded growth forecasts, our economy contracting, unemployment and inflation rising and borrowing costs creeping up, the UK urgently needs legal reforms that drive up competitiveness and economic growth. Like the recent reforms to our international legal procedures, it is no coincidence that this Bill stems from a review commissioned by the last Conservative Administration—a Government who really understood the importance of forward-thinking legal reform to support technological and financial innovation to drive economic growth.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I rise in support of the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill, which stands to bring our legal framework into the 21st century and better equip it to meet the challenges and opportunities of the digital age. This Bill is firmly rooted in the rigorous work of the Law Commission, which was followed by careful scrutiny in the other place. I thank peers for their work on the Bill, particularly Lord Tim Clement-Jones for scrutinising it on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
This Bill confronts the long-standing legal ambiguity about how our common law system treats digital assets. As the Minister explained, and as I vaguely remember from my days at law school, the law as it stands recognises two primary forms of personal property—things in possession and things in action. However, we live in an ever-changing digital world, in which everything is much more based on digital than that common-law approach allows for. Digital assets, which cannot be physically possessed and often do not constitute a claim against another person, do not fall into the two traditional categories. Without clarity about the law, we risk undermining individual rights and weakening legal solutions in cases involving crypto assets, non-fungible tokens and other digital holdings. That is why this Bill matters; it ensures that digital things are not denied property status simply because they do not fall into the two normal categories. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s decision to accept the Law Commission’s recommendations.
This Bill is appropriate at this time, when we are seeing a growing use of digital assets across a variety of sectors. They are being used as investments, stores for value and tokens of identity and ownership by more and more people than ever before—recent figures from the Financial Conduct Authority indicate that nearly 12% of UK adults now hold crypto assets, a figure that has more than doubled since 2021. However, victims of fraud, those seeking restitution in cases of insolvency, or simply those wishing to assert ownership over what they rightfully hold have been operating in a murky legal landscape. This Bill leaves room for common law to develop in that sphere of property. That will help the law to reflect the ever-evolving nature of technology, but it must be monitored over time to ensure that regulation ultimately aligns with the need to protect individuals’ rights and support the economy.
We know that digital assets mean potential risks—whether fraud, abuse, or volatility—but ignoring them or failing to regulate them effectively will not make those risks disappear. A legal vacuum only increases the risk of criminality and injustice, while a clear, modern legal framework empowers the honest majority, boosts confidence and supports innovation. This Bill is measured, cautious and essential. It provides legal clarity, upholds property rights, and ensures that our laws remain relevant in the digital world. It is supported by the Law Society, by legal practitioners, and by the Liberal Democrats. I hope everyone in this Chamber supports it, too.
Sarah Sackman
With the leave of the House, let me say how grateful I am to those who have contributed to today’s debate, in a rare expression of consensus. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) and of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). The quality of the discussion, both in this House and in the other place, reflects the significance of the Bill that is before us. As I have said, it is the product of rigorous analysis and wide consultation. I pay tribute to the Law Commission for its landmark report, and to the many practitioners, academics, businesses and organisations that have engaged so constructively throughout the process.
At its heart, the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill is about ensuring that our legal system keeps pace with technological change. It is a clear, confident step into the future, one that reaffirms the UK’s place as a global leader in legal innovation, financial services and digital commerce, and it is a central part of this Government’s plan for change and for growth. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]: Programme
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [Lords]:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Christian Wakeford.)
Question agreed to.
Standards
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
I beg to move,
That this House approves the Third Report of the Committee on Standards, Session 2024–25, HC 943, on Register of Interests of Members’ Staff, subject to any transitional arrangements agreed by the Committee on Standards, and amends the provisions endorsed by the Resolution of the House of 28 June 1993 as follows:
Members’ staff who hold a permanent photo-identity pass or have been granted a Parliamentary network account are required to register in the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff, subject to the thresholds set out in that Register:
“Any occupation or employment for which they receive over £470 from the same source in the course of a calendar year, if that occupation or employment is in any way advantaged by the privileged access to Parliament afforded by either a photo-identity pass or a Parliamentary Network Account;
Any gift (eg jewellery) or benefit (eg hospitality, services) they receive, if the gift or benefit in any way relates to or arises from their work in Parliament and its value exceeds £470 in the course of a calendar year; and/or
Any visit undertaken that has been paid for by a third party, if it in any way relates to or arises from their work in Parliament.”
The motion before us, which stands in my name, is moved on behalf of the Committee on Standards and relates to the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff. I welcome the Committee’s consideration of this matter and its report. If approved, the motion would widen the boundaries of who has to register their interests in the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff to include all those who have a parliamentary network account, as opposed to the current position, under which only staff who hold a photo-identity pass for the estate need to register their interests.
The Committee’s report, which is available to the House, outlines that the intention behind this expansion of the register is to reflect current working practices. There has been a significant increase in the number of staff who have full access to parliamentary information and materials without needing to be present on the estate. As the Committee’s report has outlined, that has resulted in more than half the staff employed by Members not being required to make a transparency return. I am grateful to the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and to its members for all their hard work on this matter.
I know that the Chair will want to contribute to this debate to outline some of the background to the Committee’s work, and how it intends to implement this measure should the House approve it today. I can assure the House that the intention is to provide time for the Committee to make any transitional and technical arrangements necessary for the introduction of the change, and that details will be provided to all Members and staff. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Leader of the House.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for those words. I would like, in supporting the motion, to add one small cautionary note. It has been relayed to me, both by constituency staff and by other bodies, particularly the trade unions, that there is a concern that it might be possible to connect the names released in the official public register with the email addresses used by staff. I would be grateful if the Committee devoted some consideration to that concern, among the other issues that it will wish to reflect on further, to ensure that this ruling is as good and effective as possible.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I, too, thank the Leader of the House for so quickly coming forward with a proposal to enact the sole recommendation of my Committee’s third report of this Session. The Committee agreed its report on 12 June, and here we are, barely a month later, seeking to put its recommendation into practice. The change we propose is straightforward and quite confined, but none the less it is a real pleasure to see our proposal make such quick progress.
As today’s motion makes clear, the Register of Interests of Members’ Staff—those whom we as MPs employ to help us in our work—has been in its present form since 1993. At that time, it was considered that Members’ staff had privileged access to the parliamentary estate and its facilities because they held a pass allowing them physical access. It was therefore those staff, and those staff only, who were required to register any relevant interest. Times have changed, as times are wont to do. The arrival in the intervening 32 years of such minor innovations as the internet and mobile telephony have enabled remote access to the estate in a way that was not envisaged when the register was first created. There has also been a substantial growth in the practice of working from home, and it is now entirely possible—in a way it was not then—for our constituency-based staff to have access to parliamentary information and facilities without ever setting foot within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster.
In a sense, we are acting quickly to catch up slowly on the way that work and working practices have altered. At the time of our report a month ago, around 2,000 passes had been issued to our staff, but around 4,200 members of staff had parliamentary network access. The change the Committee proposes simply means that all those who have such access will be required to register any interest arising from the list set out in the motion. It will be a small, but important, reinforcement of the transparency that the House properly seeks in how the parliamentary community does its vital work.
The change, as the Leader of the House suggested, will not happen instantly if the House agrees to the motion. The Committee has sought to include a transitional provision in the motion to enable the Standards Committee to press “Go” once the Registrar of Members’ Financial Interests has satisfied us that the IT solutions required, of which we have seen examples, are robust and ready to go.
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his comments and the concerns that he noted in respect of the motion. The Committee is aware of the concern, raised via Unite the union and by some staff, that a new requirement to register interests will place their names on a public register, and the Committee and I have offered to meet staff representatives during the transition period to hear those concerns and also, if necessary, to consider whether ameliorations may be required, and I will report to the Leader of the House if that proves to be the case. I am grateful to Unite for raising those concerns with the Committee, and I am also grateful to it for saying that it approves of the principles behind the change.
With that caveat in mind, the Committee hopes that the new arrangements will be in place in the autumn, and, in conjunction with the Registrar, we will seek to publicise the change to ensure that all Members are able to encourage their staff to register as required. Let me again thank the Leader of the House for responding so promptly, and I thank the shadow Leader of the House for noting the concerns that have been raised by some. I trust that the House will feel able to approve these new arrangements.
Lucy Powell
I thank the Chair of the Standards Committee for explaining the background to the report. I have given him this commitment, both privately and publicly: I am keen to bring the recommendations of Standards Committee reports to the Floor of the House as soon as possible, and I hope that I have shown willing by doing that so quickly on this occasion. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his reassurance to the shadow Leader of the House and to the trade unions—particularly Unite—which I know fully support the principles of this measure and the intention behind it, although I think that, as the shadow Leader said, there are some concerns about the creation of an entire register for staff members with nil returns that could perhaps be “farmed” by those trying to lobby people and gain access to them, with their names and email addresses out there for public view.
I look forward to the hon. Gentleman consulting and working with the unions in the coming weeks on how this can be delivered. If any changes are necessary, my door, as ever, will be open. I thank him and the whole Committee, and I thank the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for all his work with the Committee on this issue and many others.
Question put and agreed to.
Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of giving every child the best start in life.
This Government have a mission to break down the barriers to opportunity for children and young people, so that background does not determine a child’s future and successes. After 14 dark years under the Conservative party, we are restoring to our communities the hope that, in too many places and for too many families, simply faded away. What this Government inherited was a truly shameful legacy. The Conservatives had 14 years in government, and their record speaks for itself: 1,300 children’s centres closed or hollowed out, early years childcare costs spiralling way above the rate of inflation, and providers closing year on year. I know that Conservative Members, very few of whom are present, will bleat that in their manifesto they promised better, but the people of Britain judge politicians by what they deliver, not what they promise.
At the heart of Labour’s ambition for a better Britain is bringing change to the first few years of every life, so that opportunity is not the privilege of a few but is common to us all. Children’s early years are crucial to their development, health and life chances, and it is there that we can make the biggest difference. On average, 40% of the overall gap between disadvantaged 16-year-olds and their peers has already emerged by the age of five. It is in those early years that so much of the inequality that today disfigures our society is entrenched. If we want to build the fairer and more equal society that Labour Members want to see, that is where we lay the foundations. If we want to see change—change for good—the transformation that we seek to bring must be part of a wider approach that covers every aspect of education and health, and every facet of opportunity.
That is why the Government have published our vision for the future of early years. This landmark strategy, which will bring together early years and family services, and will put children’s first years at the heart of work to improve life chances, is backed by nearly £1.5 billion over the next three years to raise quality, close gaps and break down the barriers to opportunity for every child.
“Giving every child the best start in life” sets out the first steps to delivering on our plan for change commitment for a record number of children to be ready to start school by 2028. We will make early education and childcare more accessible and affordable, improve quality in the early years and reception, and expand and strengthen family services. This builds on the progress that we are already making: funding new and expanded school-based nurseries across the country, funding new breakfast clubs in 750 early adopter schools and offering places to nearly 180,000 children, including 79,000 pupils from schools in the most deprived parts of the country.
From September we will be rolling out 30 hours of funded childcare for working parents, saving eligible parents using their full entitlement an average of £7,500 a year. It should be the case that all parents who want it can obtain the high-quality early education and childcare that they need, yet four in 10 parents with children under five say that there are not enough places locally. Disadvantaged children and those with special educational needs and disabilities have the most to gain from high-quality early education, yet more affluent areas often have more places.
We will improve the system, setting out a long-term vision for improving access to early years education and childcare to ensure that all families can benefit. We will create tens of thousands more places in new and expanded school-based nurseries, backed by more than £400 million of investment. We will roll out the expansion of funded childcare hours available to working parents, saving eligible families an average of £7,500 a year. We will work closely with local authorities to increase the take-up of the 15-hour entitlements, so that children from low-income families, those with SEND and those in care receive the support they need.
As a result of the decisions made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Government will soon be funding about 80% of the early education and childcare hours in England. Whenever the Government buy a service, they have an obligation to use that purchasing power in the public interest, to shape the market, improve standards, and support and develop the workforce. That is what Labour believes, and that is what we will do. We think we could do more to guarantee the benefits of that investment, and to ensure that they are realised where they are needed. We will look across the early education and childcare support provided by Departments to find ways in which to make it simpler, to improve access, and to increase the overall impact of Government spending on children and families.
I have the privilege of being able to see at first hand the impact that our passionate early years staff have in many settings across the country during my regular visits. They have worked brilliantly to deliver for families at every stage of the expansion of Government-funded childcare, and they continue to do so ahead of September. Families know the difference that access to a place that meets their needs can make. That is why we are investing more than £9 billion in early education and childcare, and why a diverse and thriving early years sector with a brilliant and valued workforce is absolutely key. We will work with the early years sector to support brilliant settings to grow and spread their expertise, and that will include working alongside philanthropists and social investors to encourage new not-for-profit providers to open.
We want early years careers to be ones that people are proud to start and that are rewarding to pursue. That means having more opportunities to gain qualifications, enter the workforce and build fulfilling careers. Childminders play an integral role in our early years landscape and are treasured by many families, which is why we will keep working with Jobcentre Plus to encourage people to become childminders. However, having listened to the sector, we will also make sure that childminders and other providers can be paid monthly for funded hours, making their income more stable. Alongside a strong market, we want to drive higher standards through a strengthened improvement and accountability system that supports and drives high-quality provision for settings and families. That includes funding for Ofsted to inspect settings more often and to inspect new settings within 18 months of opening.
The early years workforce is at the heart of this Government’s mission to give every child the best start in life. We are making sure that a high-quality start transitions into starting school by making reception year a national priority for the regional improvement for standards and excellence—RISE—teams. We want high-quality evidence to underpin the training, support and development of people working in early years settings, from the baby room to the reception year. This will mean that passionate people can grow their skills and careers, and help every child to thrive.
Together with educators and leaders, we will drive high and rising standards by working with providers and schools to equip to them with the tools, training and support that they need to meet every child’s needs. Alongside raising the standards of early years educators by introducing a professional register, we will increase the number of qualified early years teachers, and we aim to more than double the number of funded early years initial teacher training places by 2028. We will also offer financial incentives to attract and keep early years teachers in nurseries serving the most disadvantaged communities, so that every child, no matter where they live, can benefit from high-quality early education.
The SEND system we inherited from the Conservative party has totally lost the confidence of families, and this Labour Government are absolutely committed to restoring that confidence. The last Conservative Education Secretary labelled the system that she left behind as “lose, lose, lose”, while current shadow Ministers say that they did not do enough on SEND and should hang their heads in shame. We agree—the difference is that we are doing something about it.
We will make inclusive practice standard practice in the early years by embedding an inclusive approach in our workforce education, training and leadership opportunities, and by funding evidence-based programmes that are proven to improve children’s development. We will drive improvements in the quality of teaching in reception and ensure that schools have access to the right tools and tailored improvement, including by helping each parent to play their part and be confident in their child’s progress.
This renewed vision for the early years goes hand in hand with a national approach to family services—one that brings together health, education and social care around the needs of families, children and babies. That is why I am proud that this Government have established Best Start family hubs that will be funded across all local authorities, building on the best of Sure Start, family hubs and Start for Life approaches.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Minister mentioned family hubs, which I welcome, but he stated that they will be delivered by local authority area. In my area of Surrey, we are going through local government reorganisation. How will the roll-out be impacted by that reorganisation? Does he expect to roll out a plan over the next couple of years, and then to reorganise it after a new council has been created?
Stephen Morgan
We are obviously working through the detail of our commitments as I speak, but I will certainly take his point back to the Department—I know that officials are working very closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. What is really powerful is the fact that we will roll out family hubs to every local authority in the country to make sure that they make a real difference to every child’s life.
We are investing over £500 million to expand Best Start family hubs to every local authority in England, ensuring that wherever they live, families can access joined-up, high-quality support from pregnancy through to the early years. As part of this investment, we are providing dedicated funding to deliver evidence-based support for the home learning environment, with a particular focus on disadvantaged families and the quality of parent-child relationships. We want to support parents to create rich and nurturing home environments by encouraging them to chat, play and read more with their children, because we know that those everyday interactions are the building blocks of early development.
In order to help meet our ambition for 75% of children to achieve a good level of development by the age of five, we will fund more evidence-based parenting and home learning programmes so that more families can access those services before their children start school. That will be supported by a new national Best Start digital service, linked to “My Children” on the NHS app, which will bring together the trusted advice and guidance that all parents need in one place, and link families to their local services.
The Labour Government are committed to breaking down the barriers to opportunity, and the early years are where we do that most powerfully. Our ambition is clear: to make early years education the best it can be for children in all settings. This is the start of a decade of national renewal for families and the support that they receive. We will go further and faster to ensure that every child has the best start in life and the chance to achieve and to thrive.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Everybody wants to give children the best start in life. That is why we increased spending per pupil in schools by 11% in real terms in the last Parliament, and why we doubled real-terms spending on the free entitlement for the early years. More importantly, it is why we pushed through difficult reforms to schools, which were often opposed by the Labour party. It is why we brought in the knowledge-rich curriculum, why we brought in stronger accountability, and why we pushed through the academies revolution and more parental choice.
The Minister said that our record speaks for itself, and it does. Labour’s record speaks for itself as well. Between 2009 and 2022, England went from 21st to seventh in the programme for international student assessment league table for maths, while Wales—spending the same amount as before—went from 29th to 27th. [Interruption.] Labour MPs clearly do not like hearing this, but I am afraid I am going to carry on. In science, England went from 11th to ninth, while Wales—with same amount of money as before but run by Labour, with no reforms—slumped from 21st to 29th.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?
Chris Vince
I thank the shadow Minister for taking my intervention; he is always very generous with his time. I will give him a friendly intervention. I was going to criticise the Conservatives for a lack of attendance in this debate, but he said the words “no reforms”, and I notice that there are no Reform MPs present for this important debate. When I spoke in the general election campaign about education and it was the turn of the Reform candidate in Harlow to give us his views on the party’s vision for education, he did not have an answer. Does the shadow Minister agree that we do not want the Reform party anywhere near education?
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Gentleman is completely right, and it is not the first time—it is generally the case that no one from Reform is present. On this issue, I am afraid that Reform MPs are chronically absent, as we say in education.
I will continue with my theme. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that the huge difference in performance, and the divergence in performance, between England and Wales cannot be explained by poverty rates or ethnicity. It is to do with the reforms that were not undertaken because of trade union pressure in Wales.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I agree that it is crucial to measure the progress of our children in key subjects to give them the best opportunities in life, but does the shadow Minister not accept, as I and many others do, that the climb up the international league tables was caused by restricting the breadth of the curriculum? That has come at the detriment of many opportunities for children over recent years.
Neil O’Brien
I do not think that is true. Looking at the evidence pack produced by the Government’s curriculum review, it is clear that some of the arguments are overstated. It is true that we reversed the decline in the number of young people taking double and triple science; that had been falling for years, and it went back up again because there was more focus on science. It is true that there are a limited number of hours in the school day, but I do not accept that we had some sort of Gradgrindian educational agenda. There continues to be a broad and balanced agenda. If Labour Members want to say that much more time should be spent on a particular subject, they should at least be clear about where it will come from.
Children in England were ranked the best in maths in the whole western world in the 2023 trends in international mathematics and science study, and they moved into the top five in the global rankings for science. What happened in Wales and Scotland? We do not know, as their Administrations removed themselves from those competitions because they do not like accountability. It is the same at all levels.
Whereas we favoured parental choice and autonomy for schools, balanced by strong accountability, the current Government take a very different approach. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently in the Lords, dilutes parental choice, and it gives local politicians more control over pupil numbers for the first time since 1988. The greater autonomy for schools that we brought in has been replaced by a tide of micromanagement of curriculum and staff, and the absurd situation where if someone wants to put up a bicycle shed they have to apply to the Secretary of State. On the other hand, the ultimate form of accountability—placing schools under new management via academy orders—is being slowed down and stopped, which has been criticised even by Labour MPs such as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh).
The Labour party’s attempts to mess around with Ofsted to please the trade unions have watered down accountability for parents and made things more complicated, but they have not made anybody happy; nobody is happy with what has been proposed in the end. The Government have axed all the forms of support that we were making available to schools for subjects from advanced physics to maths, Latin and advanced computing—they think they are elitist. They have also axed the behaviour hubs, even though there is clear evidence that they were working and schools that went through them were twice as likely to be good or outstanding afterwards. The reform agenda is just not there.
At one point, the Government’s big answer was that they were going to employ 6,500 more teachers: they were going to increase VAT and employ all these extra teachers. The Chancellor said at the end of last year that every single penny of that VAT increase would go to education, but then, confusingly, the Prime Minister said that the money had been spent on social housing instead. It has been a long time since I studied formal logic, but we cannot spend every single penny on education and also spend that money on housing; we cannot spend it on two things. As it happens, we now know that actually there are not those extra teachers; there are 400 fewer teachers. We added 27,000 teachers under the last Government and under Labour there are 400 fewer teachers.
At the point when the numbers came out showing that there were fewer teachers, the Government suddenly declared that primary school teachers do not count—that the fall of 2,900 in primary school teacher numbers did not count. Ministers implied that that had always been their intention—they said, “How dare you say that wasn’t our intention?”—but they announced this policy in a primary school, and they said they would hit their targets for early years through an increase in primary. Now they say, “Oh, numbers are falling in primary,” but numbers are falling by a lot less than when they made the pledge in the updated forecast. If we apply the same logic, half of secondary schools have falling numbers, so perhaps that will be the next way they try to monkey around with the numbers to pretend that the opposite is happening. I would not mind so much if we did not get these chirpy press releases from the Department saying, “We’re doing so well; we’ve got all these extra teachers.” There are fewer teachers—that is the bottom line in what has happened here.
Chris Vince
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous with his time. I have to say, as a former teacher who left the profession because of the way we were treated by the previous Government, that I always feel a little bit gaslit by the Conservative party. I would just point out to him that during the previous Government’s time in office, a third of new teachers were leaving the profession within five years. Does he not recognise that the pressure put on teachers by the previous Government, the lack of support and the general lack of faith in teachers made a number of them leave, and we lost so much experience that it has been very difficult to get back?
Neil O’Brien
There are several things to say about that. The first is that the overall number went up: the hon. Gentleman said that some were leaving, but the overall number went up by 27,000. He makes a good point about early career teachers and that is why we put in the early career framework, which I do think is a big improvement. It is not that there is nothing in what the hon. Gentleman said, but I do think it is funny for him to stand up and talk about gaslighting when the Government are pumping out glossy propaganda saying that there are more teachers, even though their own Department for Education website says that there are 400 fewer teachers. So do tell me all about gaslighting.
My broader worry about the Government’s approach to giving every child the best start in life is that it misses the wood for the trees. Ministers like to talk about some of the small interventions they are making, such as the £33 million they are spending on breakfast clubs and the “best start in life” centres and the increases in spending there. But on the other side of the ledger, how is this being paid for? It is being paid for with a £25 billion increase in national insurance, and, unbelievably for a notionally social democratic Government, that national insurance increase is brutally targeted on the lowest income workers. It is incredible.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I should say that the hon. Member is a shadow Minister, before you give him with a promotion.
Iqbal Mohamed
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask the shadow Minister how his party would fund the investments in early years proposed by the new Government?
Neil O’Brien
I am very grateful to be put right back in my box by Madam Deputy Speaker, and rightly so.
I would not fund that by increasing taxes on low income workers by £25 billion. That means that someone who is earning £13,000 a year loses £500. It means someone earning £9,000 a year is losing 5% of their income. Ministers like to talk about the distributional impact of things like breakfast clubs and so on—they say 100,000 kids will be lifted out of poverty by something they are doing—but they will not produce any poverty analysis or any distributional analysis of the £25 billion. They are happy to talk endlessly about the distributional impacts of tiny measures, but not the £25 billion takeaway from low income working people in this country. I think it is astonishing—and I think a lot of Labour MPs will regret it later—that this is the way they have chosen to raise all this money.
Let me ask a few specific questions while we are here. The Department for Education has confirmed to the specialist media that it does not hold any information on the number of children who will lose entitlement to free school meals as a result of the end of the universal credit transitional protection, yet it claims to be confident that it knows that the changes it is making will reduce child poverty by 100,000. How can the Department not know how many kids are going to be on free school meals yet be confident that it will have a positive effect? I ask the Minister to answer the question very simply: what proportion of pupils will be eligible for free school meals this year and in all future years across the forecast? How much will we be spending in real terms in each of those years? I like lots of things about the “best start in life” programme—it is a continuation of our family hubs programme—and I wonder whether the Minister could set out exactly how much will be spent on that programme in the ’26-27, ’27-28 and ’28-29 financial years. It is not a bad programme at all and we do not dislike it at all; the only thing that is not right is to pretend it is a completely new thing, when in fact it is a continuity of something that already existed.
Something that is new that Ministers promised was two weeks of work experience for every child at secondary school. Can the Minister tell me how that pledge is going? It was made by the Prime Minister and was the big highlight of his ’21 conference speech. How many schools currently offer two weeks of work experience each year?
Finally, I have a question of principle really. The Minister quite rightly talked about SEND, and we had an important report from the Education Policy Institute this morning about the overlap between SEND and school achievement, and the Government have said two things. We heard from a Health Minister that the Government want to see a smaller proportion of children in special schools, and we have heard from the Minister’s adviser on SEND that she thinks that they are having a conversation at the moment about not having education, health and care plans for children outside special schools, which covers about 300,000 children at the moment—60% of all children with an EHCP.
Those are huge changes, but is it not the case that those two policy reforms are potentially in tension? If we tell people that they cannot get an EHCP outside a special school, more parents will want to go to the special school. Ministers have talked about there always being some kind of legal right to support for special needs, but what does that mean: if the support is not being delivered by an EHCP, how will it be delivered? I ask these questions because a lot of special needs parents are worried about that; they are concerned about what the Government are planning. Maybe they are wrong and maybe the Government have a brilliant plan on all this, and we are not against reform, but at the moment, there are big questions about the ideas that are now sloshing around in the public domain, worrying people. I encourage Ministers to move quickly to certainty on these questions so that people’s minds could be put at ease.
To conclude, we are all in favour of giving each child the best start in life. We have a proud record, we made great progress, and we wish all the Government all the best, but we worry that they are too often missing the wood for the trees.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Giving every child the best possible start in life should be a driving mission of every Government. Investment in the early years and in a high-quality education for every child delivers among the highest returns of any area of public spending; they are literally building the foundations of a child’s life. Governments who get policy right in these areas reap benefits in health and wellbeing, in economic growth and in lower crisis-related costs.
The previous Labour Government made huge strides in this area. The longitudinal studies now confirm that children who lived close to a Sure Start centre did better in their GCSEs, and that hospitalisation of children was reduced and so was the need for specialist support in education. But a year ago this Government inherited the legacy of a previous Government who had not prioritised the needs of children for 14 years. Sure Start had been largely dismantled and school and further education budgets cut, early years funding had not kept pace with inflation, key services like health visiting and midwifery were scaled back, and SEND provision and CAMHS—child and adolescent mental health services—were stretched to breaking point, with increasing numbers of children in the care system, who are all too often being failed.
Our children have been buffeted by the multiple blows of austerity, Brexit, the covid-19 pandemic and the Liz Truss mini-Budget bearing down on public services that support children, young people and their families, resulting in more of childhood being left to chance, with existing disadvantages and barriers to opportunity remaining in place and being allowed to perpetuate.
The Education Committee recently published our report on children’s social care. Children’s social care is a good place to start thinking about this Government’s opportunity mission, because it is where some of the most egregious barriers can be found—for the children whose families need the most support, those whose lives are scarred by abuse or neglect, and those for whom the state has both the gravest responsibility and a huge opportunity to make a difference.
The independent review of children’s social care commissioned by the previous Government described the system they presided over as in need of a “total reset”. Spending on early help and support services—the preventive, nurturing support delivered by Sure Start centres, health visitors, community nurses and early years practitioners—has plummeted, while spending on crisis interventions, including out-of-area residential placements often at great cost, have spiralled.
The number of children entering the care system has been rising, and perhaps most telling of all is that the outcomes for care-experienced people are absolutely dire. This failure is so significant that, if the Government are serious about tackling homelessness and about tackling the crisis in the criminal justice system, they must turn their attention to the plight of care-experienced people, who are so vastly over-represented in both those populations. They are far less likely to be in education, employment or training than their peers, and far more likely to have poor mental health.
Iqbal Mohamed
Before coming to the Chamber, I attended a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on care-experienced children and young people, where I learned that, in the 2023-24, over 15,000 children in care moved home, which is 34%, and nearly 5,500 in care moved school, which is 12%. Does the hon. Member agree with me that, as part of the Government’s strategy, we need to support children in care and minimise the disruption to their lives that we can control?
Helen Hayes
I thank the hon. Member very much for his intervention, and our report, which we published last week, says exactly that. We have a system of children’s social care that is under so much pressure that it all too often fails to put children at the centre of the services that are supposed to be delivered to give them more stability and security in life, and many things about that system urgently need to change.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to invest in Best Start family hubs, providing better early help and support services in more areas of the country. We need investment that can tip the balance over time from crisis spending to spending on more preventive services that can deliver genuinely good outcomes for children. Our Committee’s report, which I was proud to launch last week, points to some of the further steps that are needed, including creating a national offer for care leavers, improving mental health support for looked-after children and addressing the practical barriers, such as housing, that currently prevent the effective recruitment of foster carers.
On early years, the Government inherited the previous Administration’s commitment to expand funded hours of childcare, predominantly for working parents. This is a very challenging commitment to deliver. We know that quality early years education has the most potential to break down barriers to opportunity, yet the previous Government’s approach was designed to deliver more hours of care, without any specific focus on quality. The early years sector is fragile and fragmented, and providers continue to close. The expansion of school-based nurseries is a very welcome first step, but there is undoubtedly a tension between a funding system designed to support working parents and the early years sector’s ability to reduce the impacts of disadvantage for the poorest children. The Government must address this tension in the forthcoming child poverty strategy.
Our Committee’s second big inquiry is on the system of support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. The SEND system is the single biggest crisis in the whole of the education system, routinely letting down children and families, putting professionals working with children in an impossible position, and driving more than half of local education authorities to the edge of bankruptcy. Children with SEND should be able to thrive in education, and education should equip them well for the next stage of life, yet for far too many children, the failure of the SEND system results in absence from school, poor mental health and low attainment.
There have been many rumours about what the Government may do to reform the SEND system, and I must say that these rumours are really unhelpful and traumatising for families who already have far too much to contend with. My Committee will report after the summer recess, but I am clear that the Government should be setting out a clear process and plan for SEND reform, and that any reforms must engage parents and professionals and ensure clear and effective accountability mechanisms. I think the Government are right to start with increasing the inclusivity of mainstream schools, but if they are to do that effectively, there must be proper investment to resource mainstream schools to become more inclusive, with clear definitions of what an inclusive school is and strong accountability.
Finally, a priority that runs through all these issues is tackling child poverty, which rose to shamefully high levels under the last Government and is perhaps the biggest barrier to opportunity of them all. I am delighted that the Government have announced an expansion of the eligibility criteria for free school meals to include all children whose families receive universal credit. As a local councillor in Southwark, I was proud when we introduced universal free school meals for primary children in 2010, and over many years we have seen the benefits of providing children with a nutritious hot meal.
Universal free breakfast clubs will also make a big difference. Hungry children cannot learn, so together these measures will ensure that no child has to start the school day hungry, and that the children who need it most get a nutritious hot meal at lunch time. They will boost learning while also easing costs for parents. However, our Committee has recommended that the Government implement auto-enrolment, so that every child eligible to receive the new expanded free school meals offer receives it automatically and no child misses out.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
One of the drivers of child poverty that has come through in my casework is the Child Maintenance Service’s lack of enforcement powers to hold to account parents who refuse their duties. Does the hon. Member agree with me that greater enforcement powers and greater scrutiny of the Child Maintenance Service are essential for reducing child poverty?
Helen Hayes
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Over my 10 years in this place, I have seen how it has become harder and harder for families to get resources and accountability out of the Child Maintenance Service. I agree that there is further work to do in that space, and I am sure the Government are similarly aware of the challenges.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way, especially as she is making such a powerful speech. Yesterday, I went to an event with Health Equals, which has shown that where a child is born can lead to a 16-year discrepancy in life expectancy due to poverty. Does she agree that some form of legally binding poverty reduction target scheme could be put in place, as in Scotland, so that we can measure our progress?
Helen Hayes
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and it is devastating to hear about those disparities across the country. Recently, I was at a secondary school in a very deprived area of my constituency, and a teacher told me that she noticed at an event for those from across the whole of her academy trust that her children were smaller than children who went to schools in more affluent areas of the country. That is an intolerable disgrace.
We expect the Government’s child poverty strategy to be ambitious and far reaching, and if it is to do so, it must have clear targets and there must be clear accountability in the strategy. I look forward to its publication, and my Committee, along with the Work and Pensions Committee, will play our part in scrutinising that important piece of work.
I am heartened to see this Government putting children and young people at the heart of their priorities after 14 years during which they were an afterthought. There is much more to do, and my Committee will continue to play our part by scrutinising the Government and making evidence-based recommendations. I want to see a clear vision for children and young people with real ambition for every child, and a plan for all parts of our education and care system, so that we can start to see the promise, in this Government’s agenda, of transformed lives and life chances being delivered in every part of our country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Jogee, are you now finally comfortable in the Chamber? Before, you wanted to swap. [Interruption.] Marvellous. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I welcome this opportunity to talk about giving every child the best start in life. I suspect there are not many people in this Chamber who would disagree that every child, no matter their background or needs, deserves the very best start in life. It is our duty as elected representatives and policymakers to ensure that parents and carers have access to the help and support they need to ensure that every child gets that best start in life.
The Best Start family hubs announced last week are very welcome and present a great opportunity for the Government to address the growing inequalities across our education system that were left behind by the previous Government. If resourced properly, the Best Start family hubs expansion could help to achieve many of the things that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have been calling for, including: the early identification of special educational needs and disabilities; contact time with mental health practitioners; and access to nutritional advice. However, the Government’s ambitious aims must be matched with effective delivery. Children and families cannot afford for the Government to get this wrong, after many years under the Conservatives when early years provision really started to disintegrate.
The strategy states that
“high-quality early education and childcare boosts children’s life chances and enables parents to work”.
I warmly welcome plans to invest in training and qualifications to raise the skill levels of the early years workforce, but I am afraid that the Government’s rhetoric does not quite meet the reality on the ground. The funding promised by the Conservative Government for their 30 hours childcare proposals fell far short of what it actually costs to deliver that provision, and I am afraid that Labour’s current proposals are also insufficient for nurseries.
Labour’s ill-advised national insurance hike has not only hampered economic growth, but put hundreds of charitable and private nurseries at risk of collapse. Indeed, the Early Years Alliance reports that nearly one third of providers are at risk of permanent closure in the next year, and that four in 10 would reduce the number of funded places for three and four-year-olds. When coupled with damaging new guidance to local authorities on funding agreements, the Government risk expanding the childcare deserts left behind by the Conservative Government. What is the point of expanding early years entitlements for children if parents are not able to access them because providers are simply unable to fulfil them?
With the expansion of childcare provision, keeping our children safe is paramount. I welcome confirmation last week that the frequency of Ofsted inspections of early years settings will increase and that work is being done to develop an effective approach to group inspections. However, as the Minister knows from some of our conversations, if we are to prevent tragedies, such as the case of baby Gigi Meehan in Cheadle and the recent shocking case in my own constituency that last month saw a nursery worker convicted of 21 counts of child cruelty at Twickenham Green nursery, Ministers must go further and they must go faster.
The early years foundation framework urgently needs to be strengthened, and better guidance needs to be put in place for how we keep babies in particular safe in early years settings. That is particularly important as we see the expansion of childcare provision for the under-twos. I hope we will see clearer guidance on safe sleep practice, but also on the use of CCTV, which proved critical in the cases I cited, and on the regular review of that CCTV footage. The strategy points to a
“golden thread of evidence-informed practice”,
so I hope the Minister tell us whether she will work with health authorities and expert charities to co-ordinate national safe sleep standards for use in early years settings. We must ensure that that goes hand in hand with multi-agency safeguarding training.
Giving children the best start in the early years also means giving parents genuine choice on whether to spend more time at home or go back to work full time. I am immensely proud that it was the Liberal Democrats in Government who introduced shared parental leave—yet, years later, take-up remains far too low because of low rates of statutory maternity and paternity pay, and shared parental leave pay. I am aware that the Government have started their review into parental leave and pay, which I warmly welcome.
The Liberal Democrats have long called for statutory maternity and shared parental pay to be doubled to £350 a week, and for fathers to be entitled to a month of paternity leave, as well as a “use it or lose it” month of shared parental leave, because we know just how valuable the first months of a child’s life are and the importance of the involvement of both parents. I hope the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade will heed our calls. I also want to press him again on the strong economic and moral case for granting statutory paid leave for kinship carers, so many of whom are forced out of work when they take on caring responsibilities to provide a safe and stable home for children.
We must acknowledge that despite all efforts, some children simply will not get the best start in life due to unimaginable trauma, which can mean that the only safe course of action is to separate them from their birth parents. It therefore falls to us collectively as corporate parents to ensure those children get the very best second chance at life. Family hubs must be more than signposting services; they should offer trusted relationships and trauma-informed practice embedded within staff training and service design as part of the Government’s commitment to rebuilding trust with families.
Continuing on that theme, the adoption and special guardianship support fund, as many Members will know, provides funding for vital therapy to help the most vulnerable children to process their trauma. These sessions are not easy, with some children taking months to even step through the door, but it is vital that these children are given the space, time and support to relearn how to trust adults. Slashing the funding for each child from £5,000 to £3,000 means that many will stop their therapy sessions just as they get through the door and start to make progress. Not only is this incredibly frustrating for the adoptive parents and special guardians; it sadly compounds the child’s tragic belief that all adults do is let them down.
Both the Minister who opened the debate and the Minister for Children and Families, who is sitting next to him on the Front Bench, know that I am determined to see the full £5,000 grant funding restored for every eligible child. I press the Minister again to go to the Treasury and demand the additional funds to meet the growth in demand for those grants so that the next generation can believe that there are adults, and even Governments, worth trusting. I have pointed out previously that halving the Department’s advertising and consultancy budget would enable the ASGSF to grow by 50% from £50 million to £75 million to meet that additional demand.
Short of that, I urge the Minister not to leave parents, carers and children in limbo again by waiting until the last minute to announce whether the fund will continue next year. Instead, I hope that Ministers will commit to announcing the future of the fund by September, now that we have had the spending review, so that families and providers can plan and have certainty for the future.
Finally, parents and carers have for far too long been subjected to an adversarial special educational needs system where they have had to fight tooth and nail to secure their children’s right to learn. A good education helps children to discover who they are and what they are good at, but sadly far too many have been denied the help they need. As the Chair of the Education Committee has pointed out, the rumours that have been swirling have left many families up and down the country deeply concerned. We met a number of those families in Parliament yesterday, and I know that the inboxes of Members across the House have been filled with worried emails on this matter.
It is clear the system is broken and needs reform, but any change must have children at its heart, not a Treasury drive for savings by removing rights in a vacuum. I am glad to see that inclusive practice for children with SEND will be embedded in early years teaching; early identification is crucial in ensuring that children can get the help they need when they need it. However, it remains to be seen just what that help will be. The Government have failed continuously to communicate with those directly affected by their decisions, but they have the chance today to tell parents whether education, health and care plans will be removed from any child.
I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) said to the Prime Minister last week, and what my right hon. Friend and I said in the letter we sent to the Education Secretary and the Prime Minister, in which we set out the Liberal Democrats’ five principles for SEND reform. We are very happy to work constructively with the Government on that reform, because we know that all these children—whether they have special needs and whatever their background—deserve the very best start in life.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Every child, no matter where they are born, deserves the very best start in life. The first 1,000 days of a child’s life are absolutely critical, paving the way for the rest of their lives. That time has a direct impact on how they perform in school and in their work life; it affects all their life stages.
My first job after leaving Keele University 20 years ago was working for a local Sure Start centre in Stoke-on-Trent. I loved working there because I saw at first hand how those centres completely transformed the lives of families across Stoke-on-Trent and Kidsgrove. That is why the plans of this Labour Government to roll out family hubs across the country fill me with complete pride.
Twenty years ago, so many parents were given the helping hand that they needed to give their kids a better start in life, and it was so devastating for me personally to watch how Conservative cuts absolutely decimated our local centres. The Conservative-led city council in Stoke-on-Trent gutted our centres by removing our most crucial preventive services. The council claimed that it did not actually close any centres, which was partly true, but it took out all the services that operated from the centres, effectively leaving empty buildings with no offer to the families in my local community.
Long before I was involved in politics, it seemed obvious to me that those cuts would result in more kids living in poverty and more living in care. I went to meetings—not when I was involved in politics, but when I worked for the YMCA—and when I raised concerns, they were laughed off by Conservative and independent councillors who said that they knew best. But the facts on the ground said different. Stoke-on-Trent sadly now has among the highest numbers of children living in care anywhere in the country, and more children are living in poverty. This was completely avoidable; it was a political choice that the Conservatives made.
As the children impacted by the cuts grew older, they were confronted by a new hurdle. They were hit by the massive cuts to youth services in our local community. Conservative austerity led to over 90% of the money being taken away from our local councils, which funded the youth clubs—the youth clubs that I went to when I was young, where I met friends and learned new hobbies. Those clubs were then no longer available for young people in our local communities.
David Williams
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee).
Adam Jogee
I am very grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way to me over my other constituency neighbour. My hon. Friend makes an important point about the vital role that county councils and local authorities can play in providing services to my constituents, his and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham). Will he join me in calling on Staffordshire county council to get its act together and deliver the services that our young people deserve?
David Williams
I completely agree with that sentiment. My hon. Friend and I often discuss this issue, so I welcome his comments.
Leigh Ingham
I am grateful to see so many Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent MPs in the Chamber today. I am especially pleased to be here today, because I have a group of brilliant young people from my own constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages participating in my first ever summer school; they are up in the Public Gallery. They have been learning about how Parliament works and how they can use their voices to make change happen. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are serious about giving every child the best start in life, we need to ensure that that includes youth services and comprehensive citizenship education, where they are able to see the difference they can make?
David Williams
I welcome and echo my hon. Friend’s comments. I have supported citizenship over many years—certainly from when I worked for the YMCA locally.
The Conservatives unforgivably turned their backs on our children and young people when they needed our support the most. I am so proud to be a Labour MP, working alongside a Labour Government who are firmly on the side of children, young people and their families. We are beginning to see the righting of the past 14 years of wrongs.
I have been to Milton and Greenways primary academies in my constituency and visited the breakfast clubs that are being rolled out. I have seen at first hand how the kids arrive tired and hungry, but then they start their day ready to learn and full of energy—no longer with hungry bellies.
I am proud, too, that this Labour Government are extending free school meals. That will feed more than 6,700 children across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove from next year. Being well fed means that children learn better, and it is also a critical step in lifting kids out of poverty—something on which I have focused my whole working career.
I am so pleased also that Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove has one of the very first school-based nurseries, which is being rolled out at the brilliant Smallthorne primary academy. This will not only ease pressures on hard-working families who need a helping hand; it will help kids to prepare for the transition to school, and will help to close the development gap early on. This is exactly what a Labour Government are all about: supporting our kids and young people to thrive. I am proud to be playing my role in helping to transform the lives of families across my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I will now announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.
On the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025, the Ayes were 334 and the Noes were 54, so the Ayes have it.
On the Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 (S.I. 2025, No. 737), the Ayes were 333 and the Noes were 54, so the Ayes have it.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams); it has been a while since I have heard the words “Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke”, which used to be bellowed out by our former hon. Friend and his predecessor Jonathan Gullis, who was a great schools Minister—briefly—in a previous Government. I pay tribute to him and his memory—much lamented. I also pay tribute to David Johnston, another former Member, who was children’s Minister in the last Government and was responsible for many of the important reforms that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) mentioned.
I welcome this debate on what I think is a cross-party agenda. I recognise much of what the Minister said about the importance of early years and the sorts of interventions that the Government are talking about. I welcome the impending child poverty strategy, which is an important step forward for us.
I want to make a simple and straightforward point. I have heard a lot in this afternoon’s debate about the importance of investment and support for the different professionals who support children and families. That is all absolutely right, and I agree that that is important. Nevertheless, surely the most important resource available to us to support children and young people is their families and the communities that they grow up in. I implore the Government to think very seriously in preparing their strategy to support the conditions for success in childhood, which is about not simply the public sector professionals, agencies and institutions that are available but the strength of the informal social institutions that children and young people grow up in.
I welcome the Minister’s mention of the importance of social investment, philanthropy and civil society in providing support for children and young people. This is a big boast, but I can claim some credit for the announcement that the Chancellor made on Monday. She happened to be at a charity called AllChild in Wigan, which I claim credit for having founded—although that was not on the press release, I note. The charity began life as the West London Zone, which supports children and young people and which I started back in the early 2010s, having visited the Harlem Children’s Zone in New York with the then Secretary of State Michael Gove. The Harlem Children’s Zone is a tremendously successful project aiming at much of the agenda that we are debating this afternoon, including early identification of children at risk, the provision of intensive support for those children and their families on a community basis, and a place-based model for support for children and families in disadvantage.
We set up the West London Zone with the help of significant philanthropy from Paul Marshall, noted philanthropist and founder of the Ark school chain, who said that we should start one here. We did it on a slightly different model from Harlem’s, which is a monolithic, single entity that provides all services for children and young people. The model we introduced in West London and is now being expanded across the country under the banner of AllChild. I pay tribute to the AllChild team, including Louisa Mitchell, who I got in early to deliver the project, because I would not have been very good at actually running it. Louisa has been a genius, and she is still running it now. This goes to the point I am trying to make: what Louisa did was recognise that in our communities there is an enormous array of really amazing resources in the form of local projects—large and small, formal and informal—that can help with the great task of bringing up a child as a village should.
The mission of the project is to identify in schools—with the help of teachers and, crucially, by using the data available on attainment and attendance—those children who are likely to struggle later. Then it is about ensuring that they get the support that they need, and very much on a personalised basis. That support should come not just from the statutory system around the school—because that will never be adequate for the range of needs and different challenges that a population of children will have—but draw on the resources of the community. We started in west London, which obviously has lots of pockets of wealth but significant pockets of disadvantage as well. Even in those disadvantaged places, and certainly across the country—the project is working in Wigan and elsewhere now—we see tremendous institutions that can support children and young people. The challenge is to do so in a co-ordinated way.
There is a huge opportunity not just to look to the state, schools, local authorities or health—even though bringing all those agencies together around children is important—but to think about the real resource we have, which is in our communities. We should put in place real support and resource for those foundations, whether faith groups, professional bodies of all sorts or community organisations.
Iqbal Mohamed
Does the hon. Member agree that the foundation of early years starts in the home with parents and the mother’s antenatal and post-natal health, and that the Government should include in their strategy a review of current services and what support can be provided to improve children’s outcomes?
Danny Kruger
It is funny: I often find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, which is great, and not what I expected when he was elected to this place.
I was about to come to my final point: the importance of family life. I do not know to what extent that really is on the Government’s agenda when it comes to the child poverty strategy. There will obviously be lots of talk of families, maternal health and so on, but the crucial determinant of success for children is the quality of the relationships they grow up in.
We know that from all the research done into children’s brain development. Human beings are unique among mammals in that we emerge very unformed: our brains are really blank as we emerge from the womb. The strength and health of our brains and our futures are laid down in those early years by the quality of the relationships we grow up with and experience. I know the Government recognise that because of their emphasis on early years, but the quality of the relationship in the home matters so much. I really hope that the Government will be brave enough to recognise the value of stability in the home and the value of two-parent families as a source of real strength. They are a protective factor and a predictor of success for children and young people.
We should, of course, do all we can to support single-parent families—they are crucial and necessary and do amazing work, and we should give them all our support—but to tackle child poverty we must do more to support family formation and family stability. That means recognising the household as a unit. We are way too individualistic in our approach to public policy. We need to think about family health and family strength, and that means supporting couples. I welcome what the Government are trying to do, and I hope that there will be recognition of the importance of community and family life in the child poverty strategy.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Before I came into politics I spent about 20 years working in and with communities, a significant part of which was in early years, so this area is of real importance to me. Through the Sure Start programme, I helped set up a children’s centre and saw firsthand how early years provision lifts up families, supports parents and gives children the solid foundation they need. The centre that I worked with offered not just childcare but an essential early years services hub to benefit families.
We know, and the evidence shows, that the impact of high-quality early years support lasts a lifetime. The earliest years of a child’s life are critical. The nurturing and love received in those early days can shape their chances for the future in school, in work and in life. Since 2010, however, we have seen a hollowing out of early years support. Sure Start centres closed in their hundreds and early years intervention services were cut to the bone. Our early years provision lost a significant amount of funding, as did many others in Sheffield, with £3 million of cuts city-wide. I became involved in the campaign to save early years, which argued that failing to invest in those services led to our paying a price in school achievement gaps, health inequalities and lost potential. We argued back then, when the cuts were made, that the cost of late intervention to communities and public services is higher than the cost of getting it right from the start.
I therefore welcome the Government’s recent initiatives, such as the expansion of free school meals, free breakfast clubs and the recent £500 million investment into Best Start family hubs. It is important that we catch the problems earlier on, before they escalate, with evidence showing that when we invest earlier on, we reduce the long-term cost for the NHS, social care and the criminal justice system.
It is important, however, that we see additional investment in existing family hubs, which have worked tirelessly to provide vital early years support despite years of funding cuts. It is also important that we keep the independent, voluntary and community sectors involved in discussion, as many participate in the delivery of early years services and family hubs in their communities.
Investing in family hubs is not just good policy; it is the right thing to do. If we want to tackle child poverty and ensure every child can thrive, that is where we start, with families right at the heart of our communities.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The best start in life means a good education; good education means a good school; and a good school necessarily means a learning environment in which children can thrive. Tiverton high school in my constituency should not be an exception to that, but because of the decisions of successive Governments, it has been. I will focus my remarks on the plight of that school, and perhaps it will serve as a microcosm and an example to which other members may well relate in the communities they represent.
Upon visiting Tiverton, one could be forgiven for being sucked into a sense of complacency, with the rolling hills and period buildings in and around the area. Yet hidden there are serious pockets of deprivation, economic and social poverty, and we can feel it. Tiverton high school has been promised a rebuild since 1999—yes, that is 26 years ago—but time after time, successive Administrations of different stripes did not deliver, reneging on those promises.
Since my arrival in this place, I have pushed relentlessly to secure a concrete commitment on Tiverton high school’s rebuild. Indeed, I was filled with optimism because in November last year, the Department for Education confirmed Tiverton high school’s inclusion in the school rebuilding programme, with work set to commence as early as April 2025. Finally, it seemed that the Government had grasped the nettle. Finally, they had heeded the calls, for they had grown impossible to ignore. It was going to happen, I thought; perhaps this was it.
The long-standing promises of a rebuild, which dissipated each time, have meant that Tivvy high, as we affectionately call it, saw routine maintenance and refurbishments fall by the wayside. A culture of “Keep calm and carry on” set in, with the anticipation that the cavalry, or the diggers, would arrive to get the rebuild underway.
The 1970s sports hall is riddled with asbestos, rendering it entirely unusable for many months of the year and depriving students of essential physical education. To make matters worse, the school was built on a floodplain, which is a crucial detail that is blithely skipped over and which was not acknowledged in the pre-assessment conducted by the Department for Education. The Environment Agency has also reported the regular flooding of multiple school buildings to be a risk to life, particularly if someone is under five foot. That is utter madness in 21st-century Britain.
The school is dilapidated and not an environment that is at all conducive to learning. Instead, such an environment leads pupils to feel unnurtured, thrown on to society’s scrapheap and simply forgotten about. What kind of message does that send to children? If the Department for Education rowed back on the promise of a rebuild, it would be not just a political misstep but would see a whole community shunned again. It would be a cruel volte-face. To be clear, we are talking about the hope of a community that has been strung along for a quarter of a century being reduced to a line in a ministerial briefing.
They say that politics is the art of the grey, and I will not walk away empty handed on this. I am absolutely sure of that. After all these years, the community needs this pledge to be honoured.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a privilege to contribute to today’s debate on giving children the best possible start in life. As a father, this is an issue that matters deeply to me, not just politically but personally. We all understand that our experiences in our first years shape the adults we go on to become. The memories formed in those formative years, whether of joy and love or challenge and neglect, stay with us for life. They shape our confidence, our relationships and our view of the world.
I am sure all of us in this Chamber have had the privilege of going into schools and speaking to children about what they want to be when they grow up. What a privilege that is, and what a responsibility it gives us to ensure that today’s children can dream just as big as we did, and feel just as supported in reaching those dreams. That is why it is vital that we do everything we can to make sure that every child, no matter their background, gets the same sense of possibility, the same support and the same opportunities to thrive. I know that I want that for my children.
I am proud that this Labour Government are committed to rolling out Best Start family hubs. These hubs, along with the children’s centres that already exist such as the fantastic West Chadsmoor family centre in my constituency, provide vital wraparound support for families, offering everything from early education to parenting advice and mental health support. The announcement earlier this year of a new school-based nursery at Heath Hayes primary academy is another proud example of how we are supporting children in my towns and villages.
As an adoptive parent and foster carer, I want to take a moment to speak directly to the needs of some of our most vulnerable children—those who grow up in the care system. In Staffordshire alone, the county council supports over 5,000 children, of whom 1,345 are in care. Because of the sadly increasing demand, the council has faced dramatic financial pressures, overspending by nearly £3.8 million, largely as a result of the costs of placing children in care. These figures underline the scale of the demand and the commitment needed to meet it.
I am an evangelical advocate for fostering to adopt, also known as early permanence, and I should declare an interest because that is the path that I have taken in adopting my children. Fostering to adopt allows vulnerable children to move into stable, loving homes as soon as possible, avoiding the uncertainty and disruption that all too often characterise life in care. I would like to put on record my personal thanks to the Minister for Children and Families, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), for also being a strong advocate on this, and for giving her time to me today to discuss early permanence and support for fostered and adopted children.
Evidence shows that early intervention, especially when speech and language support is provided before six months old, leads to lasting gains in expressive vocabulary, social and emotional development, and communication outcomes. Enrolment in support before three months, for example, delivers measurable gains in vocabulary at 18 to 24 months and even helps to close gaps with hearing peers by age five. Children in care are just as full of potential as any other child, but they need us in this place to fight a little harder for them, to make sure that they too, when asked “What do you want to be when you grow up?”, have the support they need around them to achieve whatever those dreams might be.
Labour is delivering the biggest overhaul of legislation to protect children in a generation, because where others dither and kick political footballs, we on this side of the House will always act decisively to look after the most vulnerable.
Adam Jogee
Just before my hon. Friend comes to the end of his important remarks, I am sure the whole House will want to thank him and his family for leading by example, not just by showing care and compassion but by bringing that life experience to this place.
Josh Newbury
Thank you. I really appreciate that from my hon. Friend. I think that everybody who puts themselves forward to be an adopter or a foster carer does so with a huge amount of compassion. It is a journey that is often fraught with difficulty, and it certainly presents its challenges, but I think that all parenthood does. Sometimes we need to recognise that parents, no matter how they come to their parenthood, are doing an awful lot to make sure that the next generation thrives—which is, after all, why we are all here today.
This Government are putting in place massive support for kinship carers, with £44 million invested in kinship and foster carers and a new kinship allowance being trialled to provide financial stability to those stepping up to care for children in their wider family. Our national kinship care ambassador is working with local authorities to improve support and permanence pathways, and that is very welcome. Together with the child poverty taskforce, which will report in the autumn, and the expansion of free school meals, these measures underpin our mission to lift 100,000 children out of poverty, because no child should go hungry into their classroom.
By investing in family hubs where families in Cannock Chase and beyond can access wraparound support, by rolling out early intervention programmes that build children’s language and confidence from birth, and by prioritising early permanence and fostering to adopt for children in the care system, we can deliver on the promise of giving every child—not just some—the best possible start in life and the opportunity to make the most of their potential. Every child deserves love, stability and opportunity. Whether they dream of becoming a doctor, a teacher or even a Member of Parliament, it is our duty to ensure that those dreams are possible and to allow every child to make the most of their gifts and potential.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this crucial debate. I welcome the announcements by the Secretary of State and the Government on the investment and the work they plan to do. We all agree that every child in this country—regardless of postcode, parent or circumstance—deserves the best possible start in life. That is not just a slogan; it is a moral duty and a political choice. It is the foundation for a fairer, stronger and more prosperous Britain, and a critical contributor to the Government’s growth mission.
I am extremely grateful for the opportunities afforded to me when I was a child. I am the eldest of six. My mother was a homemaker, and my father worked in a factory. He then fell ill and was supported by the state. I had free school meals and free school uniforms, and I had the opportunity to go to university without incurring tens of thousands of pounds of debt. I wish for those same opportunities and more for every single child in our country going forward. Yet today, far too many children are being failed by a system that is stretched, fragmented and underfunded. We are the sixth largest economy in the world, and yet we have rising child poverty, overstretched early years services, and a widening attainment and life expectancy gap between the richest and the rest. It does not have to be this way—we can and must do better.
If we are serious about giving every child the best start in life, we must start before birth. A child’s life chances are shaped long before they take their first breath. The health and wellbeing of pregnant women and new mothers is critical for not only safe delivery, but the emotional and physical development of the child. Yet, across the UK today, midwife staffing levels are dangerously low. Prenatal and post-natal support is patchy and inconsistent. There are real maternity service inequalities for ethnic minorities and in areas of deprivation, and maternal and health needs are too often ignored.
I urge the Government to take a holistic view and review the current state of maternity services across our nation and regions, and to put in the required investment to equalise those services and make them fit for purpose. This is not just a health issue; it is a social justice issue because the poorest women, who are often at the highest risk of complications, are least likely to receive the care they need. Investment in maternal care is investment in stronger families, healthier babies and a better future for all.
To continue where life continues—the early years—the science is clear, as has been mentioned by right hon. and hon. Members. A child’s brain develops faster from birth to five than at any other time. These years shape everything from health and happiness to educational success and economic opportunity, so why is it that access to high-quality early education is still a postcode lottery? Why are childcare workers, who do some of the most vital work in our society, paid less than supermarket staff? We must deliver universal high-quality childcare from the end of parental leave to the start of school, and I welcome the Government’s announcements and investment in this area. I fully support the Government’s plans to invest in the early years workforce, and we must make quality, not just quantity, a measure of success.
Family is the first and foremost influence on a child’s life, yet support for families has been dismantled over the past 14 years. Health visitors have been cut and Sure Start centres closed, and too many parents have been left to struggle alone. I welcome the Government’s plans to rebuild—rebuild family hubs in every community, rebuild our health visiting service, and rebuild trust by giving parents real support and not judgment.
Two of the biggest determinants of how well a child will do in life is where they are born and the income of their family. Across the UK, child poverty has been rising. According to the Child Poverty Action Group, 1.6 million children are now affected by the two-child benefit cap. That means 1.6 million children whose futures are being limited by a Government policy—not by anything they have done, or by anything their families have failed to do, but by a decision to deny them the support that they need to grow and thrive. In Dewsbury and Batley, over 11,800 children are growing up in poverty. More than half of them live in working households. Those families are doing everything asked of them—going to work and trying to save—but they are still unable to meet their children’s basic needs. One parent told me:
“We live in a two-bed flat with three children. I have to cycle to work because travel costs would push us into deficit. An extra £50 a week would make a huge difference.”
That £50 could mean a warm coat, a school trip or proper meals for a week. It could mean a child arriving in the classroom ready to learn, not hungry and anxious.
What kind of country does that to its children? We say that we want every child to have the best start in life, but how can that happen if policies deliberately push them into hardship from birth? Reducing child poverty is not just a moral obligation; it is a smart investment. It leads to better health, better educational outcomes, higher future earnings and increased tax revenue. Children are not a cost to be capped; they are our country’s future.
We must also tackle the mental health crisis affecting our children and young people. CAMHS, as we know and have heard many times in this Chamber, are overwhelmed. Children are waiting months, sometimes years, for help. We need in-school mental health support teams in every school. We need early intervention, not crisis firefighting. We must train staff across education and early years in trauma-informed practice.
Let me move on to education. I was blessed with the opportunity to go to school and cannot remember ever going on an empty stomach. The work that my father did, and the support that the Government provided in welfare and benefits, ensured that I did not go to school hungry. I had free school meals and came home to a warm meal. That, I am sure, made a huge difference to what I have been able to achieve in life. Education should be the great leveller, but in reality the attainment gap between disadvantaged children and their peers is growing, not shrinking. We must strengthen the pupil premium, restore funding for early literacy and numeracy, and, yes, expand free school meals to every primary pupil, because no child should learn on an empty stomach. I welcome the Government’s announcement on providing free school meals to every child whose family is on universal credit, but I gently encourage them to consider expanding that benefit so that it is universal.
This is not about short-term fixes; it is about long-term nation building and solutions. It is about a country that invests in its youngest, supports its mothers and refuses to accept inequality as inevitable. When we give children the best start in life, we all benefit, through lower crime, better health, stronger communities and a more productive economy, so let us rise to the moment. Let us stop managing decline and start investing in potential. Let us give every child, in every corner of this country, the best start in life.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I commend the Government for their mission to give every child the best start in life. It is critical that all children, no matter where they are born, have every opportunity to achieve their potential. I must mention at this point the number of Staffordshire MPs who are here for the debate, which just shows the importance of this topic to the children in our county.
Adam Jogee
Inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), does my hon. Friend agree that team Staffordshire hunt as a pack?
Dr Gardner
My hon. Friend is right that we hunt as a pack: when the three Stokie MPs get together with our Staffordshire colleagues, we make a formidable bunch, and I am very proud to be part of the team.
I am incredibly proud to work for a Labour Government who are breaking down the barriers to opportunity, tackling child poverty and improving early years development through our plan for change. This is certainly a nationwide issue, but I wish to stress the critical importance of this mission in Stoke-on-Trent South and Stoke-on-Trent more widely. Our children were neglected time and again by the previous Government, and we now have some of the worst outcomes for childhood development, health and wellbeing in the country. Before I list the statistics, I want to point out that Stoke-on-Trent is also the best place in the country to live and that the people are fantastic. We have been let down and that is by no means the fault of the wonderful people of Stoke-on-Trent.
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point. My constituency of Stratford and Bow, in east London, was recently scored second best in the country on the Sutton Trust opportunity index, for opportunities for children to advance in life, and the neighbouring constituency, East Ham, scored top. London has severe inequalities in giving children the best start in life, but we also have opportunities. It is important that kids in Staffordshire get the same opportunities. That is why this Government are working to spread that opportunity far and wide, so that they all have the best possible start in life.
Dr Gardner
I commend my hon. Friend and her neighbour for those wonderful outcomes, although I am sure she still has issues in her constituency that we need to battle against.
As I have said in the Chamber before, child poverty in some parts of my constituency is as high as 76%. In 2022-23, 13 children in every classroom of 30 were living in poverty in Stoke. Stoke-on-Trent has the highest rate of infant mortality in the country, and between 2019 and 2021, babies born in Stoke were nearly twice as likely to die before their first birthday than the national average.
In addition, Stoke-on-Trent has the highest number of children in care per head of population in England, and our children face successive delays in early years development. In 2023, Stoke-on-Trent was in the bottom 10 of all English local authorities for the number of children with the “expected” level of literacy, communication and language, and numeracy skills by early years foundation stage. I know that these figures will shock many, but Stoke-on-Trent must be a priority region for tackling child poverty and our related missions. There are children in my constituency who start school unable to speak, use the toilet or brush their teeth, and there are children in our high schools who are still learning phonics, which should have been taught in primary school, as they are struggling with such severe delays in their development.
Infant mortality, a topic that is very close to my heart, is explicitly linked to socioeconomic inequalities and persistent inequalities in health. As has been mentioned, the first thousand days of a child’s life are the most important. What happens during those days can, in many cases, predict a child’s entire life course. It is devastating that for so many children in our city their first few years are marked by deprivation, poor quality housing and incredibly low living standards.
Labour Stoke-on-Trent city council is doing excellent work to support our children. It has made major improvements to children’s social care services, focusing on early help and new front-door arrangements, and the family matters programme is a multi-agency programme delivering prevention and support services to give our children the very best start in life. Local organisations, like Thrive at Five and Stoke Speaks Out, have also run incredible programmes to facilitate a thriving early years network in Stoke-on-Trent to improve children’s early development.
However, our city council and our local services have had to work incredibly hard against a backdrop of successive cuts over the past 14 to 15 years that have decimated so many services and forced many to close altogether. Many of our holistic early intervention programmes, where families could get advice, health visitors supported families from pregnancy onwards, and staff could identify families in need and offer early support, have now closed their doors.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for her brilliant speech. Is not much of this issue about the history of our communities? These are industrial heartlands that were let down, left behind and forgotten for many, many years. We need not just joined-up thinking as we address these results, from the early years right through the journey to higher education and beyond, but joined-up results. That is how we will be able to deliver for communities in Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent and right across Staffordshire.
Dr Gardner
My hon. Friend quite rightly points out the complexities and histories of the issues that we face, which we need to solve with a holistic approach.
In the absence of amazing services such as Sure Start, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), the predominant policy route has been to fund reactive services that reach families only at crisis point. Not only is that incredibly costly, but it results in so many children with developmental delays or safeguarding concerns going unnoticed until it is far too late. Early years services provide a lifeline to so many families; in their absence, inequalities have risen and our children have suffered. Stoke’s children deserve better. I am deeply grateful to the Minister, who is in her place and who has agreed to have a meeting with me to discuss the difficult problems that we wish to solve. The Government are absolutely working hard to address those.
As I said, I am incredibly pleased that this Government are expanding the early years offer through the Best Start family hubs model. I am so grateful that the Government have committed to further support the family hub in Normacot, which the community has fought so hard to save, but families in Meir also deserve a Best Start family hub. Residents in Meir are proud of where they live, but they are aware of the challenges in their community, and they too deserve support. Children in Meir would benefit hugely from a centre in their neighbourhood.
We know what works. We know that high-quality early years education and support networks for families can completely transform a child’s life chances. We know that early intervention is far more effective and affordable than trying to fix problems later down the line. We need policies that improve neonatal and post-natal health, provide parents with the knowledge and support to give their children the very best start and provide children with support to achieve their early learning and development goals. I am therefore so grateful for the expansion of early years support through the Best Start family hubs and our targets for early years development under the plan for change. This Government will bring about much-needed change for children across the country, and it is critical that that investment is received in Stoke-on-Trent South.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Although the Minister for Early Education is not in his place, I congratulate him on his speech and thank him for all his work, particularly on getting mental health support workers in our schools.
As the Member of Parliament for Redditch and the villages, I see every day how vital the issue of child aspiration and opportunity is. I have seen the powerful impact that early support and investment can make on a child’s life, whether they are growing up in Winyates, Woodrow, Batchley or Matchborough or in villages such as Astwood Bank, Feckenham, Norton or Dodderhill.
This week I have had the pleasure of meeting Rhys Elliot, a young boy in Harvington who is awaiting his GCSE results and has a clear aspiration and dream in his head of what he wants to be. I have also seen the other side, where children are held back not because they lack the talent or ambition, but simply because they did not get the same start as others. Why is it that in some schools, children speak confidently about becoming doctors, lawyers or engineers, while in others they cannot imagine a life outside the limits placed around them?
This is not about ability: it is about opportunity, and opportunity starts early. That is why I commend the Government on expanding breakfast clubs, such as the one at St Stephen’s in my constituency, which are making a real difference. Having spent a morning with the children and parents, I truly appreciate the calm and nourishment that these clubs provide. They set children up for a positive start to their day and ease the pressures on hard-working families. That is why I also welcome the Government’s plans to increase the number of children in my constituency who will receive free school meals.
I am pleased that Redditch will receive central funding for the first time to roll out Best Start family hubs across my constituency. The hubs will provide wide-ranging support for families, from parenting advice to early development services, offering a vital lifeline for many. They are a true successor to the legacy of Sure Start.
When I listened to the Secretary of State talk about the roll-out earlier this week, I was struck that the Prime Minister came to my constituency on his final stop of the general election campaign. He gave his speech in a Sure Start centre that had been abandoned by the previous Government, in a constituency in one of the most socially and economically deprived areas in the west midlands that had been forgotten. I am delighted that this Government are taking action to reverse 14 years of decline.
I am also happy to see investment making a difference locally. At Matchborough first school academy, funding is being used to convert unused classrooms into nursery spaces, providing high-quality early years places where they are most needed. That is exactly the kind of practical, place-based solution that helps to level the playing field from the very start. My constituency has also seen significant increases in SEN support for my county council—although there is so much more work to do in that area—and the benefits of mental health support workers entering our schools.
However, we must go much further. In my day, I was taught in a class of nearly 40, in draughty temporary buildings. Those days should be behind us, but because of disastrous decisions such as the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme, schools such as Ridgeway secondary school are facing the daunting challenge of having to raise millions of pounds to remain fit for purpose. I do not want to see that school—one of the most improved in the country—have tents and temporary buildings forced on it. That is not levelling up; it is letting down our children.
I want to say something very clearly: I have never met a family in Redditch or the villages who wanted an easy ride. I have only ever met families who want a fair shot for their children, a level playing field, and the chance to give their kids the opportunities that they never had. That is why I found yesterday’s debate on the two-child limit so troubling. The official Opposition decided to make children a political wedge issue, condemning their parents for whatever reason or for whatever circumstances they might find themselves in, but that decision will only impact children. That is why I am so pleased that this week, we have seen the announcement of the better futures fund—a decision by this Government to invest in real, outcome-based delivery opportunities alongside the private sector, in order to lift children out of poverty.
We cannot talk about giving every child the best start in life without confronting the reality of poverty in all its forms, including furniture poverty, which is something we do not talk nearly enough about. In my constituency, there are children who go to bed without a bed. Some do not have a desk to do their homework on or a table to eat at, and some do not have a cooker with which their parents can cook a nutritious meal. Despite working all the hours they possibly can, some parents still go without meals just to make ends meet. In his brief speech, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) talked about families; I would like to put on record that not all families contain two parents. Families come in all different sizes, and we should be supporting all of them, regardless of whether it is two, one, three or four. This is not just about income—it is about dignity, stability and the very basics of a secure home environment, in which a child can sleep properly and study in peace.
David Williams
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend’s comments about furniture poverty. In Stoke-on-Trent, we have Emmaus—it is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell)—which has a “beds for kids” project, because so many kids in Stoke-on-Trent do not even have a bed to sleep in at night. It is important that the issue of furniture poverty is picked up in Government policy.
Chris Bloore
I agree with my hon. Friend—furniture poverty is a stain on a society that we have failed. I totally understand the rights and responsibilities of individual parents and families, but when we know there is a problem, we should deal with it. Unfortunately, voluntary groups have taken on that challenge where the state has rolled back support.
When we have the financial capacity, we should throw everything we have at reducing the number of children in poverty, because this is about their dreams. There can be no better investment than in the future of our children, and those of us who believe in social mobility and in the transformative power of education and aspiration must never sacrifice those principles on the altar of desperate attempts at political relevance. Rightly, we often debate passionately in this place how life begins and how it ends, but what about what happens in between? What about the lives that children are living now, those whose families are struggling to afford school shoes or skipping meals to make ends meet? I am glad that this Government are taking on those real challenges, and are refusing to adopt the Opposition’s mantra of condemning parents for their choices or the circumstances they find themselves in.
If we are serious about giving every child the best start, we need more than warm words; we need investment, compassion, and a commitment to early years as a national priority. I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who have made that commitment in our first 12 months in office, because those first days, months and years are those in which futures are forged, and for which our responsibility as lawmakers and public servants is at its greatest.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a genuine pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore). He and I have worked together for the best part of a decade, and his commitment to seeing a real improvement in the lives of the children he represents is commendable. We should all take a leaf out of his book.
Like many people in this place, I spend a lot of my time visiting primary schools. I meet the teachers, I am shown around the classrooms, and, being six foot four, I have to try not to take out a row of paintings or some bunting that is hanging across the room.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friend gets to visit lots of primary schools. During the debate I have heard about so many schools all over the country. However, the people of Bidwell West, in my constituency, are still waiting for a primary school. It was promised in plans and brochures when they were buying their new homes more than a decade ago, but it still has not arrived. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important for councils to work constructively with the Department for Education to ensure that these promised schools finally open?
Gareth Snell
How could I not agree? Those facilities in communities are what turn them from housing estates into homes, and turn the communities into something special.
At this point, I should declare my interests. I am a governor of a special educational needs school in Stoke-on-Trent, and I chair the all-party parliamentary group on children’s literacy, which, with the Minister’s support, is running the national year of reading. I will get on to that later.
When I visit primary schools and talk to the young people in reception and year 1 classes, and see those bright young faces, full of vim and vigour and expectations about what kind of life may lie ahead of them, I think about the statistics, which, as was ably explained by my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), are quite stark. Stoke-on-Trent ranks—or did rank—142nd out of 151 for key stage 2 attainment. Although I accept some of the points made by the shadow Minister about the national increase in achievement across certain parts of the education sector, the last Government failed to reduce the attainment gap across the country, and there are still parts of the country, like Stoke-on-Trent, where that gap has not closed.
Cities that are economically and socially challenged—I will not say “deprived”, because I do not like that word—have not seen the improvements that have been seen in other parts of the country. As a result, there are generations of young people whose futures have been essentially stunted because the opportunities available to them are hampered by the absence of the early education and investment that they should have received, which means that their later life attainment is also hampered.
Every time I speak to primary school teachers or headteachers, and even some in secondary schools, the first thing they say to me is “It’s tough.” They say that because, as was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, there are young people arriving at those schools who are unable to hold a pen or a fork, or are unable to articulate what they are thinking and feeling because their oracy simply is not good enough. That makes communication in early years education almost impossible to achieve. Children are arriving who are not appropriately potty-trained, which means that teaching staff are engaging in a basic level of parenting.
Adam Jogee
I thank my other constituency neighbour for giving way. Last week I held a headteachers’ forum at a school in my constituency that my hon. Friend knows well for various reasons. What was clear to me from that conversation—and I am grateful to all those who attended the forum—was that teachers are now undertaking a journey from educating to social work. One shared the story of a nine-year-old child who was not potty-trained, which meant that the teacher was required to help with changing and making the child clean and safe. The morale challenges that teachers face, coupled with the challenges that my hon. Friend has mentioned, illustrate the crisis that we face. That is why it is so important for the Minister’s work to extend not only to Stoke-on-Trent, but to Newcastle-under-Lyme as well.
Gareth Snell
When we have local government reorganisation, we will be one big happy family in north Staffordshire. Whether it is Stoke-on-Trent or Newcastle-under-Lyme, we will get there.
Gareth Snell
No, I will not give way a second time.
My hon. Friend is correct, in that the teachers I speak to say that it is hard. They talk about the societal impacts that are affecting children, through no fault of those young people themselves—there is nothing they can do about it—and impeding their ability. It is the teachers, and also the teaching assistants and support staff, who are having to do the social work. They are helping parents to sort out access to benefit claims, and in some cases they are helping to arrange childcare for parents who are doing shift work. They are stepping into a void that, in some parts of the world, is filled by extended families. In other parts of the world, such tasks are carried out by statutory services. But as a result of cuts to support services, and of social workers having huge caseloads, they are simply unable to do that, so it all falls on people whose primary motivation in life is the education of our young people.
Dr Gardner
I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning the extra work that so many of our primary schools do. I particularly want to comment on the headteacher of Alexandra infants’ school in Normacot, Adele Lupton, who has for many years had a community room that is open to the community. She has worked so incredibly hard to support children in incredibly difficult circumstances, and has managed to keep her teams together. She is a shining example, as are so many of the wonderful headteachers in Stoke-on-Trent who fight to deliver the services that are so sadly lacking sometimes.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend has made the point excellently. Although she and I will talk passionately about the experiences that we see in our own city, I am sure that in every city like ours across the country—including, I would wager, Bradford, Madam Deputy Speaker—there are good teachers who go above and beyond to support local communities, and schools that act more as hubs for social support, community involvement and neighbourhood engagement than simply as places for young people to be educated.
We are very fortunate in Stoke-on-Trent, because we already have some family hubs. I have two in my constituency. There is one at Bentilee, which does exceedingly good work, supported by Simon French and the Alpha Academies Trust, and Thrive at Five; multi-agency activity there is genuinely looking at the direct causes of the attainment issues and at what can be done practically to support families. We also have the hub at Thomas Boughey children’s centre.
The family hubs model is not particularly revolutionary, because it replicates what happened with Sure Start. My daughter is now 14, and her mother and I had to access the Sure Start system when she was born. There were things that, as new parents in our mid-20s, we simply did not know. My family and hers both lived far away, and our network of support was really quite small, so we naturally turned to our Sure Start centre, which was based up the road in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), who is no longer in his place—I have denied him the opportunity for another intervention. We walked into the Sure Start centre, spoke to a lovely woman and explained our problems, which were about latching and trying to understand routines.
Unless people have someone who can sit them down and talk them through it, they do not really know what they are doing. As a new parent who did not really know what I was doing, my instinct was to think, “I’m probably doing it badly and wrong.” We went to the Sure Start centre, and it was lovely and welcoming. We sat down and had a conversation with somebody. We went through what we were worried about, and we were reassured that the anxiety we were experiencing as new, young parents was perfectly normal and in line with everybody else’s expectations and understanding. Somebody there was a lifeline for us, and we were signposted to a room down the corridor and told when we could pop by again and have another conversation with somebody who had a level of expertise and who could offer support.
The model that we are now rerunning in Stoke-on-Trent has benefits. Looking at some of the data coming out of Bentilee in particular, we can see that there are improvements in the attainment levels of children starting school who have been through the programme, who have interacted with some of the schemes and who have accessed the maintained school nursery at the same site. I know the Minister will be aware of the importance of maintained nursery schools—those teacher-led facilities that really get to the crux of the problem in some of the communities that are the hardest to deal with.
Alongside the family hub, I welcome all the work that the Government are doing in this area. There is a breakfast club at the Co-op Academy Grove school in Northwood. Mrs Carrigan and I were there one morning as it was starting, and I noticed not just that children were coming in to have a hot breakfast, which was reassuring and welcome, but that they were interacting and talking to each other. In fact, the staff told me that the most popular thing that the young boys do after they have their breakfast is to go and play with the playdough. They do not want to play electronic games; they want to build and model stuff. As a result, the staff are looking at setting up a science, technology, engineering and maths group, because they can see that that is where some of the young people want to go.
Mrs Carrigan told me that the children were also more settled; because they have come into school slightly earlier, have had their breakfast and taken off their coats, when the day starts they are ready to start learning from the moment the bell goes, which means those vital minutes in the morning are used for teaching, not for trying to calm down a class of 30 children who are a little bit all over the place. We cannot underestimate how much those minutes accrue over the course of a year and how much time can be brought back for education purposes.
Fundamentally, the challenges I face in Stoke-on-Trent, and that other Members have eloquently articulated in their own communities, stem from the fact that the attainment rate for the best start to life in places like Stoke-on-Trent is not as great as for children in other areas because of the poverty levels. Whether we call it furniture poverty, food poverty or child poverty—whatever we call it—it is poverty: young people growing up in households that simply do not have enough coming in to meet all their outgoings.
The best start in life is not only an educational issue. I appreciate that this debate is being led by the Department for Education because that is where the policy area sits, but if we want to give a child a good start in life, they need a safe, warm home that is not draughty; they need somewhere where they have the space to grow, develop and learn; and they need secure play areas where they feel comfortable to socialise and interact with their peers. They also need access to good-quality dentists, as the huge levels of tooth decay in Stoke mean that children are missing school; access to those vital health services is crucial.
Let me turn to the parenting aspect. Too many of my constituents tell me that they had a really bad experience at school, so they do not want to go back into school to get help, advice and support. For them, school was a moment of trauma—a time that they did not particularly enjoy—so being asked to go back to school, in some cases to see the same members of staff who taught them 20 years earlier, gives them the sense that they are being judged.
We need to think much more holistically and about what levers we can pull, through Government and local government, to see our aspiration of improved outcomes for young people. Education is one of those levers, but we also have to make sure that parents can access good-quality support for their own health and mental health, and good-quality jobs so that they can afford to have a good work-life balance and to spend time with their children. We need to have a think about the way in which we establish networks for young people so that, as well as the formal education setting, they can access necessary social activities, whether through formal organisations like the scouts or through sporting clubs. There has to be an opportunity for young people to socialise in the way that they are happiest to do.
Fundamentally—I know the Minister gets this because I have spoken to her about it—we have to think about the nuances for individual groups of young people, who need specific support. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) rightly pointed out that the removal of the adoption and special guardianship support fund is a particular challenge for a small but high-need group of young people. I have made my views on that known to the Minister, and I hope that her Department will look at what more can be done to support children growing up in kinship care arrangements, like I did, because they face specific challenges. This is not necessarily a poverty-related issue, but it is about accessing support services that allow them to live a fruitful childhood.
Finally, on SEND, I am proud to be a governor of the Abbey Hill special school, which is in the constituency of my neighbour my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. One of the biggest challenges we face relates to EHCPs and how to give young people a particularly good chance in life. Under section I, parents can identify the particular school they want their child to go to. I agree with the Government’s plan on this; if we can keep children who have additional needs—whether that be SEND or social, emotional, and mental health requirements—in the mainstream setting with the right help and the right support, we should do so. That frees up places for the children who need that specialist, bespoke support in special schools, to a level that means everyone is in the right place.
We need to stop those mainly alternative providers, which are running huge profits, marketing their schools to children and families who are desperately in need of help and support, and saying to them, “Tell your local authority, under section I, that you want to go to this particular school”, because that means the money flows out. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are spent on alternative providers, normally outside of the area, and those providers get that money through marketing; they sell young people and their parents a dream of a particular type of education that they can access, regardless of the standard of that education.
Munira Wilson
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches tried to put forward an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to extend the profit cap that the Government have proposed for children’s social care homes run by private equity firms to the special schools creaming off profits from our local authorities and denying vulnerable children the education they need. However, I am afraid that Labour Members voted against it, so will he join me in convincing Ministers to think again while the other place is considering the Bill?
Gareth Snell
I would not say that the hon. Lady’s intervention was helpful to me, but she has made her point. The Government have been quite clear that we must look at how some alternative provision and specialist independent providers are making huge profits off the back of some of the most desperate and vulnerable children in our society, and at how local authorities need the tools to tackle that. In a new programme opening in my own city, one of the trusts that runs one of the special schools is looking to do mainstream work with some of the other trusts’ schools, but that is about getting trusts to work together. I do not remember her amendment, but I have absolute faith in the ministerial team—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I cannot honestly say that I read everything that the Liberal Democrats produce.
To move this forward slightly, I do know, and the hon. Lady will know, that the Government have been quite clear about the need to tackle the profiteering and price gouging happening in the sector. I am almost certain that the Minister will have a better answer for her than I can give her while I am speaking. That is obviously something we all agree on as a principle, and I am sure we can have a discussion another time about how we get there. However, in places such as Stoke, the higher needs budget is being blown because thousands of pounds are being taken by these glossy brochure schools that are making huge profits, and that does not give the young people in my city the best start in life. I think it gives them false hope.
Finally, I would say to the Minister that the best start in life is about the first 1,001 days. I am very proud to chair the APPG on literacy, and I am really glad that the Department for Education has announced the year of reading. The bond of reading to your child is so important. Early years literacy, which also helps with oracy, means young people can start school with a set of skills that will help them thrive throughout their education.
The other part of this that we need to think about is how we help parents who do not have a level of literacy necessary to start reading to their children. Again, all too often in my constituency I talk to parents who want to talk about literacy, but their confidence in their own literacy skills is such that they do not feel able to do that. It would be welcome if, as part of the National Year of Reading, the Department not only helped young people and children get more into reading and enjoying books—enjoying reading for pleasure, as opposed to having to read for work as most of us do—but ensured that parents were supported to improve their literacy in a way that allows them to interact with their children for longer as their own education progresses, I know that would be a huge benefit not just in my constituency but across the whole country.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), although I feel I am breaking a run of excellent speeches from the Staffordshire massive. I very much welcome this debate on giving every child the best start in life. I think one thing we can agree on across all the Benches is that that is not just the title of the debate, but a moral duty. It is the measure of a Government’s values, and it is also the foundation of a thriving and fair society.
In my constituency of Southampton Itchen, the unfortunate truth is that too many children are still being held back—not by the lack of potential, but by the lack of opportunity. It is high time that that changed, and I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are making that change happen. My constituency is in the much vaunted London and the south-east, which we usually hear about for its wealth and prosperity, but the reality is often different in Thornhill and Weston, where one child in every three is growing up in poverty. That is not the picture of wealth that we are often lumped in with. Many children arrive at school already behind in language, health or emotional development.
There are dedicated teachers and early years professionals who do everything they can. I pay tribute to all those I have met and worked with over a number of years, first as a councillor and then in the past year as an MP visiting schools. I do not face the same height challenge as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central when visiting those schools—indeed, in some secondary schools the pupils are taller than me these days. Dedicated teachers and professionals—I know colleagues across the Chamber will also be meeting them—are working against a legacy of underfunding and fragmentation of services.
That is why I welcome the Labour Government’s plan for change and our focus on a number of policies that will help to give every child the best start in life. They include: expanding high-quality early years education; the new nursery places for children aged two to four; and the schools-based nurseries in my constituency launched at St Mary’s Church of England primary school and at Valentine primary school. I am grateful to see policies like the rolling out of free breakfast clubs in every primary school. The pilots established at St John’s primary and nursery school and St Patrick’s Catholic primary school are hugely welcome. I have visited and helped to serve breakfasts to the children. I have seen the benefits they are already enjoying of a solid start to the day. Yes, that is through the food, but also through socialising, being with their friends and getting ready to learn.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. As a fellow southern MP, I share his concern about the importance of explaining that there is real poverty across the south of England, as well as in many other parts of the country. He makes a point about the breakfast clubs, which are outstanding and he is right to say how valuable they are on a number of fronts. We have two in Reading. My fellow Reading MPs and I are very proud of them and we look forward to seeing more soon.
Darren Paffey
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I wish him every success in his constituency with the pilot breakfast clubs.
We have all welcomed in the last week a restoring—let us be honest—of Sure Start-style family hubs which will provide wraparound support for parents. From the hubs I have seen in my constituency over recent years—I know that work will build back up again—the potential for mental health support, childcare advice, toy libraries and work support are all there in those places.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is setting out, in a very eloquent way, the amazing work of the Labour Government. I am proud—I hope he agrees—of the previous Labour Government’s achievements in setting up and rolling out Sure Start. Independent research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed what amazing outcomes children had later in life, with higher GCSE scores, reduced hospital admissions, improved physical health, the early identification of special needs, maternal employment and better mental health outcomes. I hope we will see the same from the new Best Start family hubs, too.
Darren Paffey
My hon. Friend paints the picture of the crowning glory of the previous Labour Government, in the Sure Start centres, not just because they were a nice feelgood thing but because of the strong evidence of the benefits they brought. What a disgrace that year after year the Conservatives cut council budgets and shut those very centres. Despite Tory austerity that hit Southampton hard—we lost 60% of our Government grant at Southampton city council—we made the often tough decision financially but the right decision in purpose, to keep those buildings open across the city, because they were crucial centres of support for local families.
I cannot pretend that the range of services offered in those centres was the same as it was a quarter of a century ago when the previous Labour Government set them up under our admired and much-missed colleague, Tessa Jowell, but those buildings still served a purpose. That meant that when the Conservative Government, having shut so many Sure Start centres, experienced an amazing epiphany—a revelation that, actually, they were a really good idea—and reinvented them under the badge of family hubs, our former Sure Start centres were there and ready to be built back up again. I would gently remind the shadow Minister that the family hubs, while welcome, were not new, either. In the lost years between those Conservative budget cuts to children’s services and their later U-turn, far too many families in my constituency and across the country were left without those crucial services.
The Government are also investing in school improvement, particularly in areas with long-standing underachievement and where attainment gaps have remained stubborn. My view is that the upcoming curriculum and assessment review is a huge opportunity to introduce a refreshed and inspiring curriculum with manageable assessments, rather than over-assessment and high-stakes exams, and links to exciting training opportunities in the reality of jobs in the 21st century economy into the future.
As other hon. Members have said, the special educational needs and disabilities system is absolutely broken. I commend the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is no longer in her place, for leading our Committee’s inquiry on this subject. As I am sure is the case for other Members, I hear a lot from constituents in surgeries and through my inbox about situations that are in many cases avoidable, and which we must certainly work hard to avoid in the future, with children’s needs not being met because of a system that needs to be fundamentally rebuilt, described by its own architects as “lose, lose, lose”. A reformed SEND system must give every child the support they need to access school and ensure they are not excluded from the potential for success in life that every single child deserves and is capable of.
Numerous schools have fantastic and innovative practices going on, including Bitterne Park secondary school, which I visited last week, which is establishing a variety of units, specialist rooms and particular provisions within the mainstream, working towards a truly inclusive school. In reforming the SEND system—I do not underestimate or envy the task of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench here—I have asked Ministers to consider how we can scale up the good practice in many of our constituencies to end the postcode lottery and guarantee consistency across our country. These are the kinds of policies that have been announced—these are the building blocks of a much better future for children in my constituency and across the country.
If we are serious about change, we must not only welcome and consolidate the significant changes this Government are making, but commit to continual improvement. In the wind-up, I ask the Minister to address the Government’s commitment to prioritising areas like Southampton Itchen. As I have said, we may be located in the south—often assumed wrongly to be a magnet for wealth—but child poverty is entrenched and multi-generational. We must not have a blind spot to need that is based on geographical assumptions.
Will Ministers ensure that our new Best Start family hubs are truly integrated with schools, NHS services and local councils so that they do not simply replicate past silos? Will Ministers also guarantee long-term funding? I think I know the answer, but it is always worth asking. Long-term funding that goes beyond a single Parliament—the Prime Minister has spoken for a long time now about a decade of national renewal—is not just desirable, but absolutely necessary. We need investment that ensures change is deep, not just fast.
Will Ministers have regard to support for the families that children are growing up in? We have heard from hon. Members about better parental leave. I commend the work of The Dad Shift, among others, in raising awareness of that issue.
Will Ministers also ensure that they look well down the line to not just the early years, which are a crucial foundation, but the years ahead? We must ensure that our children and young people who grow up in care have long-lasting support to thrive in life, guaranteed by meaningful and strong corporate parenting responsibilities in our public services and a national care leaver offer to close the attainment gap experienced by those who are care experienced, even up to support into training or university.
In closing, children growing up in Southampton Itchen can be hopeful about the building blocks that are going in under this Labour Government. However, they do not want or need just charity; they need a chance—a chance to thrive in life. If we get this right, and I believe that we are absolutely setting out in the right direction, we will change not just individual lives, but the future of whole communities. Therefore, when we are giving every child the best start in life, that has to mean in every single postcode in this country.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)
We understand on this side of the House that the wealth of our country does not lie in the bank accounts of casino capitalists or the title deeds of billionaires. It lies in nature, with each chalk stream and ancient woodland a national inheritance to be cherished; it lies in the bonds of community that held strong even through the years of politically imposed austerity; and, perhaps most importantly, it lies in our young people—in their talents and their hopes that shape our collective future. The benefits of a Labour Government have been most pronounced when translating into policy the belief that, for Britain to succeed, we must give all young people, whatever their background, the opportunity to fulfil their true potential.
I welcome the fact that Hormead Church of England first and nursery school in my constituency is among the first to benefit from our breakfast club programme. Together with the expansion of free school meals, these policies go some way to ensuring that no child’s learning or health is held back by hunger.
Just as central to early years development is the vital importance of every child having decent housing. We need to take a holistic approach to health, welfare and education, which recognises that a secure and stable home is the foundation for everything else in life. Currently, there are 164,000 children in temporary accommodation across the country—a record high. This means families in overcrowded conditions, children forced to travel long journeys to school and a situation which, all too often, is anything but temporary.
I welcome the Government’s £39 billion funding announcement for the affordable homes programme. The commitment to allocate 60% of this to social housing could make a real difference. To ensure that children growing up today have the best start in life, it is vital that as many of those homes as possible are built during this Parliament. Above all, we need a new generation of council housing, built to meet the needs of those that a profit-led sector will never provide for.
This will require upfront investment and difficult choices about other projects that must fall by the wayside, but we cannot ignore the human cost of delay. This is not a static problem—a building simply waiting to be repaired. Childhood does not pause. Leaving hard-working families to raise their children in cramped, mouldy accommodation with precious little space to play or learn is no way to nourish the future of our country.
Shelter is clear: we need 90,000 social homes a year for 10 years to address the affordable housing crisis, and I will keep making the case to relevant Ministers on the need to frontload this funding package. This is not just the right thing to do morally; the Centre for Economics and Business Research found that hitting the 90,000 homes a year benchmark would return billions to the public purse through lower spending on temporary accommodation, reduce benefits cost, result in less crime, and raise nearly £3 billion from the improved life chances of children. By escaping the desiccated logic of the Office for Budget Responsibility and the old lie that cuts to people equal savings, we can instead invest in our young people and, in doing so, enrich the future of our nation for all of us.
In my first year as the MP for North East Hertfordshire, I have enjoyed visiting schools and meeting students in Royston, Baldock, Letchworth, Standon, Weston and other places across my constituency. The students’ talent and optimism is always a powerful antidote to the cynicism and pettiness that can all too often pervade our politics.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
On Friday, I visited St Katharine’s primary school, where I met young people from my constituency who emphasised two really important points: first, that they want to be global citizens and a part of wider humanity focusing on the world, and, secondly, that they care deeply about nature and want to be conservers of it. Does my hon. Friend agree that our children are at their best when they are able to play the role of global citizen and can take care of the nature on our doorstep?
Chris Hinchliff
I wholeheartedly agree and have heard exactly the same thing from students in my constituency. Each and every one of the children in our country deserves a safe, healthy and stable home that is genuinely affordable and does not leave families struggling to make ends meet month after month. If we give the next generation the security to thrive, they will do the rest. The true legacy of this Government will be found in the laughter, learning and achievement of the nation’s children.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I am grateful to be closing this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. I thank colleagues from across the House for their passionate contributions, and I am going to attempt to list them all: my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), and the hon. Members for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed), for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I also have it on good authority that the MPs from Staffordshire hunt in a pack, and after today I can confirm that they do indeed. Before I begin my speech, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Ensuring that every child, regardless of their background or circumstances, has the opportunity to thrive is something that cuts to the very heart of why many of us were drawn to politics in the first place. We know that in those crucial early years the foundations of health, learning and wellbeing are laid for life, so it is right that we ensure that those foundations are as solid as can be.
I want to first reflect on the Conservative record on early years and families, starting with childcare. It was Conservative Governments who introduced and expanded free childcare entitlements, not just for parents of three and four-year-olds but for parents of younger children. It was a Conservative Government who launched the family hubs and start for life programme, investing £300 million across 75 local authorities to provide parenting and breastfeeding support to families when they need it so that problems can be addressed before they escalate.
We fully recognise that stable and secure families ensure the best start in life for children. That means ensuring that support is more broadly targeted than just at the child. Family hubs are a vital part of achieving this. For 14 years, our model was to have targeted investment, early help and a determination to move away from a system where postcode determines life outcomes. Nowhere is that approach more vital than in the first 1,001 days of a child’s life—from conception to age two. The science is clear: a child’s brain develops more rapidly in these years than at any other point in their life. Attachment, stimulation, nutrition and the emotional environment during this time all have lifelong implications for learning, resilience and health. Interventions in these early days can literally change life chances, and we know that failure to act compounds over time. I pay tribute to Dame Andrea Leadsom for all her excellent work on this subject.
Earlier this month, the Government published their “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy. The House will be aware that the strategy’s name, scope and substance owe much to the work begun by the Conservative Government. There is much to celebrate when a new Government build on the good work of the previous one—and as the old saying goes, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. The strategy identifies the very early years as a priority for the Government, which is welcome, but I must echo the Institute for Fiscal Studies in suggesting that this strategy is a first step, not the finished article.
The Government’s approach to family hubs is a good example of what I mean by that. It is welcome that the Government are continuing the programme, with a further £69 million announced in the autumn Budget and £57 million in Start for Life funding for 2025-26. The goal of rolling out Best Start family hubs in every local authority is certainly ambitious and something to be welcomed, but there is one important point I want to make. Even with this new funding, spending on integrated early years services will be remain at less than one third of what was spent on Sure Start at its peak. Family hubs are being asked to do more, serving children up to the age of 19, but with far fewer resources per child. If this Labour Government want it to be Sure Start 2.0—and I truly hope they do—they may need to be more ambitious with their funding plans. If the Government want to build on the solid foundation they inherited from their Conservative predecessors, they must guarantee long-term investment, retain high-quality staff and ensure that hubs are universal in reach but suitably targeted in mission.
Before I move on from hubs, I welcome the fact that each one is promised a SEND-trained staff member who can deliver practical and well-informed help to families navigating what is a complex system. As we in the House all know, SEND is a big issue. I am all too aware from casework in my constituency that the families of SEND children are too often left fighting against the very system that should be fighting for them.
Early identification of SEND is still inconsistent, and when that diagnosis is eventually made, EHCP needs assessments and much needed support are often delayed too. Disappointingly, Ministers have refused to rule out scrapping ECHPs outside special schools, despite over 300,000 children currently relying on them in mainstream settings. That has triggered real fear among families and professionals alike. More than 110,000 people have signed a petition opposing these changes, yet to date Ministers have offered no firm reassurance that no child will lose the legal right to the support they need. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity today to provide some clarity and reassurance to those worried parents.
Looking at the Government’s approach in the round, the “best start in life” strategy contains much that the Opposition welcome in principle, such as more family hubs, the expansion of funded childcare to 30 hours a week for working parents of children from nine months old, thousands more nursery places and the development of a digital offer. However, if we are seeking to ensure that every child has the best start in life, a key ingredient must be the provision of high-quality education: the very provision that the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill seeks to sabotage.
Far from ensuring that schools can serve as a foundation for success in the early years, Ministers have led an attack on school standards by undermining the academies that have led the way on school improvement for decades. If the Government get their way, academies will no longer be able to recruit teachers without qualified teacher status from non-traditional backgrounds and will be forced to follow the same national curriculum as other schools. Those measures will risk the progress made during three decades of cross-party consensus on academies. It is nothing less than educational vandalism. If any Member of the House doubts that fact, they need only pay a visit to Labour-run Wales. After 26 years of Labour in power, Wales finds itself at the bottom of the rankings for the whole of the UK in maths, English and science.
The Government cannot even bring themselves to ban smartphones in schools—something so simple yet so effective in improving a child’s wellbeing and educational outcomes. The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) introduced a Bill that would have done just that. I applaud him for doing so and for the strong cross-party consensus he built up. It is shameful that much of his work was undone by a Government who insisted on watering down his Bill and burying their heads in the sand to the harms. A Government who refuse to act against that danger give me cause for concern about their commitment to offering children the best start in life.
I will conclude by making an observation on nurseries, which face extreme financial pressure because of decisions taken by the Government. The lack of compensation for the employer national insurance contribution increase is forcing nurseries and childcare providers to either hike fees, opt out altogether from offering funded places or close down entirely. I ask the Minister to ponder what use any number of policies aimed at supporting nurseries and increasing funded places will be if the Treasury is driving nurseries into the ground with tax hikes before those policies have even started.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
I am grateful to the many hon. Members who participated in this debate on such an important subject. I will refer to hon. Members as I progress through my closing speech. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention the strong representation from Staffordshire.
The passion and enthusiasm that came through in hon. Members’ contributions demonstrates the importance of early years and the Government’s plan for change. We know that we have an obligation to break down barriers to opportunity. The Government will not stand by while families, parents, carers and children are indeed struggling.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Breaking down barriers to opportunity and giving children the best start in life is one of the Government’s defining missions, so I welcome the steps that have been taken to expand free school meals, roll out free breakfast clubs and establish the child poverty taskforce. Does the Minister agree that when that taskforce reports in the autumn, it is really important that it recommends things like lifting the two-child limit, which would make such a difference to so many families?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the significance of the Government’s work, the important issue of poverty, and the need to keep on making sure that the Government drive out poverty and meet the needs of children across our country.
As we have set out today, our “best start in life” strategy outlines the immediate steps this Government are taking to expand and strengthen family services, to make early education and childcare more accessible and affordable for parents, and to improve the quality of early education and childcare. However, those are just the first steps in putting the early years back at the heart of how we deliver stronger outcomes for our children, our families and our society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) spoke about righting the wrongs of the previous Government. He spoke about the cuts to Sure Start services and youth services and a little bit about the deep-rooted cuts of the previous Tory Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) spoke about Sure Start and her close connection to it. I applaud her for all her work in that area and for her campaigning work as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) also spoke passionately about meeting children’s health, physical and psychological needs, and I look forward to meeting her.
I hope that Members are reassured that the long-term vision we have set out will transform life chances and give our children better opportunities than we had. We know without doubt that Sure Start worked; it raised exam results, improved early identification and boosted physical and mental health. It reached disadvantaged families and made a difference to their lives. Our Best Start service will honour its proud legacy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) spoke about Sure Start, the evidence of its success, children’s achievements and how it had been stripped away by the last Government. I could not agree more. This Government will introduce a new Best Start family service delivered through Best Start family hubs. That will be the first step towards a national family service to ensure families can get the right support for their children.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that access to the creative arts, particularly music—I speak as a musician, so I am biased—should be available to everybody and especially young people, and that such access could be provided through the Best Start family hubs? The evidence is abundant of its positive effect on cognitive ability, hard and soft skills, teamwork, and joy within life, and it could have a profoundly positive effect on our young people as they grow up.
Janet Daby
I do not know anybody who does not enjoy some type of music. Children must have the experience of enjoying music, and I cannot imagine a family hub that does not have some type of musical instrument. This Government encourages the creative arts and music, and will continue to do so. Indeed, my own daughter is learning how to play the guitar.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned that every child deserves the best start in life, and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) said that this is a cross-party issue. I could not agree more. I also reassure the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that we support, and will support, parents, including single parents, and carers. This Government want to give children the very best start in life, hence the strategy and what we are introducing and speaking about this afternoon.
Matt Rodda
Is it not the point that there should be a shared national mission to invest in young people? As was rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), the evidence is clear that £1 invested in a very young child, aged less than five, is worth £16 invested later in their life. The purpose of our work in this field in the public sector, and with partners in the voluntary sector, should be to support very young children to have the very best start in life.
Janet Daby
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; there is nothing to disagree with there.
Hubs will be open to all, with funding for these services in every single local authority. They will work with nurseries, childminders, schools, health visitors, libraries and local voluntary groups to provide joined-up support to parents in the community. Each hub will have trained professionals to support parents and children who have additional needs. A new Best Start digital service will mean that parents can instantly access all the trusted advice and guidance that they need, whenever they need it.
David Williams
The Minister rightly identified that voluntary sector groups are in the mix. Many of those organisations have been rooted within their communities for many years, and they continued to deliver high-quality services even when the cuts came along. Can we please look to ensure that the work of those groups really forms part of the offer and does not get replaced, because they are rooted in the communities and often know their communities best?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I remember that, soon after becoming a Minister, I met many voluntary and community organisations, and one of the first things I did was to really thank them for all of the services and support they provided during really tough times under the previous Government. Some people had watery eyes as I acknowledged the significance of the work that they had been doing and that they continue to do as they contribute to the needs of our society and some of our most vulnerable children.
Darren Paffey
I am delighted to hear that each of these Best Start family hubs will have a fully trained and professional SEND co-ordinator to support families. Could the Minister say a bit more about how she envisages those co-ordinators working in partnership with local education, health and local authority partners to avoid silo thinking?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he connects up the various agencies and Departments and points out the significance of working in close partnership. That is absolutely the right way forward.
This Government are delivering our promise to parents, providing more support to working families than ever before. We are delivering the entitlement of 30 hours of childcare a week for working families, backed by Government funding, which we expect to reach £9 billion from next year. This will save families an average of £7,500 a year and give parents, especially mothers, the freedom and choice to work. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), I have visited many primary schools in my constituency, and I am sure many Members have done the same, but I want to encourage them to visit their new Best Start family hubs as well.
Quality matters when it comes to early education and childcare. A high-quality setting is what all parents should expect for their child, but a great early years education starts with great people, and that is why we are backing the people who care for and teach our youngest children. We will raise the status of our workforce and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned, all staff matter. We will introduce a new professional register. We will train more early years teachers, because we know that their impact is significant. We will double the number of stronger practice hubs and build strong links between settings and schools, so that educators can share best practice and provide the best possible care.
Tom Hayes
When I talk with parents and guardians in Bournemouth East, they described the EHCP process as being adversarial and almost designed to exclude. They want a greater role earlier on in the design of their child’s EHCP. Does the Minister agree that that is an important thing that we should be seeking to achieve? Would she also agree that, as we take forward SEND reform, it is important to have families at the heart of that process?
Janet Daby
Absolutely; we need to make sure that there is full consultation and involvement so that people and parents feel that their voices are being heard. My hon. Friend has pre-empted me: I am now moving on to EHCPs, which is convenient.
This Government are clear that the current SEND system is difficult for parents, carers and young people to navigate and is simply not delivering the outcomes we want. While we have announced that the details of our long-term approach to SEND reform will be set out in the schools White Paper in the autumn, we are clear that any changes we make will improve the support available to families, stop parents having to fight for support, and protect the effective provision that is currently in place.
We know that many parents feel the only way their child can get the support they need is through EHCPs. However, independently commissioned insights published last year showed that extensive improvements to the system using early intervention and better resourcing of mainstream schools could have a significant impact.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister stressing the importance of support for children with SEND. At Dorset studio school in West Dorset, 52% of children have SEND—children who would struggle in mainstream education. Funding for improvements to its site was agreed in 2023, but has still not been released. Could the Minister say anything about that?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for sharing that information. I will ask the Minister for Early Education to contact him.
There will always be a legal right to the additional support that children with SEND need, and it will be protected. This Government are prepared to grasp the nettle and reform a broken system set up by the Conservatives, which, as we heard, they themselves described as, “Lose, lose, lose.” We will ensure that every child in this country gets the opportunity to achieve and thrive at school and to get on in life. We are carefully considering how to address and improve the experience of the EHCP process for families and are reflecting on what practices could or should be made consistent nationally. We are fully committed to working with families, experts and the sector to ensure that our approach is fully planned and delivered in partnership with them.
Gareth Snell
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being generous with her time. One area of concern that parents of children who have an EHCP have raised with me is where there are multiple and complex issues—for example, there is a health issue under one criterion, an education issue under another, or a behavioural or developmental issue under the third criterion—the EHCP will only fund the primary driver of need. Therefore, children sometimes may get the support they need for one particular element of their additional needs, but not the support elsewhere. Will the Minister assure parents in my constituency and across the country that when the Government look at the review and in whatever system that may come next, that holistic view of the child and how their complex and interdependent needs are looked after are at the centre of that?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for raising a significant point that I am sure parents find difficult to grapple with. I will ensure that the points he has raised are passed on to the relevant Minister.
We are reviewing early years SEND funding arrangements to assess how suitable the current arrangements are for supporting the needs of children with SEND. As I have already mentioned, details of the Government’s intended approach to SEND reform, including early years, will be set out in the schools White Paper in the autumn.
Improving health and education go hand in hand, as alluded to by the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) was absolutely correct when he talked about health, wealth, education and accommodation. The previous Government left no light task, and despite what the Conservatives say and how they say it, this Government are getting on with the job of fixing the foundations and putting right what is broken. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) spoke about mental health, breakfast clubs and other areas to do with health. He also spoke about the crowning glory that was Sure Start, which was pleasing to hear. Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) spoke positively about breakfast clubs and free school meals. We know that healthier children are more able to learn and that children who achieve in education go on to live healthier lives.
The change outlined in the “best start in life” strategy is firmly aligned with the three radical shifts set out in the Government’s 10-year health plan—hospital to community, analogue to digital, and sickness to prevention. The Best Start family hubs are an important part of the move to neighbourhood health.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) spoke about the inheritance of a poor school building from the previous Government. Again, I will raise that with the Minister for Early Education.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) spoke passionately about the welfare of children, wraparound support and advice, to which the Government are committed. We are committed to achieving the best start in life for children.
Let me end by saying that the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire spoke so eloquently about wanting children to laugh, to learn and to achieve. I absolutely agree.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of giving every child the best start in life.
Commemoration of Matchgirls’ Strike
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)
May I say how wonderful it is to have you in the Chair for this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker? You were in the Chair for my maiden speech, and this is my first ever Adjournment debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), who is also proudly wearing the ribbon that we are wearing today.
I am grateful for the opportunity to open this debate and to pay tribute to the women and girls of the matchgirls’ strike of 1888. I am proudly the very first Member of Parliament for the new constituency of Stratford and Bow. The boundaries may be new, but it is a part of east London with a rich and radical history that I am so proud to represent. As the granddaughter of one of Jaffna’s first ever trade unionists, I am proud to be here to speak about this subject.
In my maiden speech, I paid tribute to some of the well-known and illustrious figures who were residents of Bow. Some were household names, like Gandhi, Attlee and Annie Besant, but today I pay tribute to some lesser-known but equally powerful figures in British history: the matchgirls—the young women of the Bryant & May match factory in Bow. I am proud to have residents from Bow here in the Gallery to hear the debate, and I pay tribute to the Chisenhale ESOL Bengali ladies, who visited me earlier today.
The matchgirls were mostly very young girls—some were as young as six, but they went up to the age of 13 and beyond. They endured long hours, pitiful pay and appalling working conditions. They were fined for being late, for being untidy and even for talking. Worst of all, they were being poisoned slowly and painfully. The white phosphorus used to make the matches made them sicker by the day, giving them a condition called “phossy jaw”. The girls would dip the matches into sulphur, then into the white phosphorus mixture, and that led to that horrible disease, which caused painful abscesses, facial disfigurement, the loss of their jaw and, in some cases, a slow and painful death.
When this came to light via work with Annie Besant and in a news article, factory bosses tried to force the girls to lie. Instead, they fought back and took their futures into their hands. Some 1,400 of those brave young women walked out on strike in July 1888, and they sent a delegation right here to Parliament. Some 56 matchgirls marched from Bow to Parliament, and a group of 12 of those women met with two MPs, right outside this Chamber in Central Lobby. Their courageous act is recorded in Hansard, as Mr Cunninghame Graham asked the Home Secretary to investigate the strike and the factory’s punitive practice.
I am proud that this week, working with the Matchgirls Memorial team, who are also here in the Gallery, and my union, the GMB, we have an exhibition in this very place, which the matchgirls walked to. The strike was exactly 137 years ago this week, and it lit the spark of the new labour movement and the new trade union movement. It was a spark that ignited the fire of modern trade unionism in Britain—the same movement that fights for our rights at work, and a movement that I am very proud to be a part of as a member of my union, the GMB.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. She is absolutely right to celebrate the strike of 1888. Does she agree that the spirit of the matchgirls lives on in our women today? An example of that in my constituency and in hers is that of the WASPI women, who refused to take the wrong done to them lying down, and fought for recognition and fair compensation. The fight that began with the matchgirls’ strike in 1888 clearly still lives on in 2025.
Uma Kumaran
This is the first Adjournment debate that I have secured, and I am delighted to be a recipient of one of the hon. Gentleman’s famous Adjournment interventions—I have finally made it as a Member of Parliament. I certainly think that the spirit of the matchgirls reminds us that unionism and collective action have long been in the domain of women, regardless of how male-dominated the union movement or the struggle for workers’ rights may be.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that commemorating the struggle of workers, particularly women workers, is key to understanding working-class history—our history? Does she also agree that the matchgirls should be commemorated alongside industrial struggles across the country, not least those of the 19 teenage girls who were killed in the disaster of 1922 in the Dudley Port factory, the Wednesbury “Tube Town” strikes of 1913 and the 1910 women chainmakers’ strike in Cradley Heath, all of which helped to form our modern-day trade union movement?
Uma Kumaran
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. All Labour Members have stories of women who have shaped the struggle for working people’s rights in British history. Too often, those stories do not get told, so I am really pleased that we have a chance to hear them today.
As I was saying, the strike took place exactly 137 years ago this week, and I am proud to be in the Chamber speaking about it. The union movement is still fighting for dignity and fairness at work, and standing up for workers’ rights against mistreatment and malpractice. We owe so much to the women who came before us—the pioneers of the rights we enjoy today. They stood up against injustice, took power into their own hands, and won all the concessions they demanded from greedy factory bosses. Those women changed the course of history, and I and many other women would not be here without them. I come to the House today in that same spirit, to ask the Minister whether we will finally formally recognise the matchgirls’ role in the British trade union movement and in the advancement of the rights of women and girls in Britain.
I mentioned Mr Graham, one of the MPs who met the matchgirls in Parliament. Those MPs’ names are recorded in Hansard, but the names and voices of the matchgirls are absent, because it would be decades more before a woman first sat on these green Benches. The matchgirls’ contribution to the story of new trade unionism, British labour history, and the struggle for rights and dignity at work is too often forgotten. That history is too often overlooked; working-class stories are left untold, and are under-represented in our curriculums and our history books. It is a history that belongs to all of us, and that we all have a responsibility to keep telling when we have the chance.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very strong case for the importance of history. As my parliamentary neighbour, she will know that our part of east London has an incredibly strong labour and industrial history, but does she agree that it is so often forgotten that much of that history involved—or was led by—strong working-class women? Those women had to overcome not only class prejudice, grinding poverty and difficult social conditions, but the sexism of the time. We must do far more to shine a light on their successes and achievements, from which we all benefit today, to make sure they stay in the public memory.
Uma Kumaran
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. As neighbouring MPs, we are struggling together to get our voices heard in this place and make sure those women are recorded in history. He is a powerful advocate, and an ally in the fight for improved conditions for workers. Many descendants of the matchgirls live in my hon. Friend’s constituency today, and some even work in the Tate & Lyle factory that he is proud to represent. I take this moment to pay tribute to our joint predecessor, Lady Brown of Silvertown, who held a debate about matchgirls over a decade ago.
The history I am talking about belongs to all of us, and we have a responsibility to keep telling it. I am sad to say that the Conservative Benches are completely empty this evening. Conservative Members might try to talk down our trade unions when they are in the Chamber, but we on the Labour Benches are so proud of our industrial heritage. As such, I ask the Minister whether the Government will look at how that history is taught in schools, so that working-class stories such as those of the east end matchgirls and so many others that we have heard about today are finally heard, and that these people’s contribution to Britain is finally recognised.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
This is an important debate, and I thank my hon. Friend so much for securing it. The matchgirls’ strike played a really important part in the whole of labour history and the struggles of women. In Durham, we had the Durham Women Against Pit Closures, who sustained the miners in their strike. They joined the picket lines and were key figures in their areas, and they are still around today—we saw them last week at the gala. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important that the struggles of women of the past are remembered, and that they empower women of the future?
Uma Kumaran
I could not have put it better myself. Durham is rooted in the fight for workers’ rights, and I am proud that that tradition is still continuing. My hon. Friend has long been a powerful advocate for working people’s rights and union voices in Britain. She has made a powerful point, and I thank her for her intervention.
As we honour these women and celebrate how far we have come, we also know that—in the words of another incredibly powerful woman—great is the work yet to be done, particularly for women in today’s workforce who still struggle disproportionately with low-paid and insecure work. There are 3.9 million working women in the UK who are in severely insecure work—insecure work that creates a culture of fear and uncertainty, isolates employees, and so often leaves young women struggling financially.
Young women are more likely to work in sectors with high job insecurity. They are paid less, work fewer hours, and face last-minute shift changes. All that puts them under greater financial and emotional pressure. Young women are paid less, and are stuck in roles that are far below their potential. Over time, this chips away at their confidence, their mental health, and any sense of self-worth. When they do not feel safe to speak up about poor treatment, they start to believe that being treated unfairly is just part of the job. What is worse is that many young women do not even know their rights at work. I have worked with the Young Women’s Trust, which has told me that nearly half the women it surveyed did not know their rights in insecure jobs.
This follows women throughout our lives. When women return to work after pregnancy, their wages stagnate and they are crippled by the costs of childcare. Women are still struggling today, and that must change—which is why I was so proud to be a member of the Bill Committee considering this Labour Government’s Employment Rights Bill, a Committee to which the Minister was integral. We are delivering the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, rolling back Tory attacks on workers’ rights to have their voices heard at work, cracking down on fire and rehire practices, banning non-disclosure agreements that prevent people from speaking up about harassment and discrimination, delivering sick pay for 1.3 million of our lowest earners, enhancing workplace protections for pregnant women and new mothers, and taking on the gender pay gap. In all those ways, we are boosting living standards and workplace protections for millions.
Now, 137 years on from the matchgirls’ strike, those landmark reforms will deliver rights and dignity to a new generation of women and working people, but we must ensure that young women know their rights and that those rights are enforced. We must therefore give the fair work agency the power and resources to do its job well and ensure that the workers most at risk of exploitation and discrimination are helped to access their rights, so that our economy can finally gain from the skills and talents of young women.
I have covered a lot of ground today, and it has been a bit of a history lesson: the story of the matchgirls, pride in Britain’s working class history, pride in the story of my constituents in Stratford and Bow, and the security and dignity of young women in today’s workforce. If Members want to learn more, I encourage them to visit the Upper Waiting Hall off the Committee corridor, where the Matchgirls Memorial is hosting an exhibition right here in Parliament.
I want to thank the brilliant women in my team who have helped me to put this speech together, and who have been integral to the work we have been doing to shine a light on this subject. I pay tribute to Anna Gorrell, Niamh O’Brien and Sameeah Ahmad. Let me also thank Barbara Plant of the GMB, who is in the Gallery today, and Penny Robinson from GMB London region, who have played an integral role in helping me along my way as a Member of Parliament.
I want to end by honouring the inspiring legacy of the women and girls of the matchgirls’ strike of 1888 by ensuring that the names of the strike and union committees are recorded in Hansard, and that their contribution to the fight for the workers’ rights that we all enjoy today is remembered.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the brave actions of the matchgirls, like those of so many women trade unionists and, indeed, women throughout history, should serve as an inspiration to girls and young women in constituencies such as mine, and that they can be inspired to take action to gain the justice that they need in their lives and we need in all our lives?
Sonia Kumar
Absolutely. My hon. Friend has made a very important point.
As I was saying, I would like to ensure that the names of the strike and union committee members are recorded in Hansard, so that their contribution to the fight for the workers’ rights that we all enjoy today is remembered. They were Eliza Martin, Mary Naulls, Louisa Beck, Kate Sclater, Julia Gambleton, Ellen Johnson, Jane Wakeling, Mary Driscoll, Jane Staines, Alice Francis, Eliza Price, Mary Cummings and Sarah Chapman, whose great-granddaughter Sam is in the Gallery and has done so much to honour the incredible legacy of the matchgirls.
There is a saying: “If you want a job done right, get a woman to do it.” Never has this been truer in the fight for women’s rights than for the matchgirls, and I pay tribute to these extraordinary women.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. It might just help Members if I explain that because the debate started early, we have time for them to make speeches without having asked the Member in charge or the Minister for permission to do so. The hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) is right to say that there is an excellent exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) for securing this important debate on a topic that needs a greater light shining on it. I find the debate similarly emotional, having worked with women and girls throughout my career to help them find their voice. The matchgirls used their voice to uplift so much more than just their own fight; they inspired a movement behind them. I do not think that the dockers would have gone on strike the following year without the inspiration of those young women and girls, so I thank my hon. Friend deeply for bringing forward this issue today. I will be incredibly brief, because she has covered everything that needs to be said in great detail.
Without the matchstick girls, we would not have the labour movement and the Labour party that we have today, so their legacy lives on strongly. I am really proud that young people from my summer school have been in the Gallery today. I am doing my first summer school, because one thing that really mattered to me when I got elected was making sure that the door behind me was open for working-class girls and boys. What really matters is that they saw the best of this place today. They were able to witness proceedings in the Chamber, and they were able to speak to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and hear what someone who had a modest upbringing was able to achieve in life. That inspiration comes directly from the matchgirls, some of whom were as young as 13, who went on strike in a really brave move. They risked so much—their jobs, their pay and their safety—but they were not just fighting for better pay. It was about dignity, and it was about justice for their future and for us, so I thank them deeply for keeping their resistance alive.
Every time any of us speak in here, cast a vote or try to challenge an injustice, we do so not just for today, but for those who will come after us. I think particularly of the members of my summer school, some of whom are just learning about politics and what their voice can achieve. They are spending a week devising a campaign that can change their community, which is my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages.
In closing, I would like to say that if we keep fighting for fairness, we can change the world for today, but also for those who come after us. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow for securing this debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) on securing her first Adjournment debate. She has chosen a topic extremely well and, as she highlighted, it is really important that we draw attention to the incredible courage of the women who participated in the matchgirls’ strike. It is important that this House acknowledges and recognises this very important piece of British history.
As my hon. Friend touched on, these young women, many of whom were teenagers, worked in absolutely appalling conditions. We have made great advancements in working conditions in recent decades, but it was a particularly horrendous set of circumstances, even for the time. Women working at the match factory suffered from what was described as phossy jaw, a painful and disfiguring disease caused by exposure to white phosphorus. They endured 14-hour working days in overcrowded and poorly ventilated conditions, and their strike was a watershed moment. It garnered widespread public support, and ultimately forced Bryant & May to concede to their demands. It is right that the names of these courageous women are included on the parliamentary record, and I thank my hon. Friend for doing that.
As hon. Members will know, the matchgirls’ strike took place a year before the more famous London dockworkers’ dispute of 1889, which was so formative in the growth of trade unions, including of course today’s GMB union. For the record, I draw attention to my proud membership of the GMB. The organised female workforce showed those working on the docks just what was possible when workers stand up for their rights; they showed that insecurity and unfairness at work never have to be tolerated.
The labour movement is a living, breathing one and we can take inspiration from each other, including those who have gone before us in the struggle for improved working conditions. I was pleased to be able to visit the exhibition on the Committee corridor mentioned by my hon. Friend, and I highly recommend that other Members take the time to visit it and learn more about the history of these struggles. The legacy of these women is wholly remarkable. They were part of a trade union movement that achieved so much, as we can see when we look back now: discrimination protection, paid holiday entitlement, paid maternity leave, and the right to request flexible working. So many advances have come from those beginnings.
However, as has been touched on, there are still many issues of unfairness that need to be addressed today. A recent survey by the Young Women’s Trust found that 67% of women said they had faced discrimination, 37% believe they have had to endure unsafe working environments, 26% have experienced sexual harassment at work, and 50% had not received pay when off sick. I am pleased to say that we are hoping to address all those matters. My hon. Friend raised an important point about young women’s awareness of their rights at work, and it is crystal clear that we need that in order to be effective in enforcing our rights. I hope that we, as a Labour Government, will be able to trumpet that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) spoke with great passion and made the important point that the courage that these women showed was instrumental in and inspirational to the formation of the Labour party. It was not yet formed at the time of the strike, but the growth of the trade union movement and the belief that Governments at the time were not representing the interests of working people led to the formation of the Labour Representation Committee and then the Labour party itself.
We are proud to be a part of that tradition. As a Labour Government, we want to continue the work done by the matchgirls and ensure that workplaces are safe for women. The Employment Rights Bill is helping us achieve exactly that by tackling non-disclosure agreements used to cover up sexual harassment, in a development that only this week has been called world leading. We are strengthening dismissal protections for pregnant women and new mothers, and expanding gender pay gap action plans. As has been touched on, the pivotal role that the fair work agency will have in ensuring that existing and new rights are enforced cannot be overstated.
The Employment Rights Bill also addresses insecure work such as exploitative zero-hours contracts and the heinous practice of fire and rehire. We know from research that women are more likely to be in insecure work, with an estimated 650,000 women on zero-hours contracts, compared with 519,000 men. So the struggle continues: the work never ceases but the determination of this Government to address workers’ rights and improve protections in the workplace is undimmed.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow for her assistance on the Employment Rights Public Bill Committee. She has carried on her keen interest in this area, helping to push for improved rights at work, as well as rightly celebrating those who have had to fight for their rights in the past.
The Government’s plan to make work pay is delivering real change for millions of people. The work this Government are doing on our transformative agenda, which is led of course by a woman—the Deputy Prime Minister—shows that we are staying true to the spirit of the matchgirls and the trade union movement, and we are renewing our country so that it once again serves the interests of working people. The Employment Rights Bill is a generational leap forward in workers’ protections, and I believe it will be one of the proudest achievements of this Labour Government.
I will turn to my hon. Friend’s points on education. She will know that the Department for Education provides a statutory national curriculum that sets out the subjects and broad content to be taught in maintained schools across England. Within that framework, schools have a degree of flexibility, especially in subjects such as history. There are parts of the history curriculum that lend themselves to teaching about the matchgirls’ strike. In key stage 1, there is teaching about
“the lives of significant individuals in the past who have contributed to national and international achievements”,
during which
“aspects of life in different periods”
can be taught. In key stage 3, there is the theme of ideas, political power, industry and empire in Britain between 1745 and 1901. It can also be taught as part of any local history content in the curriculum, which is particularly pertinent in my hon. Friend’s area.
By coincidence, when I spoke to my parliamentary assistant just before I entered the Chamber, he told me that he was informed of the matchgirls’ struggles during his education, and I hope that that is repeated up and down the country. Oak National Academy offers a resource on the matchgirls’ strike for year 8 pupils, and resources are also available from the Historical Association, English Heritage and the National Archives.
Turning to my hon. Friend’s points on commemoration, this country has a long and well-established tradition of commemorating its national and local individuals through statues and memorials, which serve as a long-lasting reminder of individuals and their efforts for this country and help to bridge the gap between the past and the present. As she will know, it is not normal practice for central Government to fund such monuments, but there is a long history of memorials and statues being funded by public subscription, and the Government support that approach.
Experience has shown that investors, including from the private sector, are often happy and willing to fund new memorials. Many organisations—public and private— are rightly able, subject to the relevant permissions, to freely propose, fund, develop and deliver memorials marking a variety of incidents and historical moments in a way that they are best placed to deem appropriate and sensitive. Many successful memorials are created by a wide range of authorities and organisations, which are able to respond sensitively to the particular circumstances that they seek to commemorate.
Mary Kelly Foy
Will my hon. Friend congratulate those from Redhills in County Durham, the home of the Pitman’s Parliament—and where I have my office—which has been given money for a huge refurbishment to make it into a living heritage site? The Redhills building will provide young people with an education about what happened in the past, but will also, by showing them how to live out their heritage of the struggles of the mining communities, empower them to go on and fight as the men and women in the north-east did before them. It will be open to the public in the autumn, but I want to congratulate them on the wonderful thing they have done.
Justin Madders
I am certainly happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Redhills on that achievement. If it is opening in the autumn, I hope it will be ready for when I come and visit her in her constituency. Perhaps those involved would like to work to that as a target.
As we know, a great many people and organisations are interested in establishing memorials, and as a general rule it is for those groups to work with the relevant local planning authority and other organisations to identify a suitable site and obtain the necessary planning permissions. That said, the Government provide indirect assistance through the memorial grant scheme, which is administered by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The scheme makes grants towards the VAT incurred by charities and faith groups in the construction, repair and maintenance of public memorial structures, including war memorials. The scheme has a fixed budget of £500,000 a year for this spending period. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow to correspond with the DCMS if she wishes to seek further advice on the commemoration process.
In conclusion, I once again thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important debate to the House, and for providing the opportunity for the names of those truly courageous and inspirational matchgirls to be forever immortalised in Hansard. That is a fitting tribute, which my hon. Friend has delivered for this House today.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
That the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Definition of Newspaper) Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 26 June, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 334 / Noes: 54 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the Enterprise Act 2002 (Amendment of Section 58 Considerations) Order 2025 (SI, 2025, No. 737), dated 26 June 2025, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26 June, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 333 / Noes: 54 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Online gambling platforms
Location of the Torbay and South Devon NHS out-of-hours Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Services
Potential closure of the Ladies Walk Centre
Traffic calming measures on the slip road off Water Orton Road
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
Credit Unions
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the role and future of credit unions.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. At the outset of this debate, I wish to place formally on the record that I am a long-standing member of the NHS credit union, an organisation I first joined as it was my workplace credit union. It provided me the opportunity to save directly from my salary before I ever had the chance to spend it. When I received a pay rise, I would increase my contributions. I remain a proud member today, now paying in by direct debit. IPSA, the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, has not got quite as far as doing payroll deduction for credit unions.
The NHS credit union is now one of the largest in Scotland, but it did not start that way. It began at the Southern General hospital in Glasgow, founded by Robert Rae, a Unison branch secretary and hospital porter, to help some of the lowest-paid NHS staff—the cleaners, porters and clerical workers—to access fair, affordable finance and build financial resilience through saving. The credit union has grown remarkably since then, with more than 24,000 members, including staff and their families across NHS Scotland and parts of the north of England. Its common bond extends down to Sheffield. It now employs 18 staff and is an inspiring example of how credit unions grow not only in scale, but in purpose, deepening their role in communities and the economy.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating many of the credit unions in my constituency, where the Southern General also sits, and indeed where I trained for many years? In addition to the NHS credit union, we have the Penilee credit union, the Levern credit union, the Greater Govan credit union and of course the Pollok credit union run by local legend Jim Garrity and his wife, who have given out £70 million of loans in that time.
Does my hon. Friend further agree about the imbalance between England and Scotland? In England, dormant assets from the Bank of England can be used as capital to fund credit unions, but that is not the case in Scotland. Is that an anomaly she wishes to see changed?
Katrina Murray
My hon. Friend is reading ahead in my speech about some of the things that the Government could do to extend and support the sector.
Before joining the NHS credit union, I was a regular visitor to my local community credit union—staffed entirely by volunteers—until I moved house and moved out of the common bond. For nearly 30 years, until it sadly folded in 2017, it was a source of savings and small loans for a community that was mostly cash based. It inhabited the premises that the Royal Bank of Scotland vacated when it closed the branch. Often, small community credit unions remain in places where commercial banks have pulled out. That closure reflects a wider challenge: some credit unions have scaled up and professionalised; others have struggled, in particular those volunteer-led credit unions serving working class and rural communities.
In that unique community-based role, credit unions can offer a vital partnership to support underserved or excluded communities, whether they are excluded by poverty or by geography. All too often, we have heard Members raise the swathes of local bank branch closures in their constituencies. Mine has been particularly affected, as commercial lending evolves and the local footprint of lenders diminishes. Credit unions have to be on both sides of that bridge: at the forefront of innovation but still able to provide traditional, accessible services in the community.
It is vital that we have an alternative to expensive credit, and credit unions have a strong role to play. When a household is financially vulnerable, one fault in their car or one failed fridge or freezer can be the difference between staying afloat and facing a downward spiral of increasingly costly credit. The resilience of having £1,000 in savings is the firewall that stops that spiral.
We have often discussed the positive impact of no-interest loans. Credit unions can play a vital part in the design and delivery of a no-interest loan offer, providing an alternative to financially vulnerable households who cannot rely on commercial lending. Pilots by Fair4All Finance show notable success when it comes to meeting emergency costs for white goods, such as a broken-down fridge, cooker or other essential household appliance. Over 70% of customers in the pilot were in the rented sector, either social housing or renting privately.
As the UK Government’s own materials acknowledge, credit unions offer basic savings and loan services, but increasingly they do much more. Large credit unions such as the Glasgow credit union, which grew out of the Glasgow city council credit union, offer mortgages. They offer financial inclusion, especially for people who may not feel served or welcome in the commercial banking sector. They are not for profit, member-owned and designed to be run with communities, not over them.
Despite all its strengths, the credit union sector faces significant headwinds. I will start with regulation. In recent conversations with the NHS credit union, a number of serious concerns were raised that are shared across the sector. Most notably, the Financial Ombudsman Service has begun applying the commercial lending standards known as the CONC—consumer credit sourcebook—rules to credit unions, despite the fact that they are exempt from those by law. The use of “good industry practice” by the ombudsman without transparency or a legislative basis has left credit unions exposed to a growing number of frivolous or opportunistic claims, often driven by predatory claims management companies.
When credit unions have challenged that with the Financial Conduct Authority, they have been referred back to the ombudsman, creating a regulatory echo chamber that shuts down scrutiny and ignores the fact that the CONC was never intended for mutuals. A superficial search of decisions of the ombudsman using “credit union” as a search term shows that it is the same credit union names that come up. For each case where a decision is listed, there are many more going through the process, with many cases being reopened, and it is an overwhelming burden for these small organisations to process them.
This matters, because it introduces risk and cost into organisations that exist to serve, not to profit. It creates uncertainty, stifles growth and undermines the Government’s ambition to support the co-operative and mutual sector. I urge the Minister to engage with those concerns and ensure regulatory clarity that supports, rather than stifles, credit unions.
Regulation is not the only challenge. Despite some growth, credit union penetration in Great Britain remains low. Just 4% of adults hold a credit union savings account, compared with 25% in Northern Ireland and 73% in the Republic of Ireland. While membership is rising, the number of credit unions continues to fall. To thrive, credit unions need to modernise. Many want to expand their digital offer, working with fintech providers to offer budgeting apps and even current accounts, but innovation costs money. Small unions—especially those still run by volunteers—lack the capacity to upgrade systems or train staff.
I welcome the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which gave unions more freedom to offer services such as hire purchase and insurance distribution, but more must follow. I support the proposals to allow investment in credit union service organisations, which could help unions to share IT, compliance and admin systems.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this debate; many of us have been involved with credit unions for a number of years. She has spoken about the diversification of credit unions. Last night, the Chancellor said she is trying to encourage more people into market-based savings products. Does the hon. Lady agree that credit unions could embrace that concept, provided that they have the capacity and willingness to do it? That would allow everyone involved with credit unions to benefit over the longer term.
Katrina Murray
The Chancellor’s speech last night was very timely. Credit unions are particularly well placed to benefit thoroughly from that if they have support, and I hope the Minister will expand on that. We need to update the law in Northern Ireland so that the strength of the credit union movement there is able to match progress that has been made in GB.
The perception that credit unions are the poor man’s bank is a harmful stereotype that limits the sector’s growth. Credit unions are for everyone and should be seen as an act not only of charity but of good sense. They are member-owned, community-rooted and democratic. This is finance as it should be.
Credit unions are more than just lenders; they are educators, community builders and the agents of financial justice. But they are at risk from burdensome regulation, under-investment and a lack of understanding at the highest level of Government.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She has mentioned financial burdens a couple of times. The average credit union has fewer than seven employees, and is run nearly entirely by volunteers. Smaller credit unions are under the same dual regulatory burden as larger ones, and have to report to both the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Does she think that there should be proportionality, and that lighter regulation for smaller credit unions would give them the capacity to innovate?
Katrina Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful intervention. We need a joined-up approach to our support for the sector’s unique role. We must particularly support small credit unions with few staff members who are predominantly volunteers, because when it gets too much, volunteers may move away and services may close. We need regulatory reform, but we also need practical backing so that credit unions can modernise, merge where appropriate and scale sustainably.
I repeat my call to the Minister: please investigate the regulatory ambiguity that credit unions face, and particularly the application of the CONC by the Financial Ombudsman Service. I ask him to please consider measures to strengthen, not weaken, one of the most community-focused financial tools that we have. Let us not allow credit unions to wither on the vine. Let us invest in their future and, by doing so, in a more inclusive, more resilient economy for all.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I commend and thank my Gaelic cousin, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), for setting the scene so very well. It is also good to see the Minister in his place. He is certainly becoming a regular in Westminster Hall—he is here almost as much as me.
Jim Shannon
That was meant as a compliment, by the way. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), brings a wealth of knowledge to the debate from his previous employment. I know that the debate will be greatly enhanced by the contributions of all.
I have long been an advocate of credit unions, and I have been thinking about how long I have been involved with them. The credit union in Greyabbey was run by the Orange lodge, which was the instigator. It made its hall available and managed the credit union under the auspices of credit unions elsewhere as the governing body.
I became involved to support credit unions and to start an account for my three boys. Only last week, I realised that moneys in that account had been gathering for some time and had been sitting in the transfer, because the account was transferred from Greyabbey to Newtownards credit union. My three boys have a bonus coming, which I will let them know about one of these days. I hope they will not spend it on wasteful living, but whatever they do, they do.
The credit union instilled in my boys and in me from an early age the value of saving and of ensuring that the saver can afford to pay back loans. That is the great thing about the credit union; we can put money in and borrow money out, but it is controlled in a way that means someone can live and borrow at a rate they can repay. That is a lesson that I learned from my mum and dad—of course, as we all learn from our mums and dads—and that has stayed with me these many years.
It is said that every pound is a prisoner to a Scots woman or man, but I think it is equally a prisoner to some of us in Northern Ireland; we are no different. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch said, there has been substantial growth of credit unions in Northern Ireland, particularly in membership and assets. Membership has doubled in the past decade, with 34% of the population now saving with a credit union, which is a massive figure.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It was good to hear the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) mention Northern Ireland. I, too, am a member of the credit union, and I have a savings account for my little boy as well. Does my hon. Friend agree that in Northern Ireland, where so many people bank with the credit union, the numbers could grow if the credit union were able to do more? The legislation in Northern Ireland is quite antiquated, and we are only able to bank with loans and savings. Does he agree that we should learn from what happens in GB and address it from there?
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The 34% growth of the credit union in Northern Ireland indicates its success. She is correct that there is certainly more it could do.
Total assets have passed £1.9 billion, having increased by 1.6% in the third quarter of 2022. Lending is also strong, with the loan book increasing by 8.3% year on year. Membership of credit unions in Northern Irelands stands at 571,000. To put that in context, Northern Ireland’s population is 1.96 million. That is a success story. It is lovely to tell everyone about what we are doing in Northern Ireland, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch was generous in her comments and acknowledged the good stuff we do.
The figures represent a 30% increase over the past 10 years. With the rise in membership comes the need to ensure that the institution is financially safe and sound, which is always important. I am thankful for the credit unions in my constituency; I can think of three straight away. The one in Kircubbin, which took over the premises of the Northern bank, or Danske bank, is an offshoot of the credit union in Portaferry, which I have supported the whole way through. There is also an active credit union in Newtownards that provides a wonderful service to get people on the road to financial stability. That is what credit unions do: they help people to save and ensure that they borrow and spend their money wisely.
There are over 2,200 credit unions providing ethical financial services to more than 1.5 million people, holding £2.71 billion in assets, £2.33 billion in savings and £1.83 billion in lending. Their differences mean that they can lend responsibly with good rates to those who are classified as excluded communities, with 31% of the community development credit union pathfinder members being “cash-strapped families”, and 21% falling into the “hard-up” or “challenging circumstances” categories. Credit unions are often the only fair option for such individuals and it is really good to have them on board.
Some 56% of credit unions offer payroll savings, and “save as you borrow” schemes turn 67% of previous non-savers into regular savers. Prize-linked savings also incentivise saving behaviour. I understand that in this day and age it is always that wee bit harder to save money. My mum and dad instilled in me a saving culture at an early age, and I remember saving from a very early age. Not everybody can buy their house today, as they perhaps would have whenever I was younger and houses were much cheaper. Credit unions like Serve and Protect offer dividends of 3.5% to 4.5%, returning £3 million to members, while for every £1 invested, the Clockwise credit union generates £11 to £19 in social value. Credit unions reduce financial leakage and build community wealth. I am sold on credit unions. I think they are great and I hope my speech has illustrated that. I think everybody else will say the same thing.
I will conclude, as I am conscious that others want to speak and that time will be limited. I am a strong advocate for credit unions simply because they work. Let us support and encourage them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) said, let us try to do more so that we can bring them along. I encourage reasonable regulation that allows the freedom to spend locally and not to be drawn into more centralised investment—if someone borrows from a credit union, they are more likely to spend their money in the local area of their credit union, and more likely to borrow or buy from the area where they live—and I know that the Government, and the Minister in particular, would like to advocate for and support that.
I wish my local credit unions every success as they continue to help people to learn financial principles and responsibilities while sowing deeply into the local economy. That can only be a good thing, so it is a pleasure to speak today about credit unions. I could wax lyrical until about 10.28 am, but you would not let me, Mr Twigg—others will do that for their own constituencies.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for securing this important debate about credit unions, as they play a crucial role in providing affordable financial services and promoting economic inclusion, particularly among those underserved by the traditional banks. As co-operative, member-owned institutions, credit unions focus on servicing their members’ needs rather than maximising profits.
In my constituency, we are fortunate to benefit from the Wolverhampton City credit union, which serves over 10,000 members, manages more than £4.1 million in savings and has issued over £3.7 million in loans. It provides vital support for working people, pensioners, young savers and those on all incomes, by offering accessible credit and encouraging responsible saving. This helps families to avoid the traps of high-cost lenders and builds financial security across Wolverhampton North East.
What truly sets Wolverhampton City credit union apart is its commitment to practical, member-focused initiatives. For example, its school uniform savings scheme is a simple but powerful way to help families to prepare for the financial pressure of each school year by encouraging parents to save small amounts regularly. The scheme ensures that they are not forced into debt when faced with the up-front cost of uniforms. That is just one of many community-driven initiatives that the credit union runs; others include budgeting advice, payroll savings partnerships with local employers, and junior saving clubs, all aimed at fostering long-term financial wellbeing.
Despite the great work of credit unions, including Wolverhampton City credit union and others across the country, the sector in the United Kingdom has not reached the scale seen in other countries such as the United States, Canada and Ireland, where credit unions are more mainstream and serve a much larger proportion of the population. For example, the US Navy Federal credit union alone serves over 14 million members, showing what is possible when credit unions are given the room to grow.
One structural barrier to growth is the common bond requirement, which restricts the potential membership base of credit unions. While the principle of shared connection, whether geographical or associational, is sensible, the current rules limit geographical common bonds to areas with up to 3 million potential members, making it impossible to operate a credit union that covers all of London or the midlands, for example.
I therefore welcome the Government’s current consultation on reforming the common bond rules, which could allow credit unions in Great Britain to serve wider geographies and expand sustainably. That reform, alongside investment in digital infrastructure and proportionate regulation, will certainly benefit credit unions so that they can fulfil their potential. Credit unions tackle financial exclusion, supporting working people and strengthening communities, so I call for practical reforms and tangible support.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for securing the debate and for her speech highlighting the importance of credit unions, both now and in the future.
As financial co-operative organisations, credit unions are a force for good in many communities and workplaces. They exist to support their members, not to maximise profit. They encourage savings and provide financial education and affordable loans, all the while circulating the money within their membership communities, which are bound together through a common bond, often based on a workplace or location. More than ever, it is vital for that type of organisation to be available in communities that are currently struggling with the cost of living crisis and are vulnerable to predatory credit and debt organisations. It is the place of responsible Government to support these organisations and their efforts to promote financial inclusion, wellbeing and stability.
As already mentioned, there is variety and diversity in credit unions. There are large credit unions, such as Scotwest credit union in my constituency, which is one of the largest in the UK. It has over 36,000 members and, as of September 2024, a loan book of £68.9 million. It describes its mission as being focused on broadening financial inclusion, supporting members’ financial wellbeing and security, and strengthening local communities, all while promoting environmental sustainability through responsible lending and consumption. There are also local, community-based credit unions, such as Ruchill credit union, which was set up in my constituency, and workplace and employment-based credit unions, such as the Transport credit union in my constituency.
The diverse range of credit unions offers responsible lending while promoting co-operative values. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch mentioned, it is concerning to hear reports that the Financial Ombudsman Service, which is responsible for resolving disputes between financial institutions and their consumers, is using commercial lending rules to make legally binding judgments on credit unions.
The sector has raised concerns that credit unions are now being held to the Financial Conduct Authority’s consumer credit sourcebook rules, even though they do not legally apply to credit unions. As our credit unions are already under pressure and often based in low-income communities, that weakens the legal certainty and operational viability of the sector at a time when it is more necessary than ever.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate my close friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray), on securing this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) made a powerful point about what happens in communities when credit unions go bust because they face huge regulatory burdens. My town, Redditch, has lost three credit unions over the last decade, meaning that because people cannot access financial support from the mainstream banks, they fall prey to speculative and very high-interest financial products from companies that should know better. Credit unions protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Martin Rhodes
I agree that although we need robust regulation, we need to ensure that it is supportive of credit unions, particularly at a time when many communities need them more than ever and the challenge of organisations that seek to exploit vulnerable communities is very much at the fore.
Credit unions as institutions act as important protections against pernicious credit and debt systems such as buy now, pay later schemes. Since 2020, the market for buy now, pay later has more than quadrupled. There are reports of many in the UK getting into unsustainable debt because of balancing multiple buy now, pay later services to pay for essential groceries and other supplies. Unlike the work of credit unions, buy now, pay later schemes can use the cost of living crisis to market aggressively, targeting vulnerable consumers. They are often debt traps for the worst off in society.
While I support the Government’s planned new rules, which will ensure that buy now, pay later users will gain stronger rights and clearer protections, we must also do more to promote positive alternatives such as credit unions. These not-for-profit organisations exist to support their members, not to extract profit. They are local financial institutions that provide responsible lending and financial health advice, and they are safely regulated. In a world with loan sharks preying on the vulnerable, and tech companies creating debt prisons through unregulated consumer debt, we must support credit unions. If we do not, not just individuals but our economy and society will be worse off without them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. If Members can keep their speeches to five or six minutes—we are doing okay—then everyone will get a chance to speak before the wind-ups.
Maureen Burke (Glasgow North East) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for securing this important debate. I am delighted to join colleagues to speak about the essential and valuable role that credit unions play for many of my constituents in Glasgow North East.
Across Britain, non-profit credit unions provide financial services to their members, but they are much more than just financial institutions; they are community pillars. Historically associated with increasing access to banking facilities and supporting those who are excluded from other financial institutions, credit unions continue to adopt a community-first approach to the services they provide.
Multiple credit unions are accessed by my constituents, including New Easterhouse, Ruchill and Carntyne credit unions. All those unions have shown time and again how valuable they are. They provide affordable loans and savings options to families and individuals who might otherwise face challenges in accessing mainstream banking. They help individuals gain confidence in managing their money, building savings and accessing credit, often on much fairer terms than banks.
However, this is not just about money; credit unions are about dignity, empowerment and opportunity. One thing they are known for is loans. For many, they are a safe, ethical and affordable alternative to high-interest payday lenders and loan sharks. I know from stories that constituents have shared with me how those types of loans prey on poorer members of society and trap vulnerable people in a cycle of debt. Credit unions, on the other hand, operate on a simple but powerful principle: they are owned by and exist for their members. In the case of loans, that results in annual percentage rates being capped at fairer rates compared with the alternative. More generally, it means that every pound saved or borrowed stays within the community, helping people manage their money and improve their lives.
It is unsurprising that the number of credit union members has grown in the last decade. With that said, the sector is still much smaller than in countries such as Ireland, the USA and Canada. That presents an exciting opportunity for it to grow. It is by listening to voices in the sector that we can understand what can and should be done to support growth efforts.
I am supportive of the Association of British Credit Unions’ call to expand the common bond requirement so that more people can be served by a credit union. I am also interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the potential benefits of legislating for auto-enrolment payroll savings, which could be a great source of empowerment for people.
Credit unions are a force for good in our society. We should work with them to unlock financial opportunities for our constituents. Ultimately, supporting credit unions is about supporting people. I hope that together we can ensure that the credit unions in Glasgow North East and across the UK continue to be a beacon of hope and fairness for all our communities.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) on securing this important debate.
At a time when we are all looking for practical ways to support our communities, a simple but powerful action stands out to me in relation to credit unions: for public bodies to support credit unions not just by promoting them, but by banking with them. When I was leader of Stirling council, I saw at first hand how prudent financial management rightly led councils to place the bulk of their reserves with established banks and large institutions. That approach is, of course, sound and responsible, but allocating even a very small proportion of those funds—small by council standards—to a credit union could have a disproportionately positive impact on the credit union and the community it serves.
Credit unions are community-based, member-owned financial institutions that offer affordable loans, promote savings and provide an ethical alternative to high-cost lenders. I have seen their real-world impact in my constituency, where they help families to avoid exploitative borrowing, build resilience and stay afloat during hard times. However, many credit unions operate at the margins of the financial system and struggle to scale. Local authority deposits, even modest ones, would help with the stability and capital that credit unions need to grow, and would send a powerful signal to the public that credit unions are valued, supported and used by institutions. Depositing local authority funds in a credit union could also deliver modest returns while maintaining strong safeguards for public funds, because deposits are protected under the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. It would be a secure, responsible option that also delivered social value.
Every pound placed in a credit union is a pound that can be recycled into low-interest loans for local people and small businesses. The money does not disappear into a distant financial centre; it stays local and supports the very communities that we are elected to serve. This approach would align with many local authorities’ wider goals: it would help to tackle poverty, support inclusive economic development and contribute to building community wealth. It would also align with wider goals across the public sector, including in the UK Government.
I urge the Minister to consider what more central Government can do to overcome the barriers to this practice in the public sector and by local authorities, including through updated guidance, best practice examples and formal recognition of the social value that local authority deposits in credit unions can generate. We need to look at the barriers to public bodies placing money in credit unions without changing the broader scope of member ownership. Even very modest deposits in credit unions—modest by departmental or council standards—can work harder and go further when invested locally. By supporting credit unions, we invest in people’s lives, in communities and in the resilience of our local economies.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for securing this important debate. I declare an interest: I am excited to begin working with the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd on forming the new all-party parliamentary group on credit unions, which will meet for the first time in September.
We have heard a lot today about why we need credit unions. Now more than ever, it is important that people have access to affordable loans and do not get trapped by payday loans, expensive hire purchase or even predatory loan sharks. Credit unions are a fantastic example of people working together to make finance more accessible.
Many credit unions welcome volunteers. My very good friend Catriona Currie, along with Nancy, volunteered for the credit union in Stevenston, in my constituency, for many years—I think more than 20. Nancy was a founding member of the local credit union and was key in making sure that the service thrived and survived. Until covid, they provided a service every Saturday morning in Stevenston library. Catriona and Nancy knew most members who came in and made sure they had set up the account they needed, including Christmas savings, which many people relied on to get good toys and so on at Christmas time. They often helped with a range of other issues outwith the remit of the credit union. Savers knew and trusted the service provided in their community and very much relied on the credit union.
The Association of British Credit Unions describes its vision of credit unions becoming
“the primary source of affordable, high quality and ethical financial services for the people of Great Britain.”
As we know, many people on low incomes are often excluded from accessing a range of bank accounts. Credit unions can ensure that people can access a degree of financial freedom, allowing them greater control of their finances and a say in how the union is run. It is vital that we encourage membership and ensure that people are aware of this excellent local service.
The 1st Alliance community bank in Kilwinning, in my constituency, provides those excellent services to my constituents and the wider west of Scotland. It offers a range of much-needed facilities, including savings, low loan rates, standing orders and online services. I look forward to hearing from other Members and the Minister about what we can do to further support credit unions.
Kenneth Stevenson (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House.
In my constituency we are lucky to be served by organisations such as the North Coatbridge credit union and the Newmains credit union. These are not distant financial giants; they are member-owned, community-run mutuals that put people before profit. For decades, they have quietly gone about their work, offering people a safe place to save, fair and affordable loans, and practical help with budgeting. They make a world of difference to someone who might otherwise be driven into the arms of high-cost lenders or high-cost credit cards. Credit unions are run by people who know your name, who listen, and who guide you through difficult times, whether by helping with a loan for urgent car repairs or assisting a family with a funeral grant in their time of grief.
More widely, credit unions circulate money locally. It is not siphoned off to faraway shareholders; it stays in the community, helping neighbours and strengthening the local economy. Credit unions are democratically run on a one member, one vote basis, so every decision is about what is best for the community, not what is best for a balance sheet. At a time when many face barriers to accessing mainstream banks, credit unions are a lifeline. They offer financial inclusion, ethical lending and real human support.
We must not take credit unions for granted. They need our support. They need us to raise awareness of them so more people know they exist. They need partnerships with local employers to set up payroll deduction schemes, helping workers save effortlessly each month. And they need help modernising their digital services, because in this day and age we should be able to access these great community services from our phones as easily as we can from a high street bank.
When credit unions succeed, they are not just about finances; they provide dignity, security and opportunity to people in Airdrie and Shotts and across North Lanarkshire. Let us celebrate them, talk about them and, most importantly, use them. Together, we will build a stronger, fairer community for all.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch East (Katrina Murray) for securing this very important debate.
I must give some credit to my friend, Councillor Beth Rowland, at Wokingham borough council for helping with some of the detail for this speech. Beth has worked in the credit union sector in Berkshire for over 20 years, and it is unlike any other job in finance. People like Beth do not go to work for credit unions to make big money—not for any company, and certainly not for themselves. Instead, it is about dedication to the local community, a desire to help people, and an uncompromising desire to be a force for good in the world for those who need a bit of extra support. That is what drives people like Beth who make a career out of working in this industry. That speaks to Liberal Democrat values instinctively. I thank Beth, not only for helping me with this speech but more importantly for her long record of public service.
In my constituency of Wokingham, we are lucky to be able to call upon the services of Boom community bank. When I was leader of the local council, we began a relationship with Boom. It provides non-profit finance and banking services to more than 12,000 members, not only across Berkshire but across west Sussex, Surrey, parts of Oxfordshire, Hampshire, London and Buckinghamshire. It is not traditional high street banking. For many of its 12,000 members, Boom provides a lifeline service. Credit unions certainly provide loans if people need one and a place to store savings safely, but their real value does not come from offering those financial basics. It comes from the continuous support that is on offer.
Members of credit unions are often in more vulnerable positions than the average high street banking customer. That could mean that they are simply more financially vulnerable and consequently unable to access more traditional forms of credit. However, it can also mean they are vulnerable in other ways. For example, they might, for whatever reason, struggle to navigate technical language and complex arrays of products, or need extra help to create the structure in their lives that allows them to put money away regularly for a rainy day. Access to a friendly face who is on their side, and not looking to make a profit from them but willing to talk about their needs and goals, is invaluable for such people. Frankly, it is the kind of community support that we are sadly losing in our society as it becomes more distant from us as individuals over time. The people I have described cannot afford to lose the service of a credit union.
One case study on Boom’s website refers to a man who was experiencing a debt crisis, with some of his loans imposing an eye-watering 1,295% annual interest burden. I am not sure how we as a society are supposed to read that as anything other than a profound failure. How did we ever allow that kind of exploitation to happen? The man that Boom refers to as John, although that is not his real name of course, could not refinance his debt on the traditional market; he was simply too high-risk. However, the credit union sector was there to help. John’s monthly costs were more than halved and within three years he was debt-free.
It is hard to imagine a version of John’s story that ends well without the support of a credit union and without its willingness to identify a person in genuine need, and to offer help, support and security. Traditional finance viewed John first as a target for high-profit, personally crushing credit and then as a risk—someone to be avoided, in case he could not swim in the choppy waters that it had stirred up for him. Instead, the credit union sector viewed him as a person. I do not know John, but I am certain that that was more valuable to him than just the money on offer.
We know that membership of credit unions is rising, having increased by a third between 2014 and 2024. Over the same period, however, the number of credit unions feel by about the same proportion. That can partly be explained by smaller credit unions—in 2023, the average credit union employed only seven people—seeking to merge and become larger organisations, in order to streamline their operations, but it must be a cause for alarm whenever we see demand rise and supply fall at the same time. What are we doing wrong on a policy level, such that this vital industry is not growing, even though people clearly value it? I ask the Minister to ponder that question carefully.
In bringing my remarks to a close, I make a plea to the Government: bring forward a fair banking Act, which is something we have been calling for for some time. Financial exclusion in the UK is worse than in most other comparable economies. High-cost lenders—or worse, loan sharks—prey on that to target some of the most vulnerable. In 2022, an estimated 1 million people turned to illegal lenders. When people need help, there is usually a credit union they can turn to, but too many people do not realise that. With better legislation, they need not be put in that position in the first place. A fair banking Act could improve the lives of millions and could also help ethical lenders such as credit unions to deliver vital support. Will the Minister say whether the Government might consider introducing such an Act?
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
It is always a great pleasure to serve under you, Mr Twigg, and I apologise for nearly knocking you over on my bicycle first thing this morning.
Mark Garnier
Thank goodness I was called to speak after all.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) on securing this debate. It has been fascinating to listen to all the great words used to describe credit unions. We have heard them described as lifeline services, community builders and financial educators that help to get people on to the road to financial stability, and as engines of economic inclusion. There is no doubt about it: credit unions are truly remarkable institutions. At their heart, they represent, in its simplest form, how and why the financial sector drives growth. They are the first rung on the ladder in the financial system. They take the savings entrusted by members, brought together by a common bond, pool those funds and turn them into everything from very simple loans, to pay for school uniforms, as we have heard, all the way up to mortgages. Those loans often go to individuals and families who would otherwise find the doors to mainstream financial institutions closed. Credit unions’ commitment to financial inclusion and community values are an example that many parts of the wider financial sector could definitely learn from.
I am pleased to note that over the past decade, under the previous Government, credit unions have consolidated and grown. In Great Britain, the number of members rose by a third between 2014 and 2024. More than 2.3 million people are members, up from 1.5 million in 2014, so while the number of credit unions in operation has decreased, that reflects strategic mergers that have created larger, more resilient and more professional institutions. Their asset base has also expanded—it now totals nearly £5 billion in the UK—and their lending book stands at £1.83 billion as of the fourth quarter of 2024. The impact of credit unions stretches far beyond the balance sheet. Studies show that £1 invested into a credit union can translate to between £11 and £19 of value generated in the wider community, yet despite these strengths, it is clear that further growth is being held back.
A major barrier to growth is a geographical common bond, as we have heard one or two Members mention. That prevents credit unions from serving large city regions such as London, the west midlands or Greater Manchester as a single entity. I welcome the Government’s publication of a call for evidence last year on common bond reform. However, the call for evidence is unclear about the Government’s position on expanding the geographical common bond, so I would definitely welcome the Minister’s views on raising the cap from 3 million to at least 10 million people, as called for by the Building Societies Association and others. That would not only unblock the growth of credit unions in major urban areas, but allow for strategic mergers and expansions, helping the sector to respond to local need at scale.
From my own meetings with the credit union industry, I know that consolidation has improved professionalism, resilience and standards across the board. However, to truly unlock growth potential, we must enable greater investment into credit union service organisations. It is positive that the Prudential Regulation Authority recently clarified that credit unions can own these service organisations. However, further Government support, especially relaxing ownership and capital restrictions, could unleash digital transformation and help credit unions to modernise their services.
I note and appreciate that the Minister has also asked the Financial Conduct Authority and the PRA to publish a report on the mutuals landscape by the end of this year. That is a welcome intervention, but can the Minister confirm whether it will deliver a root and branch review of credit union legislation, and in particular the Credit Union Act 1979? As we have heard, credit unions in the USA, Ireland and Canada have flourished under a very different legal framework, which I hope the Government will scrutinise and learn from. I also hope the review can look at central facilities. By pooling liquidity through a central facility, credit unions could manage risk more effectively and provide an even stronger backbone for local lenders. Similarly, do the Government have appetite to allow credit unions to access Bank of England reserve accounts and the sterling monetary framework, bringing them into line with other financial institutions of a similar size?
I will draw my words to a close in a second, but first I gently remind the Minister that the Government were elected last year—quite wholeheartedly—on a pledge to double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector. It is the morning after the night before, when members of the Treasury team are no doubt nursing hangovers from a fantastic dinner last night at the Mansion House. It is notable that during the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech, which I think was very much welcomed by the City of London, the co-operative and mutual sector was not mentioned. I would be grateful if the Minister put that wrong right by addressing these points.
All the evidence suggests that credit unions are a potential growth engine for communities. By introducing a modern legal framework, progressive common bond reform and investment into service organisations, we can help this sector to continue to flourish.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I start obviously by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) on securing this important debate and speaking so powerfully about the role of credit unions. The interest in this topic, particularly on this side of the House and for some parts of the country, shows how important credit unions are in supporting individuals and communities. The same commitment and motivations underpin the Government’s strong support for credit unions and the mutuals sector more widely, as the Opposition spokesperson just mentioned.
As a country, we have a rich history of mutuality. In 1775, Richard Ketley founded the world’s first ever building society in Birmingham, and that continues in the west midlands today, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge). The modern co-operative movement was also British-born, albeit slightly further north, in Rochdale.
Today we are here to discuss credit unions, which are deeply embedded in our local communities. Everyone in this Chamber passes on our thanks to Beth, who the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) talked about so powerfully in his remarks. Before I turn to the important points that colleagues have raised specifically about credit unions, let me say a few words about the Government’s strong support for the mutual sector, as the Opposition spokesperson has raised it.
Mutuals have a footprint in high streets around the country and they provide jobs. They strengthen their communities, and they support people to build savings habits and access affordable credit and mortgages. Growth in the mutual sector means growth that touches all levels of society, aiding economic participation in the broadest possible sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) set out. That is why the Government have committed to doubling the size of the sector.
I am glad that the Opposition spokesperson has been paying attention to all the Government’s commitments and the change that we were elected to bring. In south Wales, building society branches are expanding in some areas, even as banks are stepping back. We have already begun to make our commitment a reality, not least when it comes to credit unions, whose lending is growing, even though, as several hon. Members have mentioned, the number of credit unions has fallen in recent years.
In her November Mansion House speech, the Chancellor announced new measures to support the growth of credit unions and mutuals. The shadow Minister would be keen to have the Chancellor give an even longer speech at every Mansion House, but she cannot reiterate all her greatest hits at every single one. We did not let people away till after 10 o’clock last night as it was, and there is such a thing as decent human behaviour. The measures included publishing a call for evidence on the potential to reform common bonds for credit unions in Great Britain, asking the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to produce a report on the mutuals landscape by the end of this year, which is now well under way, and welcoming the establishment of an industry-led mutual and co-operative business council, which has a live workstream specifically exploring the role of the credit union sector.
The common bond is a unique feature of a credit union. It fosters trust and accountability among members. However, there has been a long-standing request from the sector that the Government review the common bond, and that was reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East this morning. That is why we put out the call for evidence. I thank everyone who fed into that process, including individual credit unions, trade associations and some Members here today. We are now engaging with the sector and the regulators on those responses and are considering next steps. The Government and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will provide an update on that work in due course.
More widely, all Members who have spoken today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson), recognise the role that credit unions play in achieving financial inclusion, more broadly considered. They provide access to financial services and products and allow people to participate in the economy.
The hon. Member for Wokingham asked about the long-standing calls for a fair banking Act. I gently note that there was little progress on that in the five years in which the Liberal Democrats were part of the UK Government. That tends to get slightly forgotten. When I spend time here in Westminster Hall—as was pointed out earlier, I do spend a lot of time here—I am told about long-standing Liberal Democrat policy in a whole range of areas.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that our focus is on taking forward a financial inclusion strategy under the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I know she will want to work with my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) in her new role—I congratulate her on it. That work is being supported by a committee of consumer groups and industry representatives, including Fair4All Finance, which has a key role in supporting the sector. That strategy will be published later this year and will seek to tackle a range of barriers facing individuals in accessing financial services, including banking and affordable credit. More importantly, it will consider what more the industry and the Government can do to address these issues.
The financial inclusion committee has recommended that the financial inclusion strategy focus on helping people build an emergency savings buffer—a pot of money that could help them replace a household appliance or repair a car. One area we are exploring is payroll saving schemes, which several Members have called for, which are offered by employers to staff. In my day job of dealing with the pensions landscape, people are talking about learning from the experience of automatic enrolment, and a number of credit unions already deliver such schemes. We talked about the role of a particular credit union earlier.
The Government are directly encouraging those on lower incomes to save via help to save, introduced under the previous Government. Although the scheme has been effective for those who use it, I think we would all say that take-up has been low. In April, eligibility was extended to all universal credit claimants in work, meaning that about 3 million people will be able to benefit from the scheme.
More widely, we are continuing to monitor the availability of affordable credit as part of that financial inclusion strategy work. The Treasury engages regularly to understand the current barriers faced by the mutual sector and credit unions specifically, and to identify opportunities for growth. There have been several discussions about credit union service organisations. That is an important development. The PRA is consulting on how we can facilitate that, given its role in the growth of the sector.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about growth. He is obviously well aware that the policy area is devolved to Northern Ireland, but he can see the legislation that is being progressed here. We are always happy to engage with our opposite numbers in the Northern Ireland Executive, and we do indeed do so. I join him in celebrating the growth in Northern Ireland. He might not like the progress on the legislative side, but on actual lending and members’ engagement, those of us in other parts of the United Kingdom have a lot to learn.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) asked wider questions about bank finance regulation—not least about buy now, pay later. I hope he is happy that the legislation that has long been promised was introduced just a few weeks ago. A few Members who are taking part in this morning’s debate were present in that Committee.
More widely, hon. Members rightly said that credit unions have a different regime from mainstream providers when it comes to regulation. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch that we are really clear about the differential requirements, including capital requirements and exemptions from consumer credit regulations. We maintain those different regimes for good reasons: we want a proportionate system for different parts of our financial sector.
My hon. Friend has consistently raised concerns about the Financial Ombudsman Service’s approach to handling certain complaints against credit unions, and about the volume of complaints more generally. Although they are a very small part of the Financial Ombudsman Service’s work, I appreciate that is not how it feels for the credit unions wrestling with them. We have heard those complaints, and we recognise the risk of a chilling effect on credit union lending. That is why we have acted. In the March regulation action plan, the Government announced that the Economic Secretary would lead a review of the FOS to examine whether it is delivering on its role.
Today’s debate is well timed. Yesterday the Chancellor launched a consultation on a significant package of policy proposals. That will run until October and I encourage all Members to engage with it. As the Chancellor set out at the Mansion House, the Financial Ombudsman Service will be returned to its original role as a simple, impartial dispute-resolution service, which quickly and effectively deals with complaints. Directly addressing the central point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, the Government propose to reform the legislative framework that the FOS operates in to stop it acting as a quasi-regulator. We will take steps to provide greater regulatory coherence with the FCA. Consumers and industry will benefit from a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment, and I encourage my hon. Friend and credit unions with recent exposure to and experience of the ombudsman to feed into the consultation over the summer.
In conclusion, the Government recognise the important role that credit unions play in our economy: helping individuals, strengthening communities, and as a major player in any attempt to make our society and economy genuinely financially inclusive. I see that in Swansea, not least in the work of the Celtic credit union. We remain absolutely committed to supporting the growth of the credit union sector now and into the future. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in today’s important debate.
Katrina Murray
I feel honoured to wind up the debate. I thank all colleagues who have contributed to a thoughtful and constructive debate.
We heard that credit unions are not just financial institutions; they are community institutions. They offer dignity, access and inclusion where commercial lenders often do not and, as the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) reminded us, credit unions step in when commercial-led banks step out. From local volunteer-run unions to large workplace models, such as the NHS credit union, their role in tackling financial exclusion, supporting resilience and anchoring community finance cannot be overstated.
As we have discussed—I very much welcome the Minister’s comments—we might be in a place to remove the burden of over-regulation and inappropriate regulation arising from outdated perceptions. I thank the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson) for reminding us that credit unions will take the risk to lend to people, to their members, because they know them. They know the financial situation that those people are in. That does not necessarily meet an affordability question from a spreadsheet. The importance of the role of small, local organisations is that money will stay in the community. A risk that might have been seen as too big a risk by a wider organisation is not, because everything is done locally.
On the devolved nature of Northern Ireland, I am sure that all the parties there are on the same page on credit unions. I hope that, now we realise that something has been missed and that we need to make that reform, we will be in a good place for it to happen.
Let us ensure that the sector not only survives but thrives. We have all talked about the absolute benefit of mutuals and the credit union sector, and how we want to increase their numbers. I hope that the sector continues to serve those who need it the most.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the role and future of credit unions.
Information Commissioner’s Office: Relocation
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of the relocation of the Information Commissioner’s Office on Tatton constituency.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The Information Commissioner’s Office plays a crucial role in safeguarding the public’s information rights. The ICO is headed by a commissioner. It is a non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, that is tasked with promoting openness from public bodies and ensuring data privacy for individuals. Those are principles rooted in transparency and openness, yet those principles have in recent months been somewhat absent from the ICO itself. That is why I called for this debate.
Last month, I was surprised to learn that the ICO’s head office, which has been based in Wilmslow for 40 years, will be relocating to the new Circle Square development on Oxford Road, Manchester, in autumn 2026, following the expiry of a current lease at Wycliffe House. I read this in a newspaper article and did not receive any official notice. It came as a shock not only to me but to the whole community.
Let me explain the history. The ICO first moved to Springfield House in Wilmslow in 1985. It then had just 10 employees. That figure rose to 80 by the end of the year, and the ICO now employs more than 1,000 individuals across the UK, the vast majority of whom are based in Wilmslow. The ICO is a significant employer in the town. The organisation is staffed by skilled professionals, from investigators and policy experts to technologists, lawyers and frontline support staff. All have played a critical role in delivering data protection. On top of that, this year, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 celebrates 20 years since the Act came into force, and the ICO is central to delivering that service to hold public authorities to account.
Like any well-established organisation that is rooted in a community, the ICO has become part of Wilmslow’s identity over the decades. Some 800 staff are based there. Many multi-generational families who have built their lives around the town have worked there and contributed to the ICO’s success.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Lady. The word is used often, but she is a champion for her constituents, who will today be impressed and proud of what she has done. On those 800 jobs, does she share my concern that there been no consultation about the impact on the local economy and the community? That is incredible. How can that happen without Government having some oversight and say in what happens?
Esther McVey
The hon. Member gets to the nub of the issue. The impact of the removal on the local community is huge, and the fact that a quango seems to be unaccountable to a sponsoring Department is incredible.
For the people I have mentioned, the decision to relocate is not a minor disruption. It affects livelihoods, housing, community patterns and personal finances. Wilmslow, the town that helped to build up the organisation and helped it to flourish, will suddenly and inexplicably have it removed, depleting the area of jobs and local trade for local businesses.
Despite the scale of the relocation’s impact, there have been no explanations or answers about it, and the questions that I have put to the Minister about the specific details of the move remain unanswered. Can you believe it, Mr Twigg? I have been reduced to submitting freedom of information requests about the ICO, the body that oversees freedom of information requests when an organisation does not answer questions—the irony. Therein lies the major issue with quangos—their unaccountability—for no answers have come forth from the Minister or the ICO, the public body tasked with upholding information rights.
I am now attempting again to get answers in Westminster Hall. First, residents want assurances that the decision was thoroughly considered and that there was a full assessment of the impact of moving the ICO out of Wilmslow. They want information about the consultation, if one was carried out at all, in the local area with local businesses. The Minister advised, however, that that is not required by the commissioner, but I want to ask: why is it not required? He did confirm that the commissioner carried out a consultation with its employees, but I want to know what sort of consultation and what was its outcome. What were the questions asked? What were the responses? What were the percentages?
Surely, in making its decision to uproot and leave Wilmslow for Manchester, the ICO must have done some impact assessments. I know that the Government do not like impact assessments, but quangos should be doing them. The ICO should have drawn up the costs and made some calculations about the move. If those calculations have been done, where are they?
Interestingly, the Minister explained that the move was based on “access to…skills” and the “age and diversity” of the workforce in Manchester, but those answers are nonsense. What was the problem with the skills, diversity and age of the people and staff in Wilmslow? What are the Minister and the ICO saying about Wilmslow and Cheshire in those comments? Let us remember that it was Wilmslow where the organisation grew from 10 employees to 1,000 employees, hundreds of them from in and around the Wilmslow area.
What exactly do the Minister and the commissioner mean when they say the “diversity” of the workforce? That sounds discriminatory to me against the people of Cheshire, Wilmslow and Tatton. In fact, I have heard that the Government are trying to include a socioeconomic duty into the Equality Act 2010, basically discriminating against the UK’s middle classes. I would say that this is a case in point. If not, can the Minister explain why it is not? I am hoping that the Minister has some information today about the staff who will remain in Wilmslow after the move. In response to my written question, the Government said that “76 desks” will remain there until 2030—not people, desks. Is that how they view the staff of Wilmslow and Cheshire? How many staff is that, what roles will they be covering and how long will they remain in Wilmslow?
What we do know is that the office in Manchester will be smaller, so people will be working from home. That is another question. On the day after it was exposed that an extraordinary Ministry of Defence data breach led to the Afghanistan relocation, surely tighter controls must be brought in to prevent such calamitous data breaches. If that is the case, why are staff at the ICO going to be working from home at all?
The new Manchester office is smaller, and it will house approximately 250 people. Do not be shocked, Mr Twigg, but you should know that there are smaller offices in Wilmslow, in the Wilmslow area and in Cheshire too. Let us look at the cost implications of the move, just for the office space. The average cost of an office on Water Lane, where the ICO is currently based, ranges from £15 to £25 a square foot. An office in Manchester’s new Circle Square development is between £30 and £45 per square foot, plus a service charge of £7.50 per square foot. For 250 employees, each needing about 100 square feet, the expected cost in Wilmslow would have been anywhere between £375,000 and £625,000, yet in Manchester, with the added service charge, we can expect the office to cost somewhere between £937,000 and £1,312,000. That is an increase in cost ranging between £562,000 and £687,000, which is a large discrepancy. Manchester is more expensive than Wilmslow. Although the commissioner and the Minister might not care about wasting taxpayers’ money, I do, my constituents do and the taxpayer picking up the bill does.
Those questions matter to staff and the local area but getting answers has been an uphill battle. Since the Minister confirmed limited details to me late last week, it appears that he has changed his mind. In a separate reply, he advised me that his Department has “no formal role” in the relocation, and that questions should be put to the ICO directly. Does he now think that the process was sped through, and is he distancing himself from that process?
The Minister says that the move was decided by the ICO, in line with the Treasury’s Green Book principles—really? Because one of those principles is value for money, which we know has just had a hole blown through it. It seems the move was approved by the Cabinet Office, but as the sponsoring Department knows nothing about the decisions, and as the ICO has not provided a basis for the move, how on earth did the Cabinet Office sign it off, and know what it was signing off?
The claim that it is not the responsibility of DSIT simply does not pass the test. The Department is responsible for the ICO’s strategic direction and financial management. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House understand why so many people feel frustrated about buck-passing, which Departments so often do, and which simply avoids answering legitimate questions. What is the point of a sponsoring Department if it claims no role in such a significant strategic move? If the Minister overseeing the ICO cannot provide answers, who can?
The Minister advised in his answer to written questions to take queries “directly to the ICO”, but that ignores the role of the sponsoring Department as the link between Parliament and the ICO. There are no specific avenues for a Back-Bench MP to take questions to the ICO on behalf of constituents. The Information Commissioner appears before the Select Committee as and when, with the last appearance in 2023 on promoting and enforcing the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and looking at the backlog and complaints.
There is no requirement for the commissioner to reply to MPs’ correspondence or to meet set response deadlines. In essence, there is no clear or guaranteed route for a parliamentarian to scrutinise an ICO decision. That is further complicated by the structure of the ICO, which operates as a corporation sole, meaning that the commissioner holds the office individually rather than through a board.
I understand that the ICO is going through a governance reform and has appointed an interim chief executive officer, meaning that the commissioner will become the chair of the new information commission. Those reforms must come with improved mechanisms for scrutiny. If there is such confidence in the decision to relocate, why is no evidence being produced for that move? Equally, for an institution grounded in accountability and transparency, why is there no direct access for parliamentarians to question the ICO? I have to ask: why the secrecy?
Questions about the organisation’s operational moves are not limited to the office relocation. There have been growing concerns about financial stewardship. The ICO’s expenditure grew by 15% in 2023-24, and the organisation faced a deficit that was only recently alleviated by a change in fee structure. People had to pay more because the ICO was spending more—again, where is the accountability? Put together, these concerns paint a picture of a public body lacking clear financial constraint—or restraint—and public accountability.
Here lies a problem we see all too often in our political system: arm’s length bodies that receive significant sums of taxpayers’ money going without proper regulation or oversight. The ICO is just one of more than 300 arm’s length bodies in the UK, collectively employing around 397,000 staff. These organisations carry significant public responsibility and receive billions of pounds in taxpayer funding, yet they operate without adequate transparency and, unlike ministerial Departments, are not uniformly regulated.
The Public Bodies Act 2011 requires a management agreement between a body and its sponsoring Department, but the exact terms are left for them to decide. I understand that DSIT became the ICO’s sponsoring Department in 2023, and that a new management agreement is currently being finalised. Can the Minister provide an update on that process and confirm whether it will include stronger provisions for parliamentary scrutiny and public transparency?
The concerns I bring to the House are not complex ones about the move and accountability, nor are they unreasonable. The simple fact that these questions go unanswered undermines public trust in these organisations and brings into question the control and oversight of these bodies. Residents of Wilmslow and the ICO’s employees deserve to know this information and the reasons for the move.
We must not forget that, when decisions of this scale are made, they will not go unnoticed. It comes back to the very simple principles that the ICO was founded on and continues to serve: transparency, openness and upholding trust in our public institutions. It is not good enough merely to talk about those issues; they deserve decisive action.
I am putting all these questions on the record. I fully understand that the Minister might not be able to answer all of them today, and I will accept as many answers as he can give. But what I would appreciate—no, I will go further: what I expect following this debate is a letter with all those answers. I see the Minister’s civil servants seated behind him, so I should be assured that that can and will be delivered, as everyone who needs to be here for those answers is present.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
As usual, it is a great delight to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
I warmly commend the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for doing something perhaps intrinsic to our political system—because, unlike in many other systems around the world, we have a constituency model—and standing up for her constituents. I laud her for doing so.
I think the right hon. Lady over-egged the pudding a bit and emphasised rather too much; she was creating some conspiracy theories in there about the supposed secrecy around the ICO. She said that there are some governance changes going on at the ICO; I gently say to her that there was a Bill that went through the House of Commons in this Session, and also in the previous Parliament, when her party was in government. A large chunk of that Bill was specifically devoted to the structure of the ICO, and I do not remember her taking part in the debates at any point, although she could have done. She could have tabled an amendment if she wanted to make the ICO more accountable to Parliament, but I note that she did not choose to do so. That may be because she trusted that the system was perfectly adequate—
Chris Bryant
I will not give way to the right hon. Lady for a moment, because she has posed quite a lot of questions that I need to answer.
The right hon. Lady asked about funding. A statutory instrument was laid to change the ICO’s funding arrangements, because successive Governments have loaded it up with more and more work, and there are more and more freedom of information requests, which has inevitably led to a larger body of work for the organisation. That is why we consulted prior to increasing the fees, leading to the statutory instrument—which of course could have been prayed against, although I am not aware that anybody chose to do so—that brought in the increase in fees. I do not think that the ICO is deliberately trying, as she seemed to suggest, to increase its remit or to do unnecessary work: we have given it a job of work.
The right hon. Lady also asked about the ICO’s accountability to Parliament. She is quite right that it would be perfectly legitimate for the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee to invite the Information Commissioner to give evidence, and for that matter, of course, the Public Accounts Committee has a responsibility to scrutinise the ICO.
I am happy to give way to the right hon. Lady now.
Esther McVey
I thank the Minister very much for giving way. I would recommend that he did not shoot from the hip with his answers. I said that I would allow him to write to me, because some of these matters were complex. Trying to suggest that this is a conspiracy theory adds another layer to the cover-up that I have not have responses from him or from the ICO about. Also, he should not question what I did or did not know, or do, when I was in my previous role, because I did not have oversight of this issue in my role in the Cabinet Office. Again, I say to him, “Don’t shoot from the hip.” I would prefer a written reply; in fact, it would only be right for me and the residents of Wilmslow to have a proper, considered reply.
Chris Bryant
It would be easier for me to respond to a lot of the right hon. Lady’s questions if she was not attacking me quite so much. The point I am making is that this is a body based in her constituency, and for the whole of the past year we have been debating the Data (Use and Access) Bill, now an Act, which refers specifically to the ICO, and I do not remember her taking part in those debates at all.
The other point I would make is that the independence of the ICO is really important—it is vital. I am not making that point to pass the buck; I am making a point about how important it is that we have an independent person adjudicating on freedom of information requests. I am sure that when the right hon. Lady was a Minister, such requests would come across her desk, and it is important that people have trust in the independence of the Information Commissioner.
Basically, what has happened is that the Information Commissioner’s Office has decided what is the best value and the best place for it to be based. I will come on to give the precise numbers, which I think will answer most of the questions that the right hon. Lady has put to me.
Since its establishment in 1984, the ICO has grown significantly in size and importance, and alongside reforms in the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 the regulator is delivering a transformation programme to enable it to continue to perform as an agile and forward-looking regulator. It is crucial that the ICO has the right expertise and skills within the organisation to make this transformational change a success.
In addition, the ICO is retaining a presence in Wilmslow, as the right hon. Lady said, until at least 2030, and staff were consulted as part of the process. I note the point she made about wanting to know more about that consultation; I am quite happy to write to her about how it was engaged in.
The ICO continues to offer its staff flexibility in where they work and internal surveys showed that relocating to Manchester city centre would not negatively affect staff attendance in the office. Economic analysis commissioned by the ICO also showed that average commuting costs across all modes of public transport to and from a Manchester city centre location were lower than travelling to and from the current Wilmslow office location. That is one of the reasons why I think the right hon. Lady is on the wrong side of the economic argument here, and why I support what the ICO has done.
In response to this debate, the ICO has also told me that the decision to relocate to Manchester will provide it with a strong talent pipeline for the future, which will continue to diversify its workforce and provide technological skills for its long-term success. The right hon. Lady asked about diversity—I think that she is on some kind of Trump line here—but the point is a simple one: 8.2% of the ICO’s workforce is at or approaching retirement age. That is one of the issues that it must consider in making sure it has a pipeline of people into the future. The Oxford Road corridor will support that pipeline through its concentration of universities, research institutions and businesses in the health, technology and creative sectors. That will give the ICO access to the workforce of one of the fastest-growing tech hubs in Europe, and that access will be better in Manchester than in Wilmslow.
In undertaking its own analysis, the ICO reviewed a range of locations, including remaining within Wilmslow—that option was considered. Locations were assessed against objectives such as access to skills, demographics, proximity to existing stakeholders, cultural diversity and proximity to transport hubs. The ICO’s economists developed a locations option tool, underpinned by the Treasury’s Green Book principles, which used Office for National Statistics data to support an evidence-based decision. Using that tool, Manchester city centre was evaluated as the top-scoring location and Wilmslow was ranked second.
There was no role for DSIT in the ICO’s decision to relocate. I was not asked, and we did not take part in that decision. The ICO involved the necessary Cabinet Office approval processes and engaged early with the Government Property Agency and the Office of Government Property, allowing scrutiny and challenge of the business case. I am sure that the right hon. Lady would agree that that is an important part of making sure we are getting value for money for the taxpayer.
Both Manchester city centre and Wilmslow were considered, with Manchester city centre identified as the top-ranking location. I am afraid that the right hon. Lady’s figures, which are imaginary, are not accurate and therefore cannot be relied upon. The 3 Circle Square office location in Manchester was chosen over Wycliffe House in Wilmslow due to its alignment with strategic objectives and its value for money. Importantly, the lifecycle costs for Circle Square stood at £19.1 million, compared with £21.5 million for Wycliffe House, based on Green Book principles.
Chris Bryant
I will in a moment. I throw this point back at the right hon. Lady; I am sure she would not want to waste taxpayers’ money.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I remind the right hon. Lady that interventions should be short.
Esther McVey
I made it clear that the office size was shrinking, so I gave the Minister the cost per square foot. Those are the raw data and information that we need. It would have been much cheaper to stay in Wilmslow per square foot and reduce the headcount down from 800 to 250. That is the difference, and we do not have the raw data for that.
Chris Bryant
I am afraid it would cost £2.4 million more to stay in Wilmslow than it would to move. All the right hon. Lady’s statistics are purely imaginary and speculative, and therefore cannot be relied on. That is why we have to go through a proper process and not simply put things together on the back of a fag packet.
Additional benefits include improved sustainability credentials, moving from an energy performance certificate C-rated building to an A-rated one, which importantly reduces energy costs. Through the approval process, the main challenge from the Office of Government Property centred on the utilisation of wider public estate options, notably in Salford, where the council has a lease. However, that option was dismissed due to accessibility concerns over the existing staff commuting to Salford—I am sure the right hon. Lady would agree with that decision at least.
According to the ICO, Manchester city centre also offered future lease commitments that provided best value for money, and it did not leave unoccupied or underutilised space. Shared space facilities at 3 Circle Square enable a reduction in contracted floor space, further enhancing the cost efficiencies. Yet again, I make the point to the right hon. Lady that this is a matter of us saving money, not wasting taxpayers’ money, which is a key injunction that she herself was making. The ICO carried out the necessary consultation and analysis conditions as required by the Cabinet Office, and received approval on 7 May. The ICO needs to maintain its position as a world-class regulator. To address that, we encouraged it to seek out the best talent and technological expertise while providing value for money to the taxpayer, and we recognise that location is an important part of that process.
The right hon. Lady asked me one other question, right at the beginning of her speech, about whether this matter was thoroughly considered, and the answer is very firmly yes. The ICO went through a rigorous process internally—
Chris Bryant
The ICO went through a thorough process. It had to gain approval at the end of that process, although it had been speaking to the Cabinet Office from the very beginning. That is why I believe it has come up with the best solution to ensure it has the talent it needs into the future, bearing in mind that nearly 10% of its staff are near retirement age. It is also the best value for the Government and therefore for the taxpayer—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
RAF E-7 Wedgetail Programme
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the RAF E-7 Wedgetail programme.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. Victory in the battle of Britain means we are having this debate in this place in English, but how was that aerial triumph secured? Of course, it had much to do with the pilots of the RAF—Churchill’s famous “few”—who risked all at long odds to blunt the Luftwaffe’s talons. Key, too, was the workhorse Hawker Hurricane, which bagged most of the kills. There was also the show pony Supermarine Spitfire, which grabbed most of the glory, to the extent that German pilots would lie about being brought down by a Spit and not the deadly but less elegant Hurricane.
I would contend that the unsung hero is the world’s first organised radar early warning system, code-named Chain Home and strung like pearls around the British coast, with particular emphasis on the English south and south-east. It meant Britain could see the enemy coming and marshal our meagre fighter resources to best effect. Radar allowed us to vector our squadrons against the bomber streams and their escorts for, had we to rely on the “mark 1 eyeball”, as RAF pilots call it even today, or imprecise Royal Observer Corps listening devices that were more great war than great efficiency, suffice it to say the world would be a different and much worse place.
Soon radar was miniaturised and put aboard aircraft, and aerial combat was transformed, so that today it is less Biggles battling the Hun in the sun and more BVR—beyond visual range—spotting our enemy long before they spot us and taking them out at a remarkable distance. Airborne radar and comms are today’s air war essentials, as vital to modern air forces as the Rolls-Royce Merlin engines that powered both our Spitfires and Hurricanes in the second world war. But the RAF has a problem: a capability gap—and for capability gap read “credibility gap”—because it cannot offer the complete integral mission package.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate on the RAF E-7 Wedgetail programme. A fortnight ago, our Defence Committee raised concerns about the E-7 programme with the Secretary of State and is looking to carry out further scrutiny. As the hon. Member just mentioned, there have been perennial procurement issues. It is wholly inadequate that there is a capability gap in the airborne early warning and control coverage, and there was a lamentable decision to reduce the fleet by 40% to save just 12% on the cost. Does he agree that somebody needs to get a grip on this programme, close the capability gap and finally deliver the capability that our fleet forces deserve?
John Cooper
As the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member is very knowledgeable about this subject, and I hope that we will tease out today much of what he raised—we may actually get some of the answers we seek.
As I was saying, the RAF has a problem: it cannot offer a complete package, and we could be reliant on NATO allies to give us extra cover. That is because the venerable E-3D Sentry aircraft has retired, so we entirely lack an airborne early warning command and control aircraft providing situational awareness of the battlespace—that is the real-time 360° view of what is out there, so that our top guns know who to salute and who to shoot.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On the matter of top guns, will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Air Marshal Harv Smyth on today being appointed as the new Chief of the Air Staff designate? He is what the Americans would call a warfighter. He and the new Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Rich Knighton, will provide a powerful team in the defence—including the air defence—of the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend welcome both appointments, as I do?
John Cooper
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and I do indeed welcome the fact that, given the situation we are in, we are welcoming warfighters into these senior positions. It is worth reflecting, yet again, that the military likes a TLA—three-letter acronym.
The replacement for the Sentry, the E-7 Wedgetail, is already combat-proven with the Royal Australian Air Force, but it is still not in service with the RAF; indeed, it is already two years late. I hope that the Minister can give the House some assurance that it is not the Ajax of the skies, because that unhappy armoured fighting vehicle programme has become a byword for ruinously expensive waste.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the positive economic benefits of the E-7 programme, particularly for constituencies such as mine, where Thales has been charged with developing the threat warning system for the platform? As a fellow Scottish MP, will he celebrate the contribution of Scottish firms to the defence of our realm and our increasingly vital defence industry across the United Kingdom?
John Cooper
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my near-constituency neighbour, for that intervention. There is something of a hostile environment for defence companies in Scotland, because the SNP Government refuse to put money into what they call “munitions”, which is scarcely credible in the current circumstances. Most recently, Rolls-Royce wanted to build a welding centre of excellence on the banks of the Clyde, close to where Thales is based, but incredibly the Scottish Government will not put money into it. To their credit, the UK Government have said they will back it to the hilt, which has to be good news, but it is very strange that the Scottish Government are taking an almost fifth-columnist view of the defence of the realm; indeed, it is quite remarkable.
As I understand it, the delays to the E-7 Wedgetail programme are not costing the taxpayer more money because the contract with Boeing insulates the taxpayer from price surges; I hope the Minister can confirm that. Although one Wedgetail—complete with plug-ugly but lethally effective MESA, which is the multi-role electronically scanned array, perched atop what is basically a Boeing 737 airliner—is due to fly in the Royal International Air Tattoo this week, none of the three RAF orders is fully certified for military aviation.
There are also worries that passion for Wedgetail is waning in the United States, where the Sentry aircraft are also designed to be gate guardians. US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth said that the “gold-plated” Wedgetail is:
“not survivable in the modern battlefield.”
The White House is said to be anticipating the arrival of intelligence, surveillance and target acquisition constellation satellites, which are expected by the mid-2030s at the earliest. Meanwhile, the Pentagon is looking at the venerable E-2D Hawkeye to fill the potentially decade-long gap until interlinked satellites, like Chain Home in the heavens, actually arrive overhead.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is indeed my near-neighbour—we are just divided by a bit of water—and I have very much appreciated his friendship and support over the years.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Wedgetail is the most technologically advanced system available and will provide UK defence with eyes in the sky for at least the next 20 years, to see far beyond what ground-based systems and fighter aircraft sensors can see. However, does he agree that future-proofing—in other words, the vision, which I think is what he is talking about—is an essential tool? Will he join me in pressing the Ministry of Defence to continue its innovation drive, for example with Thales in Belfast but with other companies as well, to make sure that we are advanced in such a way that we can defend and protect?
John Cooper
I thank the hon. Member for that point. He is absolutely correct and he also referred to the fact that he, too, has Thales in his constituency, or close to it. That is the thing about the defence industry—it is intertwined with so many constituencies. In fact, I do not think that there is a single constituency that does not have some defence involvement. In my constituency, rural Dumfries and Galloway, we make the helmets for the F-35 Lightning II jets. Wherever anyone goes in the country, there is some defence involvement and we must back that to the hilt. We must also look forward, which is critical; I think that much of this debate is about looking forward, rather than looking backwards and raking over old coals.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend’s speech is obviously provoking a great deal of interest in the Chamber. Can he confirm that in the defence appropriations Bill that the Pentagon put forward in late June, which asks Congress for money for equipment in the next financial year, the Wedgetail programme for the United States air force was deleted?
John Cooper
My right hon. Friend is correct, but I believe that a bit of a fightback is coming. There is a discussion going on, partly because fans of the space-based solution have to answer for the reality that it is some years away. That gap is difficult, and that is where Hawkeye comes in. Quite how this naval veteran—the prototype Hawkeye first flew in 1960, and Biggles would recognise its propellers, if not its frisbee-style radar disc—is more survivable behind the onion layers of modern air defences than Wedgetail is perhaps not for us in this debate.
How did we get here? Perhaps the Minister can give us some clue about any engineering or integration problems experienced by Boeing at its Birmingham facility—that is Birmingham, west midlands, not Birmingham, Alabama. He will certainly refer to the decision, as we have already heard, by the previous Government in 2021 to cut the RAF Wedgetail fleet from five airframes to three. The then Defence Committee, as we have also heard, called that an “absolute folly”, which traded a 40% cut in capability for a 12% cut in acquisition costs. But that was then, and this is now. Smoke billows over the battlefields of Ukraine. The restive Russian bear may next turn its eyes west. The Chinese dragon flexes in the South China sea. North Korea has nuclear weapons; Iran wants nuclear weapons.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
The hon. Member mentions the battlefields of Ukraine, which are key because the RAF has a large fleet of aircraft that covers all the fundamental air power roles, but our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability is particularly important to NATO. Does he recognise as I do that this gap is therefore particularly acute?
John Cooper
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for that, and for his service with the RAF. He is absolutely correct. In this country, our forces are highly prized for our superb technical abilities, as well as our warfighting capabilities. That gap is very serious: it has an impact on the RAF and on our allies. The lesson learned from Ukraine is that one of the great difficulties for the Russians—and hallelujah!—is that they have been unable to achieve air superiority. That shows how important air superiority is to this day, even in what is widely thought of as a ground war.
The Government appear committed to Wedgetail. Their strategic defence review recommended that further E-7s be purchased. Although heavily caveated by “when funding allows”—and that phrase does a lot of heavy lifting, let us be honest—that recommendation has been accepted. The SDR further dangles the prospect of potentially offsetting Wedgetail costs in conjunction with NATO allies. That is a good idea, but what discussions have we had with alliance partners on that? Will Boeing commit to Birmingham and the jobs there if we join with other NATO air forces to get meaningful orders for Wedgetail on its books?
UK Wedgetails directly support 190 high-skills jobs across the country, and Boeing is looking to expand to meet possible further demand, with perhaps another 150 jobs. There are 32 UK firms in the supply chain, stretching from Luton to Glasgow, providing everything from interior structures to threat warning and defensive aids. When Wedgetail does enter service, there will be ongoing jobs in sustainment and maintenance.
Separately, what discussions have we had with our closest ally, the United States? Would the Americans share information when and if satellites do finally fill the intelligence gap? Could we even buy their venerable Hawkeye at the eleventh hour? Perhaps the Minister might consider a meeting of interested hon. Members—and we can see the cross-party interest in this debate—to discuss the Wedgetail programme.
Our pilots remain at the cutting edge. The British-built Typhoon jet is a potent dogfighter, and the F-35 Lightning II strike fighter a peerless stealth weapon, yet both are nothing if our eyes in the sky—as vital to guiding and warning them as was Chain Home in the imminent peril of 1940—are myopic at best, or non-existent as now. The safety and security of these islands rest on the brave men—and increasingly, brave women—in our armed forces, but I am not alone in arguing that we need to throw our defence industrial infrastructure into high gear to equip those amazing people with the tools for the job.
“At pace” is the mantra of the machinery of government, but it cannot be a mere slogan; it must mean something. We need ordnance, complex war machines—such as submarines and frigates—drones, main battle tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, armoured fighting vehicles, and innovative technology, such as laser and energy weapons. We also need to know what lurks over the horizon—what is on the reverse slope of that hill or beyond that cloud bank? We need all that at night and in all weathers.
The procurement gap is yawning as threats mount. Our commissioning and purchasing system is changing, but we may be marching to war, so bimbling along as we did when the cold war thawed, or when we were fighting gendarmerie actions, will not cut it. The scramble bell has been rung. We need, as Churchill had it, “Action this day”. Wedgetail ought to be more than just on the radar of the new national armaments director; it ought to be at the centre of their gunsight reticle—is it, Minister?
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this debate and on his well-informed speech. There were some fantastic world war two metaphors and terminology in it, which I will not be able to emulate.
I welcome the chance to debate the RAF’s E-7 Wedgetail programme, as it is such an important capability—and not just for the RAF, because it will serve all our armed forces when it comes into service. This is not about three aircraft—or, preferably, five; it is about a force multiplier that will have a huge impact on the ability of all our other military capabilities, across air, land and sea, to dominate the modern battlespace.
Wedgetail scans the battlefield using advanced radar and sensors. I am a bit perturbed by the idea that the venerable Hawkeye could somehow step into that; whatever the capabilities of the airframe, it has an older radar and does not have the kind of space inside it for command and control facilities that Wedgetail does. Wedgetail processes vast amounts of information to allow commanders to make informed and speedy decisions about where to deploy their assets. As the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway said, it is a proven technology that has been successfully used in combat in the middle east by Australia.
The only production line for Wedgetail globally is here in the UK, at Meriden, between Birmingham and Coventry. The number of jobs involved is not huge—it is 190 across the UK, perhaps rising above 300 next year—but they are highly skilled. There is also export potential, whether or not the US sticks with its order, as NATO has selected the E-7 to replace its shared E-3 Sentry fleet. As many as 100 jobs could be created at RAF Lossiemouth for the sustainment contract.
Everyone in this room—because we are all people who take a slightly geeky interest in this program—is aware that Wedgetail has been hit by a series of strange, unexpected problems, from the impact of covid to a hurricane hitting the site where the radar is produced. Most significantly, the 10-year gap between the order for the previous batch of Wedgetails by South Korea and their construction meant that some parts were no longer in production and had to be recreated from scratch. The production schedule was therefore wildly over-optimistic.
It is commendable, given its fixed-fee contract, that Boeing, the prime contractor, has stuck with the programme even though it is making a loss on it because it is not the off-the-shelf product that the contract envisaged. That commitment has been recognised by Andy Start, the interim national armaments director, who told the Public Accounts Committee in April that Boeing
“has leaned in with serious amounts of resource and stuck with that programme to make sure it is delivered.”
Sadly, some of the issues with the programme were self-inflicted by the previous Conservative Government. I am reluctant to be too partisan, because one of the better things about debating defence policy is that there tends to be quite a bit of bipartisan consensus, but the belief in 2019 that the previous Government could rush through the original contract process in just nine months, when it would normally take two or three years, was naive to say the least, and meant that many assumptions made during the planning of the programme were incorrect.
Mr Francois
I should declare an interest: I served on the Defence Committee in the previous Parliament, so I contributed to that report, which was critical of the decision to cut the number from five to three. I do not deny that, and I still would prefer that we had stayed with five. I thought that, to be transparent, I should put that on the record.
Luke Akehurst
I welcome the right hon. Member’s making that point. From my reading of the timelines of who was in office and when, I am very clear that this decision came after his time as a Minister and during the time in which he was scrutinising decisions by other Conservative Ministers.
The extraordinary, destructive and irrational decision, I believe by Ben Wallace, the then Conservative Secretary of State for Defence, to cut the order from five aircraft to three, came in 2021. I do not understand how that is supposed to work. Five aircraft were required for a reason: one to be in deep maintenance and repair, one for training and then at least two to sustain a single operation 24/7. Obviously, an aircraft cannot stay airborne permanently; they have to land to refuel and presumably to give the crew some kind of rest. How does that work with only three aircraft?
It was not even a sensible cost saving, as has previously been referenced. The axing of 40% of the fleet delivered only a 12% saving on the cost of the programme. The Defence Committee’s 2023 report, in which I assume the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) was involved, described that as “perverse” and an “absolute folly”. The United Kingdom had already procured not three but five sets of extremely expensive advanced radar from Northrop Grumman, so there are now two really expensive sets of radar sat around as spares for airframes that do not exist.
The decision to cut the order from five to three meant that the contract needed to be renegotiated and led to a further delay of six months, all the while leaving the huge capability gap that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke about in our airborne early warning and control due to the retirement of the E-3D Sentry—a gap described by the Defence Committee, as its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), mentioned, as
“a serious threat to the UK’s warfighting ability.”
Really, this essential programme was vandalised by the previous Government. It is a stunning example of poor decision making. I therefore welcome the strategic defence review’s recommendation that further Wedgetails
“should be procured when funding allows”.
Cameron Thomas
The reduction in the number of Wedgetails, which seems to have been a mistake, feels very reminiscent of the coalition Government’s cutting of the Nimrod programme despite having already spent billions of pounds on it. That left us without a maritime patrol aircraft, and we had to go cap in hand to the French and the Americans for our—
Cameron Thomas
I thank the right hon. Member. It left us with a gap in our intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capability. I accept that that was a coalition issue, but I am glad to hear that there is consensus in this room on the importance of ISR capability.
Luke Akehurst
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and agree with him about the importance of ISR capability.
Mr Dhesi
The recent US proposal to scale back the funding for its E-7 Wedgetail programme raises serious concerns about the long-term viability of the programme. In the light of that, does my hon. Friend agree that it is incumbent upon the Ministry of Defence to show the House that its defence procurement strategy is robust, independent and in line with the recommendations set out in the strategic defence review?
Luke Akehurst
I agree to some extent with the points that the Chair of the Select Committee makes. Given that the production line is in Birmingham, west midlands rather than Birmingham, Alabama, I do not think we are dependent on the US going ahead with its order. There are other international customers: from memory, the Koreans, the Australians and the Turks already use Wedgetail, and NATO is likely to go for it as well. It would be helpful in terms of economies of scale and leveraging American technological advances if the US went with the programme, but that is not, to my mind, a deal breaker.
I will now reach the conclusion that I was about reach before the very kind intervention from the Chair of the Select Committee. I encourage the Minister to prioritise this programme and I would welcome any information he can give us today about when funding might allow the very sensible restoration, recommended in the SDR, of the programme to its proper scale. Will he also address the upgrade that I understand Australia is planning to its Wedgetails and, given that the programme has been delayed over the years, whether that means we are already looking at a technology upgrade for the fleet we are procuring? Finally, to echo what the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway said, there is a small number of hon. Members who take a close interest in this programme, so will the Minister consider convening an informal group of parliamentarians to update us and consult us on its progress?
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing the debate. He spoke incredibly eloquently not just about the programme, but about why it is so important. I will pull him up slightly, because he talked about Birmingham. The facility is in my constituency of Meriden and Solihull East, and Solihull is very different from Birmingham, as any Silhillian will tell us, but I welcome the case that he made.
I am very proud that these planes are being built in my constituency. I have had the privilege of going to see them at various phases of construction and, as they are Boeing 737s that are being restructured and refitted, seeing them in the different states of fitting, not least during various liftings of lockdowns, when I was able to do so. I went there with a lot of pride because, as has been alluded to and I know all the Members in the Chamber will agree, our paramount and first duty as Members of Parliament is defence of the realm. Across the world, whether it is in Ukraine or in the brief conflict between Pakistan and India recently, we see a real need for credible technology that is capable of dealing with modern warfare in the 21st century. For me, the E-7 Wedgetail is essential to that because, as my hon. Friend said, it provides a 360° capability with advance warning and strategic capacity to deal with movements in the battlefield way beyond our enemies’ visibility. It would, should and ought to secure air superiority, so it is very important.
I thank STS Aviation Services, which is fitting out the plane alongside Boeing. I think we can all agree that we want this done. I would like to see the Wedgetail project, or at least the two planes, completed. I am happy to work cross-party to make sure that we work with Boeing and STS to deliver that, not least because of the importance of the defence of our realm and the need to be ready. In this age of autocrats, when we see technological advancement from the Russians, the North Koreans, the Chinese and even the Iranians, we need to be ready for what might come our way.
The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) chided the last Government for a number of their decisions, but what an excellent decision it was to have a fixed-price contract. That means that, despite the delays, there should not be an additional cost to the taxpayer. Once the project is completed, I hope it will be seen as value for money.
As has already been said, but I will put it on the record not least because some of my constituents will see this, Wedgetail will be, when completed, one of the most advanced strategic analytical planes to be built and to hopefully serve in our armed forces. It will be able to co-ordinate with joint forces and of course, most essentially in the 21st century, provide high-quality data. As I have already said, it will operate beyond visual range and secure strategic superiority and dominance. It should be stressed that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway said, overcoming the capability and credibility gap is absolutely essential if we are to be an air force capable of holding its own in the 21st century, with the challenges that will come our way.
As was mentioned earlier, the Wedgetail programme is also essential given advancements in space and space defence technology, about which there is clearly concern. I would like Wedgetail to be part of the multifaceted platform needed to make sure that those who would do us harm by taking advantage of space technology cannot do so. Wedgetail will be really important in that.
What is important for me is that Wedgetail creates really high value, highly skilled jobs. It caters for about 150 jobs at the moment, and that figure is predicted to double. Sadly, as a layperson, I was not able to convince the people responsible to give the maintenance contract to Birmingham airport, but I believe that Wedgetail is a product of great capability, including export capability. That means further jobs for my constituents in Meriden and Solihull East. I should say that in my part of the world, we have Jaguar Land Rover and the old factories that helped to build Spitfire. We have a great tradition and great heritage. My constituents are incredibly patriotic and will be proud that Wedgetail is being built there.
I have some questions for the Minister. Will he share his assessment of the export capability of this product? Where does he see the opportunities and value? He has already been challenged, so will he enlighten us on how he is working to ensure its faster delivery? Who is he working with and what conversations is he having in that regard? The offer to meet interested stakeholders has been put out there, and I would like to be part of that. The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry would be an important person to have around that table in that conversation. More broadly, what work are the Government doing to ensure that our defence products are exported across the world? Technological advancement in warfare has often separated the victor from the defeated. That is a really important part of the conversation, and I hope it will go beyond the strategic defence review.
Mr Dhesi
Given the retirement of the E-3 Sentry and the delays to the E-7 Wedgetail and Crowsnest programmes, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Ministry of Defence must ensure that the capability gaps in the airborne early warning and control coverage must be urgently addressed in our defence procurement? Otherwise, it will lead to long-term issues for the defence and security of our country.
Saqib Bhatti
Of course I agree with the hon. Member—anyone in the Chamber would agree that the capability and credibility gap has to be overcome. We know where the threats are coming from, or at least the visible threats. To quote a former US politician, there are lots of unknown knowns, known knowns and known unknowns—I am sure I have messed that up, but hon. Members know what I mean. We have to be capable of delivering on that. The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) said that there had to be focused delivery of this product; I echo and double down on that.
In conclusion, the issue is about jobs, which matter, and our security, which matters too. It is absolutely essential.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. I concur with the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois): the Liberal Democrats also welcome Air Marshal Harv Smyth to his new appointment as Chief of the Air Staff—congratulations to him. He will be a fine leader.
The E-7A Wedgetail represents a major update to the UK’s airborne warning and control capability. Future-proofing our armed forces is something that the Liberal Democrats strongly support. Wedgetail’s predecessor, E-3D Sentry, first entered service in the Royal Air Force around the same time as I entered the Royal Air Force, but fortunately it stayed at the cutting edge for a good deal longer. Indeed, the aircraft was still flying operational sorties and keeping the UK safe right up until it was decommissioned in August 2021.
Although Sentry has since made some extra flights over home soil, the UK has officially been without an airborne warning and control capability for several years. That is just one example of how the last Government allowed our armed forces to be hollowed out over time.
Cameron Thomas
To their credit, the Conservatives have been quite open in lamenting the drawdown of the Wedgetail project, but will my hon. Friend join me in asking the Government how committed they are to the Wedgetail programme and to the initial order of five?
Ian Roome
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am sure that the Minister will reply.
Unfortunately, Sentry’s intended replacement, the Wedgetail programme, has already been through some major turbulence during its early years, from questions over the fairness of the MOD’s procurement decision in 2018 to a two-year production delay and an order reduction from five airframes to three under the last Government’s integrated defence review—a move that Boeing says slowed down the project, and a decision described as an “absolute folly” even by the then Defence Committee.
We now read news reports that the Trump Administration are seeking to cancel Wedgetail orders for the US air force over claims that it would be too vulnerable in contested airspace, casting doubt over the programme’s future interoperability and cost. I am sure that many hon. Members will also have seen the recent letter signed by 19 retired US four-star generals criticising that decision. The United States aspires to a fully space-based replacement, but that is still many years away. With hindsight, knowing what we know about Russian aggression in eastern European airspace, the timing of all this could hardly be more perilous.
Just a few weeks ago, my colleagues on the Defence Committee and I visited Allied Air Command in Ramstein, Germany. The UK is committed to a 24/7 NATO air policing mission, and the strategic defence review states that the UK’s defensive posture should be firmly “NATO first”. The Liberal Democrats believe that the UK should work as closely as possible with our European allies on our shared defence, and that our military should complement our allies’ capabilities.
In addition to raising the UK’s defence spending to 2.5% and beyond, it is essential that we co-ordinate our allied air forces in Europe, especially those of our Nordic and Baltic partners, to give more bang for buck. In the European airspace, this airborne capability is very specialised. Various NATO forces still operate old E-3 aircraft, including Germany, Turkey, Greece, Italy and Norway. France and some Scandinavian air forces also operate similar aircraft from rival manufacturers such as Saab and Northrop Grumman.
However, as has been pointed out before the US Senate Committee on Armed Services, the cost of repairs to the old E-3 fleet keeps increasing, and their availability to fly keeps decreasing. Australia, South Korea and our European allies in NATO, faced with the same choice as the UK, are choosing to replace their E-3 fleets with Wedgetail.
Next month, Australian Wedgetails will be deployed to Poland as part of efforts to support Ukraine. European Wedgetails are not expected to enter service until 2031. That may be six years of expensive repairs to ageing aircraft—six years during which UK Wedgetails could play an outsized role in European air defence, but only if the current Government work to rebuild our armed forces capacity, and only if our aircraft are ready to fly.
As the Public Accounts Committee keeps highlighting, large overspends are unacceptable. Long delays that leave this country’s Air Force without an essential capability are a sign of a procurement system that is badly broken. The strategic defence review recommends more Wedgetails for round-the-clock airborne surveillance, and says there may even be cost-sharing opportunities with NATO allies.
I put these questions to the Minister. First, do the Government plan to meet our defence commitments this way, either by ordering additional Wedgetails, in lockstep with our allies, or even seeking an alternative? Secondly, what steps will the Government take to improve the Ministry of Defence track record on this kind of aircraft procurement, so that our defence of NATO airspace is never put in doubt again?
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Christopher, as we examine the progress—or rather the sheer lack of it—of the RAF’s E-7 Wedgetail programme.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on introducing the debate in such an articulate manner, with a touch of humour to boot. As a battle of Britain buff, I enjoyed his historical analogies with that epic conflict in 1940 and the critical importance of radar and early warning. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), in whose constituency the valuable work of converting Boeing 737s into the Wedgetail variant is under way.
A couple of years ago, when I served on the Defence Committee—it is great to see the Chairman of the Committee in his place—I had the privilege of visiting the facility in Meriden where the work was being conducted. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East has been an assiduous constituency MP in standing up for the highly skilled workforce undertaking the conversion. I do have a number of serious concerns about the status of the Wedgetail programme, however, as he is about to hear.
I state for the record that none of this is aimed at the workforce in Meriden, but much more at the senior management of Boeing, a company now facing massive reputational issues in both civilian and defence areas. I would like to have congratulated the Reform MP who contributed to this debate but, as ever, they are not here because Reform don’t do defence.
We live in an increasingly dangerous world. The head of the British Army stated almost a year ago that we need to prepare for the possibility of a peer-on-peer conflict with Russia by 2027. If that is so, having a modern airborne early warning control aircraft, such as Wedgetail, in operational service would be vital. Moreover, if there were to be a ceasefire in Ukraine, Ministers have told us several times that it might involve not just boots on the ground but jets in the air. They also need eyes in the sky to protect them from a potential Russian threat. In short, we do not currently have any.
Part of the purpose of today’s debate is to elicit from the Government when E-7 Wedgetail will finally enter operational service with the RAF. That really matters. Experience in Ukraine shows the heavy propensity of Russia to attack targets with long-range cruise missiles. In the event of a peer conflict with Russia, it is highly likely that most of our fixed RAF radar stations would fall victim to cruise missile attacks within the early few days, or even hours, of such a conflict. At present, we can supplement those with a limited number of mobile radars. It is also unclear whether in wartime other airborne warning assets, such as via satellite and other overseas facilities, would also remain available for long.
In such a scenario—one which, as the international sky continues to darken, we are increasingly forced to contemplate—having mobile airborne early-warning such as Wedgetail would be critical to maintain the integrity of the UK’s air defences, plus covering RAF aircraft abroad. That brings me to the current sorry state of the Wedgetail programme, which is running years late and has now unfortunately been rated red by the Infrastructure Projects Authority. To remind hon. Members, a red rating is defined as a project that
“reflects serious concerns about the project’s ability to meet its objectives. Immediate corrective actions are needed to address fundamental issues, as the project is unlikely to succeed without significant changes or interventions.”
So, where are we today? Three 737 airframes are being converted at Meriden, including retrofitting them with the MESA radar. One of those aircraft has been completed, while the other two are still in work. However, according to a freedom of information request answered on 12 June, the first aircraft has flown only three times—two of them to get painted—and MESA, which is the whole point of the aircraft, has not even been turned on yet in flight. Why?
Moreover, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), a member of the Defence Committee, revealed at a meeting of that Committee two weeks ago, the lead aircraft is struggling to achieve certification. He said:
“We were going to buy five, and then three, E-7s. They are horrendously late and overpriced. We have got one in with a special clearance, meaning that there is something that we do not know about that, which means that it cannot have a normal clearance.”
I appreciate that the Minister is likely to say that the previous Conservative Government should have made greater progress on Wedgetail, and I accept that we are not without blame in this field. Nevertheless, the new Government have now had a year to sort it out. The MOD and Boeing have been locked in complex negotiations over the so-called full business case that would allow Wedgetail to enter service, but those negotiations have still not been brought to a fruitful conclusion. Indeed, whereas the original concept was to service and maintain the Wedgetail aircraft in the United Kingdom, there are some media reports that it will now take place in the US instead. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true, and if it is—I hope it is not—will he say what the additional cost will be? To be clear, we need E-7 Wedgetail in RAF service, but we need it now, not in several years’ time.
The US, which also has to replace a large number of its ageing E-3 aircraft, was planning to do that with E-7, but the programme is likely to be cancelled. As a stopgap, the US is now apparently even considering buying several dozen E-2D Hawkeye aircraft, which, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) said, originally entered service in the ’60s. They were famously featured in “Top Gun: Maverick”, guiding the attacking F-18s into the target. What exactly has gone wrong with the programme in the United States? Why is the Department of Defence apparently going to junk Wedgetail in favour of Hawkeye, and later, space-based systems? If it does, what are the implications for the RAF Wedgetail programme?
Apparently, Boeing is now claiming that what was originally an off-the-shelf purchase of E-7 for the RAF is now turning into a development programme. Can the Minister explain exactly what that means? Can he reassure the House that if the US does withdraw, we are not going to ask the Royal Air Force to pay a vast amount of money to develop E-7, when the United States has refused to do so?
The Government have been running a competition for a national armaments director—the NAD. If media reports are to be believed, they have now narrowed it down to two remaining candidates. As the NAD will have to deal with the problem of Wedgetail, can the Minister update the House on exactly where we are on the appointment? Who are the two remaining candidates? Is it true that one of them is holding out for more money? When can we expect a definitive announcement on the appointment? It would appear that, despite extended tortuous negotiations between the RAF and Boeing, the matter has still not been brought to a conclusion. It may mean that the incoming NAD has to knock heads together to finally achieve some progress, which the 12,500 employees at Defence Equipment and Support do not appear to have managed to do. If it were me, I would start as I mean to go on. I would tell Boeing that it will not be granted any further contracts with the Ministry of Defence, be it for more helicopters or advanced jet trainers, unless and until it has introduced its project—its product, E-7 Wedgetail—successfully into operational service.
On 25 June, when the House debated the new NAD role, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), raised Wedgetail as a specific programme requiring more scrutiny. So concerned have I become while researching for this debate, and having considered the matter overnight, I asked this morning for a meeting with the Chair of the PAC, who wanted to be here this afternoon but unavoidably has to be elsewhere. He too was concerned, and he has authorised me to say that he is minded to write to the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence to ask what on earth is going on—his words—regarding Wedgetail, and to request a meeting about the programme.
In summary, as someone who served on the Defence Committee for seven years and was consistently highly critical of the Army’s Ajax programme—which I note in passing has still not entered operational service—I am afraid to say that, put bluntly, Wedgetail has now turned into the RAF’s very own Ajax. Here we are with another example of a highly complex, exquisite programme that, like Ajax, has not run massively over budget, but which is nevertheless years late, and there is still no guarantee that it even works properly in RAF service. This is threatening to become a £2 billion white elephant in the room.
May I conclude by asking the Minister three direct questions? I hope he can provide clear and ambiguous answers, given that he is covering for the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry this afternoon, while the Minister for Veterans and People remains on resignation watch. Question one: what is the exact status of the flight trials programme of the E-7 Wedgetail aircraft, and when will active trials of the MESA radar commence and conclude? Question two: what is the issue regarding certification of the airframe? What is meant by “limited certification”, and when are the aircraft expected to be fully certified by the Military Aviation Authority? Question three: when is E-7 Wedgetail finally expected to enter operational service with the RAF, and when are the second and third aircraft anticipated, to provide full operational capability? All experience suggests that if we are to maintain one aircraft consistently on task for any length of time, we would need all three aircraft in operational service in order to guarantee it.
I say again: when we were in government, we should perhaps have done more to accelerate the progress of this programme. But now that Labour is running the show, and has been for over a year, we need to know what the Labour Government are going to do about it. We cannot contemplate the possibility of war with Russia in which we would be virtually blinded within the opening hours. Wedgetail is now absolutely critical to the defence of the UK, so when, oh when are the RAF and Boeing going to get their collective house in order and bring this absolutely vital capability into service?
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Minister, you have 35 minutes in which to respond.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on securing this debate. I have to warn him that he is sounding like a very good shadow Minister Padawan on these matters, so I expect him to be forceful in pursuing this type of stuff.
As hon. Members will have spotted, I am not the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry—I am the slighter camper version—but I hope to be able to answer some of the questions raised in the debate about what is a very important programme for the Royal Air Force. I will first give a little background and history, which a number of Members have raised, and then turn to a number of the questions and points that hon. Members have also raised.
May I, too, place on record my congratulations to Harv Smyth on becoming the new Chief of the Air Staff? Having worked with Harv for the past year, I know that the RAF will be in very good hands. With Sir Rich Knighton becoming the new Chief of the Defence Staff, we have an incredibly capable team, with very good RAF experience. Just to ensure a full house, I also welcome General Gwyn Jenkins as First Sea Lord—as a Navy brat, it would be remiss of me not to mention the senior service.
Ian Roome
Will the Minister also join the Worshipful Company of Engineers in congratulating Sir Rich Knighton on being the first engineer to become the chief of the Royal Air Force? Being ex-RAF, it is nice to have an engineer who has never been a pilot as the chief of the Royal Air Force.
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is worth noting, because to succeed we need people at the point of the spear and we need people who are the spear. All too often in our debates, we neglect those who support, who engineer, and who are the backbone of our military. Having Sir Rich in the new role as CDS will be a good encouragement to all those who find a career in our armed forces: there is a bright future ahead of them if they work hard and succeed.
At a time of increasing threats to our security and rapid developments in technology, it is essential that we upgrade our airborne early warning and control capabilities. Members have mentioned it, but when we say, whether from the Dispatch Box as a Government or when we were in opposition, that the last Government hollowed out and underfunded our military, it is precisely such capability gaps that we are talking about. The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who secured the debate, described it as not just a capability gap, but a credibility gap, and those are precisely the kinds of gaps that we so critiqued in opposition. They are also the gaps that we have to fill, now that we are in government.
The UK’s E-7 Wedgetail programme will provide the significantly improved performance that we are looking for, offering greater speed, range, endurance and crew capacity. By improving detection, it provides earlier warning of more challenging threats at greater distances than before, increasing the time available for offensive and defensive action, and so boosting the lethality, survivability and resilience of the joint force. Wedgetail is not only the most capable and effective airborne early warning and control platform in operation today; it also has the growth path to match the expected threat over the next 20 years and beyond. We will continue to fully prepare for the introduction of E-7 Wedgetail to the RAF fleet.
To support the introduction of E-7, a joint operational conversion unit, 42 Squadron, has been re-formed at RAF Lossiemouth. The squadron will train all aircrew and engineers to operate the Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and the Wedgetail airborne early warning and surveillance aircraft. The Lossiemouth development programme is delivering vital infrastructure, including a new engineering building, accommodation and squadron facilities, and the UK has been helped by Australia to prepare for Wedgetail. I put on record my thanks to the Royal Australian Air Force. Since its inception in 2018, 30 RAF personnel have undergone training on the E-7A Wedgetail aircraft, which is already in operation with the Royal Australian Air Force. We are extremely grateful to our Australian friends for their support.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) could put on record the difference between Birmingham and Solihull. As a Plymouth MP, I am forever making the distinction between Devon and Cornwall, although we are the best of friends at the same time. The hon. Member made the argument about the economic contribution that Wedgetail makes to his constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) spoke about the wider nationwide supply chain. That contribution is vital.
Wedgetail is already bringing economic benefits to the UK. Three Boeing 737 aircraft are currently being modified at STS Aviation in the constituency of the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East, where around 100 skilled jobs have been created, in addition to 200 jobs supporting infrastructure at RAF Lossiemouth. He is right to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham did, that these are high-skilled jobs. They are precisely what his constituency needed supporting after the collapse of Monarch Airlines. It has meant that so many people could transfer into new roles at STS.
The work at STS, supplemented by Boeing and Northrop Grumman personnel who have worked on previous E-7 conversion programmes, is important. Boeing Defence UK expects a further 70 to 100 jobs to be added to support the aircraft in service at Lossiemouth. The Government’s longer-term aim is to grow the UK industrial base in support of Wedgetail, including potentially to support NATO and other global customers as they commit to E-7 in future years. Members will know that the strategic defence review was clear that defence is an engine for growth, and we need to continue to support our allies in looking to E-7 Wedgetail to provide some of their long-range surveillance opportunities.
The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East asked about exports. It is a priority for this Government to procure systems that are not only better value for money for the UK armed forces, but built in such a way that we do not make them so Gucci that they are available only for the Brits. That has been a flaw of previous procurements, and we are clear, in rebuilding and recapitalising our armed forces and many of their capabilities—including filling capability gaps that we inherited from the previous Government—that we have to ensure that those platforms are exportable, that there is a work share for British companies, and that defence can be a real engine for growth. He will be aware of the high-level ambition set out in the strategic defence review to deliver that.
Members will also know that we hope to publish the defence industrial strategy in due course and, towards the end of the year, the defence investment plan. That will set out what we are spending, not just on kit and equipment, as previous iterations of the equipment plan did, but on infrastructure and people. Those are what the MOD wishes to spend the increased amounts of defence funding on. Exports will be a key part of that, and I encourage the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East to continue to make that case.
However, disappointingly, the E-7 Wedgetail programme has experienced delays. These are due, first, to wider challenges faced by the entire global aviation industry—such as shortages of materials, parts and skilled labour—and, secondly, to more specific programme issues, including complex certification work that Boeing has had to undertake to meet assurance requirements.
The Ministry of Defence is working closely with Boeing to minimise the impact of these issues, and the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry has regular conversations with Boeing to emphasise the importance of delivering this capability.
As a result, E-7 Wedgetail is scheduled to enter service with the Royal Air Force in 2026. The RAF’s mission system has been significantly upgraded, making our Wedgetail aircraft distinct from those of other nations. That has required substantial certification and safety checks to ensure the system meets the standards required. We are working flat out to get a fully compliant aircraft into service as fast as possible, and we are holding suppliers to account for their part in that. Since concluding previous flights in October 2024, the aircraft has continued its mission systems installation.
E-7 Wedgetail completed its fourth test flight last week and will perform a fly-past at the royal international air tattoo at RAF Fairford, which the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry will attend—I believe other hon. Members may be visiting as well. Test and evaluation will take place across multiple sites in the UK, with the next phase starting this month. This is a detailed process to demonstrate that each system operates as designed. Subsequent phases will be running through to 2026.
Luke Pollard
I have lots of points to cover, but I will happily come back to the right hon. Gentleman.
Luke Pollard
I am happy to come back to the right hon. Gentleman in due course.
Luke Pollard
I am happy to come back to the right hon. Gentleman in due course. I have other hon. Members’ questions to address first, and I will not be spoken over—thank you.
Luke Pollard
The level of politeness that we saw in the rest of the debate has not been reflected in the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks.
Turning to the costs, the original outlined business case approved the acquisition of five Wedgetail Mk 1 aircraft. Due to the wider fiscal challenges faced by the Department, the programme was reduced in scope by the last Government. That is what the officials have written for me, and I share much of the concern that hon. Members have expressed about the reduction of capabilities. Once again, the hollowing out and underfunding of our armed forces have led to capability gaps, not just in the early retirement of platforms but in the lack of procurement. It is precisely for that reason that the SDR sought to look at that.
The integrated review endorsed the reduction to three aircraft in 2021, and the fleet was then incorporated with the P-8A Poseidons at RAF Lossiemouth. The three new E-7 Wedgetails will still enable the UK to meet our key user requirements and honour both our domestic and international commitments, including our contribution to NATO—as outlined in the strategic defence review on page 115, recommendation 47. We have re-examined this decision and made a commitment to reassess the number of E-7s we have when funding allows. I encourage hon. Members who raised the ambition to procure more E-7s to consider how that case can be made in future spending decisions, and that could build on the defence industrial strategy.
To the point raised by a number of hon. Members—including the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway and for Meriden and Solihull East, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham—I know that the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry would welcome the opportunity to bring together a group of interested parliamentarians to discuss not only how we deploy E-7s into active duty, but how we can build on export opportunities and support their full introduction. We will take that as an action, and I look forward to my right hon. Friend the Minister being able to invite colleagues into the MOD for further discussions on that issue.
We have been working with Boeing to achieve the best value for money across the programme. There will be no additional cost as a result of the delays, as Boeing is committed to delivering the three aircraft under a firm-price contract. That means the MOD will have no inflation risk in the aircraft modification programme. The programme is also benefiting from the use of common 737 spares with Poseidon, as well as shared support services with Boeing. This allows us to leverage efficiencies in spares procurement, repair, overhaul, maintenance costs and the training of engineering personnel to work on both sets of aircraft at Lossiemouth. The intent is to expand co-operative support across Wedgetail and Poseidon in future, to drive down costs further.
A number of Members, including the Chair of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), mentioned the US position. E-7 Wedgetail is in operation with the air forces of Australia, Türkiye and the Republic of Korea. Additionally, NATO has selected E-7A as its replacement for the NATO E-3A aircraft that are currently flying. I understand that there may be some concern about the US plans due to media reports last month, but the MOD will continue with its procurement of Wedgetail to meet our national and NATO requirements for airborne early warning and control that is interoperable with allies. Procurement decisions by any other NATO nation are a matter for that nation, but they will not affect UK procurement of Wedgetail.
There have been some comments during this debate, and in the wider debate out there, about whether the UK should consider using E-2 Hawkeye instead. I stress again that Wedgetail has superior speed, range, persistence and crew capacity compared with alternative platforms. Furthermore, it has a powerful radar with increased detection capability, which will give us a significant operational advantage.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway, who secured the debate, for the tone of his speech. It is certainly right that we talk about this issue. Having previously sat on the Opposition Benches, I recognise some of his critiques of the previous Government. Indeed, I entirely agree that “bimbling along” will not cut it. That is precisely why we have seen a new energy and increased defence spending under this Government. There is more to do, but hopefully he will see that in the ambition set out in the SDR to do more and to fill capability gaps in this area.
A number of Members referred to the Select Committee report on procurement in the previous Parliament. It was absolutely right to look at the procurement system. We described it as broken when we were in opposition, and in government we are taking steps to fix it. The recruitment of the new national armaments director, being led by the Secretary of State, is a key part of that process. I do not have an update now, but I am certain that a parliamentary question on that subject will shortly be coming the way of the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry.
The new NAD will operate as part of a new empowered quad, leading the Ministry of Defence to make faster procurement decisions. We certainly need to make better procurement decisions than those we have seen in the past. The delays in contracting are a key part of cost escalation across a number of programmes, albeit not with Wedgetail because of the fixed-price contract. It is absolutely right that we make better procurement decisions.
I agree with the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway on the need to invest in laser weapons. The SDR talked about rolling out the DragonFire directed-energy weapon system. The ambition of the last Government was to install DragonFire on one Royal Navy destroyer, as an uncosted programme. The SDR set out a costed proposal to install it on four Royal Navy destroyers, setting a date for when that will happen. Creating a structured, layered and integrated air and missile defence system will, in part, depend on looking at directed-energy weapons and similar novel technologies across a range of spectrums, in order to provide the air defence we require to secure homeland defence and operational defence for our allies abroad.
The picture painted by the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), of what might happen in the event of a conflict means that not only air defence missiles would have a role in such a conflict, and this new technology might well play a part. I am grateful for the way he introduced the debate in that respect.
The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East invited me to talk about space, which is one of my nerdy passions. The term “defence geeks” was used earlier, and I am certainly a space nerd. Space is a huge opportunity for improving not only ISR capabilities but defence capabilities. However, we need to be realistic that if we are to move to a fully integrated approach, which is the intent of the SDR with an all-domain warfare approach, we need to invest in the right capabilities.
For the Royal Air Force, Wedgetail is absolutely part of that joined-up and integrated approach, which is why we will continue with it. Given the workforce in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I hope he will strongly support the 2026 delivery timetable for the first aircraft in operation. And on defence exports, he will know that one recommendation of the SDR was to move an element of exports for defence from the Department for Business and Trade into the Ministry of Defence.
That work is under way at the moment, so that we can better align the opportunities of defence exports, because we believe there is a huge opportunity for British business to sell our technologies to allies around the world. That has the advantage of being an engine for growth, as well as making us stronger by making our allies stronger at the same time.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham for his work, and indeed for his praise for our friends from Australia. The Defence Committee report that he cited needs to be front and centre when we look at Wedgetail procurement so that we learn the lessons and make it work. As the last Government’s procurement of five sets of radar for three aircraft shows, the procurement system was neither working properly nor delivering value for money.
My hon. Friend asked about the Australian upgrades. Australia and the USA are working collaboratively on what is called the next-gen Wedgetail with improved radar, which they think will enter service in 2035. The UK is part of the trilateral group, but we are not pursuing the advanced sensor at this time because we are focused on delivering the current capability without any further delay, as Members on both sides of the House have urged. As part of the trilateral agreement, we have the opportunity to upgrade in the future should we wish to do so. Doing so may be more cost-effective in the long term.
Luke Akehurst
Does the Minister agree that upgrading this fleet of aircraft would be easier if there were five airframes? That would allow one of the five to be taken out of service for an upgrade. It is logistically more difficult if we stick with three airframes.
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend makes a strong argument. I support the wording of the strategic defence review, which talks of possibly buying more E-7 Wedgetails when the economic conditions allow. Of course, thanks to the decisions taken by the Prime Minister, we will be spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by April 2027, 3% in the next Parliament and 3.5% by 2035. For the first time in a very long time, there will be a rising defence budget in the next decade.
I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham will continue to make the case for increased defence spending, which will mean more jobs directed at British companies—and Boeing, which is based and works in Britain, is precisely such a company, as are UK primes and small and medium-sized enterprises, which could benefit from that. His description of the programme as having been vandalised by the last Government is powerful, but I recognise that we now need to deliver the capabilities and make sure they work.
I will briefly respond to some of the interventions before addressing the Front-Bench contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough is, in his customary way, absolutely right that it is important that the programme is delivered and that we learn the lessons to improve procurement. That is the intention of the defence industrial strategy and will be the intention of the defence investment plan. The first of the RAF’s Wedgetail aircraft will be introduced next year, which is a moment to make sure that the second and third aircraft can be delivered in the expected timeline.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who is not in his place, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) praised the supply chain and mentioned Thales in Belfast and Glasgow. I am glad that the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway spoke about the importance of defence businesses in Scotland, which has a proud tradition of investing in brilliant defence businesses. Some of our cutting-edge capabilities are developed and built in Scotland, and we have a Government in Westminster who are proud of Scottish defence workers and of the supply chain there. It is just a shame that we do not have a Scottish Government who can be equally proud of the exceptional work to support our national defence that takes place not just in the shipyards and factories, but in the workshops and laboratories across Scotland. I am certain that there will be further opportunities for that case to be made forcefully.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), who reiterated the need for ISR capabilities. The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) spoke with real passion about the need to work with more of our EU allies. That is precisely why the Prime Minister initiated the EU reset. We now have an agreement with our EU friends that opens the door to participation in more joint programmes and joint working. We have, in any case, cleared the air and improved the relationship with our European friends that might have existed under the last Government. They are our friends, and our NATO allies. We stand with them when we face a common threat, such as the threat from Russia, and it is absolutely right that we do so. The hon. Member for North Devon is also right to point out the gaps in procurement that we need to fill, and the retirement of the previous aircraft. I am grateful for his service, even if it was some time ago, at the same time as the Sentry was introduced.
I will turn to the remarks of the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. In the 2025 NISTA report, the Wedgetail programme is rated amber, not red, but I think his critique is that the programme has been beset by delays for quite some time. I share the general concern about the procurement system. It must be a curious position for the right hon. Member, having been such a fantastic scrutineer of the last Government’s woeful procurement system, to now be the Front-Bench spokesperson for his party. I am grateful that he did not fall into the trap of simply defending the last Government, and was honest about those failings. That is to his credit.
The Minister for Veterans and People is at Windsor collecting his Distinguished Service Order. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am sure that the whole House, instead of taking cheap shots at him, welcomes and thanks him for his service. Having someone with that much bravery and courage in the office next door to mine is a firm reminder to sit up straight in my seat every time we are in meetings together.
I have spoken about how we are going to get to Wedgetail’s introduction in service, and briefly mentioned the NAD recruitment; that is being led by the Secretary of State so the question is for him, but I am expecting a parliamentary question on that. I am grateful that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford says that the last Government were not without blame. I wish that we were able in 12 months to fix every problem that we inherited from the Conservatives but, as he knows, some of those problems are long-rooted and will take a lot of time to resolve. I am hopeful that the Wedgetail programme will start delivering aircraft next year, as planned; that is the commitment that Boeing has given. That will make substantial progress on a programme that has taken too long to deliver.
Mr Francois
For the record, I was not quoting the NISTA report; I was quoting the IPA report. I asked the Minister three very specific questions, and he has 12 minutes left. I fear he is denial about the problems in this programme. To prove me wrong, with his 12 remaining minutes will he answer unambiguously the three very direct questions that I asked about the status of the programme?
Luke Pollard
I shall also deal with the earlier comment about where the aircraft will be maintained. I am happy to confirm that they will be maintained in the UK. I did not get all of the right hon. Member’s questions down in detail. I do not want to give an incorrect answer, especially as I am standing in for the Minister for Veterans and People and out of my swimming lane, so I commit to ask my hon. Friend to write to the right hon. Gentleman to make sure that he gets the correct answers.
Mr Francois
That is unacceptable. The reason for this debate—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing it—is that both Boeing and the MOD have been stonewalling on this issue for nearly a year. The Minister cannot just say, “I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.” He is in Parliament; he has had plenty of time to prepare and he has lots of civil servants to advise him. He must not fob me off with a letter, or fob off the Chairman of the PAC, who now wants to see the permanent secretary about it. The Minister has had plenty of time; he must answer now, in Parliament, the three very direct questions about the status of the programme. If he does not, the world will conclude that he has something to hide.
Luke Pollard
I know the right hon. Gentleman is trying to be aggressive and angry, but I do not want to give the wrong answer when I am standing in for another Minister. I am happy to ensure that a letter is written and shared with colleagues here so that the answers are given properly. I have been very clear about—
Luke Pollard
If the right hon. Gentleman interrupts each sentence, I will not get the full sentence out. I appreciate that he has a style that he has to maintain, but this is not helpful and not in the spirit or the tone in which the debate has been conducted. I will conclude briefly, so that my exchanges with him do not lower the tone.
We need to ensure this programme is delivered. It is important for the RAF and our national security. It has been beset by delays and the procurement system used to deliver it was not acceptable. The Conservative Government’s decision to cut the number of Wedgetails from five to three has correctly been criticised by Members on both sides of the House, including by members of the House of Commons Defence Committee.
As a new Government coming in, we committed to look at purchasing new E-7 Wedgetails, as part of the recommendation in the SDR, when the economic conditions allow. That is a vote of confidence in the platform, and it is part of our ambition to improve defence procurement. Boeing and the partners in the supply chain should be in no doubt that we expect the aircraft we ordered to be delivered, to be operational, and to make a valid contribution to filling the gap that the last Government created when they axed the previous aircraft providing this capability. I am happy to ensure that a copy of the detailed notes are shared with the House, so that answers to the questions put to me are properly provided.
John Cooper
I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. There is obviously a great deal of interest in this very important programme. I also thank the Minister for stepping in; we realise that this is not his brief. We welcome his generous offer to talk to interested parties. That is quite an unusual approach, and I welcome it.
The hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made adroit interventions. The hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) talked about our geeky interest. Those who are only geeks also serve, and we do what we can here to help with the defence of the realm.
My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) reminded us that accuracy is important in matters military. I apologise for my lack of geography of the area. He made a very important point when he said that we agree that we all want this done. That sums up the situation: we want to see this done because this aircraft is absolutely critical.
The hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) set this issue in the context of the wider picture. This is the west standing up for itself. It is important that we do that. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) is doing great work with the Defence Committee. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), who is unfortunately not in his place, talked about defence in Scotland, and the Minister referred to that too. It is worth emphasising that under the SNP Government there is a hostile environment wherein young apprentices are denied access to Holyrood, and we are seeing defence structures and buildings under attack in Scotland. It is absolutely incredible and deeply, deeply worrying.
It is worth reflecting that the motto of the RAF is “Per ardua ad astra”—through difficulties to the stars. This aircraft is probably in the “ardua” section of that. It is going through some difficulties; there is no doubt about that, but—fingers crossed—it will spread its wings and eventually take its place in the RAF arsenal.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the RAF E-7 Wedgetail programme.
Further Education Institutions
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for further education institutions.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. Up and down the country, further education institutions are educating and training 1.6 million people, providing them with the skills they need. These colleges are the lifeblood of the British economy, serving as a vital bridge between compulsory schooling and higher education and employment. However, further education was cut to the bone under the previous Conservative Government, and colleges are crying out for more support. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, spending on adult skills and apprenticeships was 23% lower in 2024-25 than it was back in 2009-10. That is a huge cause for concern.
Many of us in this room have seen the great work that these colleges do at first hand, and I am sure we will hear that from colleagues during the debate. I pay tribute to Shipley college in my constituency, and I hope to draw attention to some of the challenges that it and others face, as well as their tremendous contributions. Shipley college is the local lead on health training, and has built a strong relationship with Bradford Royal Infirmary. They have developed a T-level cadetship programme, giving local 16 to 17-year-olds invaluable experience on hospital wards.
I recently visited Shipley college and met students and staff who were training on life-like robots with AI-generated voices to mimic a conversation with a patient. That was clearly giving the students confidence, and preparing them much better than traditional teaching methods. Government funding has enabled the college to invest in such amazing resources as Gaumard human simulators, Anatomage tables for learning anatomy and physiology, and an immersive classroom where students get to prepare to deliver skills in a real-life situation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady, who has made a reputation for herself in the Chamber by asking all the questions. I understand this is her first Westminster Hall debate, and I congratulate her on it and wish her well. Last year there were almost 19,000 UCAS applicants who self-identified as young adult carers. That is around 4% of all applicants. I spoke to the hon. Lady before the debate; does she agree that more support must be offered in further education settings to those who have caring responsibilities—from caring for a parent or being a parent themselves—so they can achieve educational standards?
Anna Dixon
I agree that we must open up access to education for all, including carers. Further education colleges require significant investment to upgrade and maintain their buildings and ensure that they can provide a modern learning environment and access to up-to-date technology. However, staff tell me that their ambitions for further capital investment are limited. Since colleges were brought back into public ownership, their ability to borrow money and invest in capital projects has been removed, and they must now seek permission from the Department for Education to borrow money, which is a slow process. I would appreciate the Minister outlining what the Government are doing to address the capital funding needs of further education colleges.
I would like to move on to some issues around skills training. Every year, 3.8 million people aged 19 and over access skills education in England. That is a critical part of our education system, enabling people to build rewarding careers and fulfil their dreams. Yet, across the country, businesses do not have the right skills available to deliver the services they want and we need. According to the Learning and Work Institute, the UK could face a £120 billion loss by 2030, with a projected shortfall of 2.5 million highly skilled workers.
In Saltaire in my constituency, businesses tell me that they are struggling to recruit people with digital and tech skills locally. Is that any wonder when the Conservatives cut FE funding so significantly? With the right support, FE colleges can drive productivity gains across key sectors, such as engineering, healthcare, digital technology and construction. They can supply skilled technicians and specialists, enabling businesses to expand, innovate and compete.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Regional colleges such as the North West regional college and the Northern regional college in my constituency do exactly what the hon. Lady outlines. Particularly, the likes of apprenticeships are the future for many young people, especially those from disadvantaged communities. We should encourage and support that.
Anna Dixon
I entirely agree that the FE college apprenticeships—these other routes—are important for disadvantaged children. I will expand on that in a moment.
I am delighted that this Labour Government are committed to equipping the workforce with the skills they need to rebuild Britain, including through the establishment of Skills England. I hope that Skills England will encourage and facilitate strong partnerships between colleges and employers. Perhaps the Minister might like to say whether we could go further in empowering local areas and colleges to tailor their provision to local labour market needs and community demands.
Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that Institutes of Technology can play a valuable role in setting forward the workforce, especially in defence, which the country needs, and will she join me in wishing Darran Marks the best in his next career endeavours?
Anna Dixon
I am certainly happy to commend the leader of my hon. Friend’s local IOT. I recognise the contribution that IOTs make to training the next generation in all sorts of careers; they prepare them for the demands of some highly skilled roles in defence.
FE colleges are not just about supporting our young people; they also give older adults opportunities to gain skills and retrain to access and retain good work. It will be vital, for example, to upskill and retrain people transitioning into jobs in the clean energy sector. I was disappointed to learn of the cuts to the adult skills fund, and a number of constituents wrote to me about it. I understand that the public purse is under huge strain and there are many competing demands, but further education colleges provide an excellent education, and given the real-terms funding reductions that they have experienced over two decades under the Conservatives, I do hope that in future they will receive more sustained, multi-year funding that accounts for inflation and rising student numbers.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Beaumont college in my constituency provides excellent specialist education for young people transitioning from a specialist school into adulthood. Does my hon. Friend believe that part of that funding must be available for colleges such as Beaumont so that we can support young people with special educational needs and disabilities?
Anna Dixon
Indeed, and I note that FE colleges, on average, have a higher number of SEND pupils than others. They give really good opportunities for children with additional needs to thrive and to go on and educate, so I commend the work of her local college.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. One of the first things that I had to do after the general election was to ensure a funding guarantee of more than £20 million for a rebuild of Harrogate college. Due to the local authority dropping the ball, the planning expired and the funding period elapsed. I was grateful to work with the Labour Government to secure that funding. I do worry, though, about the £90,000 cut to Harrogate college’s adult skills funding. The response that I got from the Government said that that is now devolved to the Labour mayor. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need more funding for our devolved mayors to ensure that we keep up adult skills funding?
Anna Dixon
I am pleased to hear that the Labour Government have secured the future of Harrogate college. I also agree that it is vital that, as the workplace changes, people keep their skills up to date with lifelong learning, so it is essential that we protect and maintain adult education funding. I would like to hear from the Minister on that. Will she outline the Government’s plans to ensure sustainable funding for FE colleges, as well as the ongoing support for adult education as mentioned?
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for this excellent debate. Does she agree that colleges like mine in Shrewsbury have achieved their “outstanding” status because of the breadth of training and qualifications that they offer across a wide rural area? Do the Minister and the Department need to recognise those twin challenges? One challenge is offering qualifications from supported internships right up to level 4 degree qualifications, and there is a massive rural challenge as well. Those twin challenges must be considered.
Anna Dixon
My hon. Friend is a great champion for her area and for rural communities. I agree that there are particular challenges for colleges seeking to deliver such a breadth of education and many different sorts of qualifications, and I know that the Government are looking at review and reform of that.
Let me turn to T-levels.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
Anna Dixon
I want to make some progress. There have been recent innovations in further education with the introduction of T-levels. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I contributed to the inquiry that found that T-levels are a great option for many students, and it would be great to see them rolled out further, but that there are significant teething problems. T-level students attend three full days at college and, generally, two full days in placement. It is, in my view, far more demanding than three A-levels. However, finding suitable work placements can be challenging. While colleges welcome the greater flexibility that is given in where and how these requirements are fulfilled, there is a clear need for employers to be incentivised to offer such work placements to students.
Teacher shortages are also a huge problem for colleges, particularly when trying to attract people from the high-priority skill sectors that we have mentioned, such as digital and construction. The Public Accounts Committee also looked at teacher numbers and concluded that further education teacher shortages put the achievement of the Government’s missions for opportunity and growth at risk.
Anna Dixon
I will give way first to the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello).
Edward Morello
The hon. Member mentioned two points relating to staffing that are extremely important. Often, further education colleges, such as Kingston Maurward college in my constituency, also provide higher education qualifications, but pay for staff, especially specialist staff, tends to be higher in higher education institutions than in further education, which makes it difficult for them to recruit. Does the hon. Member think the Government need to address that pay disparity?
Anna Dixon
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point—I was about to come on to the pay gap between teachers in schools and those in further education colleges. Teachers in further education colleges earn an average of £8,000 a year less than schoolteachers. I was not aware of the gap with higher education, but it is clearly important that there is a level playing field so that they can attract and retain teachers.
Adrian Ramsay
The hon. Lady has now pre-empted my intervention. I wanted to highlight that further education leaders I have spoken to, such as those from Suffolk New college, who run the Halesworth campus in my constituency, have highlighted that £8,000 to £10,000 gap in pay between FE lecturers and secondary education teachers teaching the same subjects. Does the hon. Lady agree that this needs to be addressed in order to tackle the challenge of retaining and recruiting staff?
Anna Dixon
I agree. Closing the gap in pay will be vital, particularly if we look at vocational areas where industry salaries are higher. In construction, engineering and digital, FE teachers earn around 11% less on average than their peers who work in industry. Even when colleges do manage to recruit, they are quickly enticed back to industry, so it is not enough to just ask employers to release their staff to support the teaching of these in-demand skills. How does the Government intend to address the teacher shortages in further education, attract people and offer incentives for businesses to release people?
The final point I will touch on is social mobility.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
My constituency is one of 15 in the whole of England that does not have a sixth-form college or a further education college. That has huge repercussions for local young people and their potential. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and sharing her point on the impact on social mobility. I have been campaigning for a sixth-form college at the Bolsover school site since I was elected, after the last Government offered the sixth form but left no funds to pay for it. Does my hon. Friend agree that areas such as mine must be the priority for Government support for a sixth form?
Anna Dixon
I commend my hon. Friend for being such a champion for Bolsover and wanting to secure opportunities for her constituents to get the education that they deserve. I am sure that the Minister heard her words.
By improving education across the board, including further education, we can increase social mobility and address the stark regional disparities across the UK. Social mobility is a core Labour value.
Anna Dixon
I will take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) first.
Leigh Ingham
I thank my hon. Friend for calling the debate. I am proud to represent the best FE college in the country—I am sorry to everyone else—because I have Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group in my constituency. The work that it is doing to increase social mobility is incredibly important, but by the end of this decade it is facing a shortfall of 30% of places to allocate to my constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that investment is given to colleges—not just revenue for lecturers’ wages, but capital to build the spaces we need?
Anna Dixon
Absolutely; it is vital that we get more capital as well as more revenue funding into FE.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I want to mention Haywards Heath college, which closed but was then able to reopen in 2020, thanks to the work of Mid Sussex district council and the previous MP. Does the hon. Lady agree that extending the pupil premium into further education colleges would make their financial sustainability more secure?
Anna Dixon
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. It is important that the general funding available in education for those taking on disadvantaged students is reflected in things such as the pupil premium. FE certainly plays a huge role in widening participation of learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, such as by offering flexible schedules, part-time study and tailored support services that lower barriers to education. For many, further education represents the most affordable and practical route to upskilling and career advancement, or progression to university. College students are more likely to be from diverse ethnic backgrounds and to have special educational needs and disabilities.
Colleges are already supporting both the most deprived learners and those from most deprived areas. For example, 30% of college enrolments are students from the most deprived postcodes. Sadly, in 2023 only 39% of those who finished level 3 courses at FE colleges, which are equivalent to A-levels, went on to higher education. The equivalent rate in state school sixth forms was as high as 60%, so it is critical that the Government increase opportunities for those in further education and open up degree-level apprenticeships.
I would appreciate it if the Minister outlined the Government’s plans to support new routes for disadvantaged children to go into higher skilled work and the role of further education colleges in helping to achieve that ambition. I will conclude in a moment, but I believe that further education colleges are a vital part of the UK’s educational landscape.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with her time. Fife college in my area does hugely important work, but it has had its budget slashed by 20% over the last three years by the SNP Scottish Government, who are actively moving funding out of my area and into Glasgow, Aberdeen and Edinburgh. Does she agree that such a cut is unacceptable, and that people in my area deserve the same opportunities to learn new skills as those in every other part of Scotland?
Anna Dixon
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention, pointing out some of the cuts that her constituents are experiencing at the hands of the SNP Government in Scotland. It is incumbent on them to ensure that all children and adults have the opportunities to learn and continue to update their skills.
In conclusion, I believe that further education colleges are vital to those skills; they provide vocational training, apprenticeships and essential skills for young people and adults who want to upskill and reskill. They play a crucial role in addressing skills gaps, boosting productivity and promoting social mobility. However, as we have heard, the sector is facing significant challenges, including real-terms funding cuts, workforce shortages and complex funding structures. In her response, can the Minister set out how this Labour Government are increasing both day-to-day funding and capital funding for further education? How do they plan to address teacher shortages in FE? How are they ensuring that those in further education have the same opportunities to progress?
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
If the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) wishes to participate in this debate, I should say that there are only 10 minutes or so for the Minister to respond to the mass of points that have been made. I hope she will be brief.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher, and I will be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) on securing this important debate and for her excellent speech.
To improve living standards, we need to generate economic growth; to generate economic growth, businesses must have the skilled workforces they need to thrive. Further education institutions play a vital role in training the workforce we need for the jobs of the future. In my constituency of Scarborough and Whitby, we have some brilliant further education institutions that play a critical role in training young people with the skills they need, such as Scarborough university technical college.
Just last week, Scarborough UTC hosted Jürgen Maier—the chief executive officer of publicly owned clean energy company GB Energy—on a visit to its new Mainprize suite. The suite, named after a local service vessel company, will link employers with students to support them in their studies by providing valuable real-world knowledge and expertise to prepare them for careers in the renewables sector.
Offshore wind is a huge opportunity for Scarborough, and Scarborough UTC is a great example of how further education colleges can tap into opportunities to drive local economic growth, as well as provide career pathways. However, we need to ensure that young people in our most deprived communities have access to these new educational opportunities. Scarborough is the most deprived borough in North Yorkshire, and is rated in the lowest 30% of lower-tier local authorities in England, with three LSOAs—lower layer super output areas—within the most deprived 1% in the country.
Further education colleges in my constituency need the support of this Government to ensure that disadvantaged students can access good careers, and I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how the Government plan to work with local authorities and further education institutions to support pathways for disadvantaged students into high-skilled work.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) for securing this incredibly important debate on further education colleges. Their importance and the passion for them have been clearly demonstrated by the number of interventions that she has skilfully taken, while also allowing for the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume).
It is a real honour to be representing my colleagues from the Department for Education; the Minister for Skills and the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing speak on these issues in the House. Further education really is vital to our plans to develop the skilled workforce needed for all pillars of the plan for change, and for providing people with the skills that they need to thrive in their life and work. It is key to unlocking their living standards and opportunities and to breaking down barriers to opportunity right across the country.
Let us not forget—all hon. Members have reminded us clearly of this today—that colleges are a unique part of the education landscape. They deliver such a wide range of provision at all levels and to all learners of all ages. From foundation-level qualifications to master’s-level provision, they really do it all. We ask an awful lot of the sector, but we also know that it can deliver: it has shown that, and it delivers really well. As of 31 May this year, 86% of colleges were rated good or outstanding in their Ofsted reports. That really is a fantastic achievement, demonstrating consistently high quality across the sector.
I know that the sector is dealing with a whole range of challenges, not least those set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley in her opening speech. That is why we are continuing to invest and to provide support. We are really focused on delivering that where it is most needed.
My hon. Friend first raised a question relating to capital investment, because excellent further education colleges, with good quality buildings and facilities, are really foundational to the Government’s opportunity and growth missions. In 2025-26, the Government are investing £6.7 billion of capital funding for education. That is a 19% real-terms increase from 2024-25, and includes £950 million for skills. The 2025 spending review announced continued capital investment to support further education providers’ capacity to deliver high quality training, ensuring that learners have access to the facilities and equipment that they need along all their training routes. From 2026-27 to 2029-30, the investment will include £200 million for the new skills mission fund, to strengthen technical education and tackle those sector-specific shortages of skills that we know are right across England, including through targeted investment in technical education colleges, which I will come on to shortly.
Building on the £80 million of capital commitment in construction made at the spring statement, there will also be £1.7 billion of capital funding to help colleges maintain the condition of their estates, which will be risen in line with inflation, in terms of their annual allocation, and £375 million to support post-16 capacity to accommodate the increasing student numbers, which, of course, we welcome and are happy to support. More broadly, more than £7.5 billion of the 16 to 19 programme funding will be invested during this academic year, ensuring there is a place in educational training for every 16 to 18-year-old who wants one. That funds further education colleges and other institutions to provide study programmes or T-levels for 16 to 19-year-olds. Many Members raised how valuable access to T-levels is for young people. We used the 16 to 19 funding formula to calculate the allocation based on each institution, each academic year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley expressed significant interest in the adult skills fund, which fully funds or co-funds courses for eligible adults aged 19 or over from pre-entry to level 3. A number of other Members understandably have a huge interest in those opportunities. The Department will provide approximately £1.4 billion in funding for the adult skills fund in the coming academic year, ensuring that adult learners can access education and training that they need to progress in their employment and work. The funding will be used by colleges, local authority adult education providers and independent training providers.
I want to be clear that the reduction to the adult skills fund for the 2025-26 academic year in no way diminishes our commitment as a Government to investing in education and skills training for adults over the life of this Parliament. We want to work collaboratively with the further education sector to make sure that these difficult decisions can be taken while still delivering in the way that the country requires. On sustainable funding, which I know many Members have an interest in, the Government are committed to ensuring that the further education sector is supported to achieve continuous improvement and, most of all, excellent outcomes for learners.
The Department has in place a really strong accountability system alongside college oversight, which holds colleges to account and encourages continuous improvement. We really want to see improved outcomes for learners. That involves both the Department for Education and the Further Education Commissioner. We have place-based teams with an overarching responsibility for maintaining these relationships. The system ensures accountability, quality and finance oversight; that we are monitoring performance, support and intervention; and that we work collaboratively with local stakeholders to deliver on the outcomes we need to see. That means we can hold colleges to account, but also support them when they need intervention to ensure that they are delivering.
Any organisation is only as good as its workforce. FE teachers and staff play such a vital role in colleges to break down barriers for learners and teach skills vital to economic growth. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) mention learners with special educational needs and disabilities, and ensuring that opportunities exist for them too. That is why the Government are committed to recruiting 6,500 additional teachers across both schools and colleges, to raising the quality and prestige of FE teaching as a career, and to offering effective training and professional development.
Catherine McKinnell
I am really sorry, but I do not think I will have time if I am to respond to all the issues that have been raised; I do not think I will manage even that.
We are offering targeted retention incentive payments to FE teachers, particularly in key science, technology, engineering and mathematics and technical shortage subjects. We have a national recruitment campaign called “Teach in Further Education”, which we cannot shout about enough, to help raise awareness and increase consideration for FE teaching among industry professionals. We are also ensuring our initial teacher education system is setting high standards for new FE teachers, ensuring they have access to quality training, that we have bursaries to attract more than 2,300 trainees, that they are achieving the level 5 or higher FE teaching qualification, and that we are promoting the role in industry associates. Industry practitioners can teach part-time in FE and help to spread construction skills and exchange of industry practice, to make sure we can pass that on to the next set of learners who will work in our industries.
I was going to talk about technical excellence colleges, but I am running out of time, so I want to say thank you again to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley for securing the debate. I thank all Members who have taken part. I think I have demonstrated excellently our passion and support for further education colleges. We know how important they are to employers, businesses and the country as a whole, and I share that passion. Our colleges are crucial to the education system, equipping young people with the skills they need to get on in life and giving some people the second chance that they might not otherwise have had. Our plans and investments will help to support, develop and transform our excellent FE system.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Blue Badge Eligibility
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered blue badge eligibility for cancer patients and people with life-altering illnesses.
The issue that brings us here today was brought to my attention by Elli Hodgson, a local journalist with the Kent Messenger newspaper. Her paper recognised that cancer patients and others with life-altering conditions were being denied the vital accessibility afforded by the current blue badge scheme, because they do not fall within the eligibility criteria—namely, having an enduring and substantial disability, typically defined as likely to last at least three years.
Cancer treatment such as surgery and radio and chemotherapy can have significant side effects, including extreme fatigue, pain and mobility restrictions. Mental health can also be undermined by the fact that patients are often in a personal battle with life and death. Sometimes those impediments might not last for three years, but they can still reduce access to essential services during treatment and recovery. In many situations, the effects of the disease and treatment last longer than three years. Indeed, under the Equality Act 2010, the Government rightly recognise cancer as a disability from the point of diagnosis for the remainder of a person’s life.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I spoke to her beforehand about issue, which comes up regularly in my constituency office, so I commend her for securing this debate. Does she not agree that certain illnesses should have an automatic blue badge entitlement? Saying that someone has nine months to live rather than six months because of cancer or a terminal illness does not take into account the havoc that is also caused when someone has fatigue and breathing problems. The current system is much too stringent and puts pressure on GPs to write in support of something that really is a no-brainer and should not be necessary at all.
Helen Grant
As usual, the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. I agree with him that certain illnesses should have an automatic entitlement, because at the end of the day we should be making it easier for people who are going through hell, rather than harder and more complicated.
It is not just the three-year rule that is out of step for people with shorter-term conditions. Blue badge applications take 12 to 15 weeks to be processed, which is far too long in terms of cancer timelines, and rejected applicants cannot reapply for six months. Again, that is incompatible with cancer treatments, where debilitating physical effects can quickly arise. So today I speak on behalf of the many thousands of cancer patients and people with life-altering conditions whose lives could be made so much easier if they had access to a fairer blue badge system.
The issue came to the Kent Messenger’s attention through the experience of an employee, a lady called Sandy Burr, who is with us in the Public Gallery today. Sandy was diagnosed with skin cancer in 2024. She applied for a blue badge when she found out that her toe needed to be amputated. Not long after the operation, she was rushed back into hospital with breathing difficulties. Doctors found blood clots in her lungs, causing embolisms. She is now undergoing immunotherapy, which has additional debilitating side effects. All those issues further impact how far Sandy can walk with her crutches. Sandy’s blue badge application has been refused by Kent county council, and she told me that the rejection felt like a kick in the teeth. She said that her mindset was focused on being brave and trying to stay alive, and she did not feel she had any extra fight in her to deal with the rejection or to appeal.
Another lady, Bev Evans, also shared her story with me and the Kent Messenger. Bev fell downstairs and broke her neck in 2020. She now suffers permanent injury and has extreme mobility issues. She, too, has been rejected for a blue badge by Kent county council on two separate occasions. No reasonable explanation was given. Applications are made online, and in Bev’s case the computer just said no, because it thought she might get better within three years. It did not say why it thought that. Bev cannot walk without crutches and has no realistic prospect of a full recovery.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. She raised the problem of applying for blue badges online. When the condition is unnamed or unrecognised, that receives an automatic no. The brother of my brilliant parliamentary researcher is in full receipt of accessibility benefit. He represents England as a visually impaired cricketer, yet because his condition has no name he is automatically denied a blue badge. When he speaks to someone, he can change that, but with an online system it is an automatic no. Does the hon. Lady think that is right?
Helen Grant
No, and the hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We can, and must, do better in these important processes.
Following strong public reaction to the stories about Sandy and Bev, the KM approached me, because I am a local Kent MP and because I am a recent cancer survivor. In 2023, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. Later that year, I underwent the first of three surgical operations to remove the cancer and reconstruct my body. The first eight-hour operation was extremely invasive; I could hardly move, let alone walk, for several weeks. By the time I was able to walk, it was in a hunched fashion, due to the nature of the surgery. Extreme tiredness was also a significant factor for many months post surgery, while my body used much of its energy to mend me from the inside.
During all that time, I was very lucky to have the support of my family to access the goods and services I needed, but not everyone is so fortunate. On 19 March this year, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Transport explaining the position. I requested that the eligibility criteria for a blue badge be broadened to include cancer patients and those with life-altering conditions, with the badge issued for a shorter term and with more frequent reviews, or that a separate but similar badge scheme be introduced for those with cancer and other life-altering conditions.
Disappointingly, when the Minister responded on 9 April, she confirmed that the Government want only one class of blue badge and that there is no plan to legislate to change the current system, but that local authorities have powers to promote locally determined parking concessions in their respective areas. Accordingly, on 19 June this year, I am proud to say that all 18 Kent MPs and the shadow Transport Secretary signed a letter to the leader of Kent county council, with further correspondence going to the leader of Medway council.
We asked both leaders to consider the introduction of a locally determined concessionary scheme for residents with short-term impairments. We await full responses, but the leader of Medway council has offered a meeting, and we hope perhaps to see him next week.
We still believe that there is a strong case for a national scheme, which would require only secondary legislation. I hope that the Minister, having heard all our representations today, will reconsider the position. A national scheme would avoid an inevitably unfair postcode lottery situation, with different local authorities having different local policies on the matter.
We need a fairer and faster approach to blue badge eligibility, which recognises that at the centre of these faceless application processes are highly vulnerable people who deserve care, dignity and respect. I am grateful to all my Kent colleagues, and to the Kent Messenger newspaper for bringing the issue to our attention and helping to drive this important campaign forward. I am also grateful, of course, to Sandy, Bev and others who have bravely shared their stories.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my colleague, friend and constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant), for securing this critical debate, and Kent colleagues of all parties—Liberal, Labour and Conservative—who have come together to support this initiative. There are colleagues in the Chamber from other areas where this problem is manifest. It is a concern across the country.
I also thank residents who have stepped forward to articulate their position. Going to a newspaper and putting their names out there is a brave thing to do, and they are setting in train something that could change the rules for millions of other people in this country. I say to them, “Believe you me, the work that you have done is making those changes. You are sitting in the Public Gallery today because of your efforts and your diligence.” I thank Bev, Sandy and all the others who have written to us and are getting involved in the campaign.
This campaign is personal to me. Like, I suspect, many others in the room, I have had a life-changing health issue. At 38, I had what became a pulmonary embolism due to a heart attack, at a very young age, and was completely unexpectedly taken into hospital. The post-recovery period lasted 12 weeks, for six of which I was almost unable to move without support and help—at the age of 38. It was a traumatising and scary personal experience, and there are many such stories around the country from people who have broken limbs, suffered trauma or had cancer treatment. We need a scheme that takes into account the different scenarios of people’s everyday lives. The scheme needs to change.
As a Labour Government, we have a proud legacy on this issue, because it was Labour that introduced the scheme and a Labour Government that modernised it to support people who face serious barriers in their daily mobility. It allows them to park closer to essential services, to visit GPs to get treatment, or simply to collect shopping—to many, that would seem a simple act, but to those with these disabilities it is extremely frustrating and difficult.
I respect the Department for Transport but, like others, I have had quite formulaic responses from it, saying that people need to demonstrate an enduring, substantial disability. I know from colleagues that it is difficult to do that in a written piece of correspondence and without an in-person interview. The Department’s response does not take into account the fact that people have different levels of fluency in English, might not have medical knowledge and might be unable to articulate their exact position.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I have constituents who are helping to support their children through cancer treatment. They applied for a blue badge; only after the child’s treatment was, thankfully, successful did the application come back with a no or yes. The focus should be on getting well, not battling a system. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) for securing this debate.
Tristan Osborne
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we all have to work within systems, but this one seems heartless and a bit cold. I think that is the general experience of many, that it seems to take a “computer says no” approach if someone does not have one of those specific physical mobility issues.
I fully accept that we need a system, otherwise there might be people who choose to exploit the scheme. However, there must also be a point where we accept that people’s health is not linear. It is not a case of someone having something life-altering and therefore they can get the badge, and no other conditions exist, because most people’s health will change.
In recent years, there have been changes to extend the scheme to non-visible conditions, so we have made concessions previously—autism and mental health challenges can be taken into account. However, those with debilitating illnesses and temporary conditions are the focus this afternoon. We know from the media that this issue is not just confined to Kent. The excellent work of Kent Online is helping to highlight this case, but it is happening across the country.
In other places, we have seen cases where people experiencing side effects from cancer have been refused, and where people in severe pain—who can prove that they are in severe pain—have been refused access because they are told their condition is not enduring enough. That is unacceptable. If someone can prove that their condition exists and that they are engaged in medical treatment, anyone would think that that was enough evidence.
People may concurrently suffer from mental health issues, fatigue and other challenges as a result of not securing this support. Some are recovering from major surgery that leaves them barely able to walk, yet they are refused this service, which seems completely counterintuitive.
I can tell hon. Members from experience, as others can, that a six-month recovery, when someone knows that they will recover, which I fortunately had, is still an uphill struggle, because it involves dealing with the consequences. I ask that any scheme, especially this one, be a mechanism rather than an obstacle course. It feels as if we are on an obstacle course and, certainly in residents’ views, that is the case.
I thank Kent Online and residents for raising this campaign, and I hope that, with the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling and others, we can bring this issue into the public domain on a cross-party basis. As a relatively inexperienced MP, I have learned many lessons about how to run campaigns properly, and I salute the work of the hon. Member across the aisle on this—because we can genuinely get some positive change.
This is also a sign of local leadership. I am pleased that the council in Medway has stepped up and is open to having this conversation. I hope that we can work to get Kent county council in the room, because it covers the large majority of constituents across Kent. I believe the work we are doing can lead to change and I am passionate about the outcomes.
I have some questions for the Minister. First, is there positive work going on in the Department to review the blue badge scheme? Could that conclude that we can extend eligibility? Secondly, has any guidance been provided to local councils about local schemes—using best practice from, say, some of the London councils—and could we extend that principle? There is a bit of inconsistency between councils in terms of examples of where this works well in practice.
Thirdly, I understand that the Government are absolutely committed to supporting the NHS through extra investment in our hospitals and frontline services—that is extremely welcome. Could cross-departmental work be done with the Department of Health and Social Care to facilitate blue badges for those leaving hospital as part of their discharge regimen? Could they get an automatic letter that can be submitted to a public body, allowing for a seamless service, rather than having to go through a regimented application process? We could use a bit of common sense across Departments so that people do not have to go through a bureaucratic process to apply for a blue badge. I am quietly confident that we can see change, working with campaigners on a cross-party basis. I thank everyone for coming this afternoon.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) for bringing forward this debate today. It is lovely to see cross-party working on such a serious issue.
I am not from Kent—I am from Norfolk—but from listening to the debate, there are some clear similarities. We are a rural county in Norfolk, similar to Kent. We have a significant coastline, an older population and similar issues with accessing blue badges. I am halfway through my summer tour of the 72 villages in South West Norfolk, and I do not think I have been to a single village yet where somebody has not come forward to say, “I’ve got a real issue trying to get hold of a blue badge.” It is coming up time and again, and there are dozens of cases locally. For example, I have a constituent who had been diagnosed with and undergone treatment for breast cancer. She is in her 70s. She is profoundly deaf and has a hearing dog. She has been rejected three times for a blue badge. As a result, she is reluctant to leave her village, and there is a real issue with isolation from that.
Another constituent was at the end stage of kidney failure. He is in the early part of having had a transplant, but there are post-surgery complications, anxiety and a whole number of other health issues. His application was turned down because it was considered that his mobility was only bad during flare-ups, rather than “more often than not”, his anxiety was not regarded as being bad enough, and toileting issues do not form part of the national guidance.
There is a real issue about cost, too. I am fortunate that at our local hospital, which is about an hour away, people can still get free car parking if they have a blue badge. Those in a rural community often do not have any public transport enabling them to get to hospital. They have to drive or rely on other people to drive them there. If they are having routine treatment for cancer, for example, the cost of car parking alone soon stacks up, as it does for any other regular hospital or medical appointments. There is a real cost aspect to this.
What arrangements are in place for monitoring councils on the time taken to process blue badge applications? Norfolk county council seems to spend an incredible amount of time processing applications, and there is an element of local criteria. I have not done the work yet, but I think there is a significant policy difference in Norfolk, where it is incredibly difficult for a whole range of reasons to be eligible for a blue badge. Clearly, people who would benefit from and need a blue badge are not receiving one. Can the Minister comment on what oversight and assessment there is of local councils amending their own criteria, making things difficult and ultimately denying people eligibility for blue badges?
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) on securing this debate, and her constituent, Sandy, on bravely campaigning on this issue. It is people like her who make a real difference to this world—thank you.
A cancer diagnosis does not simply change someone’s medical needs; it changes the course of their life. Even the most basic tasks can become physically painful and emotionally draining. It may be a short-term issue during recovery or represent a permanent shift. In these circumstances, a blue badge can offer crucial support, making it easier to access vital services and maintain a degree of independence. The blue badge scheme provides essential parking concessions to help people with significant mobility challenges to park close to their destination, whether they are the driver or passenger.
Cancer treatment side effects, such as fatigue from chemotherapy, chronic pain or nerve damage, can all severely limit mobility. However, despite the profound and often sudden impact of such conditions, many people living with cancer or other life-altering illnesses, as we have already heard today, find they do not automatically qualify for a blue badge. The cost of travelling to medical appointments is already high, and for those undergoing frequent treatments and tests, it quickly adds up. Research shows that 93% of young cancer patients and their families travel to hospital by car and need a place to park. Furthermore, 71% say they struggle to afford travel costs, with parking charges contributing to an extra £250 a month. Many also report that parking arrangements at hospitals are inadequate. The charity Young Lives vs Cancer cited one parent who described hospital parking as a lottery:
“I can probably win the lottery better than I can get a parking space.”
In my constituency, a resident contacted me about her 83-year-old husband, who has blood cancer and neuropathy, uses a wheelchair, and cannot walk. Despite that, Labour’s Merton council lost his blue badge application, forcing his wife to resubmit it. That is unacceptable, and it highlights the pressing need for the more seamless blue badge process that we are advocating.
In other cases, the criteria for blue badge eligibility fail to map neatly on to fluctuating conditions such as cancer. That is why the Lib Dems are calling for a comprehensive review of the legislative framework for the blue badge scheme, as is everyone in the Chamber, I think. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), we want it to be more responsive to real-world need, more compassionate in its interpretation of eligibility and more efficient in delivery.
We also urge the Government to take advantage of their ambition for a single patient record. Much of the infrastructure exists already, particularly in cancer care. It is entirely feasible to implement an automatic offer of a blue badge where clinical records show clear mobility changes, as so eloquently argued for by the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Chatham and Aylesford.
Smaller but important changes we could make include amending blue badge signage, which we support, to clarify that not all disabilities are visible. That would help to reduce stigma and the misunderstanding faced by many users of the scheme. We are also pushing to ban discriminatory practices by taxis and private hire vehicles with a clear national standard for what an accessible city should be.
We remain firmly committed to improving accessibility across society. Public transport in particular must work for everyone, and we are campaigning for train stations around the country to meet essential accessibility standards, such as step-free access, safer and more inclusive platform designs, and level boarding wherever possible. Things such as that and blue badge accessibility are crucial to a society that cares for everyone and has an inclusive approach to how we live our lives.
Ultimately, we need a system that is fairer, simpler and more humane, one that recognises the challenges posed by cancer and chronic illness, even when those challenges do not fit neatly into a tick-box form or an online mechanism. A blue badge can mean being able to go to work, to reach a hospital, to attend a support group, or simply to visit a friend. It is about dignity, independence and inclusion. The very least we can do is to ensure that the system works as it should. Cancer and serious illness take so much from individuals and their families, access to parking should not be another burden that they are forced to carry.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) on not just securing the debate and championing her constituents so well in her speech, but bravely telling her own story as part of it, just as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) did.
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond for His Majesty’s Opposition on an issue that cuts to the heart of how we treat some of the most vulnerable people in our society, not least those facing the life-changing impact of cancer treatment. The blue badge scheme has long been a vital way in which we support people with severe and permanent mobility difficulties to live independent lives, to stay connected to work, community and family, and to access essential goods and services.
Under the Disabled Persons (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000, local authorities are tasked with issuing badges in line with clear national eligibility rules. Those rules, rightly, focus on the practical impact of a person’s condition on their day-to-day mobility, not simply on their diagnosis. The principle is sound, but in practice, there is, as we have heard, a glaring gap.
People undergoing aggressive cancer treatment, for example, can suffer debilitating side effects that severely restrict mobility. Nerve damage, fatigue, pain and weakness can make walking even short distances impossible, yet because those impacts are deemed to be temporary, the people involved often do not qualify for a blue badge, as the impediments might not last three years. This is not a small oversight. It means that people who are in the fight of their life are too often forced to fight an additional battle just to park near a hospital, their local shops or community services.
Under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, local councils have powers to create local traffic regulation orders that allow temporary parking concessions for residents with short-term impairments. However, we know, and I am confident the Government must know, that in practice that is patchy and inconsistent. Some councils offer short-term medical parking permits; many do not. Some cancer patients are fortunate enough to find clear guidance and a fair process; too many others are left to navigate an opaque local system at the very moment when they are least able to cope with yet more paperwork, forms and stress. It is simply wrong that whether a cancer patient can access parking support depends on where they live and whether their local council happens to operate a discretionary scheme or chooses not to.
The previous Government rightly reminded local authorities of their powers to provide the concessions, but that was never intended to be the long-term answer. We need a fair, unified solution that does not depend on a postcode lottery of local good will. I hope that the Minister will correct this impression when she responds to the debate, but under this Government there seems to be no commitment to update the outdated 2000 regulations in order to recognise the reality facing thousands of cancer patients and others every single year. Nor is there any progress on national guidance to make short-term exemptions consistent, automatic and easy to access. It is not good enough to say, as the Government still seem to say, that councils can just sort it out locally. The evidence is clear: the local patchwork approach has failed. Cancer does not care about council boundaries.
We need a simple, nationally recognised exemption for cancer patients whose treatment has a severe short-term impact, or potentially long-term impact, on their mobility. That could mean a standardised temporary permit supported by NHS trusts, so that patients do not have to fight for evidence or explain themselves twice. This is not about changing the core principle of the blue badge scheme. It is about bringing it up to date with the real-world experience of people who urgently need that help. It is about accommodating patients living with cancer, which the Government already classify as a disability from diagnosis and as long as people live with its effects.
I urge the Minister and this Government to listen to charities, to NHS professionals and to patients themselves. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and Malling gave the powerful examples of Sandy Burr and Bev Evans, constituents living with severe, agonising mobility challenges because of this disease and because of injury, yet still falling outside the national blue badge criteria. Now is the time to work on a cross-party basis to close the gap once and for all. Our country prides itself on compassion. It is now time for the Government to show that in practice. That can happen by ensuring that nobody in the fight of their life is forced to fight for a parking space too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
As ever, Sir Christopher, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidstone and Malling (Helen Grant) on securing this important debate and on sharing her personal experience and the experiences of her constituents. I also pay tribute to Kent residents Sandy Burr, Bev Evans and others whose personal stories have led to this campaign and to today’s debate; I thank the hon. Lady for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) spoke with passion and conviction in support of his constituents and those who face serious health concerns that give rise to some of the most difficult moments in our constituents’ lives. I recognise the need for a system that is fair and consistent. It should never be heartless or cold, and it should not feel like an obstacle course. I am committed to listening and to considering carefully the points that have been made today. I will come to my hon. Friend’s questions in just a moment.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) for his contribution to the debate and for highlighting the examples from his own constituency. He asked what arrangements there are for monitoring councils’ processing times. The Department for Transport does not monitor councils’ processing times; that is a matter for councils themselves. We recommend that they should process blue badge applications within 12 weeks, but of course that will vary according to the local authority and the resources that it chooses to put into its blue badge team. These are decisions for local authorities, which are elected by local residents and are responsible and accountable to local residents. I absolutely recognise that when we allow local authorities to make local decisions, they will make different decisions, which sometimes leads to inconsistency between them.
The Department for Transport sets the legislation around blue badges and provides non-statutory guidance to local authorities, but it is local authorities themselves that are responsible for administering the scheme. I recognise the issue that hon. Members from across the House have raised about the potential that that creates for inconsistency; it is one that I have reflected on over the period in which I have been a Minister, and I have dealt with numerous pieces of correspondence about it from MPs on behalf of their constituents. It has caused me concern and I have discussed it regularly with my officials in the blue badge team. Today’s debate is timely in making me consider again what more we can do to address the concerns that are being raised.
Let me come back to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. He asked whether work is ongoing to review the scheme. We constantly consider the scheme and look to improve it. I felt that it was somewhat rude of the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), to refer to things that were last changed in 2000 and then suggest that within my first year of being a Minister I should have conducted a review and made major changes; the last 14 years might have provided an opportunity to address some of those issues. Nevertheless, it is timely to think about the scheme and look at whether there is a need for review and further refinement. As I have said, there is guidance for local councils on best practice, and I know that local authority blue badge officers come together to talk about their experiences of administering the system and to share notes and best practice. I met a number of them when they last got together in Runcorn, which is where the blue badges are issued.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford also asked about the potential for cross-departmental work with colleagues in the national health service and the Department for Health and Social Care. I would be happy to explore that further with colleagues in those Departments; I hope that that will have the support of everyone who has spoken today.
It may be helpful to step back for a moment to talk a bit about the scheme as it was intended and to reaffirm its purpose. As has been acknowledged, the scheme was introduced in 1971 and has served the UK public for over five decades. It provides vital support for people with severe mobility difficulties, whether those difficulties are visible or non-visible—so-called hidden disabilities.
The scheme enables individuals to access goods and services by allowing them to park closer to their destination, whether they are driving or travelling as a passenger. The blue badge provides national on-street parking concessions, including the ability to park without charge or time limit in otherwise restricted areas and to park on yellow lines for up to three hours where loading restrictions do not apply, but it is important to note that the scheme applies only to on-street parking. Concessions in private or council-owned car parks are not guaranteed and may vary depending on the operator.
All car parking providers are required to provide disabled parking spaces, and quite rightly so. In local authority car parks it is very likely, but not necessary, that the council will not charge those who are using disabled spaces, but in private sector car parks that might or might not be the case. I think that that also applies to hospitals. The Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), spoke about hospital car parks; they are outside the remit of my Department, but would be a useful part of the conversation.
Although we recognise the changing landscape of local infrastructure and council-owned car parks—perhaps there are fewer of them, and more private car parks—we have to continue to ensure that the scheme remains effective and accessible for on-street parking. Each year, over 1 million blue badges are issued across England. The day-to-day administration and enforcement of the scheme rests with local authorities, which are responsible for assessing applications and for ensuring that badges are issued only to those who meet the eligibility criteria set out in legislation.
I would like to take a moment to recognise the efforts of the local authority teams who deliver the service. I hope I can assure hon. Members that I know at first hand the passion and dedication that many local authority blue badge teams have in helping those who need access to parking. I have spoken to many of them, and I know how committed they are to supporting those in need.
My first ask to colleagues today is that they encourage their constituents to provide as much detailed and high-quality information as possible when applying. I appreciate the points that have been made about how some people applying for a blue badge are doing so at a really difficult, traumatic and stressful time. However, providing detail helps local authorities to make informed and fair decisions in line with the guidance set out on the Government website. The Department provides non-statutory guidance to assist local authorities in implementing fair and consistent assessment and enforcement practices, but this is a matter for local authorities. We cannot intervene in individual cases, but we are committed to helping to support local authorities in delivering the scheme effectively.
I really understand the concerns raised in this debate about eligibility for people living with cancer or other life-altering illnesses. They are serious and heartfelt concerns raised in response to constituents facing difficult and distressing circumstances, but before I come back to those issues it is important that I set out the rationale behind the current structure of the scheme. The eligibility criteria are designed to ensure that the blue badge is reserved for those with severe mobility impairments, whether physical or non-visible, that significantly impact their ability to access services.
I know that the shift from the term “permanent and substantial disability” to “enduring and substantial disability” was a very deliberate change. It recognised that some conditions, particularly those affecting cognitive or mental function, might fluctuate or respond to treatment but still endure over time. I think the change was designed to allow for greater flexibility to recognise a broader range of disabilities, including those that might not be immediately visible. It also ensures that the scheme remains focused on mobility and the ability to access places and services safely and independently. Ultimately, a blue badge may therefore be awarded to an individual with a disability that is expected to endure in some way for the three-year blue badge issue period.
Local authorities invest considerable time and care in assessing applications from individuals who do not automatically qualify in line with the legislation. Many authorities—including Kent county council, which is one of the largest issuers, if not the largest, of blue badges in England—work hard to ensure that their decisions are fair and evidence-based. In 2024 alone, Kent issued more than 33,000 badges, supporting more than 83,000 of its residents.
I have to be honest about the kind of structural change that people are calling for today; it would represent a significant departure from the scheme’s current purpose. That is not to say that it is not a legitimate question to raise, but it would place additional pressure on a system that is already under strain. Many local authorities report that they are operating the scheme at a financial loss, with the current £10 fee no longer covering the cost of administration. Expanding eligibility without providing additional resources could compromise the integrity of the scheme and reduce the availability of disabled parking spaces for those who rely on them the most.
I note that, in reaction to the recent campaign, many have understandably expressed support, but others have raised concerns about the potential impact on parking availability and enforcement, including those who are current badge holders. Nevertheless, the cases highlighted by the Kent Messenger campaign and taken up by Members today cannot be ignored. These are real people, facing real challenges, and the response requires both compassion and the determination to look for solutions.
There is already plenty of room for local innovation; local authorities already have powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to introduce locally determined parking concessions, which can include temporary permits or designated bays for individuals recovering from surgery or undergoing intensive treatment, such as chemotherapy. In 2012, the Department published an advice note encouraging local authorities to consider such schemes, and while they are voluntary and locally led, they offer a flexible way to respond to specific community needs, without altering the national framework of the blue badge scheme. Of course, local authorities may wish to explore options for hospital parking concessions for patients who require frequent access to treatment, which is a matter for discussion with local NHS trusts, but I recognise that such measures can make a meaningful difference to people who are navigating serious illness.
In response to points raised today, I will ask my officials to review and update our existing advice note to provide clearer, more practical guidance on how local authorities can use those existing powers to support residents facing temporary or fluctuating mobility challenges. That would not change the core eligibility criteria for the blue badge, but in the short term, it may help councils to better understand the tools at their disposal.
We have not really touched on this today, but it is important to note that blue badge schemes in England, Scotland and Wales are fully devolved, and each nation administers its own scheme, sets its own criteria and determines its own fee structure. In Wales, the devolved Administration has chosen to introduce a temporary blue badge option, allowing individuals to apply for a 12-month badge if they are recovering from or awaiting treatment for serious illnesses or injuries that have a significant impact on mobility.
While I understand the appeal of such a model, it is important to recognise the scale of the English scheme and the context in which it operates. England has a significantly larger population and a far greater number of blue badge holders than Wales. Introducing a temporary badge scheme on the same model could place a real strain on local authority resources, many of which are already under pressure, and it could risk reducing the availability of on-street disabled parking spaces for those with long-term and severe mobility needs.
Of course, a change could also lead to a big surge in applications, increasing administrative burdens and undermining reliability, processing times and the current operation of the scheme. That said, I remain open to learning from the experiences of the devolved nations. I note the Welsh Government’s recent publication of their review into the blue badge scheme. Where there are lessons to be drawn, or best practice to consider, I want to do so carefully and constructively.
To conclude, I reiterate that the Government fully recognise the importance of accessible services for people with disabilities and serious health conditions. The blue badge scheme plays a vital role in enabling independence and dignity, and we are committed to ensuring that it continues to serve those in need. I am cautious about expanding eligibility in ways that could undermine the current scheme’s effectiveness, but I am keen to reflect on the concerns raised today. I will continue to engage with my officials and ministerial colleagues to explore how we can support local authorities in delivering compassionate, practical solutions within the existing framework.
This is not the end of the conversation; I am listening, I will keep listening, and I look forward to continuing to work with hon. Members on both sides of the House to ensure that the blue badge scheme remains fair, effective and focused on those who need it most. I am open to the possibility of change to address some of the concerns that have been rightly raised today.
Helen Grant
I thank all hon. Members from both sides of the House who have spoken so meaningfully and passionately on this matter today. In particular, I must mention the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), who is working with closely with me and the Kent Messenger on this matter. I know that the shadow Transport Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), will be meeting the Transport Secretary. I hope the Minister, who was listening carefully today, will also speak to the Transport Secretary about what she has heard from all hon. Members today. I am glad she said that she will reconsider certain matters, and I hope that she might agree to have a meeting with me and some other colleagues so we can go into more detail than we have in the hour allowed.
Helen Grant
I think that was a nod. We can and must do better. As I said in my speech, and I am repeating it again, we need a fairer and faster approach, which recognises that at the centre of these faceless applications are highly vulnerable people who deserve care, dignity and respect.
Finally, I pay tribute to the courageous Dr Susan Michaelis, who died of lobular breast cancer last week. Susan, with her husband Tristan, was a great campaigner for cancer patients, and she would have been so happy to see this cross-party campaign debated so sensitively today. May she rest in peace. Let us all keep working together to make a difference.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered blue badge eligibility for cancer patients and people with life-altering illnesses.
Work and Pensions
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I recently met a support group in my constituency of those who suffer from ME, chronic fatigue syndrome or long covid. Their description of the devastating impact of those variable conditions was very affecting. If one of those people were to have an improvement in their condition, meaning that they were no longer eligible for PIP, and then to re-present for assessment, would they be entitled to return to the PIP level they were on previously, or would they be treated as new applicants under the terms the Secretary of State has described today?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which is precisely what we want to look at in the PIP review, because it does not take into account fluctuating conditions. That is an important issue moving forward, and we will be absolutely determined to involve him, his constituents, and organisations that represent those with fluctuating conditions in the process of the review.
[Official Report, 30 June 2025; Vol. 770, c. 36.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall):
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The PIP assessment takes into account fluctuating conditions. That is an important issue moving forward, and we will be absolutely determined to involve him, his constituents, and organisations that represent those with fluctuating conditions in the process of the review.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I am sure that the Chancellor will be delighted that the flip-flopping of the Prime Minister means she has to find another £2.5 billion in taxation on people in this country. Does the Secretary of State think that it is fair that a two-tier system has been created? Why would anybody on the old rate seek work when they know that if they go into work, it does not work out and they claim again, they will get a reduced rate under her Government?
Liz Kendall
Because PIP is not an in-work benefit.
[Official Report, 30 June 2025; Vol. 770, c. 39.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:
Public Service Reform: Test, Learn and Grow Programme
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
I am pleased to announce an update on the next stages of the Cabinet Office test, learn and grow programme, and how it will work with local places across England.
The £100 million programme is a flagship part of the Government’s reform programme and aims to model and scale a missions approach by bringing policymakers closer to the frontline. The next phase of the test, learn and grow programme will bring cross-Government teams together with those that use and deliver public services and experience the day-to-day barriers when processes are not working, in order to reform services together. New solutions will be built from the ground up, moving rapidly to learn and adapt based on what works. The accelerators will identify blockers and barriers to delivering people-focused, preventive public services, and work to make change in Government to quickly scale learning.
This test and learn approach, outlined by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in December, will help to tackle our biggest national challenges and make better policy with and for communities to deliver on our plan for change. The programme has already had impact through its work in four locations on family hub services and temporary accommodation.
Today we are announcing the 10 places in England that we will work with as part of the next wave of projects on the ground. In each case, we will test out new approaches to a specific public service challenge, bringing local and central teams together with common purpose on the frontline. In mayoral strategic authority areas, we will work with both MSAs and the relevant local authority creating a partnership approach across all layers of Government to deliver for people.
Challenges the teams will look at will include increasing the uptake of Best Start family hubs to support parents and young children, establishing neighbourhood health services, better supporting children with special needs, getting more people into work, rolling out breakfast clubs, and tackling violence against women and girls. The 10 places are:
Barnsley metropolitan borough council
Wakefield council
Manchester city council
Liverpool city council
Sandwell metropolitan borough council
Northumberland county council
Essex county council
Plymouth city council
Nottingham city council
We are working with the GLA and London councils to agree London borough involvement
Our approach to the programme has been designed in partnership with local government, and I look forward to continuing to work with a wide range of partners to ensure that the learnings and benefits of the programme are shared widely across the sector. The programme will build a coalition around test, learn and grow, and public service reform, bringing in external expertise and tech specialists, and partnering with public service innovators. We will work closely with other key initiatives and players, and continue to work in the open.
I look forward to engaging with hon. Members and local government leaders to make this a truly collaborative programme between local communities and the centre of Government. I am grateful for the ongoing support and collaboration of the Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution, and countless colleagues across central Government and local government who have helped to shape, design and challenge the programme so far, and who I hope will continue to lend their passion and energy.
[HCWS832]
Tax Exemptions: Grenfell Support Scheme and Horizon Convictions Redress Scheme
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
The Government will legislate to ensure that payments made under the Grenfell Support (Restorative Justice) programme are exempt from income tax. This legislation will apply retrospectively from 5 June 2024, when payments from the scheme started.
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will exercise its collection and management discretion and will not collect income tax that may have been due on any payments made from 5 June 2024 to the date the legislation takes effect.
Exempting these payments from income tax means that tax credits claimants who received a payment up to 5 April 2025 should not have seen a reduction in their tax credits award. While no tax credits awards would have been reduced automatically, claimants who reported this payment to HMRC as part of their income for tax credits purposes can contact HMRC to determine whether their tax credits award was correct. HMRC is exploring options to proactively contact those tax credit customers who have received any payments under the Grenfell Support (Restorative Justice) programme.
The Government will also legislate to exempt compensation payments in the expanded Horizon convictions redress scheme. This was expanded on 3 June 2025 to include postmasters with convictions overturned by a court, postmasters who were prosecuted for alleged offences committed while the Horizon system was in use but did not face criminal convictions, and postmasters who received a caution, or in Scotland received an alternative to prosecution or a purported alternative to prosecution from the Post Office, for an alleged offence involving the Horizon system.
The Government are committed to maintaining the tax treatment of the Horizon convictions redress scheme. Therefore, the Government will legislate to formalise the tax exemption and ensure that no income tax, national insurance contributions, capital gains tax or inheritance tax will be payable for redress received under this scheme.
[HCWS827]
Media Mergers: Legislation
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport set out in her written statement on 15 May:
“This Government are committed to a pluralistic media landscape, where citizens are able to access information from a range of sources in order to form opinions”—[Official Report, 15 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 16WS.]—
while ensuring that foreign states are not able to own, control or influence the policy of UK newspapers or news periodicals. The Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025 will permit foreign state-owned investors to hold up to 15% of shares and voting rights in a UK newspaper enterprise, as long as they are passive investors with no rights or ability to appoint directors or other company officers or to exercise direct or indirect influence over the newspaper’s policies. The changes balance the need to protect our press from foreign state influence with the need to allow newspaper groups the flexibility to attract inward investment from a broad range of sources that do not present a risk to their editorial and operational independence.
We have noted the concerns raised across Parliament that the regulations do not fully deal with the risk of multiple state-owned investors acting on behalf of different states, each being able to hold up to 15%. Although remote, this scenario is not entirely theoretical. Concern was also raised regarding the Government’s ability to review all relevant cases.
On 18 June, I gave a commitment in Parliament to address these concerns, so today we have published for consultation a further set of draft regulations to amend the Enterprise Act 2002. The consultation will launch today and will be open for eight weeks until 18 September. Following this consultation, the Government will lay, in draft, a second statutory instrument to make the necessary changes to the legislation later in the autumn.
[HCWS828]
Relationships, Sex and Health Education: Guidance
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I am pleased to share the publication of updated statutory guidance for schools on the teaching of relationships education, relationships and sex education and health education.
We have comprehensively updated the RSHE guidance to address the most challenging issues facing young people today, to make it fit for the digital age, and to equip teachers to support young people to build healthy, respectful relationships in an increasingly complex online world. The new guidance will come into force formally from September 2026. Schools can use it in the meantime to shape their RSHE lessons.
In updating this guidance, we have looked closely at all of the responses to last year’s consultation, which are reflected in the consultation response published alongside the new guidance. We have also spoken in detail to experts and to young people, and this guidance reflects their wisdom.
This updated guidance provides a practical framework that enables schools to teach RSHE in a way which puts children’s wellbeing and safeguarding at its heart. The guidance is clear about the importance of ensuring that all lessons are age appropriate. It is clear that parents should be consulted on the content of the RSHE curriculum and have a right to know what their children are being taught, while ensuring that teachers are able to teach about topics preventively, or to respond swiftly when a risk presents itself earlier than anticipated.
The guidance includes significant new content to ensure that RSHE plays its full role in the prevention of violence against women and girls, as part of our Government mission to halve VAWG.
This includes a focus on building healthy relationships skills from the start of primary. It includes an emphasis on opening conversations with young people about positive masculinity and femininity, and ensuring that nobody is stigmatised in these conversations. The guidance is clear that teaching about sexual ethics must go beyond teaching about consent, so that young people understand how to act with kindness and respect in all of their relationships.
The guidance includes new content on teaching about suicide prevention. It is clear that schools should have a plan for addressing suicide prevention safely with secondary school pupils, including ensuring that staff have the knowledge and skills to do so.
The section on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender teaching content is also clear up front about the difference in rights based on sex and gender reassignment, to reflect the Supreme Court ruling on the interpretation of the Equality Act in the For Women Scotland case. The guidance is also clear about the need to avoid language and activities which repeat or enforce gender stereotypes, which is in line with the conclusions of the Cass review of 2024.
As these matters are devolved, the Department for Education will implement these proposals in England only. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have different policies in place and my Department will continue to engage with each of the devolved Administrations to encourage a joined-up approach on this matter.
This guidance should help our young people to live healthy lives, build strong, respectful relationships and play their part as active citizens in our society.
[HCWS825]
Fusion Energy National Policy
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is today publishing the Government’s response to the consultation on the scope of the fusion energy national policy statement—EN-8. This progresses the Government’s plan to develop a fusion NPS that will streamline the planning process and help break down the barriers to clean power projects of the future.
Fusion supports the Government’s plan for change, industrial strategy and two of the Government’s five missions:
Making the UK a clean energy superpower by developing technology for fusion, other clean energy technologies and adjacent sectors, and accelerating to net zero in the longer term through zero-carbon, abundant, safe, baseload energy; and
Kickstarting economic growth through innovation, highly skilled jobs and tech transfer.
The UK has a genuine global strategic advantage in fusion and is recognised as a world leader in the most promising fusion energy technologies. With countries around the world increasing support and investment into fusion, the UK’s expertise and global standing cannot be allowed to atrophy.
That is why the UK Government have backed fusion research and development and commercialisation, making a record investment in R&D for fusion energy, investing over £2.5 billion over five years. This includes progressing the spherical tokamak for energy production programme, the world-leading fusion plant in Nottinghamshire, creating thousands of new jobs and with the potential to unlock limitless clean power.
The UK’s STEP programme aims to develop and build a prototype fusion powerplant in the UK by 2040. Private fusion companies in the UK and overseas are also quickly developing demonstrator fusion facilities. To deliver these facilities, sites for fusion energy facilities will need to be identified and construction started this decade.
Recognising this need, the Government are taking a proactive stance, backing the industry by establishing a stable regulatory and planning environment that supports and encourages its development. The UK was the first country in the world to legislate for fusion regulation, confirming that fusion would not be regulated under the same framework as nuclear fission due to its lower hazard potential. By differentiating from fission regulation and breaking down a needless barrier to clean power projects of the future, this new approach has led to increased interest from international companies siting in the UK and has strengthened the UK’s position as a world leader in fusion.
A fusion-specific NPS is essential for providing clarity to developers and streamlining the planning process for fusion. Not only does this ensure certainty for developers to bring forward their fusion designs and align fusion with other complex energy generating technologies, but, crucially, it will support local and national planning inspectors with guidance when assessing potential developments.
The consultation on the scope of EN-8 was undertaken between 7 May 2024 and 17 July 2024 and began the process towards designation of this NPS, seeking views from stakeholders on broad policy proposals. In response to the feedback of consultees, the Government have taken the following decisions:
The Government will continue the development of EN-8—the Government recognise the differences in technology between fusion and other technologies already covered by other NPSs, meaning that a fusion-specific NPS is the only option for properly considering the planning implications of this technology.
Technology inclusive—all fusion technologies, with the exception to fusion-fission hybrids, will be in scope of EN-8.
EN-8 will take a developer-led approach, underpinned by robust strategic criteria to ensure that suitable sites are selected, with the utmost consideration for environmental and local impacts. This approach would allow siting in more communities across the UK, subject to local support.
Output agnostic—amend the Planning Act 2008 so that all fusion energy facilities generating at least 50 MW in England are incorporated into the national significant infrastructure project, independent of thermal or electrical output.
[HCWS834]
Covid-19 Vaccination
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
His Majesty’s Government is committed to protecting people most vulnerable to covid-19 through vaccination as guided by the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.
On 13 November 2024, the JCVI published advice on the covid-19 vaccination programme for spring 2025, autumn 2025 and spring 2026. On 26 June 2025, the Government decided, in line with JCVI advice, that a covid-19 vaccine should be offered in autumn 2025 to those in the population most vulnerable to serious outcomes from covid-19 and who are therefore most likely to benefit from vaccination.
Vaccination will be offered in England in autumn 2025 to:
adults aged 75 years and over;
residents in a care home for older adults;
individuals aged six months and over who are immuno-suppressed, as defined in tables 3 and 4 of the covid-19 chapter of the UK Health Security Agency green book on immunisation against infectious disease.
The Government will respond in due course to the JCVI’s advice for spring 2026.
The vaccines that will be supplied for the autumn 2025 programme are the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA (Comirnaty) vaccines.
Notification of liabilities
I am now updating the House on the liabilities HMG has taken on in relation to further vaccine deployment via this statement and accompanying departmental minute laid in Parliament containing a description of the liability undertaken.
As part of the contractual arrangements with covid-19 vaccine producers for vaccines pre-procured as part of HMG’s pandemic emergency response the provision of an indemnity was required to enter into supply agreements. The agreement to provide indemnity increases the contingent liability of the covid-19 vaccination programme, with deployment of further doses of vaccines purchased as part of the emergency response.
The adult Pfizer BioNTech mRNA (Comirnaty) doses to be used in autumn 2025 are the only remaining doses of covid-19 vaccines purchased as part of the emergency response. This will therefore be the last increase in the overall contingent liability arising from an additional deployment of covid-19 vaccines.
I will update the House as appropriate if any future decisions further impact the contingent liability of the covid-19 vaccination programme.
[HCWS829]
Less Healthy Food and Drink: Advertising Restrictions Consultation
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
As part of our ambition to tackle the childhood obesity crisis and raise the healthiest generation of children ever, this Government made a manifesto commitment to implement advertising restrictions for less healthy food or drink on TV and online.
My statement on 22 May informed the House of the Government’s revised approach to implementing the restrictions in response to stakeholder concerns with the Advertising Standards Authority’s draft implementation guidance. Having secured agreement from broadcasters and advertisers to voluntarily comply with the restrictions from 1 October 2025, I laid a statutory instrument on 3 June to change the coming into effect date of the restrictions to 5 January 2026.
The next step is to bring forward regulations that will provide the explicit exemption for brand advertising. We have worked closely with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and I am pleased to update the House that today we are launching a consultation on the draft regulations. We are seeking stakeholder views on the draft text to ensure that it provides the clarity that the regulators and stakeholders have asked for and is fit for purpose in delivering the Government’s policy intentions to restrict advertising for less healthy food or drink products. The consultation will only seek feedback on the drafting of the brand advertising exemption and will not revisit any other aspects of the policy that are already confirmed and set out in law. The consultation will be published on gov.uk shortly and be open until 6 August 2025.
The brand advertising exemption will provide legal clarification on the existing policy intention, as it was understood and agreed by Parliament during the passage of the legislation in 2021-2022, that brand advertising that does not identify a specific less healthy food or drink product is out of scope of the restrictions. It is not a change of policy. Setting this out in legislation will enable the regulators to deliver clear implementation guidance and mean that businesses can prepare advertising campaigns with confidence.
These actions demonstrate our commitment and progress to implementing this important policy for children’s health. I will update the House once the consultation process has concluded.
[HCWS833]
Independent Review of Physician Associates and Anaesthesia Associates
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
In November 2024, I asked Professor Gillian Leng CBE to undertake an independent review of physician associates and anaesthesia associates in England, and to set out recommendations to ensure the safety of the roles and their contributions to multidisciplinary healthcare teams.
Today I want to update the House on next steps following the publication of the review.
Professor Leng sets out 18 recommendations that will give much-needed clarity, certainty and confidence to staff and patients. The Government are accepting these recommendations in full.
The overarching recommendations include: renaming the role of “physician associate” to “physician assistant” and “anaesthesia associate” to “physician assistant in anaesthesia” to reflect their position as a supportive, complementary member of the medical team; providing ongoing opportunities for training and career development; making it easier for others to identify these roles; establishing permanent faculties to provide professional leadership and set clear professional standards; greater clarity in the differences between the regulatory requirements of doctors and assistant roles; training in line management and leadership for doctors, with additional time allocated; redesigning models of multidisciplinary working; and improvements in safety reporting.
For physician assistants specifically, Professor Leng has recommended that their initial practice is clearly defined in line with job descriptions; they do not see undifferentiated patients (except within clear national clinical protocols); that newly qualified physician assistants should gain at least two years’ experience in secondary care, to enhance clinical skills, prior to taking a role in primary care or a mental health trust; and that they should form part of a clear team structure and have a named supervisor.
For physician assistants in anaesthesia, the review recommends full compliance with the existing Royal College of Anaesthetists scope of practice; that any further expansion of the role should be taken forward in conjunction with the Royal College of Anaesthetists; and that there should be an ongoing national audit of safety outcomes in anaesthesia, to gain assurance around the safety of the physician assistants in anaesthesia role.
Implementing the recommendations will require organisations to work together and take action. Some actions will be implemented immediately, while others will require wider input, with benefits being fully realised over time. I have asked NHS England to move with immediate effect to implement those recommendations which most directly affect patient safety, including moving to the use of physician assistants and physician assistants in anaesthesia titles and ensuring that physician assistants do not see undifferentiated patients, except within clearly defined national clinical protocols.
The NHS is its people, and physician assistants and physician assistants in anaesthesia can play a vital role in the delivery of the shifts set out in the 10-year health plan for England. The findings in this report demonstrate that, when integrated appropriately, physician assistants can improve access, enhance capacity, and provide continuity of care, while physician assistants in anaesthesia can help expand theatre capacity and flexibility in anaesthesia services.
However, the review is clear that change is needed. It sets out the fundamental issues that need to be tackled to effectively and consistently embed change into the NHS workforce. These recommendations provide a practical way forward on title, ongoing development and practice that we can all have confidence in.
I would like to express my immense gratitude to Professor Leng and her team for their effort and dedication in carrying out this considered, complex and comprehensive review. I also want to extend my thanks to all those who have engaged constructively with the review, including those resident doctors who have respectfully raised concerns, and physician assistants and physician assistants in anaesthesia who make valuable contributions across the NHS and have been subject to intense scrutiny.
We will consider Professor Leng’s findings and recommendation in detail in conjunction with the 10-year health plan. The lessons learned in the review will be embedded into the upcoming workforce plan to improve how we effect change in the NHS, and ensure the mistakes of the past are not repeated in the future. We will work with key partners, including NHS England in advance of publishing a fuller response, setting out a clear implementation plan to make the required changes in due course.
[HCWS830]
Identification of Victims of Modern Slavery: Call for Evidence
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
The national referral mechanism is the framework used in the UK to formally identify and support victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, in line with the UK’s legal obligations. Effective identification of victims of modern slavery in the UK is critical for ensuring that victims can be protected and provided with appropriate assistance and support towards their recovery from exploitation.
The Government are taking steps to improve this identification system, such as by recruiting new staff to reduce lengthy decision-making times, which has reduced the backlog to half the size it was at its peak. The Government have also updated the form used by first responders to refer potential victims of modern slavery into the NRM to make it easier to upload information and to include more trauma-informed language.
While progress has been made, the Government recognise the need to do more by designing an effective identification system that is fit for the future. That is why I am pleased to announce that the Government today are publishing a public call for evidence on identification of victims of modern slavery.
This was something that I committed to on 27 March 2025 in a House of Commons debate marking the 10th anniversary of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
The call for evidence focuses on definitions of a victim of modern slavery, identification and decision-making processes, and future-proofing the modern slavery system. A key aim is to strengthen the system, both now and for the future, ensuring that it effectively serves victims of modern slavery and is resilient to future changes.
The call for evidence on identification of victims of modern slavery— https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/identification-of-victims-of-modern-slavery —will run for a 12-week period and provides a valuable opportunity for the public and a wide range of groups with experience of the NRM to have their say, including victims and survivors of modern slavery, NGOs, police, local authorities and researchers.
A copy of the call for evidence will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS826]
Prevent Programme: Lessons
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Yvette Cooper)
Following the horrific attack in Southport in July 2024, I announced that a new, dedicated permanent oversight function for Prevent would be created. This would provide continual independent scrutiny of Prevent legislation, policy, and delivery, to assess Prevent’s effectiveness and to ensure proper standards are met.
Lord Anderson KC was appointed as interim Prevent commissioner to provide that independent scrutiny. He was tasked specifically with scrutinising the Southport attack and the murder of Sir David Amess, examining whether Prevent had failed to intervene effectively in those two cases. Lord Anderson was also asked to consider the improvements that have been made since the perpetrators were referred to Prevent, and to identify areas for further reform. Today he has published his findings, and a copy of the report will be placed in the Library in both Houses. The report will also be available on gov.uk.
I would like to express my gratitude to Lord Anderson and his team for the progress they have made in a short space of time. The report clearly highlights the failings of Prevent in both the Southport case and that of Sir David Amess, while also recognising the energy and urgency that has been shown in making changes to strengthen Prevent.
Lord Anderson’s findings
On the tragic murder of Sir David Amess, Lord Anderson has upheld the conclusions of the Prevent learning review—PLR—that was published on 12 February 2025. He explains that once the case was adopted into Channel in 2014, several failures took place, including poor communication with the intervention provider and the lack of a six-month review.
With regards to the perpetrator of the Southport attack, Lord Anderson agreed with the findings of the PLR that was published on 5 February 2025. The first referral should have been passed to the local authority Channel co-ordinator for information gathering—the process in place at the time. He comments that
“it is hard to see how the test of ‘reasonable grounds to believe that there are no Prevent concerns’ could have been satisfied on the known facts of the case”.
Lord Anderson also agreed with the PLR finding that there were sufficient concerns to warrant progression to Channel.
Lord Anderson concludes that in both cases their schools referred the individuals to Prevent
“for the best of reasons—but Prevent failed to provide what might have helped them. Whether different decisions might have spared their victims will never be known: both attacks came years later, and many imponderables intervened. But wrong decisions were taken; more should have been done; and from these failures, lessons must continue to be learned”.
Lord Anderson also outlined the importance of having a prevention programme like Prevent in place for tackling radicalisation. While Prevent cannot stop every attack, we must continue to drive reform where it is found lacking.
Lord Anderson made a series of recommendations on how Prevent can be further strengthened or areas that require further exploration. These include:
Prevent should remain open to individuals falling within the existing category of “fascination with extreme violence or mass casualty attacks”. Alongside this, consistent efforts should be made to improve the quality of referrals and encourage those that are appropriate, including by providing clear and consistent messaging to potential referrers and to Prevent practitioners.
A task force should be established to lead exploratory work into the possibility of formally connecting Prevent to a broader safeguarding and violence prevention system.
Compliance with respective agency mandates to share information should be more closely monitored by their regulators and inspectorates. Consideration should be given to introducing a duty to co-operate with speed and candour in reviews after adverse incidents.
Public transparency about the structures and systems of Prevent should be the default position. The Home Office and CT Policing should adopt a proactive approach to the release of such information and be ready to publicise the successes of Prevent.
All feasible and rights-compliant avenues should be explored as a matter of priority to enable evidence of online activity to be more effectively used:
to gauge risk factors, assess risk, identify clusters and escalation and activate and manage responses;
to assist in the identification of potential subjects for Prevent; and
to evaluate and address the risk factors attaching to individuals referred to Prevent.
The Government welcome the findings of this rigorous review and will immediately act on its findings. We will:
Clarify Prevent thresholds in guidance and training to ensure that frontline public sector workers subject to the Prevent duty understand that those “fascinated with extreme violence or mass casualty attacks” should be referred to Prevent. We will complete this work by the end of September.
Improve transparency and information sharing, including by upskilling and training Prevent practitioners, frontline workers, and civil society organisations. We will complete this work before the end of the year.
We will take steps to strengthen our approach to tackling online radicalisation, through work with tech companies, like-minded international partners, and considering new approaches to identifying and supporting susceptible people online. This includes developing new capabilities to better equip Prevent to manage online radicalisation risks.
Continue exploratory work on how Prevent connects into wider safeguarding and violence prevention pathways to ensure no one can fall between the cracks.
While we must look immediately at how Prevent works alongside wider safeguarding mechanisms to stop further missed opportunities, we also look forward to the outcome of the first phase of the Southport public inquiry, led by Sir Adrian Fulford, which will publish its findings later this year. Where Lord Anderson’s review has identified the need to explore broader and long-term reforms to safeguarding and violence prevention, we will consider this alongside the inquiry’s recommendations. The inquiry will comprehensively examine all aspects of the events that led to the Southport attack, and identify where further changes should be made.
Alongside the work we will take forward in response to this report, swift progress has already been made on the reforms to strengthen Prevent that I announced in December 2024:
Prevent has launched new guidance which is designed to ensure that repeat referrals to Prevent get the multi-agency consideration they require;
The end-to-end review of Prevent thresholds has concluded. Its recommendations will strengthen our approach to the assessment and management of Prevent referrals. It will ensure that clear and unambiguous policy, guidance, and training is in place, so that Prevent can offer the right interventions to the right people. It includes specific action to improve our approach on Islamist extremism and for those individuals who are being radicalised into extreme violence;
The first stage of the strategic policy review into how Prevent manages people with mental ill health or who are neurodivergent has also concluded. Action is under way to implement those findings;
Pilots are now running across the country to ensure that where people do not meet Prevent thresholds, they receive the support they need from wider services; and
From 1 August, we will pilot new practical mentoring interventions for people at risk of radicalisation in Channel, to enable Channel panels to better support individuals without a clear ideology.
Prevent training is being rolled out at pace to educate frontline professionals about the ideologies, such as Islamist extremism, that drive terrorism.
In addition, to enable the vital independent oversight of Prevent to continue while a recruitment process is under way for the permanent commissioner, I am delighted that Lord Anderson has agreed to extend his tenure as interim commissioner until the end of the year.
My Department remains steadfast in its commitment to keeping the public safe and safeguarding people at risk of radicalisation.
The victims, their families and those who survived the Southport attack but continue to live with the physical and emotional pain, and Sir David Amess’s family remain in our hearts and prayers.
[HCWS831]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, welcome. Your Lordships know the drill, but if there is a vote, a bell will ring and we will adjourn proceedings for 10 minutes. Then we will come back here and kick off once again.
Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 3 June 2025.
I am most grateful for the opportunity to join this Committee’s proceedings today. This instrument seeks to make technical improvements and changes to the capacity market scheme, the Government’s main tool for ensuring security of electricity supply in Great Britain.
The Committee may recall that in December 2024, the Government published the clean power action plan, setting out that the capacity market must be reformed to provide clear and viable routes to decarbonisation for unabated gas, enable low-carbon flexible capacity, and incentivise investment in existing capacity. As set out in the clean power action plan, by 2030, unabated gas will account for less than 5% of total generation. However, we will need sufficient flexible capacity to meet system need, such as when renewables are not generating. While we continue to rely on unabated gas as the main mature, reliable technology capable of providing the flexibility needed to balance the system, we are committed to driving deployment of low-carbon alternatives and providing routes for unabated gas capacity to decarbonise in future. Before I turn to the provisions in greater detail, I will first outline some background to the capacity market.
Great Britain’s capacity market was introduced in 2014 and is designed to ensure that sufficient electrical capacity is available to meet future predicated demand, to maintain security of electricity supply. The capacity market is a well-established, technology-neutral scheme in which existing and new-build electricity capacity receive revenue based on capacity.
Participants secure agreements through auctions which require them to make capacity available at times of system stress. It is our main tool for ensuring security of electricity supply. It provides all forms of capacity with the right incentives to be on the system to deliver when needed. It covers generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility and interconnection capacity.
Through capacity market auctions, held annually, one year and four years ahead of delivery, the capacity needed to meet future peak demand under a range of scenarios is secured, based on advice from the capacity market delivery body—the National Energy System Operator.
Since its introduction in 2014, the capacity market has contributed to investment in just under 20 gigawatts of new, flexible capacity needed to replace older, less efficient plants as we transition to a net-zero economy. To date, the capacity market has been successful in ensuring that Great Britain has adequate electricity capacity to meet demand and continues to be required to maintain security of supply and provide investor confidence. To ensure that the capacity market continues to function effectively, regular adjustments are made to the implementing legislation, based on the day-to-day experiences of operating the scheme and wider developments in the energy sector.
This draft instrument makes changes to nine regulations to deliver technical improvements and changes that support the functioning of the capacity market which have been identified and explored through consultation. This will ensure that the regulations remain clear for market participants and that the legislation remains up to date to enable us to better deliver this security of supply mechanism.
The draft instrument does this by making several revocations to expired provisions relating to the scheme, which include revoking references to transitional auctions which are no longer applicable, the temporary standstill period which occurred in 2019, and time-limited relief given to scheme participants in relation to coronavirus.
The draft instrument will also introduce a new process to establish a decarbonisation pathway for unabated gas plants currently in long-term capacity market agreements. It will allow gas plants to exit their agreements without penalty and transfer to a dispatchable power agreement, facilitating conversion to gas-fired power with carbon capture and storage once the technology is available. This will better align the capacity market with the Government’s clean power objectives and provide gas plant operators with a future decarbonisation route for their assets.
The Government conducted two robust public consultations on the measures in 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 these government consultations were published towards the end of 2024.
Respondents were broadly supportive of the proposals included in the instrument. A number of technical amendments to the capacity market rules were consulted on at the same time as the regulations and have also been made. These support the implementation of the regulations for the capacity market and were laid before the House on 3 June 2025.
To conclude, this draft instrument introduces a number of technical changes that will 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 the legislation as clear as possible for all scheme participants. They will also support decarbonisation of unabated gas and enable the rapid acceleration of low-carbon flexible capacity. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I have only one brief question in thanking the Minister for moving this statutory instrument so eloquently. In his opening remarks, he referred to the responses to the consultations, particularly the first. I quote paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum:
“42 responses were received from a variety of stakeholders… Respondents were broadly supportive of the proposals”.
In times gone by, responses to consultations were published on the internet; I do not know whether that is still the case. That the respondents were “broadly supportive” indicates that some of them were not supportive. Can the Minister clarify? I just wonder what criticism there was and for what reason, if any, the Government did not revise the statutory instrument in any way. Otherwise, they are very sensible regulations, and I support them.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. I completely understand why trying to move off gas is a clear policy of the Government, as reaffirmed in its recent 2030 plan. However, gas is, without doubt, the cheapest way of heating a home. I want to get an understanding of what financial impact this is likely to have on household bills. I could not see anything in the accompanying notes. My sense is that it is good news for trying to get away from gas as a source, but bad news for households in the costs of heating their home and food.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, these Benches welcome these amendments. This is an important step in our journey towards a full, clean and secure energy future. We are generally supportive of the intent behind the amendments, particularly their aim to accelerate the decarbonisation of our electricity supply.
At the heart of the regulations is a new mechanism designed to allow unabated gas plants to exit their existing capacity market arrangements without penalty. This is a significant change. Previously, capacity providers with a long-term agreement faced termination fees if they left early. This was a disincentive for them to decarbonise from their scheduled expiry, which was often as late as the 2040s.
This instrument now enables these plants to transition to a bespoke support mechanism under a dispatchable power agreement, or DPA, which is categorised as a CCS CfD—a contract for defence related to carbon capture and storage. This managed termination mechanism, set out in new Regulation 34A, aims to allow these plants to retrofit carbon capture equipment, thereby aligning with the Government’s objectives for clean power 2030. This addresses what the Government say is a clear need, identified through stakeholder feedback, for clarity on decarbonisation pathways and penalty-free exits. We welcome this as a way forward.
Furthermore, we welcome the cleaning up Part 3 looking at the removal of redundant provisions from the Electricity Capacity Regulations 2014, the Electricity Capacity (No. 1) Regulations 2019 and the Electricity Capacity (Amendment etc.) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020; those are all sensible changes, so we welcome the clarification on that.
I will ask the Minister a couple of questions. First, I want understand a little more about the demand side for these measures. Although the consultation response talks about it being broadly supportive, particularly regarding the timing and the appeal route for refusal notices, can the Minister say a bit more about what the true extent of the demand is? It talks about capacity for the exit pathway being 4.4 gigawatts. By my calculations, that is almost two-thirds the electricity consumed by London, so that is a big amount of electricity. If the Minister can just say a little more about the demand side for these changes, that would be helpful.
Can the Minister also say a bit more about at what stage the Government might be in terms of any negotiations with any capacity providers to transition under these regulations? Are the Government in any talks at the moment, and are there any moves once these regulations come into force? How do they intend to review and monitor these regulations? What would success look like for the Government, and how will they be reported back to Parliament, if they are?
I note that the regulations do not include a statutory review clause for these specific amendments and that the broader CM regulations are subject to five-yearly reviews. Obviously, this is a fast-moving space; carbon capture technology is new technology, and other new technologies are coming online. How will the Government review the impact of these regulations in this fast-moving market between now and the five-yearly review period? That is not a criticism of what the Government are doing—I generally support this direction—but this is a fast-moving space with new technologies. If the Minister could clarify those couple of points, it would be greatly appreciated.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the draft Electricity Capacity (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025 today.
We have a responsibility to protect future generations, and there is a shared determination across these Benches to confront climate change. That is why today’s regulations will contribute to decarbonising our energy system to reach our net-zero aspirations. However, while net zero remains a laudable ambition, it must surely be achieved in a manner that protects our energy system and ensures that energy remains affordable for households and businesses.
Surely it is time to stop kidding ourselves that this is a just transition when it is clearly not. Can we please instead begin to focus on an affordable transition? His Majesty’s loyal Opposition firmly believe there is nothing just about a clean power target of 2030 if it results in overreliance on intermittent renewables that are manufactured abroad, which means losing jobs overseas and hiking costs for UK customers.
It is right that we have an ambition to produce the cleanest possible energy system in the UK. To do so, we must avoid ideological extremes at either end of this debate and find a middle way that is agnostic about where energy is sourced, so long as it is affordable, reliable and, yes, as clean as possible. In particular, with reference to these regulations, we must retain an element of natural gas, which is so crucial to our domestic heating system.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their comments and their general support for these regulations, which, as I said in my opening remarks, are technical in scope. This Government are steadfastly committed to maintaining our electricity security and creating viable routes for unabated gas plants to decarbonise. As I have set out, the capacity market is our main tool for ensuring security of electricity supply and has already secured the majority of Great Britain’s capacity needs up to 2028-29.
The Government continue to believe that the capacity market is an effective insurance mechanism providing secure and affordable electricity that families and businesses can rely on. The Government remain committed to ensuring that the right policy tools are in place for delivering a secure and affordable electricity system as we transition to net zero. This includes regularly assessing the performance of the capacity market and exploring improvements to the scheme. This instrument seeks to establish a first decarbonisation pathway for unabated gas plants in long-term capacity market agreements, allowing them to exit the agreements without penalty to transfer to a dispatchable power agreement and facilitating conversion to gas-fired power with carbon capture and storage once the technology is available. This will better align the capital market with our clean power objectives and provide gas plant operators with a future decarbonisation route for their assets. This instrument also seeks to improve the clarity of the legislation by revoking provisions in the secondary legislation that are now redundant.
I want to respond to some of the questions. I welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. All responses to the consultation were considered when finalising these proposals. On her question on the specifics of the consultation, a few respondents noted market volatility, speculative bidding behaviour and the impact of auction dynamics. One response noted that the proposal created an unfair commercial advantage.
In response to the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, these changes to the capacity market will allow us to maintain security of supply in a way that is cost effective for consumers. We are not expecting the changes to increase the cost of the capacity market, so there will be minimal impacts on consumers.
I also welcome the support of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. In terms of demand to convert the power of CCUS, the managed exit pathway is subject to transport and storage capacity, value for money and affordability. Subject to this SI being made, plant will be able to utilise this pathway from the first transfer notice window after January 2026, with the first opportunity for unabated gas plants to leave the capacity market being in October 2027. Approximately 4.4 gigawatts of capacity is currently eligible to use this pathway, subject to successful bilateral negotiations. The next stage of the CCUS programme includes further building out of the first two track 1 clusters: HyNet and the East Coast Cluster. I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Offord, for these measures.
Energy security is a priority for the Government. The capacity market is an effective insurance mechanism and is worth paying for, providing security and affordable electricity that families and businesses can rely on. The alternative, not doing something, would cost us more than doing this. The capacity market is the UK Government’s main tool for ensuring continued security of electricity supply. The capacity market is technology neutral, providing incentives for all forms of capacity, including generation, storage, consumer-led flexibility and interconnection, to be on the system to deliver when needed. To date, the capacity market has contributed to investment of about 19 gigawatts of new flexible capacity needed to replace older and less efficient plant as we transition to a net-zero economy. Once again, I thank noble Lords for their points in this debate.
Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) Order 2025
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) Order 2025.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 11 June. This Government remain steadfast in their commitment to ensuring that homes are warmer, more energy efficient and more affordable to heat. At the heart of this endeavour lies the warm homes plan, a comprehensive and long-term strategy to reduce energy bills, alleviate fuel poverty and enhance our national energy security. I am pleased to note that this plan is underpinned by a significant investment of £13.2 billion, as announced by the Chancellor. This funding will support the deployment of insulation, solar panels, heat pumps and other technologies that will help households reduce their energy consumption and costs.
However, it is not enough to look to the future. We must also ensure that the schemes we have in place today are delivering as effectively as possible. The energy company obligation, ECO4, and the Great British Insulation Scheme, GBIS, are central to our current efforts. These schemes place obligations on larger energy suppliers to deliver energy efficiency improvements that result in measurable bill savings for households. ECO4, as noble Lords will know, focuses on whole-house retrofits for vulnerable and fuel-poor households. GBIS, by contrast, is designed to deliver one or two insulation measures to a broader group of households, including those not eligible for other forms of support.
Since their respective launches, these schemes have delivered tangible results. ECO4 has supported over 248,000 households with more than 800,000 measures. GBIS, launched in 2023, has already reached 80,000 households. These are not insignificant achievements. Nevertheless, it has become clear that GBIS in particular is not on track to meet its original delivery targets. Despite recent improvements, the pace of delivery has remained below expectations. Without intervention, we face the very real prospect of underdelivery, leaving thousands of households without the support they need.
That is why this statutory instrument introduces a series of mid-scheme changes which are both necessary and proportionate. The most significant change is to allow up to 75% of a supplier’s GBIS target to be met through the reassignment of annual bill savings achieved under ECO4. This is not, I emphasise, a lowering of ambition; it is a pragmatic adjustment that reflects the realities of delivery while preserving the integrity of the GBIS.
To ensure fairness and consistency, a conversion factor will be applied to reassigned savings. This will ensure that the GBIS remains on time, on target and within its original cost envelope. I would also like to reassure noble Lords that these changes will not result in any additional cost to consumers; the funding is already accounted for under the price cap set by Ofgem.
In addition to this core change, the instrument introduces several other improvements. These include updates to technical standards, greater flexibility in the combination of insulation measures and a new requirement to provide households with information about smart meters. These changes are designed to enhance the effectiveness of the schemes and to support our broader fuel poverty target.
Turning to consumer protection, I must address the issue of non-compliance in the installation of solid wall insulation, which my noble friend Lord Hunt brought to the attention of the House earlier this year. I am pleased to report that the expanded programme of checks, overseen by Ofgem, is progressing well. Where issues have been identified, they are being addressed.
We are also developing a more coherent and robust framework for consumer protection, which will be set out in full as part of the warm homes plan in October. This will address the current fragmentation in oversight and provide greater clarity and assurance for households.
As I conclude, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of this instrument which ensures that the GBIS and the ECO4 scheme deliver what they were designed to deliver: warmer homes and lower bills. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I once again thank the Minister for presenting and introducing the statutory instrument before us. I declare my interest as honorary president of National Energy Action, which, as I think the Minister will realise, is based in Newcastle, not a million miles from where he used to represent.
I welcome the fact that the regulations propose to upgrade homes. I understand that upgrades and renovations such as this will attract VAT. The impact assessment does not show whether VAT has been applied. I am having a little campaign. I cannot launch it here because I have already launched it, but I would like to refer to it, if I may. It is not party policy, so it is my own little personal campaign, but our Front Bench here may want to adopt it as our policy.
If we were to reverse VAT and put VAT on new build, zero-rated VAT on renovations would mean that we would have an increasing supply of older housing stock, which, I imagine, is just the type of housing stock that the Government intend to benefit from the proposals here. Therefore, the question is to what extent will VAT be attracted and why do the figures in the impact assessment not show whether VAT is included? If the figures are VAT-free, VAT will have to be added to them, obviously increasing them by 20% under the current plans.
I will make a general comment about the warm homes discount that I was able to share with the Minister’s predecessor and that I wish to share with him in his new position. I welcome the fact that there is a warm homes discount. I regret that the sum involved, £350—I said this under the last Administration, when my own side were in government, and I repeat it now for the benefit of the current Government—has been that figure for a considerable time. Why have the Government chosen not to increase it for those who are clearly identified as being in the deepest of fuel poverty? That figure, I understand, is not being increased, but the Government have decided to give to a broader new raft of homes the smaller amount of £150.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, these regulations come about as a consequence of a consultation. Unusually, it was only a four-week consultation, which is not unprecedented but surprising, especially recognising that it happened in November. It closed in December, and here we are in July debating these regulations. I appreciate that it may have felt targeted, but I wanted to get a sense from the Minister of how Ofgem has worked with the energy suppliers or indeed the public on why, in effect, there has been such a failure in the delivery of those targets.
I do not know the council tax of band of the Minister’s house but mine is a B. I tried to get this GBIS. I am in a pretty old house that is leaky when it comes to heat and similar. I thought I would test this scheme out because, like anybody else, I was impacted by the energy shock. It took a long time to register and get a potential appointment. But before they would even come out to the house, I had to sign an agreement that they could make any changes to parts of my house that they deemed necessary in order to put in some loft insulation, including me agreeing automatically to installing Xpelair fans in various rooms and many other things. So, I have to say, I just stopped. There was no way I was going to sign up to a predetermined agreement when somebody had not even seen my house.
My concern is the following. I have been working on fuel poverty for a long time as a parliamentarian. I set up the APPG in the House of Commons many years ago, and I managed, when I was a Minister, to make sure we got a law through to open up the data exchange across government. That meant that we could provide a considerable amount of data, particularly affecting rural homes, in order to access all this ECO, because, as the Minister may be aware, quite often with these schemes half the budget ends up going on trying to identify who could be eligible for them. That law was supposed to change that. I feel, at times, that the energy companies continue to talk the talk on fuel poverty but, when it comes to delivering and achieving a significant reduction in fuel poverty right across our country—that would be a noble achievement—they complain that it is all a bit too complicated. For what it is worth, that is not good enough. Ofgem is not challenging enough. I do not expect the Minister—especially the fabulous Minister in front of us now—to deal with every bit of this, but he should expect more from Ofgem, which is admittedly a non-ministerial department.
There were 122 responses to the consultation, as it well set out. I would like to try to understand the impact of these changes. Having floor, loft and cavity insulation coming together in a whole package is probably sensible, but how are the Government going to hold the energy suppliers to account to deliver financially, not just what is convenient for them? The summary of the responses sets out, “It is very difficult for the companies to meet their obligations”, rather than focusing on the whole purpose of this, which is to reduce energy consumption and bills. So at the moment, I cannot see any analysis of why this will make a difference and how we will not just be in the same place next year with energy companies.
I also want to get an assessment of the rural data definition changes and a sense of how many households, and homes, will as a consequence no longer be covered in rural areas. I appreciate that they will be updated every 10 years, but I do not know what rules the ONS has applied in reclassifying a home as being in a rural area or not.
As I said, I do not have much confidence in the energy companies delivering even these changes. It looks to me as though they will continue to wring their hands. It feels like this is moving the goalposts. I appreciate that these changes in legislation may be seen as being pragmatic, but what reporting will the Government provide to Parliament as a consequence to see that this will make the difference that it is supposed to make?
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches we generally support the draft regulations. We commend the stated commitment of this Government to deliver warm homes that are cheaper to heat and to tackle fuel poverty. We have some of the highest energy bills and some of the coldest, dampest and worst-insulated homes in Europe. Cold homes not only waste energy and contribute to global warming needlessly but cause problems for people on budgets and low incomes and with ill health.
We generally welcome the warm homes plan in the spending review, with its ambitious £13.2 billion of investment, and the crucial steps towards reducing our energy bills and strengthening our energy security. We particularly welcome the rollout of solar panels, heat pumps, batteries and insulation.
We particularly welcome several targeted practical changes introduced by this draft instrument, targeting those in need of most support. The most significant change allows 75% of the energy suppliers’ £1 billion Great British Insulation Scheme target to be met through the reassigned ECO4 delivery pathway. This appears to be a pragmatic approach. The Explanatory Memorandum clarifies that this is necessary because the GBIS would otherwise have severely underdelivered, and this is seen as the way to maximise savings and get this done. Further, it reassures us that this will not increase consumer bills, as it is using existing funds and will be a good means of reassigning support and continuity in the ECO4 supply chain. This is considered better value for billpayers, as ECO4 is cheaper to contract.
We welcome the flexibility to enable greater allowance of installation measures, especially for low-income households. We welcome the plans to encourage the uptake of smart meters, and we welcome the updating of technical standards.
I have just a couple of questions for the Minister. A lot of previous schemes have not quite delivered as intended. Indeed, even here, a scheme that would have underdelivered is having its resources rolled into a new scheme. So, specifically how will this new programme be monitored to ensure that it actually works and delivers in practice, and does not fall foul of some of the issues that have plagued past schemes?
The Minister spoke about the issue of quality control with past schemes. I very much welcome the fact that 90% of that work has now been done—that is a tremendous achievement. But, again, under this new scheme, how will we make sure that the quality of the work delivered for households is up to the standards that we require and does not cause any further problems?
The Minister said that the Government are planning to bring forward larger-scale reforms for the warm homes plan. Is the Minister able to say anything more about that today or will we just have to wait for that?
We recognise that allowing the 75% of the ECO4 delivery for GBIS targets is pragmatic, but what measures will happen with the remaining 25% of the GBIS target? I do not want that bit to be forgotten about, so how will the Government set about making sure that that is delivered and that those houses are not forgotten about?
How do the Government plan to report on the delivery of this new scheme and make sure that it is delivering? How will the Minister report on the uptake of smart meters under this scheme? We recognise the measures that are being taken to encourage consumers to do that and that the Government are using the contact through the insulation measures to do that. Generally, we welcome what the Government are doing here.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, this order makes modest changes to the energy company obligation—ECO—scheme, and I was pleased to see the Minister in the other place recognise that ECO4 and the GB Insulation Scheme have been a key part of the effort to upgrade homes across the country. These schemes were introduced under the previous Government to support better insulation of energy customers’ homes, and I am pleased that the Minister has recognised the success of the previous Government in this area. We will not oppose this statutory instrument.
The previous Government announced that more than 300,000 homes would get insulation installed under GBIS, and they said that this could potentially save families up to an average of £400 a year on their energy bills. Claire Coutinho, then the Secretary of State, said that the introduction of GBIS would help hundreds of thousands of people, including some of the most vulnerable in society, get the upgrades their homes need while cutting their energy bills. So this is a Conservative initiative, and we are pleased to see that this Government are building on that track record.
It is concerning that some of the insulation installed under the schemes has not met the appropriate standards, and Ministers are right to tackle this as a matter of urgency. Can the Minister confirm what proportion of the identified issues has now been solved, and can he confirm that no energy customer should be out of pocket as a result of this remediation work?
We know that high energy costs are one of the greatest challenges in our economy at the moment. High energy bills contribute to growing household costs for families, but they are also holding back businesses and stifling growth. One of the key reasons that the UK manufacturing sector is finding it so difficult to grow at the moment is high energy costs, so we would welcome the Government’s continued commitment to energy efficiency and insulation—this is positive work—but we also need to tackle head-on the challenges we face on energy prices, and that means supply-side reform. We must urgently address the energy baseload challenge and get the right mix of cheap energy from all sources so that households and businesses across the UK can thrive.
We support steps to improve household insulation, but can the Minister take this opportunity to set out what steps the Government are taking to tackle energy prices more broadly for households and businesses in the UK? Can he comment on further investment—for example, new nuclear and long-term energy storage—towards that objective? What assessment have Ministers made of the impact of spikes in wind energy production on the cost of energy to consumers? We egregiously pay wind turbine operators to turn off the supply of energy when it spikes, and when we find ourselves in periods of no wind and no sun, we pay exorbitant sums to emergency energy suppliers, which burn gas as a peak supply instead of baseload. What steps will Ministers be taking to review the overall situation so that we can not only deliver better-insulated homes as part of this but, as another key part, drive down the costs of energy for families and businesses?
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions, questions and general support for these technical adjustments to regulations. This Government remain firmly committed to supporting the households that need it most to live in warm homes with lower bills, while ensuring value for money and maintaining high standards of consumer protection. The instrument under discussion introduces targeted amendments to ECO4 and GBIS. These changes will help energy suppliers meet their obligations, improve scheme delivery and ensure that more households benefit from warmer, more affordable homes. Importantly, the measures will do so without increasing costs to bill payers and will support the continuity of the energy efficiency supply chain.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for her questions and her involvement with the NEA, which is obviously based in the great north-east. She asked about VAT; there is no change to VAT status due to this SI. VAT is applied to all retrofit work including that under ECO4 and GBIS. The figures in the impact assessment include VAT.
On her points about the warm home discount, we estimate that expanding the scheme in this way would offer support to an additional 2.7 million households, so around 6.1 million in total for this winter, 2025-26. Around one in four households with the required energy cost exceeding 10% of their after-housing-costs income currently receive a £150 rebate. By extending the scheme to all households on means-tested benefits, this figure will rise so that about 45% of such households will receive the rebate. Extending the scheme will also almost double the number of households with children that receive the warm home discount to about 1.9 million.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the timing of the warm homes plan. The Government are working hard to develop the warm homes plan as a unified, forward-looking approach that will revamp the delivery and consumer protection model. Such extensive changes necessarily take time to develop, as we are looking to make far-reaching and robust improvements to deliver this key government priority at scale.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for sharing her experiences. While I am not aware of the specifics of her case, there is no specified single approach to engaging with customers in ECO4 or GBIS. We do not specify that there needs to be a legal agreement in place between installers and households before an assessment. The approach is that it is down to individual installers in the supply chain to engage with customers. We are looking at reforms to the consumer journey as part of the warm homes plan, which I hope will consider the points that the noble Baroness made.
Again, I welcome the support for these measures from the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He asked a number of questions, and I will write to him with fuller details on some of them.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Offord, for his support for these measures. He asked a number of questions across the energy space. He will appreciate that nuclear energy storage and the other issues that he raised are wider than the measures we are here for today. All I know is that we need to decarbonise the grid. We need to move towards clean energy by 2030. We also need to invest in nuclear, which we are doing in small modular nuclear, and in wind and solar farms. We need just to have sufficient gas to make sure that the grid and security of supply are there. We are moving in the right direction, as I said earlier. The alternative is to do nothing, but that would make the situation worse.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I asked the Minister two specific questions about the number of rural households affected by this change. I appreciate that he may not have that number to hand but I am very happy for him to write to me. The other question I asked was about the performance—what these changes will do—and how Parliament will be regularly informed about the impact of the changes that we are voting on today.
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield (Lab)
I do not have the figures in front of me about the number of homes in rural communities and how they are affected. However, I can say that we are aware that rural properties face additional costs in installing energy efficiency measures. This may be because these properties are more likely to be older and have traditional solid walls and floors—including my house, which is exactly the same, and probably the noble Baroness’s house—and because they are in harder-to-access areas, making them more expensive to treat. That is why, across GBIS and ECO4, rural off-gas properties in Scotland and Wales, for example, will receive an uplift of 35% to reflect the additional energy costs these households are known to experience more acutely. I will write to the noble Baroness with the figures. As for updating the House, I am sure that as these regulations evolve, we will be doing that in due course over the months to follow.
Legislative Reform (Disclosure of Adult Social Care Data) Order 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Grand Committee do consider the Legislative Reform (Disclosure of Adult Social Care Data) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 26th Report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government are committed to rooting out public sector fraud wherever it persists. It is a pervasive crime that takes money away from vital public services and enriches those who steal from the taxpayer. This draft legislative reform order builds on initial work carried out by the last Government.
All of us accept that the scale of fraud in the adult social care sector is significant, taking vital public money away from the most vulnerable. In 2020, the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy estimated that there was £240 million of adult social care fraud in 2019-20. Examples where fraudsters can target adult social care services include where individuals fraudulently claim a personal support budget from more than one local authority at the same time, and where individuals hide undeclared capital or property ownership in relation to helping fund adult social care, putting the burden on local taxpayers. Of course, there can also be errors in the system: for example, where deceased care home residents can still be in receipt of direct payments from a local authority. There can even be extreme cases of fraud linked to this, whereby individuals siphon money from the accounts of deceased individuals given in error. These are examples of the kinds of fraud that the legislative reform order will help tackle.
The draft order will help prevent fraud and error in the adult social care system by resuming the sharing of adult social care data across local authorities in England and Wales. This will allow the National Fraud Initiative, which I will refer to as the NFI, to use this data in its data-matching activities to identify and prevent fraud and error in the adult social care system. This will generate an estimated £2.3 million in prevented fraud loss across the UK every year. The NFI has been operating since 1996, with a long history of identifying and preventing fraud on behalf of public bodies. The NFI specialises in data matching, which involves comparing two or more sets of electronic data to detect potential fraud. Since the NFI began, it has detected, prevented and recovered a total of £2.9 billion in fraud and error.
The NFI’s most recent data matching exercise between 2022 and 2024, which took place over a two-year period, prevented, detected and—importantly—recovered £510 million across the UK, the NFI’s best ever result. It is vital to protect public funds that the NFI can appropriately access to the relevant data sources.
This draft order will amend paragraph 4 of Section 9 of the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014—the LAAA—to add a provision that exempts “matched adult local authority social care” data from a restriction on disclosure. The draft order will also amend an equivalent provision of Section 64D of the Public Audit (Wales) Act 2004—the PAWA—to ensure that the draft order has effect in Wales.
The data matching programme the draft order seeks to reintroduce is not new. Adult social care data matching was previously undertaken by the NFI on behalf of local authorities and generated annual fraud savings of £2 million across the UK since 2009. However, this ceased when an amendment to the National Health Service Act 2006 in 2016 meant that local authority social care data became included in the definition of “medical purposes” under the NHS Act in new subsection (12A) of Section 251, inserted by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016.
Consequently, local authority social care data became included in the definition of “patient data” under the LAAA 2014 and the PAWA 2004, which refers to data held for “medical purposes” in Section 251 of the NHS Act. This means that the results of data matching using local authority social care data—now classed as patient data—could only be shared with “relevant NHS bodies”. Local government in England and Wales was not designated as relevant NHS bodies for the purpose of data sharing, even though local government is responsible for the provision of social care. This consequence was wholly unintended.
Local authorities are overwhelmingly supportive of this draft order. Some 90% of 137 local authority consultation respondents support this amendment and want this data match to be re-established and subject to approval by your Lordships’ House. Data matching will commence this autumn. The draft order will therefore restore the legislative status quo and again allow the NFI to share matched adult social care data with local authorities and tackle adult social care fraud. I beg to move.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its excellent report on this order, which was published on 13 June. I am also grateful to the Business and Trade Committee in the other place for its own report, which was published earlier this month.
As the Minister explained, the order seeks to take us back to the status quo before the passage of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, which included an amendment to the NHS Act 2006 that prevented the further sharing of this data with local authorities. We do not oppose this order but have a number of questions for the Government.
The order is being made under a power to amend primary legislation under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006. We have concerns about the growing use of Henry VIII powers by successive Governments, and particularly this Government, who previously committed to use these powers more sparingly. When such powers are used, it means that lower levels of scrutiny are possible. This is one of the many reasons why we are so grateful to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—the DPRRC—for its excellent work.
The 2006 Act is clear that the powers to amend or repeal primary legislation granted to Ministers by that Act are limited to specific circumstances. In this case, the DPRRC has agreed with the Government that the order meets the tests set out in Section 1 of the 2006 Act: namely, to remove or reduce burdens created by legislation. In its report, it noted that the previous Government began this work—I noticed that the noble Baroness mentioned that too—and that in response to the 2023 Cabinet Office consultation, which was targeted at local authorities, 90% of respondents were supportive of this legislative change.
We also share the Government’s objective to tackle fraud and error in bringing forward these changes. It is absolutely essential that the Government seek to tackle fraud and error across the public sector, and we have been working—I hope constructively—to improve the provisions of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill. This legislative order is predicted to deliver £4.6 million in recovered fraud and error every two years. The Government are absolutely right to seek to recover taxpayers’ money whenever it is lost to fraud and error provided it is practical and proportionate to do so.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I would thank your Lordships, but actually I am going to thank just the noble Baroness, Lady Finn—and the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, for his for his constructive, supportive presence, as well as my noble friend Lady Blake. I thank the noble Baroness for the points she has raised. She is absolutely right. We are seeking to work collaboratively and constructively on the fraud Bill to make sure that every penny of public money that can be reclaimed is indeed reclaimed, as is appropriate. This is public money, taxpayers’ money. It is only right and proper that we take full responsibility for how we spend it, making sure that fraudsters do not get money they are not entitled to. It is vital we take robust action to tackle adult social care fraud. This draft order provides a way in which we can do just that.
I shall respond directly to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. The reason why we opted for a legislative reform order is its primary function of amending primary legislation independently of a parliamentary Bill to reduce burdens on public bodies. This draft order will reduce financial and administrative burdens on local authorities by supporting them to prevent adult social care fraud and deliver financial savings. Legislative reform orders fulfil a specific purpose of repealing, replacing or amending legislation that imposes burdens on any person, including a business, voluntary organisation or charity. Legislative reform orders are also subject to greater parliamentary scrutiny than other SIs in the level of committee scrutiny and debate. We felt this was appropriate given that the draft order focuses on adult social care data, which is in a special category. However, we also wanted to make sure we were doing it in a timely and cost-effective way, which is why we did not want to wait for the primary legislation function.
With regard to the impact of the order, the noble Baroness made an incredibly important point. One way in which I justified why I was working on this last night on the way back from my “minimoon” in Paris, when my husband said to me, “Your minimoon is now over,” was by pointing out that the measure would get his local authority £25,000 extra per annum for local expenditure. The national fraud initiative involves regular public reporting and will set out the benefits all the way through. With regard to ongoing engagement, the Government actively participate in engagement with local authorities and will continue to do so on this measure.
The noble Baroness made an excellent point about the £300 uplift in the likely cost. In England especially, for every £300 that local authorities are going to spend, they will get an 83:1 return. I think that most fair-minded people will consider that to be a good use of public funds. We will continue to work with all local authorities. In England, £25,000 per local authority is expected to be reclaimed every year. For Wales, the figure is £7,000. On the savings being monitored annually, they are subject to audit.
On the third point raised by the noble Baroness, NFI fees are consulted on in advance of each biennial exercise and are regulated under the Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014. I believe that answers all the questions raised by the noble Baroness and commend the order.
Newspapers: Foreign Ownership
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pack
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to publishing the names of respondents to the consultation on foreign ownership of newspapers, and what assessment they have made of the evidence base provided by the consultation.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as the author of email newsletters, which, in theory, may be subject to the legislation in question.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The consultation on the foreign state influence regulations was published on 9 May 2024 by the previous Government. This made it clear that individual responses and organisation names would not be published, but their content would be summarised in the Government’s consultation response. This was published on 15 May 2025. Our assessment of the responses showed that respondents had a strong preference for a higher limit. On 14 July, we published the consultation responses, with appropriate redactions, following a number of FoI requests.
Lord Pack (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer and for responding to the issue by publishing the responses. However, only four responses is a very small number, given the widespread interest in the issue and its importance. Although the Government have leaned heavily on the consultation in their explanations for their policy, three of the four responses were from parts of the newspaper sector that might be seeking foreign funds. Should the Government not be listening more widely to the many other voices concerned about potential foreign government ownership of our newspapers?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Although we received four responses to the consultation, they were quite detailed and technical. We have had quite a lot of discussions in your Lordships’ House about the future of media and the need to make sure that we get good funding sources in so that media groups can modernise. It is appropriate that the Government paid account to the media organisations, but, as the noble Lord will be aware, we settled on 15% because this is within the CMA’s views on where it might be appropriate to set things so that there is no inadvertent material influence.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, why are the Government inviting the House to vote for secondary legislation that they have now admitted is defective in so far as it allows foreign Governments to own 15% and several foreign Governments collectively to own an additional 15%? Although the Government may have tabled amending legislation today, which will have retrospective effect, what is the reason for the speed of this, and why are the Government using secondary legislation to reverse what was clearly understood before, which is that foreign Governments could not hold stakes in our newspapers and media interests? Now, they are allowing foreign Governments to do so, despite undertakings given when the primary legislation was passed that that would never be allowed.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
On the regulations and the exception, I want to be clear: this is a privilege, not a right. It is about passive investment, which is why the level has been set at 15%. The Government have published the second set of regulations today, to put it beyond doubt that multiple states cannot act in concert to take a stake in a UK newspaper that is bigger than 15%. The FSI regime gives the Secretary of State a specific duty to intervene and to refer to the CMA for investigation merger cases that she suspects may have resulted, or may result, in foreign state control or influence over a newspaper enterprise’s policy. So these safeguards are in addition to what we would already consider to be quite clear duties on the part of the Secretary of State.
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we have all experienced the closure of local newspapers and radio stations—a worrying loss to local identity and politics—with those that remain generally having sought a future by being subsumed into a larger group. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, although foreign investment is not entirely free of risk and should not be seen as a quick fix, unless these foreign companies invest in the future of outlets we all care about, those outlets will continue to lack the certainty and security they seek?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Media organisations desperately need investment to secure their modernisation and their future. It is really important that these historic or local titles, which we all value, are not something of the past but something of the future. Supporting the provision of high-quality, public-interest journalism is a priority for this Government; we need serious investment in order to support this sector to thrive and to meet the challenges of the future.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I note that the strategic defence review lists “efforts to manipulate information” among the methods of attack in any future security crisis. Clearly, the question of foreign influence by hostile states—or “unfriendly” states; they may not necessarily be entirely hostile—is a real issue that the MoD is flagging up as important. We have seen that, in many companies, 15% is enough to ask for a representative on the board. When the Minister says “passive investment”, is she implying that the investment will come without any attempt at all to intervene in the direction of the newspaper?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
If there were any attempt to intervene in the direction of the newspaper, the Secretary of State would, as I have mentioned, have a specific duty to intervene. We have followed the CMA guidance very closely; I ask your Lordships’ House to note that page 20 of the CMA’s jurisdiction and procedure guidance sets out how the CMA assesses whether material influence arises. Generally, the CMA views shareholdings of below 25% as
“less likely to confer material influence”,
but it may scrutinise shareholdings below this figure to consider whether there are factors that indicate material influence.
As I mentioned, though, we should all be explicitly clear that the foreign state influence regime gives the Secretary of State not just the ability to intervene but an explicit duty to do so: she must intervene and refer to the CMA for investigation merger cases that she suspects may have resulted, or may result, in foreign state control or influence over a newspaper enterprise’s policy.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, how on earth would the Secretary of State know whether a particular individual on a particular committee was influencing that newspaper?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Secretary of State does not have to have all the evidence: it is for the CMA to investigate. The regime has a duty to intervene where she suspects that there may be influence. I am happy to provide further information to the noble and learned Baroness, or to meet her and others who have questions about this. The Secretary of State does not have to have material evidence; she just has to have reasonable grounds to suspect that this might be the case. If it were to be the case—for example, if a newspaper took a radically different position or there was a nuance change—it is likely she could intervene in that regard.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, in terms of media ownership, has the Minister seen that Nigel Farage has increased his shareholding in GB News and apparently has not declared it in his House of Commons declaration of interests? He also presents a programme regularly on GB News which is becoming a Reform UK propaganda organisation. Yet Ofcom is doing nothing about it. Can the Minister’s department ask Ofcom to take an interest in it?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I was not aware of the point that my noble friend raises. I will take that back to the department and write to him in due course.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the letter that she sent to the noble Lord, Lord Pack, and others who have an interest in this, ahead of this Question, drawing attention to the publication of the consultation documents. It is of course right that the UK has regulatory protections in place for important industries such as our news media, but does she agree that Governments and regulators must exercise those protections swiftly? Does she accept that long periods of delay and uncertainty harm business confidence and may deter investment from the sorts of people we do want to see investing in the UK?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord makes many points that sound entirely reasonable. We are clear that we need serious investment in our media and we hope that the certainty that these SIs will provide, albeit with considerable protections around them, will enable media groups to obtain that investment.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that a lot of our media and our press are controlled by the right wing? Do we not need a regulator that will start to protect the public from the propaganda that we see from the right-wing press on a daily basis?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I would find it very difficult to disagree with my noble friend.
Female Genital Mutilation
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dobbs
To ask His Majesty’s Government how many cases of female genital mutilation have been reported in the past 10 years, and how many cases have been prosecuted.
The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his Question, and I know that this is not the first time he has raised this very important issue before your Lordships’ House. The Home Office began collating data on a mandatory basis in April 2019. Since then, there have been 350 FGM offences recorded by the police. We have, though, only seen three convictions. Notwithstanding the complexities inherent in prosecuting these cases, the disparity between police reporting and successful prosecution rates is extremely concerning. We are determined to ensure that all the levers within the criminal justice system are utilised to increase accountability for this abhorrent crime.
But the response cannot lie just within the criminal justice system. The extent and complexity of FGM in our society means that we must address it in a multi-agency approach, not least through education and healthcare. That is why, for example, in healthcare we now have FGM clinics, which are mainstreamed in the NHS, and it is why at the borders we have a forced marriage unit on hand when victims are at risk of being taken abroad. It is also why we have had over 50,000 frontline staff undertake e-training in the last year. But the data shows, and the noble Lord’s Question raises the point, that there is much more to be done.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that information and his very encouraging response. Female genital mutilation means cutting off a young girl’s clitoris. It usually happens in a back room off some back street. It is being inflicted on thousands of children every year and yet, in 50 years, as the noble and learned Lord suggested, there have been only three convictions. Like the Post Office, bad-blood and grooming-gangs scandals, people will, rightly, in a few years’ time, demand, “Why was nothing done when we had the opportunity?” So, I am very glad to hear what the Minister says. It is not the Minister’s fault; clearly, it is not—we all bear a degree of shame for this past record. Will he encourage the setting up of a task force, to report very quickly, whose objective will be to increase the number of prosecutions and convictions? Without successful prosecutions and convictions, we will still be failing thousands of innocent children.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I can reassure the noble Lord that I am determined to work with the Crown Prosecution Service, which I superintend, to increase the rate of prosecutions. I am determined we do that in a joined-up way, together with other parts of government and arm’s-length bodies, to ensure there is a whole-system approach to this abhorrent practice.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, first I will pay tribute to our noble friend Baroness Rendell, who championed this and ensured it was put on the statute book; she is much missed by all of us. Does my noble and learned friend agree that one of the most important things the Government must succeed in preventing is young girls being taken out of the country for this dreadful procedure? I would like to hear how that is progressing. Secondly, we have to pay attention to the hundreds, if not thousands, of women here in the UK who have already suffered this terrible procedure and who need the resourcing and help of our NHS in the special units that have been set up to do that. We have to ensure they are properly resourced.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
On the increased protection, there is provision already on the statute book, in Section 3A of the Female Genital Mutilation Act, which is about a failure to protect girls under 16. On the civil side, the family court also has a power to impose protection orders that put in place, for example, restrictions on travel and contact with children. Those are both criminal and civil measures, but, to have real effect, they need to be used more frequently—I am convinced of that. On the NHS, I agree; already there is a lot of work that is being done, and it needs to be fully supported. I had the privilege of meeting with the Vavengers, an NGO working in this field, which does fantastic work to promote the importance of healthcare to the victims of these crimes.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General mentioned the NHS and also FGM protection orders. The facts are these: in the first quarter of this year alone, the NHS reported over 2,000 patients who were the victims of FGM, of whom 970 were newly recorded victims. In the same quarter, the Ministry of Justice tells us there were only 21 female genital mutilation protection orders made. For over 20 years, health professionals and teachers have been under a mandatory legal duty to report FGM, so that sisters and cousins can be protected. Will the noble and learned Lord tell the House what steps the Government are taking to ensure this mandatory duty is enforced in practice? When will we see an increase in the number of young girls actually receiving the legal protection they deserve?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
It is going to be fatal to the young girls that we all want to protect if we turn this into a political issue—I am not suggesting that the noble Lord was doing that. He has given the most recent figures, and he is right to do so because those are the figures that we need to focus on, but I am not going to go through the figures for the past 14 years because we need to focus on outcomes. Work is going on across the board, including at the CPS, where we are updating guidance, training and cross-co-ordination with other agencies, and I am due shortly to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions to discuss what more we can do. Again, I stress that this not a problem purely for the criminal justice system; it is a problem that needs to be addressed across government.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
Does the noble and learned Lord agree that, as part of the proposed curriculum review in schools, it should be made clear to young parents of the future that FGM is a serious criminal offence for residents in this country wherever in the world the assault takes place, that it carries heavy sentences of imprisonment when prosecutions are brought and that cultural differences do not amount to a defence?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I agree entirely with the spirit of what the noble Lord has said. He will appreciate that I cannot, from this Dispatch Box on an ad hoc basis, determine what goes into the curriculum, but I am convinced that this problem is one that needs to be addressed from the classroom to the courtroom.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, the low rate of criminal conviction is the result of evidential problems presented by young victims and of family and cultural pressures, but FGM remains a dangerous and illegal practice. In many cases, prevention and protection must be seen as more effective than prosecution. Does the Minister agree that the more reliable measures of prevalence are the important FGM protection orders made by the family courts—albeit only 930 have been made in the last 10 years and 21 in the first quarter of this year—coupled with the excellent data now collated by the NHS? We are now just at the time of year before the long school holiday, when girls are most at risk of being taken abroad and subjected to FGM. Will the Government remind professionals of that and of the particular need for vigilance?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s question and agree with the points that he has made.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from the noble Baroness opposite.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, your Lordships supported an amendment to the Health and Care Act 2022 to make virginity testing and hymenoplasty illegal, as part of broader efforts to address violence against women. Like female genital mutilation, these practices are typically hidden within families and communities, making evidence hard to gather. There have been police investigations here, some of which are ongoing, but there have been no convictions here yet. What specific steps are the Government taking to encourage reporting, and how are they working to build stronger evidence?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. This is, of course, another aspect of honour-based abuse, and I am sure the whole House agrees that there is no honour in honour-based abuse. In the criminal justice sphere, to help to bring stronger cases in this area, the CPS and the police have a joint protocol on honour-based abuse, and the College of Policing has just published guidance for managing these types of offences. Separately, the Department of Health and Social Care has multi-agency guidance available for organisations and anyone who may come into contact with women and girls affected by virginity testing and hymenoplasty. It sets out the steps that an organisation should follow, including safeguarding procedures where it deems someone to be at risk of those abhorrent practices. As with FGM, we are determined to do more across the system, not just, but very much including, the criminal justice system. We are convinced that successful prosecutions not only amount to justice for the victims but send a clear deterrent message to society.
Diplomatic Missions: Unpaid Charges
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask His Majesty’s Government what responses they have received to the letters sent by the Protocol Directorate of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in April and May to diplomatic missions and international organisations about unpaid non-domestic rates, parking fines and London Congestion Charges.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, of 31 responses received, some agreed to settle debts, others disputed charges and some refused to pay the London congestion charge, claiming exemption under the Vienna convention. FCDO action since 3 April 2025 has helped reduce national non-domestic rates debt by £287,142, car parking fines debt by £7,035 and London congestion charge debt by £7,430. Further details will be published in a Written Ministerial Statement later this year.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer and for the letters she wrote to me and to the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, who I am pleased to see in his place, after he and I raised the scandal of unpaid debts and fines by diplomatic missions in the UK in Questions on 13 May. Despite the encouraging figures which she has produced, the scale of the debts is still staggering. As of a year ago, the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia, for example, owed £196,630 in parking fines, China owed over £646,000 in unpaid national non-domestic rates, and the US embassy owed over £15 million in unpaid congestion charges. Will my noble friend confirm that the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations requires all diplomats to pay all charges, taxes and fines for which they are liable, and that that includes the congestion charge?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend is right, and it is the Government’s position, consistent with that of the previous Government, that these are charges, not taxes, and should be paid.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply to me and to the noble Lord a week or so ago. If you add unpaid parking fines to the £150 million owed in congestion charges, the figure goes up to nearly £300 million, which is a staggering amount; that could be put to transformational use by TfL. Is the Minister aware that when the current Labour Mayor was elected 10 years ago, he said that he would make this a key priority? Does she agree that it is time for him to help her and the Government get a grip?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I detect some co-ordination across the House this afternoon. We consider these to be debts, and we would like them to be paid. Like TfL and the Mayor of London, we continue to use our diplomatic best efforts to bring that about.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, one of the highlights of the diplomatic calendar in London is the Foreign Office diplomatic reception. Given that many of those attending will be those who have refused to pay, should we not start instituting a drop-off and collection fee at King Charles Street, just until we get our money back? Given that, as the noble Lord said, the United States is possibly the biggest offender and that President Trump would certainly not want a reputation of not paying fines, when he comes for the state visit, can we ensure that this is part of the agenda, so that there is no congestion in the city of London from the American delegation and they pay us what they owe?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
There are a whole range of measures that we can consider, and I certainly take on board the one that the noble Lord has mentioned. Others include encouraging the use of public transport, cycling or walking around our wonderful city. But he suggests that we raise these matters directly with our counterparts and I can assure him that we do just that.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
On that point, is it the Government’s position that when President Trump comes on his state visit, he should personally have to pay the congestion charge when he travels around in his rather heavy vehicle?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I am always grateful to my noble friend for his wit and the charm with which he brings his points to this Chamber. I will leave the finer points of the arrangements for the visit of President Trump to the relevant officials in the Foreign Office.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I think there is unity across the House on this one. We are all amused by the prospect of some poor parking warden having to put a ticket on President Trump’s limousine and what might happen to him following the actions of the Secret Service. The conduct of diplomatic staff is a reflection of important values: respect, dignity and mutual recognition between nations. Following on from the reply the Minister gave to the Liberal Democrats, will she consider linking future privileges or engagement opportunities to the good standing of diplomatic missions in their civic responsibilities, so as to encourage greater accountability?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We keep these things under close consideration but, as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said when he addressed this issue during the very last Question of the last Parliament—his last appearance on this side of the House—our diplomats are the best in the world and we entrust them to raise these issues as appropriate. We are starting to see some, I admit small, contributions towards meeting this debt and I think that is the right approach for now.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, it is tempting to suggest that when the American President arrives, we call them not charges but tariffs, as that seems to be a word he finds much more popular. More seriously, can the Minister assure us that, at the same time as we are trying to crack down on diplomats in this country, British diplomats and their staff overseas are correctly paying all fines, charges and other tariffs that they are supposed to pay?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am happy to confirm that. As the right reverend Prelate would expect, our diplomatic staff, wherever they are stationed around the world, act to the highest of standards.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, does the diplomatic immunity that the various embassies claim apply to enforcement action? Would it, for example, be possible to clamp the cars that have done this? I suspect that that might concentrate minds.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As I have said, there are a range of options available. It has been suggested that we impound diplomatic vehicles—seize them and prevent them being used—and other such measures have been suggested. But for the time being, we continue to raise these issues directly with missions in this country and we think that is the best approach for now.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am so sorry but that is far too much patience. This has been going on ever since the congestion charge first came in. They have racked up these debts, and I love the idea from the noble Lord, Lord Harris: we have a record of which cars have infringed the congestion charge—we should clamp them all.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
All I would say is that diplomacy is an art, and it comes more naturally to some than to others, perhaps. We keep this under consideration, but I think it is right that we do not escalate this issue above some of our very real concerns around security, defence and trade that we seek to work very closely with our counterparts on.
Parthenon Sculptures: Return
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to introduce legislation to enable artefacts, including the Parthenon sculptures, to be returned to their country of origin.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
The Government have no plans to introduce legislation to permit artefacts, including the Parthenon sculptures, to be returned. National museums are prevented by legislation from de-accessioning objects unless, broadly, they are duplicates or unfit for retention. There are two exceptions: human remains less than 1,000 years old and Nazi-era looted objects. Partnerships and loans have been successfully used as a way for museums to share objects with other countries and museums.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, there is a case for amending the existing legislation in a narrow way to allow our national museums to return permanently certain artifacts to their country of origin on a case-by-case basis—none more so than the Parthenon sculptures, so that the frieze and other sculptures can be seen in a museum close to the original environment and, importantly, in as complete a state as possible, as this is the work of a single master builder, Phidias, and his workshop. Surely aesthetically, this is the right solution. Will the Government amend the legislation to allow this and other returns to happen?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I can only repeat to the noble Earl that the Government have no plans to change the law or introduce legislation to permit objects, including the Parthenon sculptures, to be returned.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, this legislation is a throwback to the time when our national museums were little more than adjuncts of the Office of Works. As they gained their independence, the Government at the time quite rightly wanted to stop that. The trustees and leaders of our national museums have shown, admittedly with substantial government support over the years, that they are more than capable of running their own affairs. This legislation is well out of date. There is precedent. The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art works extremely well in reviewing objects that are poised to leave the country and deciding whether they are part of our heritage. Surely setting up something like that to review contested objects would be a wonderful way to independently assess these very contentious issues.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord will be aware that the British Museum operates independently of the Government, and so decisions relating to its collections are, within the law, a matter for its board of trustees. I know that the British Museum recognises the strength of feelings on this issue, and the museum is actively pursuing the possibility of a new partnership approach with Greece. I repeat that we as a Government do not have any plans to amend the law.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, I know the Minister thinks deeply about these issues. Will she please assure the House that the intention of the Government not to legislate in relation to the Elgin marbles does not extend to the modified bones—sometimes hideously so—of indigenous peoples, such as the Naga, held in our national collections like the British Museum? Will she ensure that the law is modified or clarified to make it clear that those items should be returned? Their retention is deeply offensive to indigenous peoples who lost their ancestors’ bones in the course of colonial wars and occupation and who now seek a decent return of their remains.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The majority of museums are able to deal with the restitution of human remains on a case-by-case basis. My noble friend will be aware that I am planning to have a meeting with my noble friend Lady Merron to discuss issues relating to the Human Tissue Act. There is human remains guidance for museums, issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in 2005, which covers the legal and ethical framework for the treatment of human remains. I understand the strength of feeling of my noble friend and I am happy to have a conversation with him to discuss this further.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, in supporting the noble Earl’s plea to the Government to look at this issue, I draw to the attention of the Minister the fact that there are artefacts, such as the ap Huw manuscripts of Welsh music, that have been in the British Library for many years. They are of little interest to those coming to the British Library but would be of great interest in Wales. Would she consider writing to some of these institutions to see whether an arrangement can be reached to meet the very reasonable pleas that have been made in this House already?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The loan of documents, whether it is from the British Museum or the British Library, is routine. I am happy to raise this particular point with the British library, but it operates independently of the Government, so a decision on that would be for its trustees.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I am glad the Minister has confirmed that the Government have no plans to change the law. She is right that we do not need any change in the law to allow our national museums to lend or borrow items with their partners around the world. Some of the Parthenon sculptures in the care of the British Museum have been loaned overseas before, and we were all delighted to hear that the loan of the Bayeux Tapestry, first discussed in 2018, is going ahead. Would the Minister agree that, for any loan to be consistent with the British Museum Act 1963 or with its open individual export licence, any borrowing party must acknowledge the museum’s ownership of those items and agree to return them at the end of the loan period?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Parthenon sculptures were lawfully acquired and are legally owned by the trustees of the British Museum. By definition, any loan agreement acknowledges that. The requirement of a loan is that the item be returned and assurances as to the return would be provided.
Baroness Black of Strome (CB)
My Lords, in March, there was a short debate which addressed the sale of human remains at public auctions. Following yet another disrespectful online auction recently, what progress has been made since the debate on that matter? What are the Minister’s future plans for banning the sale of human remains?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Like the noble Baroness, I viewed the online footage of the sale of human remains that she referred to. It was incredibly shocking. Having met with my noble friend Lord Boateng and the noble Baroness, I committed to convening a cross-departmental meeting with Ministers and officials to discuss the issue. I have spoken briefly to my noble friend Lady Merron about this. The meeting has been scheduled for immediately after the Summer Recess. I will be happy to report back to the noble Baroness then.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
There is time for both noble Lords to ask a question. We will have the noble Lord, Lord McNally, first, and then my noble friend.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has been rolling out excuses for no action on the Parthenon sculptures that have been used by Ministers of all parties for the last 50 years, at least to my knowledge. The role of museums is changing and there is great capacity for what I would describe as museum diplomacy. Is she aware what a massive gain it would be for our relations with Greece if—where there is a will, there is a way—we were to be able to return the Parthenon statutes and work with Greece on a celebration of Greek sculpture and art at the British Museum? That is the way museums should be moving, not as receptacles of our imperial past.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The UK and Greece have a strong bilateral relationship, built on shared values and history, and we greatly value the friendship that exists between our peoples today. I would question the noble Lord’s definition of an excuse; it is a reason and a view, not an excuse.
Baroness Debbonaire (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her Answer and all the subsequent answers. If there is an object of religious significance to its country of origin which is seen as a work of art in a museum here, is there not a case for amending or at least considering ways of adapting legislation? Although it is not the Government’s decision, a museum director is not completely free to make a decision if they are constrained by existing legislation which may have been made many years ago.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
We do not have any current plans to change the legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, talked about loans. In many cases these artefacts can be loaned, and we would support that. The Bayeux Tapestry has been mentioned, and we are very fortunate in this country to be able to borrow items from other countries. We get them on the basis that people know we are going to return them, even if we would like to keep them.
Nuclear Installations (Compensation for Nuclear Damage) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Wilson of Sedgefield
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 19 May and 2 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 July.
Afghanistan
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for taking the time to speak with me extensively before the Statement. I thank him and his colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence in the other place, for the tone they have adopted. I join the Secretary of State and my honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State James Cartlidge in their apology, on behalf of the British Government, to all those impacted by the data leak. It was a wholly unacceptable breach of data protection protocols and should never have happened.
This is a story of human error, an error of magnitude with profoundly grave and potentially tragic consequences, that was perpetrated by an MoD official and came to light only some 18 months or so after it occurred. Although as a Defence Minister I had no involvement in the issue, at that point in August 2023 the priority was to take all necessary steps as a matter of urgency to mitigate risk to life, hence the court’s involvement that culminated in the grant of a super-injunction. It was the political judgment of the last Government to seek the court’s intervention, and the decision of the court to grant a super-injunction clearly reflected how gravely the court regarded the risk to life. A court injunction is neither a cover-up nor political suppression of information; it is a court order.
No one should be under any misunderstanding about the potential consequence of this leak. If the Government had not sought the injunction, that data could have been disseminated globally through the media. This could have put the lives of countless Afghans at risk—people who helped Britain in our fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, who saved the lives of British troops and who are incredibly brave, selfless and committed individuals who put everything at risk, including their families, to help us. If the Government had not sought to prevent the information being disseminated, those Afghans, who gave so much, could have been captured, tortured and murdered. The previous Government would have abnegated their responsibilities if we had left these Afghans to suffer the consequences of this data breach. That is why it was right to seek the injunction and resettle those affected in the UK.
I might observe that, regardless of what Government were in power at the time, these measures were the correct ones to take in the circumstances existing at the time. Indeed, on taking office, the current Government did not seek to have the super-injunction lifted.
Although this was human error and not a political mistake, the political responsibility is to keep the situation under review. It was right that this Government should seek expert advice on whether it was now appropriate to seek to lift the super-injunction and, if so advised, to make the necessary application to the court. In that, the Government have the full support of these Benches.
I understand that the Minister will be limited in what he can say, but I have a few questions for him. Is he in a position to give the House any more details on how the leak happened? I would have thought that there would have been digital safeguards within the MoD that prevented an email with a sensitive attachment being sent to a random person outside the department. What processes were in place to prevent this happening, and why were they not effective? Secondly, can the Minister tell us what the repercussions were for the official who inadvertently sent the data outside formal channels? Finally, what systems have the Government now put in place to learn from this regrettable episode and ensure that everything has been done to prevent a recurrence? As ever, I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I once again thank him for the manner in which he has approached this matter to date.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to the Minister for the Armed Forces for a briefing yesterday. It meant that, temporarily, I was under a super-injunction. I was a little surprised when I was summoned to the MoD. On Monday afternoon I received a message asking me to come in for a confidential briefing. I had no idea what to expect, or of the magnitude of what we would hear in the Statement made by the Secretary of State yesterday.
It is a matter of extreme seriousness for a variety of reasons—the risk into which an official and the MoD placed Afghans who were already vulnerable, but also the fact that Parliament was entirely unable to scrutinise His Majesty’s Government on this issue for almost two years. The media reported immediately after the super-injunction was raised yesterday at midday; they had spent the last 22 months gathering evidence that, of course, they could not publish. There is a whole set of questions that are probably beyond the remit of the Minister who is responding today on behalf of the MoD, including what scrutiny Parliament is able to do and what the Government feel is appropriate regarding the media. Were the media being suppressed?
Lest anyone think that I am being cavalier about the lives of Afghans, it was absolutely clear that the United Kingdom had a duty to those Afghans who worked alongside His Majesty’s Armed Forces, including the interpreters and those who worked for the British Council. In light of that, the ARAP and ACRS schemes, which we all knew about, were the right approach. Yet we already knew, from open source material and cases that were brought to this House and the other place, that breaches of data had caused fines to be paid.
At the time of the evacuation of Afghanistan in August 2021, it was clear that many people were left behind, and that the helplines were not necessarily fit for purpose. The hotline for parliamentarians and their staff did not necessarily act as a hotline at all. I certainly left messages about cases and received no follow-up or reply. I was not alone in that and, although I believe that I was not part of this data breach, some parliamentarians were.
We began to acknowledge our debt to some of the Afghans, but not all. Then a data breach, about which we knew nothing, happened over three years ago. That in itself is shocking. Has anybody in His Majesty’s Government taken responsibility for that? We understand from the Statement that it was reported to the Metropolitan Police, which believed that there was no criminal activity. Has anybody taken responsibility for this catastrophic data breach that potentially put many tens of thousands of lives in Afghanistan at risk and caused considerable concern to Afghans who were already in the UK, having come over as part of the ARAP scheme?
The former Secretary of State, Sir Ben Wallace, has said that the super-injunction was not a cover-up, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie. Yet Mr Justice Chamberlain, who finally lifted the super-injunction yesterday, said in November 2023 that a super-injunction
“is likely to give rise to understandable suspicion that the court’s processes are being used for the purposes of censorship … This is corrosive of the public’s trust in Government”.
Does the Minister agree? Can he confirm that this Government would not seek to use a super-injunction or, in the event that it was felt that a super-injunction was an appropriate course of action, that it would not last for more than 600 days but could be for a very limited amount of time while a particular, specific policy needed to be undertaken? The substantive policy change that was brought in—the Afghanistan response route—seems to have been very sensible. Had it been brought to your Lordships’ House and the other place, parliamentarians may well have thought that it was the right policy and been happy to endorse it—but we were never asked, because of the super-injunction. We knew nothing about it.
Could the Minister tell us whether, in future, the Intelligence and Security Committee might be briefed in camera? What role would Parliament and the media be allowed to play? If the courts, Parliament and the media are not deployed appropriately, that raises questions about our own democracy that need to be considered.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, for their comments and their words about the way in which the Government tried to inform His Majesty’s Opposition and the defence spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats. We tried to ensure that as many Members of your Lordships’ House, as well as other people in the other place, were informed as appropriate. I apologise if that did not happen with everybody who may have expected to have been informed, but we tried to ensure that everybody was consulted and spoken to.
I join the noble Baronesses, Lady Goldie and Lady Smith, in the apologies that His Majesty’s Government, through me, again make today for what happened, which was totally unacceptable.
Before I answer the specific questions, I shall make a couple of opening remarks. The whole House will agree that the UK owes a huge debt of gratitude to all those Afghans who fought alongside us and supported our efforts in Afghanistan. Although I appreciate that there is significant parliamentary and media concern around these issues, and rightly so, let us not also forget that we are talking about human lives.
As noble Lords will know, a major data loss occurred in February 2022, involving the dissemination of a spreadsheet containing names of applicants to the ARAP scheme. The previous Government responded by setting up a new assessment route—the Afghanistan response route—to protect the most at-risk individuals whose data was disseminated. The data, and the lives that sit behind them, were protected by an unprecedented super-injunction, which was granted by the High Court, based on the threat posed to those individuals. That is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, made: it is the court that grants an injunction, and when the Government asked for an injunction they were granted a super-injunction.
It is our view that the previous Government acted in good faith to protect lives. However, when this Government took office, Ministers felt deeply uncomfortable —to go to some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made—with the limits that the super-injunction placed on freedom of the press and parliamentary scrutiny. As a result, we therefore commissioned a reassessment of the situation, led by a former Deputy Chief of Defence Intelligence, Paul Rimmer. Mr Rimmer, following a comprehensive review, found that it is
“unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting”
by the Taliban. He also found that there was no evidence pointing to Taliban possession of the dataset. We have therefore decided, as have the courts, that the risks have reduced, and that the existence of the scheme and its associated costs should be brought into the public and parliamentary realms for the appropriate scrutiny. Therefore, we expect and invite parliamentary scrutiny for these decisions.
I will deal with a couple of the points that have been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked me how this happened. I do not normally do this, as noble Lords know, but I will read out from my brief so that I get it factually right. In February 2022, under the previous Government, a spreadsheet with names of individual applicants for ARAP—the resettlement scheme for Afghan citizens who worked for or with the UK Armed Forces in Afghanistan—was emailed outside of official government systems. This was mistakenly thought to contain the names of a small number of applicants, but in fact the email contained personal information linked to 18,700 applicants of ARAP and its predecessor, the ex-gratia scheme, or EGS. The data related to applications made on or before 7 January 2022. A small section of this spreadsheet appeared online on 14 August 2023, which is when the then Government first became aware that the MoD’s ARAP casework and spreadsheet had been mistakenly included with the original email. The previous Government investigated that and a report was sent to the Information Commissioner’s Office. I repeat that the Government reported this to the Metropolitan Police, which found that there was no malicious or malign intent by the individual responsible.
The noble Baroness asked whether we believe that the systems have now been adequately changed. In a statement yesterday, the Information Commissioner’s Office said:
“We’re reassured that the MoD’s investigation has resulted in taking necessary steps and minimised the risk of this happening again”.
I hope that will begin to reassure the noble Baroness with respect to her point about how the leak happened, the measures that have been taken and the way it has been looked at and investigated by the Information Commissioner’s Office, which has now reported in a statement yesterday that it believes the MoD has, as far as it possibly can, taken the necessary action to prevent such a terrible and unfortunate incident happening again.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, of course it is of great concern that parliamentary and media scrutiny had, essentially, to be stopped. Parliament and the press have not been able to scrutinise the activity and decisions in the way that they should. When we came into office, we were, fairly obviously, uncomfortable with that. We looked at the facts and the situation and, in January this year, as the noble Baroness will know, the Secretary of State asked Mr Rimmer, a former senior officer at Defence Intelligence, to investigate.
Noble Lords will have seen Mr Rimmer’s report. There are a number of important facts in its key conclusions, including that:
“No evidence points clearly to Taleban possession of the dataset”,
and the fact that the policy
“appears an extremely significant intervention, with not inconsiderable risk to HMG and the UK, to address the potentially limited net additional risk the incident likely presents”.
In other words, with where we are now, after the passage of time and the various assessments of the risk in Afghanistan, Mr Rimmer now believes that it is appropriate for the Government to apply to the court to lift the injunction. With the evidence provided in the Government’s presentation, it was lifted at Noon yesterday. The Government have decided that the time is right to make a Statement about what has happened, put as much of that evidence as possible into the public domain, and invite public, media and parliamentary scrutiny of it. That is the right thing to do.
At the end, in government, there is always a balance between making decisions about how to protect lives in a particular situation and recognising that you must have parliamentary and media scrutiny. The previous Government acted in good faith. We have looked at that again and believe that now is the right time for us to come forward, to publicise what happened and to invite comment from everyone. I hope noble Lords will accept that explanation.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
Excuse me, it is the turn of Labour and then the Cross Benches.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, if the reporting is correct, I understand that the date of the super-injunction was 1 September 2023 and that it was granted at the instigation of the then Defence Secretary, Grant Shapps. Eight months later, in debates on the safety of Rwanda Bill, I repeatedly moved an amendment to exclude from deportation to Rwanda Afghans who had served with British forces but had arrived here via irregular routes, no safe route being available. As these debates were taking place, some of the very people I was trying to exclude were being flown here by the United Kingdom without almost any Member of this House or the other place being aware. Why was I not told? Why was your Lordships’ House not told? If that was due to the super-injunction, why did the Government not accept my amendment? If my noble friend cannot answer any of these questions because he was not in government at the time, can he guarantee that we will have a chance to ask those questions and get them answered?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. My understanding—and there are better lawyers in here than I—is that the Ministers would have believed themselves to be subject to the injunction and the super-injunction, and that would constrain what they would or would not be able to say. But now that we have gone to the High Court to say that we believe the time is right for that super-injunction to be lifted, and the court has agreed with us, we are able to debate and discuss the very points that my noble friend has raised. No doubt these are the questions that, over the coming days, weeks and months, I and others will be asked to account for—quite rightly.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, it has been stated again and again that the person responsible for the loss of data thought that the spreadsheet contained a small number of names, whereas it actually contained a very large number of names. Surely this is irrelevant. It is the fact that it was used on a non-departmental system, not the number of names, that constitutes the breach. This has been presented as an individual failing, but one cannot help but notice that it seems to have originated in the same part of the Ministry of Defence which contemporaneously was making some rather questionable judgments and decisions about the so-called Triples, which must raise questions in people’s minds about the overall degree of supervision and direction of that part of the Ministry of Defence. Can the Minister reassure the House that this is being looked at in that wider context?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for this important question, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Goldie, also asked, as to how on earth this could have happened. First of all, it was really important to ascertain whether there was any criminal or malign intent. The previous Government were quite right to refer that to the police for investigation. As I have already said, the police found that there was no evidence of any criminal or malign intent. Alongside that, it was referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office. The answer to the noble and gallant Lord’s question is the whole of the statement that the Information Commissioner’s Office made yesterday about its investigation into what happened, and into the way in which the Ministry of Defence has changed many of the processes that it had in place and its management arrangements to ensure as far as possible that we would not see that again. The importance of that is the independence of the Information Commissioner’s Office looking at what the MoD was doing, rather than the MoD marking its own homework.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence described the super-injunction as
“unprecedented, uncomfortable and, in many ways, unconscionable”. —[Official Report, Commons, 15/7/25; col. 160.]
Given that, does the Minister agree that if, in the future, super-injunctions are sought, or their renewal is sought, the application will be made only with the consent of not just the relevant Secretary of State but the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Viscount, with his legal understanding and background, makes an interesting point. I cannot confirm whether that would be the right process and way forward but it is certainly something that should be thought about and considered. I will ensure that that suggestion is put into the process, but I cannot guarantee that it is the right way forward. I would need to talk to other colleagues about whether it is, but I thank him for his suggestion.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend and Min AF for their briefing to me yesterday in my role as chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. At that briefing, Min AF said that Defence Intelligence undertook an assessment of those individuals who were at risk. We now know from Paul Rimmer’s report that other assessments were taken forward by Defence Intelligence. The Intelligence and Security Committee is the only committee of Parliament that can actually look at these detailed intelligence reports. Contrary to what the former Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, said on Radio 4 this morning, the Intelligence and Security Committee has full oversight of Defence Intelligence and does and can receive current intelligence. I therefore ask my noble friend: will the MoD now release these reports to the committee, or do I, at the meeting of the committee tomorrow, have to formally require the Government to produce these reports to the committee under our powers under the Justice and Security Act 2013?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My noble friend, as chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, points to its important role. I would think that every report should be made available to the committee, given that it was set up specifically to give parliamentary scrutiny to difficult intelligence decisions, but under the protection of the way in which it operates. I say to my noble friend that I would expect that to happen—I hope that there is not some process of which I am not aware that means I am not supposed to say so. In all openness, and in trying to be transparent about this, I would think that the Intelligence and Security Committee, given the way in which it operates, should have everything made available to it so that it can consider it and, where necessary, question Ministers and others.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, there are those in the other place who are spreading misinformation about the nature of the checks that were undertaken for those coming from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom. It is in the Statement, but it would be helpful for the House—and the public—if the Minister could reassure us from the Dispatch Box that every individual coming to the United Kingdom under all three of the schemes that were set up, including the one that was not made known until yesterday, was subject to proper national security checks to protect the public.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Indeed. Under both the previous Government and this Government, the fact that you are deemed eligible with respect to the Afghan resettlement programme does not mean that you do not have security checks made upon you. Let me be clear: that is for everybody who is said to be eligible under that scheme to come to the United Kingdom. I remind noble Lords that, if someone comes to the United Kingdom under that scheme, they automatically get indefinite leave to remain. I further remind noble Lords that the second part of that is for people to undergo security checks to make sure that they are not people who would come here and commit crime, or worse. On the particular individual to whom the noble Lord referred, who has made those allegations and said what he has said, if he has specific allegations, he should—as many have said—go to the police to report them, rather than just cast aspersions.
Lord Tyrie (Non-Afl)
I think noble Lords in this House would agree that the last Government and this Government acted properly in handling this, in every substantive respect. Unfortunately, that is not how this case, at least in part, is being presented in the media. Part of the media is still presenting this as if there has been some kind of cover-up at some stage, to protect the politicians who were in power at the time. Can the Minister categorically assure the House, on the basis of the evidence he has seen, that that was not the case and that, in looking at this issue, the previous Government acted entirely properly—as have this Government, in my view—at every stage?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and others, the last Government acted in good faith in a way that they believed would protect people who had been put at risk by the data breach. They also went to the court for an injunction. The court itself granted a super-injunction, the thrust of which was to try to protect people from the consequences of having their names inadvertently put into the public domain. The previous Government did that. When we came to power, we decided that we needed to look at this to see whether it was still proportionate and how we should act. On the basis of the Rimmer review, we changed that. I sometimes wonder what the consequences would have been for any Government had that happened and lots of people had been killed.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, the logic behind the basic injunction to protect these vulnerable people in the wake of a catastrophic data breach is understandable and the application is laudable; the super-injunction is less so. Is my noble friend the Minister able to open up a little more? Has he been briefed on the rationale behind the super-injunction, or at least on the Government of the day not applying some time ago, if not immediately, for the super-injunction, which did not protect the sensitive data but the fact that there was a breach? What was the rationale for not seeking to suspend the super-injunction? That is where the constitutional concern lies, for the then and future Government.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I understand my noble friend’s point. I respond with trepidation, because I do not want to get into a legal discussion with her, as her legal knowledge is far greater than mine.
My understanding was that the previous Government asked for an injunction and then the court decided, on the basis of what it was told, that it was necessary for there to be a super-injunction. That was granted by the courts because of the threat that people faced. It was then renewed over a period of time. In the summer of 2024, the High Court suspended the injunction and gave the last Government 21 days to appeal. The Government appealed and the Appeal Court allowed the reimposition of the super-injunction. I can only presume that that was on the basis that the court was persuaded that the threat still existed for those whose data had been inadvertently put into the public domain.
On the basis of knowledge we accumulated over a few months, we decided to undertake the Rimmer review, which gave us the evidence to go back to the court and say that we no longer believed that the injunction was necessary for the protection of those individuals. The court accepted the Government’s new evidence, from the report, that the super-injunction was not necessary. At 12 pm yesterday, the injunction was lifted, and at 12.30 pm, my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary made a Statement in the other place, and we have come here today to make a Statement, which I have no doubt will be the first of many.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, as I am sure the Minister is aware, there are a number of Afghans who are on the run from the Taliban, some of them in Pakistan, terrified about being sent back. The Taliban threatened to hunt down any woman who had played a public role. Could the Minister tell me whether there were any Afghan women on the list that leaked?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are trying to contact anybody on the list, whether they are in Afghanistan or Pakistan, who has been designated eligible for the scheme, to ensure that they understand that we will honour the commitment we have made to them. Whether they are in Pakistan or in any other country, we will honour the commitment we have made to them and try to ensure they get passage here. The noble Baroness will understand why I will not say any more than that, as it would compromise people we are trying to bring here.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I say, if I might, how encouraging it is that the Government are working so closely with the Opposition on this issue. It helps increase respect for and trust in the British political system. It was absolutely right that there should have been a super-injunction. My question is related to the effect of lifting the super-injunction at this stage. The Rimmer report says that there will be no added risk and a human judgment has to be made about whether or not that is the case. Undoubtably, the huge amount of publicity about registering the super-injunction is going to have an effect. Will anybody in the MoD be looking at the lifting of the super-injunction to see what kind of result there has been and whether there has been a significant effect which has increased the risk of vulnerable people?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We will keep everything under review and look to see what the consequences of the decision we have made are. Following on from what the noble Baroness said about women in Pakistan, our initial focus is to try to ensure that, for everybody who is eligible for the various schemes, we honour the commitment that we made to them. There are still hundreds of people; the number of people still to be relocated under the Afghan response route, which is the scheme that was not publicised, is 600. We are trying to ensure that we know where they are and to bring them here, with approximately 2,700 family members. That, along with our other commitments, is our first priority: to try to ensure that we bring to the UK those we have made a commitment to.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I do not know whether my question is for my noble friend the Minister or for the party opposite. While I can totally understand why an injunction was sought to protect the content of the leak and to protect lives, I would like to understand—perhaps my noble friend can explain—why an injunction was sought to prevent our media reporting the fact of the leak.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
It is difficult for me to comment exactly on the motivation of the last Government, although I believe they acted in good faith. If I put myself in their position, I think the motivation behind the injunction would be to protect not only the names but the fact that the dataset exists, to prevent people looking for such a dataset through the various means by which they would. For us, that was an argument that was made, and, over a period of time, we got to the point where it no longer held. As soon as we had the independent evidence to go to the court, we went to the court, to enable the parliamentary and media scrutiny that there should be of the actions that were and are being taken.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I am afraid I am a little less sanguine about some of this than others. This catastrophic cock-up—and it was a cock-up, not a criminal event—is a direct consequence of us getting involved in a war in which we should never have got involved in the first place, which we did not have the political will to see through, despite all the efforts of our gallant military, and which left the country in a worse state than it was when we arrived. If it were a one-off, it would perhaps be understandable, but this is a pattern of British policy over the years, from Iraq to Afghanistan and, of course, to Libya. I express a little prayer that we have learned the lessons of that deeper malaise.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I think that we all need to learn lessons from anything that has happened in our history, whatever steps or decisions have been taken. The only thing I would say is that non-decisions and not doing anything also have consequences. It is about balance, and that is a debate and discussion that needs to happen. In terms of the content of today’s debate and future debates, the concentration has to be on what we do both to learn the lessons of what happened under the ARAP scheme and to make sure that we protect as many as possible of the people who stood with us in Afghanistan, whatever the rights and wrongs of that conflict.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, further to the point raised earlier by a noble Lord opposite about the lies, misinformation and fake news being spread, let us not pussyfoot around: it is by Nigel Farage and other members of Reform UK. Can the Minister confirm that this could actually put some of the people concerned in further danger?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really good point. Let us be clear: these are people who stood with us, fought with us and, in many cases, died with us. I think that the British public understand and welcome that.
By the end of this scheme, some 56,000 applicants under ARAP, plus their family members, will have been relocated to this country. There is some difficulty in terms of transition when they originally arrive, and so on and so forth—where they are placed and as they assimilate into society—but my understanding is that the British public understand that and are generally very supportive of these people. They are not asylum seekers. They are people who have come to our country because they stood with us; that is an important distinction to make.
The answer to those who would exploit that is to stand up to them and say, “You’re wrong. You’re actually not right. You are not speaking for the British people. The British people understand what we are doing and why we are doing it with respect to Afghanistan”, and so on and so forth. As I said to the noble Lord, making allegations and aspersions about all those who have been resettled under the Afghanistan scheme—“They’re all like this, they’re all like that”—is a total nonsense and not true. That is what I think the majority of people in this country think.
Let me say this: if there is an individual who has raped somebody, stolen from somebody, or worse, that person, whether they are an Afghan or not, should be prosecuted in the courts and sent to jail. I say again, as I said to the noble Lord, that, if the said person has evidence of it, they should go to the police and get them prosecuted, because that is what the British public want as well.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, before I call further business, some noble Lords might wish to take this opportunity to leave.
Employment Rights Bill
Wednesday 16th July 2025
(1 day, 19 hours ago)
Lords ChamberEmployment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 113-II(a) Amendments for Report (Supplementary to the Second Marshalled List) - (15 Jul 2025)
17:28 - Division on Amendment 49 - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 160 - Amendment 49 agreed.
19:01 - Division on Amendment 96 - Ayes: 248 / Noes: 150 - Amendment 96 agreed.
19:45 - Division on Amendment 97 - Ayes: 100 / Noes: 136 - Amendment 97 disagreed.
20:30 - Division on Amendment 98 - Ayes: 202 / Noes: 138 - Amendment 98 agreed.
21:19 - Division on Amendment 100 - Ayes: 124 / Noes: 131 - Amendment 100 disagreed.
21:43 - Division on Amendment 104 - Ayes: 47 / Noes: 121 - Amendment 104 disagreed.
21:54 - Division on Amendment 105 - Ayes: 184 / Noes: 123 - Amendment 105 agreed.
22:05 - Division on Amendment 106 - Ayes: 180 / Noes: 123 - Amendment 106 agreed.
22:16 - Division on Amendment 107 - Ayes: 148 / Noes: 155 - Amendment 107 disagreed.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Right not to be unfairly dismissed: reduction of qualifying period and introduction of initial period of employmentSchedule 3 contains provision—(a) reducing the qualifying period of employment for unfair dismissal and introducing provisions in respect of an initial period of employment, and(b) making further consequential amendments.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the qualifying period for unfair dismissal is reduced as set out in further amendments to Schedule 3. It also provides for an initial period of employment after the qualifying period during which a modified process and different compensation limit would apply, as set out in further regulations.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s intention to protect workers is commendable. We all agree that fairness, dignity and security at work are essential pillars of a just society. However, the approach taken in this Bill, particularly the changes to unfair dismissal rights and the introduction of a statutory probationary period, is confused and counterproductive. What the Government have failed to grasp is that, when businesses are given the flexibility to manage their workforce pragmatically, that is precisely when they are more likely to take on new staff. Hiring is always a risk. By heightening that risk and making it more difficult to manage, this Bill creates disincentives to hire, particularly at the margins of the labour market, where the stakes are highest.
This is fundamentally a question of incentives. Reduce the employer’s ability to assess suitability, cultural fit or even basic reliability, without the spectre of legal sanction, and you will see fewer jobs created. The cost is very real, but nowhere is it properly considered in the Government’s own impact assessment. That acknowledges a likely 15% rise in employment tribunal claims, but makes no attempt to model the knock-on effect on hiring behaviour. The tribunal system, as we know, is already overstretched, with cases often taking more than two years to resolve. A 15% increase without corresponding investment will only deepen the backlog, and employers will know that they are walking into a system that is clogged and uncertain.
Then there is the statutory probationary period, which the Government propose with no real clarity. The Bill fails to explain how this period interacts with the obligation to act reasonably or whether there will be a different standard for dismissals during this window. Will there be a list of fair reasons? Will an employer be able to extend the period if performance takes longer to assess? None of this is addressed. As any employer will tell you, uncertainty in employment law leads not to innovation but to caution and legal advice.
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the Government’s approach is its likely effect on social mobility. When you raise the legal risks of hiring, it is not the well-connected, polished graduate who loses out but the individual on the edge of the labour market, the person returning to work after illness or parenting, the school leaver with no contacts, the ex-offender with a spent conviction, the refugee trying to prove themselves. The Government’s impact assessment recognises this risk, because it says that making unfair dismissal a day one right
“could damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire”.
Those are not my words but the Government’s.
The same is true for a “cultural fit”, which the Minister dismissed in Committee as an illegitimate reason for dismissal. She said:
“The Government do not believe that an employee not being a cultural fit within an organisation should be a fair dismissal”.—[Official Report, 21/5/25; col. 334.]
However, “cultural fit” is not a euphemism for prejudice; it is about whether someone complements the way in which a team works, the style of communication or the pace and rhythm of a workplace. This is particularly acute for a small business. Hiring mistakes are costly. Even a highly skilled worker takes time to reach full productivity and the cost of advertising, onboarding, training and then managing a dismissal is not trivial. If employers cannot be confident that they will have a window in which to assess a new hire, including on soft factors such as team dynamics, initiative or client manner, they will become more conservative. They will play it safe. Who loses then? Again, it is the person who just needed someone to give them a chance.
My amendment offers a better path. It reduces the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months, a meaningful extension of protection for workers. It also creates an initial period of employment following that six months in which a simplified process and lower compensation cap would apply. That strikes a fair balance, giving employers space to assess suitability while ensuring that bad-faith dismissals still carry consequences. Crucially, it also removes the sweeping power given to the Secretary of State in the Government’s clause to modify Section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act, a power that could drastically shift the fairness test without proper parliamentary oversight.
Employees already have day-one protections against discrimination and automatically unfair dismissal, as they should. However, general unfair dismissal should be subject to a short and defined qualifying period that employers understand and workers can plan around. My amendment delivers that clarity. It also avoids a situation where employers are left wondering whether a dismissal based on fit or reliability will land them in court, even when handled with care.
We have to be clear that jobs are not abstract concepts; they are costs. In the early stages, even the most promising employee is an investment that takes time to repay. Employers need space to make those judgments. This Bill, as it stands, puts a thumb on the scale in favour of caution and against second chances. That is not fair, that is not just and that is not how we grow a dynamic, inclusive labour market. I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 50 and 67, which, like the amendments the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has just spoken to, which I have also added my name to, relate to day-one unfair dismissal rights. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Leong and Lord Katz, for making time to discuss this issue with me, for which I am very grateful.
The introduction of day-one dismissal rights will have a range of consequences: in particular, additional costs to business, which the impact assessment says will run to hundreds of millions a year and the Government themselves says will fall disproportionately on smaller businesses; and greater numbers of tribunal cases on an already overloaded tribunal system. But the most important impact is on people who are looking for work, especially those with riskier profiles: young people trying to get their first step on the employment ladder; people trying to get off benefits; people with health issues; people changing careers; ex-offenders and so on. The Government rightly want to get all of these into work, but the Bill will make that more difficult, not easier.
The current law, with the two-year qualifying period, allows an employer to take a risk on someone—to give them the benefit of the doubt—without facing the risk of an employment tribunal claim if it does not work out. This Bill ends that. An employee will be able to claim for unfair dismissal from day one, and the only valid grounds for fair dismissal will be capability or qualification to do the job, conduct by the employee or some other undefined substantial reason relating to the employee. These reasons are essentially the same as the current reasons for fair dismissal after the qualifying period in today’s law, and they cannot be changed by the regulations that the Government intend to use to create a new—again undefined—type of probation period. Employers will no longer be able to let someone go during a probation period because it is not working, without risking an unfair dismissal claim.
So what will be the result? Simply, employers will now have to think twice before hiring anybody with a less than perfect employment record. The Bill will make it harder for an employer to take a chance on such people, to give them the benefit of the doubt. To quote the Federation of Small Businesses:
“all it’s going to do is make small employers more reluctant to recruit and fearful of being open to vexatious claims … It’s those furthest from the jobs market who will then suffer, because the less risk small employers can afford to take, the fewer second chances, fresh starts and first jobs they’ll be able to offer”.
If anyone is in any doubt, the Government themselves state the same effect in the impact assessment. I will not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, quoted, but this is what the Government also know and think.
We already have a million young people not in employment, education or training—the so-called NEETs. If we want to solve that, we need employers who want to take them on, who will take a chance and give them that first all-important opportunity. So, why on earth would we want to make it riskier for employers to take that chance?
You would think, therefore, that there must be a good, well-evidenced reason why this Government would decide knowingly to make it more difficult for young people to get their first opportunity to work. I have asked several times during this process for evidence that the existing law is in fact causing any problem. There is no evidence given in the impact assessment, and I have had no real answer to that question. In Committee, the Minister’s answer was:
“We have worked with academics who are looking at this subject. I reassure the noble Lord that we have looked at this and are confident that the benefits in this particular case will outweigh the risks”.—[Official Report, 21/5/25; col. 333.]
That really is not good enough to take action that the Government themselves acknowledge will damage the life chances of the most vulnerable or those just starting out.
Employers do not dismiss people lightly, even during a probationary period; hiring and training are expensive and time-consuming, so employers are strongly incentivised to try to get it right. But it is a fact of life that sometimes, with no fault on any side, things do not work out.
As the Minister knows, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, wanted to speak in this debate, but, unfortunately, she cannot be here today. She has asked me to point out the impact this change could have on GPs. Not being able to let someone go if the fit or culture is wrong is extremely serious for a small business—as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, described—but in a GP practice it could put lives at risk. GP practices tend to be small teams who must work together well and with great understanding and support. An employee who does not fit with the rest of the team could lead to miscommunication, appointment issues and so on. In healthcare, such errors could compromise patient welfare and could even have fatal consequences. It is essential that people can be easily let go if it is not working out in the early stages of their employment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 49 and 50 and Amendment 51, to which I have added my name. I agree with the case that my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom has made, and with the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden.
I point out that the detail of the arrangements for improving protection against unfair dismissal was one of the areas that provoked the widest debate in Committee. Some 21 noble Lords spoke, and nearly all were concerned about the perverse effects of completely removing the two-year qualifying period. When we discussed my concerns in Committee, the Minister said that when I saw the Government’s implementation plan I would be reassured. However, while it is generally helpful, all it says on this matter is that in summer/autumn 2025 they will consult on:
“Giving employees protection from unfair dismissal from ‘day 1’, including on the dismissal process in the statutory probation period”.
So we still do not know what the rules will be.
I believe that the approach the Government are taking of making up the vital detail of legislation after Bills have passed, so well exemplified here, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has said, is profoundly undemocratic. This is giving too much power to the Executive. The Minister should be able to tell us categorically today that employers will be able to dismiss unsatisfactory staff without risking a tribunal during a probation period of six or nine months.
I will not repeat all I said in Committee from the historic perspective of a good employer like Tesco. We even had a unique partnership with the trade union USDAW, seemingly very different from some of the public sector unions dominating this Bill. My main current concern, as the Minister knows, is that day-one rights will make employers extremely nervous about taking on new employees, especially the young or those with a risky track record like the unemployed or the disabled. This will kill growth. My noble friend Lord Sharpe talked about the disincentive to hire. That sums it up perfectly.
There is government evidence to support this. DBT’s economic analysis of 21 October 2024 admits, in section 16, on unintended consequences, that:
“There is some evidence that employment reforms make employers less willing to hire workers including evidence specific to the strengthening of dismissal protections. For example, the OECD noted that more stringent dismissal and hiring policies involve an inherent trade-off between job security for workers who have a job, and firm adaptability to changes in demand conditions or technology”.
In other words, lower growth.
The provisions will require significant extra internal resource to ensure compliance. It will be necessary to implement cumbersome administrative procedures across all businesses for all employees from day one, and indeed in the public sector. It will make the introduction of Making Tax Digital look extremely easy in contrast. It is a looming tragedy for smaller businesses already drowned in regulation. Above all, it will increase costs, adding to the jobs tax in the last Budget, and at a time when the Chancellor is promising to reduce red tape. Another certainty, as we have heard, is that the changes will increase the traffic through employment tribunals. There is already a tremendous backlog of 50,000 cases in the system. I know someone whose case has been listed for 2027.
Because it is important, I am extremely keen to help the Government find a way out of this unfortunate set of circumstances. The fact is that sometimes, appointments do not work out, and it is no one’s fault. I accept that that should normally be clear within six or nine months, which I believe the Government are contemplating for their probation period, but we need certainty on this and probably a government amendment before the Bill becomes an Act. For me, this uncertainty, which is why I have chosen to speak from the Back Benches on an area outside my own responsibility, could prove to be the very worst aspect of this Bill. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Government will think again.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
If there is not to be a sensible probation period, is any employer going to have the courage to take on an ex-offender?
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords I support the amendments in this group because they would mitigate the potential damage to employment from the perspective of both the employer and the employee, whether that employee is a jobseeker or someone recently appointed. The danger exists particularly in this clause. As your Lordships know, Clause 23 and the linked Schedule 3 repeal Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. They remove the qualifying period of employment and make further amendments to the Act in respect of the repeal.
Section 108 stipulates that the protection under Section 94 of the Act, which establishes the right not to be unfairly dismissed, subject to certain conditions, does not apply to the dismissal of an employee unless he has been continuously employed for two years. During this two-year extended training period—for that is what it is, and I speak as an employer—when you induct a new employee, you know that if they do not work out, and there are clear headings governing this under law, they can be let go without unfair dismissal claims.
Now, that is to be removed by Clause 23 and Schedule 3. We are repealing Section 108 of the 1996 Act, one of the basic building blocks of employment law in this country. This is one of the most familiar and important pieces of legislation for the labour market. As my noble friend Lord Sharpe and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, have said, it helps offer protection to both parties. It makes for a fluid labour market and avoids the zombie businesses which do little for the wider economy and militate against growth.
I will not go through each of the amendments because noble Lords have heard about them already, but they would facilitate good working practices for both parties. Those looking for a job would be more likely, as we have heard, to be appointed. There will be more job vacancies, which, as we know, have sadly fallen and continued to fall over the last year. Those looking for a job would be more likely to find one and more likely to start their first job, as we have already heard today. The employer would be able to take a risk, as we have heard today—to take a chance on a new employee.
Taking on a new employee involves a great commitment. It involves the commitment not only of a salary, which is only a small fraction of the cost, but of time, training, patience, showing the ropes and bringing someone into the culture of the organisation, so that they can contribute as a happy, contented, productive and effective member of the team. With this clause, we will not have the protections of that. I cannot think of any small employer who will not think twice about taking on a new person, and this will have very bad effects on the economy and growth.
We know there are legal grounds already for unfair dismissal in respect of the job itself. They include conduct, capability, redundancy, legal restrictions on employment and other substantive reasons. Noble Lords have spoken about these today, but there are cast-iron reasons for not being unfairly dismissed. You cannot be dismissed as a whistleblower or for discrimination, and these do not require the two-year qualifying period. The law takes care of this.
Now, with the removal of the two-year period goes the protection for the employer and the opportunities for new employees particularly, but also for many employees who want to change jobs and start a new walk of life. They may find they are not so good at what they were doing and want to try their hand at a new job. They need time to settle in, just as the new person coming into their first job does.
I am not at all convinced that this initial period, which Ministers have told us will have a lighter touch in respect of unfair dismissal arrangements, will actually be very helpful. Some law firms fear that it will impose pretty much the same strictures on an employer. We really need to know from the Minister what exactly the period will be and what the arrangements for unfair dismissal during that period will be, because I cannot see how we can have a Bill setting all this out when we do not know what is intended.
Like other noble Lords, I would value some statement. I do not need to refer to the compliance cost, the impact assessment that estimates hundreds of millions of pounds, or the additional complexity in the recruitment process. Added to the other measures in the Bill, Clause 23 and Schedule 3 add a new dimension of insecurity.
If we are to have businesses, particularly small businesses, willing to grow, to raise productivity as the Government want and to hire the new employees needed to raise that productivity, the Government should welcome Amendment 49 and all the amendments in this group. They accept the spirit of the manifesto pledge and go some way in helping the Government to get out of the mess, which is of their own creation.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I broadly support this group of amendments and, in particular, Amendment 49 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. My noble friend Lord Vaux’s more straightforward Amendment 50 would reduce the length of the qualifying period from two years to a minimum of six months, during which an employee may not claim unfair dismissal.
I am happy to agree with the Government that the current two-year period for effective probation, from my experience as an employer, is excessively long and merits revision. Like others, I understand that the Government are consulting on the length of the IPE, the initial period of employment, and that nine months is being suggested. However, given that most permanent employees have a formal annual review at 12 months, during which their remuneration and performance are reviewed, I think it is fair and transparent that the 12-month review also represents the end of the probationary or qualifying period. That provides clarity to both sides and, I believe, is sufficient time for the employer to assess the employee’s performance, competence and cultural fit.
I accept that, in the majority of cases, performance issues during probation surface within the first six months. A proactive employer should then step in to either articulate a performance improvement plan for the next six months, with clear markers and milestones, or come to an early conclusion that this is not going to work out and move on to dismissal. But if we overly squeeze the probationary period, we will deter employers, particularly entrepreneurs, from the creation of new jobs by reducing their appetite to take a risk on new recruits, as we have heard, which is surely not what the Government intend.
Clause 23 and Schedule 3 threaten to be a real menace for two groups of employer in particular. The first, as we have heard, is those sectors with naturally high staff attrition rates given the nature of their business, such as retail and hospitality. The second, perhaps less obviously, is those businesses that rely on particular job functions that carry higher risk and performance requirements, in particular sales, marketing and business development jobs that run across so many of our economy’s key sectors: everything from sales on the floor, in the park or in the kiosk, and, yes, telesales—which we all try to avoid—to those involved in B2B business development and client account management. I know from personal experience in advising start-ups and scale-ups that these are critical, revenue-generating roles with strong personal performance criteria where much of the remuneration comes—quite correctly—in the form of performance-related pay. We will do real damage to productivity and economic growth if we do not allow fair and proper time for assessment of these types of roles without the threat of unfair dismissal hanging over employers’ heads prematurely. That said, I will support Amendment 49 if it is put to the vote.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, as well as those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden. Throughout our debates, one thing has become clear: Clause 23 is one of the more troubling areas for the business community and therefore potential employees. That concern is reflected not just in what we have heard in this Chamber but in the Government’s own impact assessment.
When a company hires someone new, it takes a risk. No matter how impressive someone’s CV may be or how well they come across in interview, things do not always work out, as we have heard. That is why probation periods exist. They give both the employer and the employee a chance to assess whether it is the right fit. I have seen this at first hand in my own company, Marsh Ltd. For small businesses in particular, hiring someone new, especially during a period of growth, can be a major financial and operational commitment. When things do not work out, the company should not be left to carry all the burden because of a mismatch that is no one’s fault. Introducing a day-one right to claim unfair dismissal outside the already established exceptions places a heavy weight on employers. It could discourage them from hiring altogether. Worse still, it may lead to pressure being placed on existing staff, who are asked to do more because their employers are hesitant to take on new people.
In the Financial Times, the Chancellor said an excessive safety-first approach was not seen in any of Britain’s global competitors, adding:
“It is bad for businesses, bad for growth and bad for working people”—
a description of this Bill and Clause 23 in particular. These amendments offer a sensible middle ground. They would reduce the current qualifying period for unfair dismissal protection from two years to six months. That strikes me as fair and proportionate. It matches the length of the probation period used in many companies, and certainly in the one I work for. Six months should be enough time to determine whether someone is right for the role. These amendments would make it better for business, better for growth and better for working people. That is why I support them.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment. It seems to be a reasonable change to get rid of the two years, and I think six months is a more reasonable representation. My question, though, is about how this will affect police officers.
Police officers are not employees. Their terms and conditions are governed by secondary legislation or police regulations. It is already quite difficult to remove the ones who should be removed because, first, they are represented by lawyers—I say this with all respect to the lawyers in the room—in the misconduct process. It never makes it quicker, and it always makes it more expensive. Secondly, when the assessment is made of whether the proof is there to sack them, the test of the standard of evidence is moved from the balance of probabilities to beyond reasonable doubt. That is the same standard for criminal proof, so it is quite a high standard, and they are represented by a lawyer. It gets quite difficult.
The two-year probationary period has always been a good way to remove those people who should be removed or who are not suited to the role. If we are to remove that two-year period, one of the measures by which we get rid of the worst officers will be lost, and I worry about that. We know from research that often the officers who turn bad later should have been removed in their probationary period, had everyone had the courage to take that decision.
I am not saying that it is wrong or right, nor that the police regulations should definitely change, but I would like to understand what the Government’s reaction is. We will have a group of people who are not classed as employees—police officers—who will still have a two-year period and, under the new scheme, might have none at all. This is a group I think we should pay particular attention to. Perhaps the Government might give their view on how they intend to deal with that.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I will begin with an explanation. When I supported the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, in Committee, there was concern about a risk assessment that said that if there was no probation period, it would be quite difficult for some employers to take people on. The same question was then posed, rather more sharply, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips: would you employ an ex-offender if there was no probation period at all? That little sentence requires probing.
Last time, I began with apprenticeships. In particular, I spoke about a young man called Oscar, who has been taken on by one of our best plumbers in Berwick, and I said that I hoped he qualifies. I was about to move on to the actual amendment when I said that, when Oscar finishes his apprenticeship, he will have an interview with his current employer and some other people, and that if he passes that interview he will be expected to serve a period of probation, and that this wonderful plumber would not be likely to retain Oscar if there was no probation period. That is where I was going to end. It is right that we remove the two-year qualifying period, which is too long, but I am not so sure that it should be nine months.
In the Church of England, no cleric is an employee because they are all self-employed. I remember a wonderful case where someone complained about a bishop for something they had said to this particular clergy, who had gone to a tribunal after a series of reviews that showed that he was not competent in what he was doing. At the end of the hearing, the clergy was told that he was suing the bishop but that the bishop was not his employer—his employer was God. He was told that if he could bring God into this, he could sue him because he was self-employed and answerable only to God.
We have lived without this worry, but the more I have worked with a lot of people and become a trainer for some, the more I have realised that, if we remove the probation period, we are going to find ourselves in a very difficult situation. The people who are more likely to miss out are young people who need some mentoring and support, and who can be directed to different things.
I am not sure where this is coming from. There are, of course, bad employers, who like to dismiss people at the shortest notice. If we went for six or 12 months in the statute, most employers would abide by what they have taken on. Let us give a good word to employers and not think that all of them simply want you to get out as soon as you come in.
I support Amendments 49, 50 and 51. If all of them are put to a vote, I will be the first into the Lobby.
Lord de Clifford (CB)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments, as the initial period of employment is so important to both employers and employees. I declare my interest in the register as the part owner of an SME veterinary practice that employs 140 employees. I am one of those people who will suffer from Clause 23, which is changing our views because of the uncertainty it will bring. Your Lordships have made many very important points that I will try not to repeat.
As employers, we still have no details of when the consultation on probation periods will be launched or how it will work, again creating uncertainty. Probation periods are so important to both employees and employers. The start of a new job is very important for both parties and is, we hope, the start of a long and productive relationship. Employers value employees who stay for many years, as the cost of employing individuals is so expensive. Employees have flexibility at the start of a job, with generally a week’s notice. All we ask is for flexibility for employers as well. That is what probation periods grant, but the Bill will potentially remove these.
Why is the probationary period so important for employers? It is a time to assess whether the individual that you have employed has the capacity to do the required tasks of the job. Do they have the skills that they said they have? Do their skills meet the standards that you set for your business? Is their attendance of a reasonable standard to be part of a team? Do they fit the culture of the business and hold similar values? If the employee, for whatever reason, does not fit, the employer has to go through a long, time-consuming and unfair dismissal process, even when someone has been in the business for two or three weeks or a couple of months—a process that uses up valuable management time and brings uncertainty for the employee. In some cases, it is blatantly clear that this relationship between the employee and the employer is not going to work.
As said by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, we need guidance on the initial period of employment, as it is so important for employers to take on employees who may be disadvantaged in the job market. If employers want to give them a chance but have no clear guidance or a short probation period, they will not take a risk that could benefit potential employees and those who, in the long term, may become really valuable with some time.
This group of amendments seeks to bring important parts of the employment relationship into the Bill, rather than waiting for a long, detailed consultation, with no details. It would help the Government’s plan to make work pay by encouraging all into work. That is why I support this group. If the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, calls for a Division, I will follow him into the Lobby.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief—not quite as brief as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, but I shall do my best, and I promise to keep away from the police and definitely the clergy. I had lunch with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, so I think I am safe for today.
While we agree that the current two-year qualifying period is too long, we are concerned about removing it entirely without a clear statutory probation period in place. This could leave businesses in a state of uncertainty, with a gap between the removal of the qualifying period and the introduction of the new probation framework. It risks inconsistency in employment tribunals, as claims will be judged under a system that lacks clarity until the probation period is formally established.
Amendment 49, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would reduce the qualifying period to six months. Most other amendments in this group are consequential to ensure legislative consistency. We are gently supportive of this amendment, as it would reduce the timeframe for an employee with a plausible case to claim unfair dismissal, while allowing businesses time to correct genuine and non-pernicious hiring mistakes. If the noble Lord were to test the opinion of the House, we would support him on this occasion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government were elected on a manifesto to provide unfair dismissal protection from day one of employment—not two years, not six months, but day one. To deliver this commitment, we will remove the qualifying period for these rights.
The Government recognise that, from time to time, employers will need to fairly dismiss an employee for a fair reason. We expect that most employers already fairly dismiss employees, and the process need not be too arduous. Our changes will not prevent fair dismissal. An employee who has been working in the job for some time but whose performance has dipped will continue to have the standard protections against unfair dismissal. However, the Government believe that it is not right to expect employers to have to meet the same standards in the first few months of employment when they are assessing their newly hired recruit and deciding whether that person can deliver what the employer expects. This is why our policy creates a statutory probationary period, during which light-touch standards for dismissal relating to an employee’s performance and suitability will apply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, asked what length the probationary period would be. As we have said previously, the Government’s preference is for nine months. We intend to consult on the duration and how the light-touch standards will operate. The current two-year qualifying period is designed not as a training period but a qualifying period before the individual can claim unfair dismissal. If the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Vaux, were to be accepted, employees would still have the threat looming over them of being fired arbitrarily.
Amendment 51 preserves the policy in the Bill of exempting a dismissal due to a spent conviction for many qualifying periods—a point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips. I am pleased that the noble Lords agree with the Government’s policy, at least to that extent.
However, I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that the Government do not believe in protection for some workers in some limited circumstances; instead, they believe in protection for all employees, benefiting 9 million people. The noble Lord spoke about the needs of young people looking for work. Of course we identify with that, and the Government are committed to supporting people as they take their first steps into the world of work or return to work. As the Prime Minister set out on the Get Britain Working White Paper in November 2024:
“Our country’s greatest asset is its people”.
As I explained in Committee, we are
“transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy that will deliver greater flexibility”
for learners and employers
“aligned with the industrial strategy”.
This will include
“shorter duration and foundation apprenticeships in key sectors, helping more people to learn new high-quality skills at work, fuelling innovation in businesses across the country, and providing high-quality pathways for young people”.—[Official Report, 21/5/25; col. 305.]
We also intend to limit unpaid internships for those who are part of an education or training course. The law is clear that, if an individual is classed as a worker, they are entitled to at least the national minimum wage and anyone eligible must be paid accordingly.
Beyond enhancing learning on the job and ensuring that a fair wage is paid for young people’s work, we also believe that all employees should be provided with security of work through protections from being fired arbitrarily. It is no less distressing to lose a job at the start of your career than at any other point in the years that follow. However, the Government recognise that employers use probationary periods to assess new hires’ performance and suitability for their role. We will ensure that UK businesses can hire with confidence.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about social mobility. We recognise that good employers take a chance on what we might call “rough diamonds” up and down the country. The valuable time that employers take to support new hires by developing their skills and their talents on the job is not recognised often enough. The statutory probationary period will enable this, with light-touch standards for fair dismissals. We have said explicitly that our intention is to provide for a less onerous approach for businesses to follow to dismiss someone during their statutory probationary period for reasons to do with their performance and suitability for the role. Of course, that will apply equally to healthcare employees.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, talked about potentially increasing the number of tribunals. Provided that the employer can show that the reason for dismissal was fair, they should have no concerns about the outcome, as nothing is really new from the current situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, asked about police officers. I understand that they are excluded from the existing legislation, as they would be from the Bill. In that sense, there is no change.
Noble Lords have raised the issue of a cultural fit, which, of course, can mean many different things. “Not a good fit” is often used euphemistically to refer to attributes such as an employee’s work ethic, their level of commitment to the job, or how they interact with their colleagues. In many situations, these reasons will fall into the category of dismissal for conduct or capability, to which the new light-touch standards will apply. If the cultural fit is linked to a protected characteristic then of course dismissing someone for that reason could lead to discrimination claims, and the Bill does not affect that.
Beyond these reasons for dismissal, which clearly fall within the conduct and capability category, the Government will carefully consult on what other kinds of “some other substantial reason” dismissals should also be subject to those light-touch standards. The Bill contains a power for the Government to define what a “some other substantial reason” dismissals “relating to the employee” should mean. As I have noted, the intent is to define what relates to an employee’s performance and suitability for their role. We will welcome employers’ and trade unions’ input on that important issue. However, these amendments would remove the Government’s statutory probationary period to enable light-touch standards for fair dismissals for the first nine months of employment.
Noble Lords asked about consultation. We have already consulted on the proposals, and we are continuing to engage with trade bodies and trade unions prior to publicly consulting later this year. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade issued a letter to stakeholders on Thursday 26 June, which outlined the fundamental principles that are guiding the Government’s development and implementation of day-one rights to unfair dismissal protections and invited stakeholders to engage on the detail of the policy. Should your Lordships be interested, I have now placed a copy of that letter in the House Library. I should also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that the road map shows that these day-one rights, including protection from unfair dismissal, will not be introduced before 2027.
In the meantime, these amendments would not deliver on the Government’s manifesto commitment to introduce a day-one right against unfair dismissal, leaving many newly hired employees without robust employment protections. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Finally, my Amendment 52 is simply a minor technical amendment that corrects a cross-reference in Schedule 3. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 49.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, is nine months now the Government’s official position on the initial period? If it is, can they confirm what they are minded to put into their light-touch unfair dismissal arrangements?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, as we have said before, we will continue to consult on this but that is our preferred option at this stage. We think that is a reasonable balance between the current arrangements and some of the proposals we have before us today.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the Minister for her response. It was remiss of me earlier not to thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for signing various amendments. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comprehensive and powerful speech, and for reminding us of the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, about GP surgeries.
As the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, pointed out, we have heard from the police, doctors, businesspeople, lawyers, vets and the clergy, and there was no argument in favour of the status quo but there were powerful arguments for common sense. I wonder whether the silence from the Government Benches indicates a degree of unease in what we are debating—a change that will fundamentally alter the balance of risk in hiring, at a time when unemployment has risen in every month that this Government have been in power.
This clause will do nothing to promote fairness in the workplace. It will erode flexibility, choke opportunity and harden the barriers that those on the margins already face. The Minister argued that employers have nothing to fear from tribunals, but the Government’s own impact assessment says that they expect the number of cases to rise by 15%, so I am afraid I do not follow the logic of her argument.
Also, the Government’s own impact assessment admits—I will repeat this, even though the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, did not—that introducing day-one rights to claim unfair dismissal would
“damage the employment prospects of people who are trying to re-enter the labour market, especially if they are observed to be riskier to hire”.
As the noble Lord said, the Government already know that, so why are they doing this?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, asked a very to the point question, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, made an argument based on his experience. Both noble Lords were, in effect, making the point that this is also the compassionate thing to do.
This clause is not ready, safe or wise. We need to avert what my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe described as a “looming tragedy”. Therefore, I seek to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
If Amendment 51 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 52 by reason of pre-emption.
Schedule 3: Right not to be unfairly dismissed: removal of qualifying period, etc.
Amendment 51
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“1 Section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (qualifying period of employment) is amended as follows—(a) in subsection (1) omit “two years” and insert “six months”;(b) after subsection (5), insert—“(6) Subsection (1) does not apply if section 4(3)(b) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (read with any order made under section 4(4) of that Act) applies.”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment reduces the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months, leaving in place the existing exceptions to that qualifying period in section 108(3) of the Employment Rights Act and adding a new exception in relation to spent convictions.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I suggest that we take Amendment 53 and a number of consequential amendments en bloc.
Amendments 53 to 66
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the initial period of employment begins after the qualifying period for unfair dismissal.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on another in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom which provides that the initial period of employment begins after the qualifying period for unfair dismissal.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the initial period of employment begins after the qualifying period for unfair dismissal.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the initial period of employment begins after the qualifying period for unfair dismissal.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that an employee is not entitled to a written statement of reasons for dismissal if the employee is dismissed during either the qualifying period for unfair dismissal or the initial period of employment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on other amendments to Schedule 3 by Lord Sharpe of Epsom and provides that an employee is entitled to a written statement of reasons for dismissal if dismissed when pregnant or on maternity leave, regardless of length of service.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on other amendments to Schedule 3 tabled by Lord Sharpe of Epsom and provides that an employee is entitled to a written statement of reasons for dismissal if dismissed when on adoption leave, regardless of length of service.
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments are consequential on others to Schedule 3 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments are consequential on others to Schedule 3 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments are consequential on other amendments to Schedule 3 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments are consequential on other amendments to Schedule 3 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments are consequential on other amendments to Schedule 3 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments are consequential other amendments to for Schedule 3 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendments are consequential on other amendments to Schedule 3 in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendments of clause 26.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, these government amendments are tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. They target the application of the clause to a set of restricted variations, to better focus the measures on unscrupulous “fire and rehire” tactics. We have heard many representations from both businesses and trade unions on the effect of this measure, and we have listened to the well-argued points in this House and the other place. We have greatly valued the input and co-operation of groups across industry on this issue, including the CBI, the British Retail Consortium and their members, as well as the TUC, Unite, USDAW, the RMT and many other businesses and trade unions. It is our intention to ban the unscrupulous use of “fire and rehire”, and we were elected on a manifesto commitment to do so. However, we want to avoid unnecessary restrictions on the ability of employers to make essential operational decisions.
Amendments 69 to 72, 77, 79, 82, 86, 91 and 92 mean that fire and rehire will be an automatic unfair dismissal in relation to restricted variations unless the employer is in severe financial difficulties and has no reasonable alternative. These restricted variations are pay, number of hours, leave entitlement and those changes to shift patterns that will be specified in regulations.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the Bill’s provisions on fire and rehire. I think there is a consensus across the House that the most outrageous cases of fire and rehire should be outlawed. The particular case and example is P&O Ferries, which was not so much fire and rehire, but just fire: nearly 800 staff were dismissed without consultation or notice. Nevertheless, it serves to highlight the urgent need for stronger protection for workers and clear restrictions on the use of fire and rehire.
The series of government amendments in this group clarifies that distinction through the introduction of restricted variations that would permit contract negotiation to proceed in limited circumstances. Government Amendment 72 sets up the condition of restricted variation which, in short, it defines as the removal or weakening of entitlement relating to pay and broader terms and conditions. This approach reflects the intentions behind my Amendment 75, which would allow contract variations where they are not detrimental to employees’ terms and conditions and do not concern paid hours. I am glad that the Government have reconsidered the operability of these provisions, and we are happy to support these amendments to the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that, as we warned when we discussed it in Committee, Clause 26 was, as originally drafted, quite simply unworkable.
As we reminded noble Lords throughout Committee, the clause was far too broad. It would have captured entirely routine contractual changes, such as simple variation in work location, and treated them as fire and rehire cases. That approach was not only impractical but potentially damaging to employers and employees alike. We therefore welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward amendment that define the concept of a restricted variation. This brings much-needed clarity to the legislation. Although I would not go so far as to say that the clause now flies, it is at least comprehensible.
The Minister quoted Unite. May I quote Unite back at him? It has just issued a statement saying that it condemns the Government’s amendments, which in its own way suggests that progress is being made. The Minister would be well placed to consider the rather detailed brief that Unite has delivered, condemning the way in which the Government are now reworking Clause 26. It suggests that progress is being made and all our warnings are coming to fruition. One now has to wonder, I suppose, whether the realisation dawned when someone in Whitehall spotted that the original drafting could have torpedoed the Government’s own plans to relocate 50% of senior civil servants out of London.
Of course, these amendments, while helpful, have added layers of complexity. Look at what Clause 26 now represents: it is a recipe for going to Peers such as the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and asking, “What does this mean?” There is so much here that is very difficult to understand; these amendments have added layers of complexity. The fire and rehire provisions are probably slightly more workable now—I say this slightly optimistically—but, my goodness, they are intricate. No wonder the Government are preparing to consult on the matter in the autumn; that consultation will be crucial.
I quote another major figure: Mike Clancy, the general secretary of Prospect. He has warned that
“the government must be careful it doesn’t inadvertently create a veto against all contractual change”.
Surely that is the risk. Among the restricted variations now listed are reductions in entitlement to pay, changes to performance-based pay measures, alterations to pensions, variations in working hours or shift times, and reductions in leave entitlements. These are precisely the sort of changes that businesses, particularly smaller ones, often need to make—not recklessly, but to adapt, restructure or just survive during periods of financial strain. So we urge the Government to conduct this consultation with care. The views of employers must be front and centre. The impact on small and medium-sized businesses must be fully understood. Yes, constraints matter, but so do incentives. If we are serious about improving employment practice, we must not just punish the worst but support the best.
As amended, this clause is better, but we look forward to hearing from the Minister how he will respond to the many criticisms that have been made.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I thought for a minute that concord might break out across the House—it did at least partially, but not quite. However, as the short debate we have had today and the debates we had in Committee have shown—the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, identified this—there is wide agreement across your Lordships’ House that the unconscionable tactics we saw P&O Ferries use should never be allowed again. We have also heard clear arguments that employers will need to make reasonable operational changes and that this should be permitted.
I begin with Amendments 74 and 88 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, which seek to make it clear that, where an employer makes redundancies because they have had to change location, this should not be an automatic unfair dismissal. We agree. If there is no longer a job for the employee at a work location because that location has had to close down, this is unfortunate but is still a redundancy situation. That is why new Section 104I will apply only when the principal reason for the dismissal falls within that section. Where an employee’s place of work is closed, the principal reason for their dismissal is likely to be redundancy. We will set out further detail on this matter in our planned code of practice.
Further, the changes that the Government are making through their amendments will mean that a change to the location at which an employee works is a non-restricted variation. This means that, even in cases where there is no redundancy situation, a dismissal for failing to agree to a new work location will not be automatically unfair. An employer must still follow a fair process when making such dismissals.
Amendment 73 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, seeks to limit the protections in the Bill to cases in which fire and rehire was used to reduce pay and benefits. Government Amendments 69 to 72, 77, 79, 82, 86, 91 and 92 will focus the clause’s protections on variations to certain terms—specifically pay, leave, total hours worked and specified shift patterns. Those terms were identified because variations to them would have a significant impact on employees and should not be imposed under the threat of fire and rehire. This is, we believe, in line with the intention of the noble Lord’s amendment.
In his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raised the comments from Unite and Prospect. I think I am right in saying that they were askance. They show that there is a variety of views within the trade union movement as well as across industry. We understand that Unite would like stricter conditions on fire and rehire. We feel that, having consulted a wide range of trade unions—including, of course, the TUC—and a number of business organisations, as well as businesses themselves and representative business organisations, including the CBI and the BRC, we have struck the right balance in the way we have constructed the clause.
Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, proposes to limit the clause to contract variations that are not one of a list of protected terms and are otherwise minor and non-detrimental. The Government’s amendments, which limit the clause’s automatic unfair dismissal protections to a list of restricted variations, achieve the noble Lord’s intended outcome; he very graciously acknowledged this. They also have the benefit of being specific. For example, the Government’s amendments will not require an employment tribunal to come to a decision about whether a variation should be considered minor on the facts of each case. They also give employers flexibility to make reasonable location changes, which employers have told us is an important operational consideration and which would not be possible under the noble Lord’s amendment.
I therefore beg to move the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, not to move Amendment 73.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and other amendments of clause 26 would limit new section 104I(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to cases where the variation of the contract of employment was of a particular kind. This includes reductions in an employee’s pay or time off and changes to the number of hours an employee is required to work.
(i) did not agree to the restricted variation, or(ii) where the employer sought to make more than one variation, did not agree to a number of variations that included the restricted variation.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 46, line 25.
“(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3), a contract of employment is a “varied” contract of employment if—(a) the terms of the contract are not the same as the terms of the contract of employment under which the employee worked before being dismissed, and(b) one or more of the differences between the two sets of terms constitutes a restricted variation (see subsection (3B));and, in a case where subsection (3) applies, any reference in this section to the restricted variation is to be read accordingly.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 46, line 25.
“(3B) In this section “restricted variation” means any of the following—(a) a reduction of, or removal of an entitlement to, any sum payable to an employee in connection with the employment (but see subsection (3C));(b) where the amount of any sum payable to an employee in connection with the employment is determined by reference to a measure of the amount of work done by the employee (including a measure referable to results achieved by the employee), a variation of that measure;(c) a variation of any term or condition relating to pensions or pension schemes;(d) a variation of the number of hours which an employee is required to work;(e) a variation of the timing or duration of a shift which meets such conditions as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(f) a reduction in the amount of time off which an employee is entitled to take;(g) a variation of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(h) the inclusion in a contract of employment of a term enabling the employer to make any variation within any of the preceding paragraphs without the employee’s agreement.(3C) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a reference in subsection (3B) to a sum payable to an employee in connection with the employment does not include a reference to—(a) a sum payable in respect of—(i) any expenses incurred by an employee;(ii) any expenses of a specified description incurred by an employee;(iii) any expenses incurred by an employee other than expenses of a specified description;(b) a payment or benefit in kind, a payment or benefit in kind of a specified description, or a payment or benefit in kind other than one of a specified description.In this subsection “specified” means specified in the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 46, line 25.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendments of clause 26 at page 46, line 36 and page 47, line 2.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 46, line 25.
(i) the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern, or(ii) where the employer is a public sector employer, the financial sustainability of carrying out the employer’s statutory functions,”Member’s explanatory statement
The effect of this amendment is that, for the purposes of the exception to new section 104I(1) of the Employment Rights Act 1996, a public sector employer (other than a local authority) may rely on financial difficulties that are affecting, or likely in the immediate future to affect, the financial sustainability of carrying out the employer’s statutory functions.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 46, line 25.
“(4A) In the case of an employer that is a local authority, subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an employee if—(a) at the time of the dismissal, a relevant intervention direction has effect in relation to the authority,(b) the relevant intervention direction—(i) specifies that the reason, or one of the reasons, for the giving of the direction is that the authority is undergoing financial difficulties, and(ii) contains provision relating to the financial management or financial governance of the authority, and(c) the authority shows that—(i) the reason for the restricted variation was to eliminate or significantly reduce, or significantly mitigate the effect of, any of the financial difficulties referred to in paragraph (b)(i), and(ii) in all the circumstances the authority could not reasonably have avoided the need to make the restricted variation.(4B) In determining whether—(a) in the case of a public sector employer (other than a local authority), subsection (4)(b) is met, or(b) in the case of a local authority, subsection (4A)(c)(ii) is met,an employment tribunal must apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the exception for employers undergoing financial difficulties applies to a local authority only if a “relevant intervention direction” has effect in relation to it. It also makes provision about how an employment tribunal should decide whether a public sector employer (including a local authority) could not reasonably have avoided the need to make the variation.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment of clause 26 at page 47, line 2 that inserts a new subsection (4A) into section 104I of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment at page 46, line 25.
“(5A) In this section—“English local authority” means—(a) a county council or district council in England;(b) a London borough council;(c) the Greater London Authority;(d) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;(e) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority, a police authority or a port health authority;(f) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;(g) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;“local authority” means—(a) an English local authority,(b) a Welsh local authority, or(c) a Scottish local authority;“public sector employer” means a person that—(a) is wholly or mainly funded from public funds,(b) is under a statutory duty to carry out any functions of a public nature, and(c) so far as carrying out those functions, does not operate on a commercial basis;“recognised” , in relation to a trade union, has the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (see section 178 of that Act);“relevant intervention direction” means—(a) in the case of an English local authority, a direction under section 15(5) or (6)(a) of the Local Government Act 1999 (powers to deal with failure to comply with duties relating to best value authorities);(b) in the case of a Welsh local authority, a direction under section 106 or 107 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 (asc 1) (intervention powers of Welsh Ministers);(c) in the case of a Scottish local authority, an enforcement direction under section 24 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 (asp 1) relating wholly or partly to a failure of the authority to comply with its duties under section 1 of that Act (local authorities’ duty to secure best value);“Scottish local authority” means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;“statutory duty” means a duty imposed by or under any enactment, including—(a) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales or an Act of Senedd Cymru, and(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;“statutory functions” , in relation to a public sector employer, means functions of a public nature which the employer is under a statutory duty to carry out;“Welsh local authority” means— (a) a county council or county borough council in Wales;(b) a corporate joint committee established under Part 5 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a number of definitions that are needed for the purposes of section 104I of the Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by my other amendments of clause 26.
“(5A) The reference in subsection (4A)(a) to a relevant intervention direction includes a relevant intervention direction given before the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 was passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes it clear that, for the purposes of subsection (4A)(a) of new section 104I of the Employment Rights Act 1996, it does not matter if the relevant intervention direction was given before the day on which the Employment Rights Bill receives Royal Assent.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendments of clause 26.
“104J Contracts of employment: variations that are not restricted variations(1) This section applies to the dismissal of an employee if—(a) the employee was employed for the purposes of a business carried on by the employer, and(b) the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is a reason within subsection (2) or (3).(2) The reason within this subsection is that—(a) the employer sought to vary the employee’s contract of employment,(b) the variation was not a restricted variation or, where the employer sought to make more than one variation, none of the variations was a restricted variation, and(c) the employee did not agree to the variation.(3) The reason within this subsection is to enable the employer to employ another person, or to re-engage the employee, under a varied contract of employment to carry out the same duties, or substantially the same duties, as the employee carried out before being dismissed.(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), a contract of employment is a “varied” contract of employment if—(a) the terms of the contract are not the same as the terms of the contract of employment under which the employee worked before being dismissed, and(b) none of the differences between the two sets of terms constitutes a restricted variation;and, in a case where subsection (3) applies, any reference in this section to the variation is to be read accordingly.(5) The matters that must be considered in determining the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair include the following—(a) the reason for the variation;(b) any consultation carried out by the employer with the employee about varying the employee’s contract of employment;(c) if the employee is of a description in respect of which an independent trade union is recognised by the employer, any consultation carried out by the employer with that trade union; (d) if the employee is not of a description in respect of which an independent trade union is recognised by the employer, any consultation carried out by the employer with any other person representing the interests of the employee that, at the time of the dismissal, had authority to receive information and to be consulted about the dismissal on the employee’s behalf;(e) anything offered to the employee by the employer in return for agreeing to the variation;(f) any matters specified for the purposes of this subsection in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(6) In this section—“recognised” , in relation to a trade union, has the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (see section 178 of that Act);“restricted variation” has the same meaning as in section 104I.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that, where an employee is dismissed for failing to agree to a variation of their contract of employment that is not a “restricted variation”, the matters that must be considered in determining whether the dismissal is fair or unfair include those specified in new section 104J(5) of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
“104K Redundancy: replacement of employees with people who are not employees(1) An employee who is dismissed is to be regarded for the purposes of this Part as unfairly dismissed if—(a) the employee was employed for the purposes of a business carried on by the employer, and(b) the reason (or, if more than one, the principal reason) for the dismissal is to enable the employer to replace the employee with an individual who is not an employee of the employer.(2) For the purposes of this section—(a) an employer replaces an employee with an individual who is not an employee of the employer if (and only if)—(i) the individual, or the individual taken together with one or more employees of the employer or other individuals, is to carry out activities, in pursuance of a relevant contract, for the purposes of the employer’s business,(ii) those activities are the same, or substantially the same, activities as the employee, or the employee taken together with one or more other employees of the employer, carried out before being dismissed, and(iii) the employee’s dismissal is not wholly or mainly attributable to the fact that the requirements of the employer’s business for those activities to be carried out have ceased or diminished or are expected to cease or diminish;and any reference in this section to replacing an employee is to be read accordingly;(b) a reference to replacing an employee with an individual who is not an employee of the employer includes the case where the individual is the one who has been dismissed;(c) “relevant contract”, in relation to an employer, means a contract, other than a contract of employment, to which the employer is a party (whether or not the individual carrying out activities in pursuance of the contract is a party to it).(3) In the case of an employer that is not a local authority, subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an employee if the employer shows that— (a) the reason for the replacement was to eliminate, prevent or significantly reduce, or significantly mitigate the effect of, any financial difficulties which at the time of the dismissal were affecting, or were likely in the immediate future to affect—(i) the employer’s ability to carry on the business as a going concern, or(ii) where the employer is a public sector employer, the financial sustainability of carrying out the employer’s statutory functions, and(b) in all the circumstances the employer could not reasonably have avoided the need to replace the employee.(4) In the case of an employer that is a local authority, subsection (1) does not apply in relation to an employee if—(a) at the time of the dismissal, a relevant intervention direction has effect in relation to the authority,(b) the relevant intervention direction—(i) specifies that the reason, or one of the reasons, for the giving of the direction is that the authority is undergoing financial difficulties, and(ii) contains provision relating to the financial management or financial governance of the authority, and(c) the authority shows that—(i) the reason for the replacement was to eliminate or significantly reduce, or significantly mitigate the effect of, any of the financial difficulties referred to in paragraph (b)(i), and(ii) in all the circumstances the authority could not reasonably have avoided the need to replace the employee.(5) In determining whether—(a) in the case of a public sector employer (other than a local authority), subsection (3)(b) is met, or(b) in the case of a local authority, subsection (4)(c)(ii) is met,an employment tribunal must apply the same principles as would be applied by a court on an application for judicial review.(6) Where the employer shows that the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3) are met, or (where the employer is a local authority) the conditions in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (4) are met, the matters that must be considered in determining the question whether the dismissal is fair or unfair include the following—(a) any consultation carried out by the employer with the employee about replacing the employee;(b) if the employee is of a description in respect of which an independent trade union is recognised by the employer, any consultation carried out by the employer with that trade union;(c) if the employee is not of a description in respect of which an independent trade union is recognised by the employer, any consultation carried out by the employer with any other person representing the interests of the employee that, at the time of the dismissal, had authority to receive information and to be consulted about the dismissal on the employee’s behalf;(d) any matters specified for the purposes of this subsection in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(7) In this section—“contract” means a contract whether express or implied and (if it is express) whether oral or in writing;“English local authority” means— (a) a county council or district council in England;(b) a London borough council;(c) the Greater London Authority;(d) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;(e) the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority, a police authority or a port health authority;(f) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;(g) a combined county authority established under section 9(1) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023;“local authority” means—(a) an English local authority,(b) a Welsh local authority, or(c) a Scottish local authority;“public sector employer” means a person that—(a) is wholly or mainly funded from public funds,(b) is under a statutory duty to carry out any functions of a public nature, and(c) so far as carrying out those functions, does not operate on a commercial basis;“recognised” , in relation to a trade union, has the same meaning as in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (see section 178 of that Act);“relevant intervention direction” means—(a) in the case of an English local authority, a direction under section 15(5) or (6)(a) of the Local Government Act 1999 (powers to deal with failure to comply with duties relating to best value authorities);(b) in the case of a Welsh local authority, a direction under section 106 or 107 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 (asc 1) (intervention powers of Welsh Ministers);(c) in the case of a Scottish local authority, an enforcement direction under section 24 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003 (asp 1) relating wholly or partly to a failure of the authority to comply with its duties under section 1 of that Act (local authorities’ duty to secure best value);“Scottish local authority” means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;“statutory duty” means a duty imposed by or under any enactment, including—(a) a Measure or Act of the National Assembly for Wales or an Act of Senedd Cymru, and(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament;“statutory functions” , in relation to a public sector employer, means functions of a public nature which the employer is under a statutory duty to carry out;“Welsh local authority” means—(a) a county council or county borough council in Wales;(b) a corporate joint committee established under Part 5 of the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021.(8) The reference in subsection (4)(a) to a relevant intervention direction includes a relevant intervention direction given before the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 was passed.(3A) In section 105 (redundancy), in the heading, after “Redundancy” insert “: other cases”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that an employee’s dismissal is automatically unfair if the reason for the dismissal was to enable the employer to replace the employee, on a broadly like-for-like basis, with someone who is not employed but is, for example, an agency worker or a self-employed contractor. There are exceptions to this rule in circumstances where the reason for the replacement is to address financial difficulties of the employer and the employer could not reasonably have avoided the need to replace the employee.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment of clause 26 at page 47, line 2 that inserts a new subsection (4A) into section 104I of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
“(gp) subsection (1) of section 104K (read with subsections (3) and (4) of that section) applies,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment of clause 26 at page 47, line 31 that inserts a new section 104K into the Employment Rights Act 1996.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations under new section 104I of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations under subsection (5)(f) of new section 104J of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides for regulations under subsection (6)(d) of new section 104K of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Baroness Noakes
“Part 1 exemptions(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify that specified categories of person shall be exempt in whole or in part from all or any of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act.(2) Regulations may provide that exemptions apply for a specified period of time.(3) The categories of person exempted by regulations may be defined by the activities which they carry out, their size, their legal status or in any other way that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) Regulations made under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 94 seeks to give the Secretary of State power to introduce exemptions from Part 1 of this Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for adding his name to the amendment. In Committee and on Report, noble Lords have warned about the impact that this Bill could have on businesses. The right to guaranteed hours, the statutory sick pay changes and the day-one rights which we debated earlier all create problems for businesses, especially small businesses and micro-businesses. The Government are ignoring these concerns.
These provisions directly affect businesses, but noble Lords opposite should share our concerns that the real effect of these new rights will be fewer job opportunities. As we have heard, employees with risk factors, from the employer’s perspective, will find it harder to get work because of day-one rights and the statutory sick pay changes. These include young people, people with incomplete job histories, people with a history of illness and ex-offenders. People who value part-time flexible work—this particularly affects women and students—might find fewer opportunities because employers fear triggering the guaranteed-hours requirements.
The Government are introducing these changes at a time of great economic uncertainty. While the employment numbers continue to edge upwards, there are warning signs in a rising unemployment rate, falling job vacancies and falling average hours worked. Business surveys are consistently flagging a reluctance to hire among businesses and increased expectations of workforce reductions. Even the Governor of the Bank of England, not a man to be careless with words, has flagged a slowdown in the jobs market. Growth is virtually non-existent and our inflation rate is now the highest in the G7. This economic background increases the likelihood that this Bill will create real pain for some businesses, and that pain will inevitably end up being felt in the workforce.
In Committee, I argued for exemptions from Part 1 being hardwired into the Bill for small and micro-businesses. My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom’s Amendment 159 in this group is similar. His Amendment 107 would exempt farm businesses of all sizes from some of the provisions. These are both great amendments, but my guess is that the Government are not yet psychologically ready to admit that some sorts of businesses would be so hard hit by this Bill that they should be exempt from its scope. The Government have rejected exemptions, citing the need to avoid creating a two-tier workforce, despite the fact that in an open economy such as ours, workforce tiering occurs naturally and is certainly a feature of the current UK workplace.
My amendment is a simple one. It does not require the Government to do anything. It is a reserve power which the Government can use to assist the UK economy if things turn out as badly as we fear. It gives the Government power to create exemptions from all or any of the Part 1 provisions to categories of employer as defined by the Secretary of State. It thus allows very targeted interventions if the Government believe that it is necessary.
Some of the potential pain points in the Bill can be dealt with in the way that detailed regulations are framed. Amendment 105 in this group helpfully requires the Secretary of State to have regard to seasonal work when making regulations. However, regulations cannot deal with removing burdens from, for example, small and micro-businesses, which are the focus of several amendments in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley. They cannot address whole sectors, such as hospitality or agriculture, nor home in on subsectors of those sectors, such as the pub sector, which could be massively impacted by Clause 20, or particular types of farm.
It would do no harm to the Government’s position if they accepted Amendment 94. They can press ahead with plan A and see what happens. If, however, they discover real problems of the kinds that many noble Lords from across this House have described, it would give the Government a backstop power if they, and they alone, think that it is necessary. On this basis, I commend Amendment 94 to the Government and I beg to move.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 94, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and Amendment 159, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, both of which I have signed. I also support the amendment in this group tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, which calls for some scientific and statistical significance in polling a representative group of SMEs on the impact of certain provisions in the Bill. This Government’s consultation with SMEs is, to put it politely, curious and opaque, lacking, so far, any meaningful numbers or quantified response, and with barely any names. Consultation carries little weight if it lacks statistical credibility.
The entirely sensible and pragmatic amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seeks to hand the Secretary of State regulatory tools to bring in exemptions to Part 1 for certain groups or sectors, for specified periods of time, should he or she decide that these are appropriate.
Noble Lords may remember that the Government were offered similar powers of exemption by amendment in the NICs Bill earlier this year, voted through enthusiastically by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and the majority of Cross-Benchers, only to receive the custard pie treatment in the other place under the cloak of financial privilege, which was a great pity. The noble Baroness has, very generously in my view, made the same offer again, and I hope it gets a more constructive response this time.
For there is broad consensus across business that Part 1 of the Bill will have a significant impact on the jobs market, especially for SMEs, but let us be frank: the degree or level of impact is highly unpredictable. If we see the sorts of outcomes suggested by membership surveys from such bodies as the ICAEW and the FSB, then the Secretary of State would be well advised to grab the option of these exemption tools with both hands rather than doggedly sticking to a one-size-fits-all mantra.
Turning briefly to Amendment 159, seeking the disapplication of certain provisions for small and micro-businesses with fewer than 50 employees, this gets my wholehearted support. I will spare the House a repeat of my arguments in Committee. But for the Government to argue, as I am sure they will, against this amendment, because they do not want to create a two-tier workforce, simply does not reflect economic reality or indeed the jobs market or the structure of businesses.
SMBs cannot compete with large businesses when it comes to pay scales, training, promotion opportunities, pensions and a whole range of other benefits. That is a reflection of their size, their culture and their stage of development, yet they succeed in delivering strong employee loyalty and identification. This is true of family businesses, start-ups and scale-ups. To apply all the provisions in this Bill, and specifically those listed in this amendment for disapplication, to a micro-business employing five staff as it does to a multinational employing 10,000 is wilfully indiscriminate and, I suggest, economically illiterate. That is why I put my name to the amendment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and, of course, my noble friend Lady Noakes. I shall speak to my Amendments 106, 153, 155 and 184. The main thrust of the first amendments is to force the Government to listen to real concerns of the SME community who, frankly, even at this late stage, are unaware of the effects of this Bill. They are too busy trying to keep afloat in a difficult economic environment, where the painful costs of NICs and other tax rises are kicking in.
I declare an interest as an adviser to many SME businesses in my career at Cavendish plc and, to the extent that it is relevant in union matters, as a Conservative Party treasurer. We have not yet heard from any Labour Party Back-Benchers today, but I am sure that, if we do, they will declare their interests in respect of union membership.
Turning first to Amendment 106, which relates to Part 1 of the Bill, we are constantly told by the Labour Front Bench that they want to consult with business—indeed, they repeated that today. They want to consult with business, but they fail to disclose who exactly they are consulting with, let alone what they are being told by those businesses and their representative bodies. I suspect that is because they are embarrassed by the backlash against the severity of this Bill from SME and micro employers, who will make it clear to the Government that this Bill will mean they are less likely to employ more people and much more likely to let people go as the burden of employment is ratcheted up. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for reminding us of the Labour Party manifesto’s commitment to consultation.
If the Government are so confident of the benefits of this Bill for all businesses, why not agree to engage with them? This proposal is really very modest: just 500 companies out of some 5.5 million in the UK. It is not unreasonable to ask the Government to be honest with us and tell us what the reaction of the SME community is and what are its concerns, particularly as we know there has been a shocking lack of impact assessments for this Bill. We know that the recent CIPD survey revealed that 79% of organisations expect these legislative changes to increase employment costs.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord’s flow, but I feel that his comments on political funds go a fair way outside the scope of the amendments we are speaking to today. There will be plenty of time to discuss political funds next week on Report.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
With the greatest respect, I do not know if the noble Lord has read my amendment, but that is exactly the point. The point is that before the Bill is passed there should be consultation on these proposals, but there is no opportunity for consultation because they are implemented at Royal Assent. The Government keep telling us that there will be a consultation, but how can there possibly be consultation if the measures come in at Royal Assent?
Still, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that interruption because it proves the point. It also allows me to explain to him another payment from the Unite political fund, which he may not be aware of, to the Marx Memorial Library. I kid you not—you could not make it up. I am sure the members of Unite are thrilled to know that their hard-earned wages are going to support the Marx Memorial Library, but when the Bill becomes an Act, in a matter of months, they will no longer have the right to see that disbursement.
If that is what Unite wants to do then that is up to Unite, but surely it should not be covered up. All I am asking at this time is that proper consultation on the effects of Parts 4 and 6 should take place before this is ramrodded through on the statute book without any proper consultation and discussion with, as the Government like to call them, “relevant stakeholders”. It is on Amendment 106 that I will probably be seeking to test the opinion of the House today.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support these amendments and declare my interests, as recorded in the register, as the chairman of three businesses that would undoubtedly qualify as small enterprises.
I was provoked into intervening in this debate by an observation made by the Minister when she replied to the last debate. She said to your Lordships that if an employer dismissed an employee for cause, as set out in the Bill, the employer would have nothing to worry about because the tribunal would find in their favour. Very long ago I practised in the field of employment law, and I saw at first hand the consequences—often very damaging, sometimes disastrous—for a small business of having to spend the time, trouble and expense involved in contesting a case at the tribunal, even if ultimately, it was successful. In the real world, faced with that predicament, employers often find themselves obliged to settle these cases, again at considerable expense, even if the application is completely unmeritorious and would stand scant chance of success, were it ever to come before the tribunal. That factor ought to be taken into account.
My question to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Leong, is this. Attention has been drawn today to the impact assessment, particularly by my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, who pointed to the increase in the number of tribunal cases that would be a consequence of the Bill. To what extent did that impact assessment take into account disputes that were not actually taken to the tribunal and were settled by the employer, who could not afford the consequences of contesting the case at the tribunal, but which would nevertheless involve substantial, damaging and sometimes disastrous consequences for the employer?
Lord Hendy (Lab)
Given that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and I practised in employment tribunals, does he agree with me that there are now strong procedures by which employment tribunals can strike out vexatious claims without there being a full hearing? I had the pleasure, of course, of appearing against the noble Lord in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, I think it must be 40 years ago—it was a delight—but the mechanisms have developed over those decades and tribunals now do not hear vexatious claims. They strike them out before they get there.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
I do not know if the noble Lord’s memory extends to which of us won on that occasion. It is true that there has been an improvement, but it would be a mistake to assume that those provisions would cover all the cases to which I drew attention in my remarks.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne and indeed all noble Lords who have made such compelling arguments for the amendments in this group. I rise to support Amendment 107 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, to which I have added my name. I again refer the House to my registered interests, particularly as a dairy and livestock farmer and as a forester.
The farming community needs help after the run of negative actions taken by this Government: the slashing of delinked payments, followed swiftly by the cut-off in sustainable farming incentives with no notice, contrary to previous promises. That leaves a large number of farms with negligible environmental payments, incentivising the intensification of their farming operations, undermining their businesses and undermining nature restoration. To that is added the more general burden placed on all businesses of increased employer national insurance contributions.
Farmers’ long-term planning has been thrown into chaos by the reduction in inheritance tax reliefs on agricultural and business property. It is a burden that farming businesses simply cannot afford and will lead to the sale and break-up of many of these on the death of a family member, with families also losing their homes and businesses as a result.
In the run-up to the introduction of the reduced reliefs in April 2026, the financial incentive for elderly or terminally ill farmers and business owners to take their own lives increases. In Committee, I was grateful to the Minister, who is again in his place today, for his promise to speak to his ministerial colleagues at Defra and the ONS about keeping accurate and timely data on farmer and business-owner suicides. I ask him again today: what has been the result of those discussions? How can the Government assess the impact of this measure on suicide rates if they simply rely on out-of-date and insufficiently granular ONS data?
On Amendment 107, the arguments in favour of granting farming an exemption from these Bill provisions have been well made in Committee, and I will hit only the headlines. Farming is almost uniquely exposed to seasonality in its harvesting operations, as well as the weather variability in the timing of those operations. Livestock farmers have to look after their animals every day and rely on casual labour to fill in gaps due to illness or scheduling issues. That requires flexibility in its engagement with seasonal and part-time or casual staff. There are penalties enough in weather unpredictability without introducing more through compensating staff for changing hours at short notice or having to compensate for sickness from day one. These obligations are simply unaffordable for farmers and unworkable in practice.
Farming operates on cycles that are unknown in other businesses. It is easy enough to assess the quality of work and the suitability of staff in retail, offices and manufacturing, even after the first day or so. However, most farming workloads are solitary, with little oversight. We know whether a new employee has drilled a field correctly, looked after animal hygiene effectively, checked weed growth around new trees without damaging the trees, or ensured that livestock is back in calf in the necessary window, only months after those operations are performed. Reducing probationary periods and leaving farmers exposed to human resource and litigation risks, potentially from day one, is simply not acceptable or workable.
As my noble friend Lord Deben highlighted in Committee, this is not a Government who have a background or experience in the farming or rural economy. That lack of experience is often evident, and I urge the House and the Government to listen to those of us who have that experience and to support this critical amendment. I hope to hear encouragement from the Minister that the Government are listening.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to the disapplication of provisions of the Bill to certain sectors and employment types. Amendment 94 would give the Secretary of State the ability, through regulations, to vary or exempt specific sectors from the provisions of the Bill. We do not support this amendment as we generally do not support facilitating two-tier employment systems in which certain businesses have statutory obligations that they must adhere to and others do not. Instead, we are focused on ensuring, as part of the Government’s consultation process ahead of implementation, that sectors likely to be disproportionately affected are properly engaged and supported to operate under the Bill with minimal disruption.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 105, 107 and 159 in my name. On Amendment 105, the Government are well aware that this Bill, in particular Part 1, will have a detrimental effect on seasonal work and seasonal industries, but they have failed to provide any clear definition of what seasonal work is. We therefore think it is essential that the Bill includes a precise definition to protect those vital sectors to ensure that the law reflects their unique and fluctuating nature. We are discussing the lives and livelihoods of thousands who work not in rigid year-round roles but in the beating heart of seasonal industries, such as agriculture, hospitality, tourism and the performing arts. Their work ebbs and flows with seasons, festivals, harvests and holidays, not according to neat quarterly reporting periods. Yet, under the present draft, a 12-week reference period is being proposed as a basis for determining what constitutes an established pattern of work.
Let us pause on that. Twelve weeks—barely three months or, one might observe, the precise duration of just one of the four seasons—is being treated as a sufficient measure for sectors whose very nature is defined by unpredictability and periodic intensity. That is not only an inadequate metric but, in many cases, an actively misleading one. A fruit farm may employ hundreds in May and none by August. A theatre technician might work flat out during festival season and then have no engagements for months, or be working elsewhere. A seaside hotel may be bustling in July but deserted in November. To take a short-term temporary rise in demand and then draw long-term legal assumptions from it about continuity of work is not merely a flawed approach but deeply unfair to both employers and workers.
Businesses cannot predict with such precision. They cannot bind themselves to a rhythm that the market does not keep. If they are forced to do so, they will, understandably, become more cautious. They will hire fewer people, reduce opportunity and retreat from flexibility altogether. Flexibility is not a sin, nor is it bad for an economy. In many cases it is the only practical means by which people—students, carers, parents and artists—can participate in the labour market. We must not make mistake irregularity for instability, nor seasonal work for insecure work.
This amendment does something elegant and essential: it defines seasonal work in clear, practical terms; it captures its recurring yet temporary character, grounded in the real operational rhythms of key sectors; and, crucially, it instructs the Secretary of State to have regard to this definition when drafting regulations. That is not an escape clause; it is a safeguard against blunt policy-making. We are not asking for a loophole; we are asking for recognition that not all labour is uniform and not all employment patterns can or should be squeezed into the same regulatory mould. If we pass this Bill without such a safeguard, we risk chilling seasonal hiring altogether—not protecting workers, just denying them opportunities.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Roborough for signing Amendment 107 and I look forward to hearing the answers to the questions that he asked, particularly on the suicide statistics. I hope the Minister is able to address those. Before turning to the matter at hand, I must begin with an unequivocal condemnation of the Government’s recent family farms tax policy. This disastrous measure has placed an unbearable strain on family farms, which are the very foundation of our rural communities and the heart of our national food security. Instead of supporting these hard-working families, the Government have chosen to punish them with policies that threaten their very existence. I urge the Government to commit today to reversing this tax immediately for the sake of our farmers, our countryside and our country.
Having said that, I turn with equal concern to the Employment Rights Bill. Although this Bill’s goal is to enhance worker protections, which is commendable, it tragically fails to take into account the unique realities of farm businesses and seasonal work. As we have heard, farming is unlike any other industry. It is defined by seasonal peaks and troughs, by work that is dictated by the weather and the cycles of nature, and by labour demands that can change from one week to the next. To impose inflexible employment rights designed for stable year-round jobs on these seasonal industries is to misunderstand them fundamentally.
Take, for example, the proposal to extend unfair dismissal rights from day one of employment, which we have just discussed, or the Bill’s restrictions on zero-hours contracts, which would further exacerbate some of these issues. Zero-hours contracts in agriculture are not a tool of exploitation but a necessary mechanism for managing the ebb and flow of seasonal labour. Moreover, the proposal to require compensation for cancelled shifts fails to consider farming’s intrinsic unpredictability. Decisions about work can hinge on weather conditions that change with little notice. To expect farmers to pay for cancelled hours when fields are unworkable is simply unrealistic and unfair.
Even the Bill’s provisions on the right to request flexible working place an undue burden on farmers. Agricultural work is highly seasonal and task driven, as my noble friend Lord Roborough explained. That makes flexible working requests difficult to accommodate in practice. Raising the threshold for employers to refuse these requests will hamper farms’ ability to plan and respond to fluctuating labour needs.
That is why Amendment 107 is not merely desirable but essential. By introducing a clear baseline definition of seasonal work, the Bill can be tailored to reflect the cyclical, temporary and weather-dependent nature of agricultural labour. This amendment recognises the reality of these industries, allowing for the necessary flexibility that the Bill currently denies.
Without this amendment, the Government risk imposing a one-size-fits-all regime that will force many farms to cease hiring, increase costs or even close altogether, yet again devastating rural communities and endangering our food security. I urge people around the House to support this amendment and send a clear message that the law must work with and not against the realities of seasonal work. Yes, we must protect workers, but let us also protect the farms and farmers who feed this nation.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for supporting Amendment 159. A few years ago, in a remarkable TV interview, a one-time Labour shadow Chancellor could only suggest “Bill somebody” when asked to name a business leader who supported Labour’s policies. Sadly, this Government’s Employment Rights Bill risks the same fate. Ministers cannot name a single small business that supports all the measures contained within it—if any exist at all. This Bill is being rushed through with little regard for the very businesses that form the backbone of our economy. The Government’s own impact assessment hints at a looming disaster but fails to fully capture its devastating effects.
The Federation of Small Businesses warned that this Bill is weighing heavily on the minds of small business owners, already forcing them to put investment and job creation on hold at precisely the moment when they are most needed. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, cited the ICAEW, and the Institute of Directors recently revealed that 72% of businesses believe this Bill will harm growth with 49%, so nearly half, saying they intend to hire fewer staff as a direct result.
Yet the Government insist that businesses will simply absorb these costs—a statement that is not only unrealistic but dismissive of the precarious financial position many small enterprises face. Larger firms may weather the storm but small businesses often survive on razor-thin margins, and their survival will come at the cost of lower wages, reduced opportunities, or a reluctance to hire new staff at all. The Office for Budget Responsibility has warned that these sweeping new regulations will likely have
“material, and probably net negative, economic impacts on employment, prices, and productivity”.
That, I fear, is masterly understatement.
Crucially, the Government have missed one vital fact—competition between employers, not simply regulation, best protects workers’ rights. Employers who want the most productive, loyal and committed workers must offer better pay and conditions to attract and then keep them. This natural market dynamic encourages fairness and opportunity far more effectively than heavy-handed mandates. This Bill would distort competition by imposing complex rules and costs that distract businesses from focusing on growth and innovation. Instead, they will divert precious resources into managing compliance and legal risk, and into erecting barriers rather than enabling opportunity. Ironically, this will lead to fewer businesses competing for talent and therefore fewer jobs being created.
The Government claim that these rules will improve job security and working conditions, but the reality is that the increased costs and risks will force many small businesses to rethink their hiring plans altogether. The FSB says so. They will either hold back on creating new jobs or cut existing ones, and some will reduce wages or cut hours to survive. The intended protections risk backfiring, making work less secure and less rewarding. Ultimately, the costs imposed by the Bill amount to a stealth tax that will fall directly on the workers themselves—an opportunity tax. Employers faced with higher compliance costs, the risk of costly tribunals and the restrictions on flexibility will have little choice but to pass these expenses down the chain. This means lower wages, fewer hours and fewer job opportunities, ensuring, paradoxically, that work simply does not pay.
I will say a quick word on my noble friend Lord Leigh’s Amendment 106. This Government like a consultation, but they have been unable to name any business they have consulted in relation to Part 1. My noble friend’s amendment is therefore elegant in its simplicity. It channels the Government’s enthusiasm and corrects their omission. I will support it if he chooses to divide. Finally, I remind the noble Lord, who I think is answering, that the noble Lord, Lord Howard, asked a very good question. Lest he has forgotten it, I would like to re-ask it.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. Amendment 94 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, would exempt specific groups from all or some of the provisions within Part 1. Since the 1980s, UK reforms have stripped back workers’ employment rights and turned the country into an outlier among advanced economies. The UK’s productivity has stalled more sharply than in other economies, with millions trapped in low-paid, insecure and poor-quality jobs. What is the result? Less money in working people’s pockets.
We are now paying the price. Millions of working people cannot afford basic living costs. In one of the world’s wealthiest nations, workers are still turning to food banks. Many cannot afford rent, let alone a mortgage. Morale is at rock bottom; motivation is vanishing. Average salaries have barely increased from where they were 14 years ago. The average worker would be over 40% better off if wages had continued to grow as they did leading into the 2008 financial crash, yet executive pay keeps climbing. In 2023 the average FTSE 100 CEO earned 118 times the pay of the median UK worker, up from 50 times in the late 1990s. This is not sustainable, not fair and no way to build a healthy, productive economy. The UK must stop treating worker protections as a drag on growth. They are the foundations of it.
More than 2 million people could benefit from guaranteed hours and rights to payment on zero-hours contracts. More than 9 million people would benefit from protections against unfair dismissal from day one. Up to 1.3 million employees will get a new entitlement to statutory sick pay. These new rights, entitlements and protections provide a baseline minimum standard for security and dignity at work. They should not be something the Government of the day can freely take away. Furthermore, exempting any category of person that the Secretary of State deems fit will ultimately create a two-tier system of employment rights based on the politics of the day. While I understand the noble Baroness’s intentions, I reiterate that these provisions were manifesto commitments.
Business confidence is at a nine-year high, according to the Lloyds Business Barometer—
Lord Leong (Lab)
Noble Lords opposite may laugh but this is the Lloyds Business Barometer, which I am sure many noble Lords across the aisle will know—with a second consecutive rise in workforce projections for the coming year. Deloitte recently ranked the UK as the joint top destination for investment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Before the noble Lord sits down, he has put up a heroic defence based on a variety of statistics, but is he aware of the latest survey from the ICAEW—the chartered accountants? It is regarded as very representative, surveying over 1,000 companies of various sizes. The survey shows the fourth quarterly decline in business confidence and that the expectations for employment are at their lowest level since the third quarter of 2020.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, if the noble Lord starts throwing statistics around, I can throw statistics at him as well. As I said earlier, the Deloitte survey shows that the UK is the top destination for businesses. In fact, the Chancellor’s speech at Mansion House yesterday was very much welcomed by the City of London. All the financial services say that London will be the destination for fintech investment. Furthermore, KPMG’s recent consumer index says that people are feeling that they have more money in their pocket and are starting to plan holidays for the summer—good for them.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I am sure the Minister will want to be very clear on this. I think the Deloitte survey he refers to was in respect of inward investment only, probably because the UK is regarded as a cheap place, given what has happened to us in the last month, whereas the chartered accountant survey is specifically on business confidence, which has fallen every quarter for the last four quarters. One wonders what happened four quarters ago to prompt that.
Lord Leong (Lab)
We got into government one year ago, after 14 years. Business confidence was very low then, and at the same time unemployment was on the rise. At the end of the day, we are making progress. The figures will take time to change, but I am confident that confidence will grow. Inward investment is coming in, which means more investment in business and growth. Furthermore, the FTSE index reached the 9,000 mark yesterday. What does that say? People have confidence to invest in British companies, so let us not talk down the economy.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I cannot let that pass. The noble Lord will know that the FTSE represents mostly foreign earnings. It is not a domestic index.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has covered quite a lot of ground. I cannot pretend to be anything but disappointed in the Minister’s response. In fact, the first chunk of his response seemed to be some kind of lesson in the socialist view of life and had nothing to do with any of the amendments. While I respect the Minister’s own business expertise, he does seem to demonstrate that this Government do not understand business and do not understand the key to successful economic management.
I was pleased to hear that my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley intends to test the opinion of the House. I hope my noble friends on the Front Bench will seek to do the same when we reach their amendments in their places on the Marshalled List.
I was of course disappointed, but not surprised, that the Minister was not prepared to accept my generous offer of a reserved power to create exemptions to get the Government out of trouble in due course. I hope they do not come to regret their decision. You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink. I have taken the government horse to water, and it has refused to drink. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Colville of Culross) (CB)
My Lords, I am informed that there was an error in the results announced for the first Division today. The correct results were content 304, not content 160.
Amendment 95
Baroness Kramer
“Protected disclosures and the Office of the Whistleblower(1) The Employment Rights Act 1996 is amended as follows.(2) For section 43A (meaning of “protected disclosure”) substitute—“43A Meaning of “protected disclosure”In this Act a “protected disclosure” means any disclosure of information which is made in the public interest to persons specified in section 43C(1), and which is a qualifying disclosure under section 43C(1), which relates to one or more of the matters in section 43B(1) and which relates to a circumstance which has occurred, is occurring or may occur.”(3) In section 43B (disclosures qualifying for protection), for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) In this Part, a qualifying disclosure means any disclosure of information which relates to—(a) a criminal offence or regulatory breach;(b) the failure of any person including a relevant person to comply with a legal obligation;(c) a miscarriage of justice;(d) the endangering of the health or safety of any person;(e) damage to the environment;(f) mismanagement of public funds;(g) misuse or abuse of authority;(h) such other matters as may be prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(i) concealment of information or removal or deletion or destruction of any documents relating to the above matters.”(4) In section 43C (disclosure to employer or other responsible person), for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) The persons referred to in section 43A are—(a) the Office of the Whistleblower;(b) a relevant person;(c) a person who, in the reasonable belief of the person making the disclosure is a relevant person;(d) a person to whom it is reasonable for the person making the disclosure to make that disclosure.”(5) After section 43C, insert the following new section—“43CA Disclosure to the Office of the Whistleblower(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, within one year after the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed, establish a body corporate called the Office of the Whistleblower (hereafter referred to as “the Office”).(2) The principal duty of the Office is to protect whistleblowers and have oversight of the process of whistleblowing.(3) The functions of the Office are to—(a) set minimum standards for whistleblowing policies, procedures and reporting structures;(b) monitor and enforce compliance with those standards; (c) provide an independent disclosure and reporting service;(d) provide support for whistleblowers;(e) bring actions for the offence specified in subsection (6) including action notices, redress orders and interim relief orders which may be appealed to the First-tier Tribunal;(f) prevent the exercise of Confidentiality Agreements and Non-Disclosure Agreements except where non-disclosure is for purposes of commercial confidentiality orto provide whistleblower anonymity.(4) For the purposes of this Act, a person is a “whistleblower” if they are a worker who has made, makes or is intending to make a protected disclosure or is perceived by a relevant person to have made, be making or intend to make a protected disclosure, related to their employment.(5) Any whistleblower who is dismissed from their employment may refer their case to the Office of the Whistleblower, regardless of whether whistleblowing is cited as a cause of their dismissal.(6) A person who intentionally or recklessly submits a whistleblower to detriment is guilty of an offence.(7) For the purposes of this section, the maximum amount of the fine shall be—(a) in the case of an individual, 10% of their gross annual income, not exceeding £50,000;(b) in any other case, an amount not exceeding 10% of the entity’s annual global turnover.(8) Cases arising from subsection (6) are to be heard by the Employment Tribunal.(9) 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 establishes the Office of the Whistleblower to protect whistleblowers, oversee whistleblowing processes, and enforce compliance with reporting standards. It also allows dismissed whistleblowers to refer their cases to the Office and expands the definition of protected disclosures to cover various public interest concerns, including criminal offences and mismanagement of public funds.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will not move Amendment 95, but I take a different position on Amendment 96.
On Monday, the Government published their long-awaited Grant Thornton review of the existing whistleblower framework. Despite its narrow remit, the review is, frankly, jaw-dropping, and the Government have no choice now but to set in train fundamental reforms for the whole whistleblowing framework. It is in acknowledgement of the significance of that publication that I will not move Amendment 95.
Baroness Kramer
“Regulations to protect whistleblowers(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to—(a) extend the circumstances in which an employee is considered unfairly dismissed after making a protected disclosure, and(b) require employers to take reasonable steps to investigate any disclosure made to them under section 43C of the Employment Rights Act 1996.(2) Regulations made under subsection 1 apply to any employer with—(a) 50 or more employees,(b) an annual business turnover or annual balance sheet total of £10 million or more,(c) operations in financial services, or(d) vulnerabilities in other respects to money laundering or terrorist financing.(3) When making regulations under subsection (1)(b), the Secretary of State must set out in statutory guidance what “reasonable steps” should include.(4) The Secretary of State must make regulations under this section within six months of the day on which this Act is passed.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative resolution procedure.”Member's explanatory statement
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to make regulations strengthening whistleblower protections by broadening unfair dismissal grounds and obliging certain employers to take reasonable steps to investigate protected disclosures.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
On this amendment, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Grey-Thompson
“Serious childhood illness pay and leaveThe Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, amend section 171ZZ16 (entitlement) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and section 80EF (neonatal care leave) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 so that the provisions in those sections extend to parents caring for a child up to the age of 16.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a right for parents to be absent from work for a prescribed period, and to be paid during that period at a prescribed rate, to care for a child between the ages of 29 days and 16 years who is receiving, or has received, specified types of medical or palliative care.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 97 in my name. First, I thank the Ministers for taking the time to meet to discuss this important matter, and specifically the noble Lord, Lord Katz, and his team, for meeting over the weekend.
This is a simple amendment about protecting the families of sick children. It is being called Hugh’s law. Hugh died of cancer at the age of six. His name is now etched into this amendment, not as a symbol but as a legacy. I would like to thank Hugh’s parents, Ceri and Frances, for being here again today. They are sitting in the Gallery, as they did in Committee.
Since Hugh’s death, his parents have devoted their lives to ensuring that no other family has to endure the trauma of watching their child suffer through endless treatments, sleeping on hospital floors with their life on pause, and without financial protection, job security or peace of mind. I cannot imagine anything worse than watching your child die and having to make the choice between being with them or potentially losing your home. This is an important time not just for parents but for siblings. I know that my noble friend Lady Finlay of Llandaff, who is unfortunately not able to be in her place today as she is attending a funeral, would have wanted to talk about the trauma and impact on the wider family situation.
In the time it will take us to complete this stage of the Bill, more than 1,000 parents across the UK will be told that their child has a life-threatening illness. Some will be in hospital for weeks; others, tragically, will never leave. Unlike most of us here today, Hugh’s parents do not have to imagine that moment; they have lived it. They know the unbearable fear, the crushing helplessness, and the impossible choice between work and being at their child’s bedside. They are campaigning for this because they know that the current system fails these families. It leaves them exposed, unsupported and forgotten by a framework that recognises the needs of newborns but not of children like Hugh, who were older than 29 days when they fell ill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise briefly to offer the strongest possible Green support for this amendment, and the support of many others who cannot be here today. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has outlined the reasons for this amendment very clearly, and I am just going to make a couple of additional points.
In many cases, the ability of parents to be at their child’s bedside acting as an advocate is crucial to ensuring that the child gets the best possible medical treatment. There is a profound inequality here if financial circumstances prevent parents being at the bedside, giving doctors and other carers information about their child’s health and the child themselves.
This amendment would also enable the parent to maintain contact with the workplace. Rather than having to give up their job and deal with the mess later, there would be a continuing relationship that would hopefully work out for the best if the child comes home and things go back to something like normal.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, in paying huge tribute to Ceri and Frances for the campaign they have run for Hugh’s law. As the noble Baroness said, this is very much a legacy. I have to say that I am very surprised, because this week the Government responded to a final plea to back it. I hope the Minister may be about to stand up and offer something different, but the email suggested that that is not what we are going to hear today.
The briefing from the Hugh’s law charity points out that, with GoFundMe, people have to appeal to the public to fund their support for their sick child, meaning that they have to expose their suffering and pain. Unless funds are strictly designated to pay for medical treatment, the parents are then not eligible for any of the later government assistance that the noble Baroness set out, such as universal credit. If they have money from the public to support them, that cuts off government support. That is not covered in this amendment but is something that the Government should look at to make sure that, if a family in deep distress receives donations, that should not stop them getting other support.
With those comments, I strongly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and I know that many other Peers will, so I hope that we might hear something positive from the Government.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for introducing the amendment. Anyone who heard the interview on Radio 4 this morning could not but have been moved by the circumstances that are the background to the amendment.
I speak as one who had the experience of losing two young children. At the age of two and three, our children, Alun and Geraint, were diagnosed with a life-terminating condition. It was the week in which the 1974 election had been called and my wife and I had to decide whether I should remain working in industry at Hoover in Merthyr Tydfil or to stand. The question was how on earth we were going to face the circumstances in which both our boys would live perhaps for five, 10 or 15 years, but one thing was certain: both my wife and I could not continue to work. Caring for two boys who had learning disabilities and were gradually able to walk less and less, until they could not walk at all, was an emotional as well as a physical and, potentially, a financial challenge, which is where the amendment is relevant.
We were unlucky, and the unluckiness was double, as I have described. My wife was also expecting our third child at the time and we did not know whether that child would be affected by this condition. Standing for election and being elected to represent Caernarfon in the House of Commons meant a 30% reduction in my salary. My wife, who was a professional musician—a harpist—would not be able to continue her career thereafter and would lose her earnings altogether. Had it not been for the availability of the then mobility allowance and attendance allowance, both of which it was possible to get at the highest level for both children, we would not have been able to employ someone to help us in order to give my wife some relief while I was down in London doing my work here.
That situation continued. We had two other children, our daughter Eluned, who was born in the June following that February—she was all right and was not affected by the condition—and our son Hywel, who was born two years later, was not affected by it. So we were blessed by having two children who were not affected. But we saw what the reality could be of the financial pressures that come from that double disability. If it had not been for my parents living next door—my father had just retired, on a good pension—we could not have survived. We were subsidised by my parents, who were retired and in their 60s, and, putting that together with the attendance allowance and the mobility allowance, we could eke the money out and make things practical.
I am telling your Lordships this by way of background—it is not something that I talk about very often in this House, but it is directly relevant to this amendment. There are countless families who face these circumstances without having the support that we were lucky enough to get. I am sure that people of all parties, across the House, want to build a system whereby no parents are put in a position where they cannot look after their child and keep enough money coming in to eke things out. I support the amendment and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing it forward. I wish the family who have been the motivation for this amendment every strength in the challenges that they face.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, I can add very little to what has been said, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I know that this House will be grateful to him for sharing a painful story. I took the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 through your Lordships’ House. It was a real honour to do so. As I have said, when I met the parents who were campaigning, they were not asking for the world—they appreciated the fact that businesses needed us to be proportionate as policymakers. Equally, they made a powerful case for the difference that that Act would make. I am hugely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for building on that Act, and to Hugh’s family for their briefing and campaigning. I assure her of my support in the Lobby tonight.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I confess that at the beginning I was a little sceptical, not so much about the amendment but about the issue that the Government and every previous Government have faced of trying to control the benefits bill. It is not easy and, as this Government have just discovered, trying to remove two existing benefits has proved incredibly difficult. We are trying to reduce the percentage of our GDP that we spend and it is not easy if we cannot control benefits. The winter fuel payment and the disability payments have proved just how challenging this is.
However, the amendment has my support because, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has explained very plainly, of the impact that this situation has on families, probably more on middle-income families who have less in savings than on other people. It is a relatively small amount of money—at £187, it is not a massive amount—but it could make a real difference to people who are already in the distressing situation of trying to care for their family while a child is in hospital. The total cost to the Exchequer is around £6 million to £8 million—it does not run into billions of pounds. It is something that we and the Government could support. The amendment certainly has my support in this change to help parents at a time that they most need it and when a child most needs it, too.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my good friend, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing forward this amendment, which I proudly support. I am sure that I speak for everyone in the Chamber in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for sharing his experience in an unbelievably emotional and powerful speech.
There has been much debate of late, as we have heard today, about the size and scale of the welfare state. There needs to be reform, as I think everyone accepts. The welfare state should be tough—indeed, it should be tougher—but it must also be compassionate to those who need it. I have not had direct experience and cannot comprehend the pain and agony of people who have been told that their children are seriously ill and require palliative care. There is then the impossible decision, as the noble Baroness said, of what to do about work. My noble friend Lady Wyld talked about the work she did, as we all did, and the amazing advances in neonatal care. This proposal is the next logical step —it builds on what we have already done.
The campaign group It’s Never You has done research highlighting the impact on parents and children: almost 90% of parents had to reduce their working hours or leave employment, and almost 80% noted the understandable effects on their mental health. Many studies link a pro-family environment with benefits not only to families but to businesses by contributing to high employee satisfaction, reduced turnover and increased productivity.
I know that there are those who have concerns about the growing size of the state. While this amendment is noble in itself, there are three other things to consider for those who may perceive it to be yet another endless cost among many. One is that the provision should be time-limited, considering a specific period in a poor family’s life. Secondly, it should be tightly defined to cover only up to a certain age limit, and specific care. Thirdly, and crucially, as has already been said, it is for those who cannot afford not to work, who will working and contributing again when the time is right.
As the noble Baroness said, this proposal stems from the tragic case of a young boy called Hugh who, sadly, died at the age of six from a rare form of cancer. This amendment is thanks to his remarkable and in many ways heroic parents and their family, who have campaigned and gained such support across the country. Alas, as has been noted, since Committee hundreds of families will have been given the ghastly news about their children and suffered their own agony and pain.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey- Thompson, for introducing this amendment. I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for the very powerful personal testimony he has given in this House. It is never easy; there is nothing more difficult for any parent than to walk the pathway of the serious illness or death of a child. In fact, at best it is often a very lonely pathway that lasts not simply until the time of the child’s passing, but for many years after.
This is a very compassionate amendment, and I trust that the House will support it. I am happy to support it if the noble Baroness puts it to a vote.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I speak for these Benches in support of Amendment 97 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. Noble Lords will remember that it was regrouped, and I referred to it in an earlier debate, as so many of these issues are interlinked. Rightly, it introduces a right for parents to take paid leave
“to care for a child between the ages of 29 days and 16 years who is receiving … specified types of medical or palliative care”.
The amendment is a valuable addition that recognises the significant demands placed on families caring for seriously ill children. I was amazed when I discovered that our laws provide only for parents of babies under 28 days via the neonatal care Act.
I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, very moving, and I thank him for sharing that sad history with us. This is a sad history, and we are just trying to put right the problems in some way. It has been referred to as Hugh’s law, after the child diagnosed with cancer, and I think that is how many of us will remember it.
Amendment 97 would close the gap and create a stand-alone entitlement, modelled on neonatal leave, to ensure that no parent is forced to choose between their child and their livelihood. The proposal, according to figures I have, would cost between just £6 million and £7 million a year, yet the difference it would make to families in crisis is immeasurable. It is targeted and reasonable, and it is a compassionate step forward to protect some of the most vulnerable working families in the UK. It is a positive and complementary amendment, and I commend it to the House.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions to this important debate. We are very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for having raised what is a profoundly important issue, one that deserves very careful consideration by your Lordships’ House.
As my noble friend Lord Wigley reminded us, serious childhood illness places unimaginable strain on families, and it is not just a case of emotional turmoil. There are so many practical challenges as well, including hospital visits, overnight stays, unexpected emergencies and a need for sustained and focused care that no working parent can possibly schedule around.
I am pleased to say that many good employers already recognise this: in the most extreme circumstances, they show compassion and flexibility, ensuring that parents are not forced to choose between caring for a seriously ill child and retaining their job. At the heart of this is not only compassion but continuity. A child battling serious illness often requires a parent at their side, not occasionally but consistently. Without job protection and some form of financial support, the very people whom we would expect to be there—parents—may find themselves unable to be so.
Of course, any new entitlement must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, reminded us, designed carefully, with due attention to cost, clarity and implementation. Whereas on these Benches we do not take a fixed position on the amendment itself, I welcome the fact that it prompts us to engage seriously with a difficult but crucial area of employment and social policy.
I thank all those who have contributed to this important debate, and I hope that the Government will take from it not only a recognition of the challenge but a willingness to explore how it might be best addressed in law.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a powerful debate on Amendment 97, which seeks to introduce financial support and leave for the parents of seriously ill children, and I thank all noble Lords who participated in it. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for sharing his painful and very personal story. It is clear that, even after a fair number of not just years but decades, the indelible mark of the pain that he and his partner and the rest of his family went through is still with him. On behalf of the whole House, I thank him for sharing that story.
I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, for bringing this extremely important issue to the attention of your Lordships’ House. I pay tribute, as, I am sure, does every noble Lord who has spoken in this debate, to the excellent work done by Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis and their charity, It’s Never You, which provides vital support to the parents of seriously ill children. Ceri and Frances set up this charity in memory of their late son, Hugh, who died tragically in 2021 after battling a rare form of cancer. It’s Never You has worked with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to draft this amendment, and I know that Ceri and Frances have campaigned hard on this proposal to honour the memory of their son Hugh and to provide support to parents who face the same tragic circumstances that they did.
It is of course vital that parents be able to spend time at the bedside of their sick child without the fear of loss of employment or financial difficulties adding to a situation that can already be mentally overwhelming, isolating or physically draining, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, set out so well. One can only imagine the trauma of being in such a terrible situation. I say that one can imagine, but perhaps one can never really fully understand unless one is in that situation.
I know that this challenge has been raised previously in your Lordships’ House and in the other place, and I want to emphasise that the Government are keen to continue to look at the issue with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and It’s Never You. As the noble Baroness said, I have personally met Ceri and Frances several times already, and I have been struck by their selfless determination and resolve to provide for other parents what they did not have. We intend to continue this engagement. I want to ensure that parents of sick children are not ignored or left behind.
However, we do not believe that incorporating this amendment into the Bill would achieve this end, despite the very best of intentions with which it has been prepared. I will highlight three reasons for this.
First, we are concerned about the approach of amending the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act, which was taken through your Lordships’ House by the noble Baroness, Lady Wyld, as she set out a moment ago. Although the amendment rightly seeks to provide much-needed care to older children, it risks unintentionally undermining some fundamental principles of neonatal leave and pay, which were designed with the specific situation of newborns requiring medical care in mind. Much of the eligibility criteria for the leave and pay entitlements in the existing Act, for example, are connected to birth-related forms of leave, such as maternity and paternity, that simply would not apply to parents of other children. Similarly, the specific definition of “neonatal care” in the current Act has been carefully constructed through extensive consultation. Again, this amendment would require that to be overhauled, risking creating a gap in existing support.
Secondly, more detailed analysis is required to fully understand the total cost implications of this proposal. We need to understand how many parents may be eligible for support across England, Wales and Scotland, as well as the estimated take-up, familiarisation and business costs. Initially, external estimates suggest that the cost of this amendment could be in the low millions—the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to that specifically—based on data from England only. However, those figures are likely to represent only a small proportion of all parents who may be eligible for support. The actual cost could be significantly higher, depending on how serious illness and other eligibility criteria are defined. Therefore, the overall financial impact will depend on the final definitions and scope used to determine eligibility.
Thirdly, it is also right that the Government consider other suggestions of support that have been put forward by parents who are put in this incredibly challenging and difficult situation, such as the right to a career break to enable parents to take an extended period of time out of work to provide care for a seriously ill child, as has been highlighted by Conservative MP Mark Francois in the other place and his constituent Christina Harris. It is right that the Government explore all proposals before proceeding to legislate in order to ensure good law—indeed, a workable law—and the very best outcome for parents, which I think we all, across the House, agree is needed.
The Government appreciate that there is a significant challenge to be addressed here, but more work needs to be done to understand the best approach and costs of tackling it. For instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, raised GoFundMe and the way successful fundraising campaigns interact with the benefits system. That is undoubtedly an area that needs to be understood.
As the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Hunt of Wirral, said, we need to understand the costs, and to have clarity and full consideration. More work needs to be done to understand the best approach and the costs of tackling this issue and addressing it properly. However, I want to be very clear that we are listening, and I have been moved—as we all have—to hear of the distress caused by the incredibly challenging situation of serious childhood illness and the financial strain that comes with caring for a sick child.
The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked for a way forward, and I hope noble Lords will take what I am about to say in the spirit intended. I make a commitment to the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and to Ceri, Frances and It’s Never You, that we will consult on support for parents of seriously ill children, including the proposal for Hugh’s law, to gain views from all interested parties on the specifics of the support. We are doing this at pace—the consultation will run next year in 2026. We wish to continue working with It’s Never You, the noble Baroness and all noble Lords who are interested—having heard the debate this evening and the strength of opinion across the House—on this extremely important matter, as we further explore this proposal.
It is appropriate that we consult publicly and provide space to hear a range of views to ensure that we arrive at the most appropriate policy outcome. We want to do something that is right. We want to make sure we have a solution that sticks, is workable, and provides the support that so many parents need—indeed, that Ceri and Frances needed but did not have. It is important that we do not rush into it but have a considered approach. I therefore ask, while we undertake this consultation, that the noble Baroness withdraws Amendment 97.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I thank all those who have contributed to the debate this evening and, very specifically, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for sharing his deeply personal and moving experience. What we sought to achieve with the amendment has been discussed at length. I appreciate that, but it was over many meetings. We asked several weeks ago for guidance if there were technical concerns. We got a response yesterday, which was very helpful, but I note that there is no indication within it that the amendment is inoperable, nor that these concerns could not be dealt with through the offer of a tidying-up amendment or, potentially, an alternative text at Third Reading. I welcome the opportunity to continue to discuss this and I do not wish to delay the House any further, but I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
“Right to be accompanied by a certified professional companion(1) Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (right to be accompanied) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (3), after paragraph (b) insert— “(ba) a person who has been reasonably certified in writing by a professional body as having experience of, or as having received training in, acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary or grievance hearings, or”.(3) After subsection (7) insert—“(8) In this section, “professional body” means any organisation which is authorised by regulations made by statutory instrument.”.(4) In section 42 of the Employment Relations Act 1999 (orders and regulations), after “3,” insert “10(8),”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would expand the right to be accompanied by a certified companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings. It would also give the Secretary of State the power to authorise such bodies by regulation, subject to the affirmative procedure, thereby ensuring parliamentary oversight.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, currently only a fully certified trade union representative or a colleague has the statutory right to accompany an employee to a hearing. In practice, this leaves the vast majority of workers in the UK—77.7%—to navigate proceedings alone or, worse, to be accompanied by an inappropriate companion, who may frustrate the process or cause inadvertent detriment to the worker’s case.
We all receive briefings from numerous organisations, which contribute to our debate. The last one I received today was on this issue, so I read it to see how I could incorporate it in my speech. It was from the TUC and said that only the trade unions could possibly represent people, which confirms my words and adds weight to this amendment. An amendment to the Bill is desperately needed to guarantee that all workers, regardless of their membership of a trade union, enjoy the right to be accompanied by a dedicated and trained companion during workplace disputes. This would ensure transparency, fairness and due process, as trained companions ensure that both employees and employers have a robust safeguard against unfair treatment and misunderstanding.
This sensible amendment would give rights to people who are very often not in a trade union-recognised organisation. The trade unions can still represent, but they do not have to be the only people to represent. This amendment, I feel, fills that gap. I beg to move.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendment 99 seeks to remove the restriction that only trade union representatives or a work colleague may accompany an employee to a disciplinary or grievance hearing. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Londesborough, for supporting what is a modest and practical but important change to employment law. It would give workers the right to be accompanied to a hearing by someone they trust, somebody of their choosing—perhaps a family friend, a carer or a person from the relevant industry. It is about fair play and equal treatment, ends a one-size-fits-all effective union monopoly and is simply empowering and modernising.
My amendment is similar to Amendment 98 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, which would expand the list of those who could accompany workers to include trained and certified companions. I support the principle behind the noble Lord’s proposal but fear that its certification regime is unnecessarily complicated, could result in delays and inconsistencies and could create bureaucratic barriers, especially for staff cohorts such as young employees unfamiliar with the bureaucratic paraphernalia of such procedures.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to these amendments, to which I have added by name. What we are dealing with here is a basic question of fairness. Currently, the law recognises the importance of accompaniment at disciplinary and grievance hearings, yet it narrowly limits who that companion can be. Unless an employee has a supportive colleague or is a trade union member, they face these often-daunting proceedings alone. This creates a two-tier system, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, mentioned. How can it be right that two workers in the same workplace facing the same process are given different statutory rights based solely on their union membership?
This is not a hypothetical issue. In reality, 78% of UK workers are not in a trade union, which means most cannot count on the support of a trained companion in these hearings. I have no objection to trade unions; I am not a trade unionist myself, but I reject the idea that statutory rights should be tied to union membership. I have yet to hear a convincing argument and defence of the current system. This is why I support these amendments. Both aim to fix this imbalance in different, practical ways.
Amendment 98 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would widen the scope of acceptable companions. It would empower the Secretary of State to propose certifying bodies—for example, Edapt in the education sector—to approve trained companions, with Parliament having final say through secondary legislation via the affirmative procedure. This approach ensures fairness. Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, goes further, removing restrictions altogether and allowing the employee to choose their own companion. This gives power back to workers, who are best placed to decide who can support them.
We return to the core issue of fairness, which seems to have cropped up many times throughout this Bill—not only fairness for workers navigating difficult circumstances but fairness for employers, too, who would benefit from clearer, smoother processes and reduced risk of costly litigation. Ultimately, these are not radical proposals. The amendments are sensible adjustments that reflect the modern workplace and the real choices workers are making. As the Government’s document Next Steps to Make Work Pay rightly states,
“all workers should be able to enjoy fair rights and benefits”.
I hope that the House agrees.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, which, to me, smacks of common sense, while also acknowledging that Amendment 98, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is a step in the right direction.
For those of us who have conducted disciplinary and grievance hearings—as an employer, I have conducted my fair share over the years—these are often stressful, time-consuming and sometimes very divisive, not only for the employee but often for the employer, the manager and the other team members who are involved. An officious approach, in which only a trade union official may accompany the worker into the meeting, makes this situation, if anything, more adversarial, more us versus them and, in my view, less likely to lead to a sensible compromise that works for both parties. This is particularly the case for small and micro-businesses in which trade union representation is lower and the worker very often does not have that option. To widen it out to other members, colleagues, friends or even family members, as Amendment 99 states, seems to me a sensible move.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I want to take this opportunity to correct what I think has been a mischaracterisation of the TUC briefing, which makes it very clear that the right to be accompanied includes, yes, trade union reps but also workmates. I also want to correct what is a misunderstanding of the spirit of the right to be accompanied, which was very much about dealing with grievances, disciplinaries and procedures within a workplace. Hence, when a union is recognised by the employer and the worker is a member of the union and chooses their union rep to represent them, that is a good thing. Our experience is that that is about resolving issues at an early stage. Likewise, a worker may choose a workmate to represent them—somebody inside the organisation who can take a practical, common-sense view of dealing with a grievance and disciplinary procedure.
During the debates on the Bill, we have heard a lot about the worries of ending up in employment tribunals, disputes being protracted and lawyers and others who maybe want to make a pretty penny from representing workers in trouble. Noble Lords will find that many employers, like workers, want to keep resolution of those issues within the workplace because that is often the quickest, more effective and cheapest way that everybody concerned can sort out problems when they arise. Surely it is in resolving issues that we should all share an interest.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I rise to say simply that, in my experience, I have found that employees want to bring with them family members, often parents—particularly women want to bring a parent—and I am not sure that this will allow that anymore.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for their amendments and their introductions. I speak strongly in favour of these amendments, which address a crucial gap in the rights currently afforded to workers.
At its core, this is about fairness, autonomy and dignity; it is about giving working people real choice and a real voice when it matters the most. As we have heard, under the current law, a worker facing a disciplinary or grievance hearing has the right to be accompanied, but only by a fellow worker or a trade union representative. What of the workers who are not in the union, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe pointed out, is most of them? What of those who work in small businesses, where asking a colleague to attend is uncomfortable or perhaps even counterproductive? What of those sectors in which peer support simply is not realistic? We must not confine workers to a narrow and outdated list of whom they are allowed to bring into the room at a time of maximum stress and uncertainty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, so powerfully illustrated with her real-world examples, that causes problems.
This amendment would bring common sense, compassion and modern flexibility into law. This is about worker autonomy, trusting people to decide whom they need in the room with them. If we are truly to modernise employment rights, either amendment should be accepted.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a useful debate on Amendments 98 and 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley.
On Amendment 98, the law already provides that when workers are invited to attend a disciplinary and grievance hearing, they are entitled to bring a companion who is either a fellow worker, an official employed by a trade union or a workplace trade union representative who the union has reasonably certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at a disciplinary or grievance hearing.
As we have heard, and perhaps in response to the critique by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, employers can allow workers to be accompanied by a companion who does not fall within the above categories. Some workers may have a contractual right to be accompanied by persons other than those listed—for instance, a professional sports body, partner, spouse or legal representative.
As my noble friend Lady O’Grady of Upper Holloway helpfully reminded us, the existing legislative provisions seek to keep disciplinary and grievance procedures internal to workplaces to better ensure that the heat is taken out of the situation and that they are used as conciliatory opportunities to resolve tensions and maintain a good employer-worker relationship. As my noble friend said, this could involve a workmate who knows the context of the situation, understands the employment —and probably both parties to the grievance—and can provide real insight to the situation and focused support.
The inclusion of professional bodies, which may include legal representation in the legislation, may jeopardise the involved parties’ ability to engage in amicable conversation, with the concern that discussion may be significantly restrained as a result, with neither party willing to accept fault. The Government are rightly concerned that this will result in an increased likelihood of a failure to reach a suitable outcome for both the worker and employer. As my noble friend Lady O’Grady said, we want systems in place that are quicker, cheaper and more effective at reaching resolutions.
However, this in turn, as part of the proposal, would increase the cost of hearings for both parties, as the processes and the meetings themselves become more protracted and reduce the chances of a mutually beneficial outcome. The involvement of legal representatives may be particularly costly for smaller businesses, which may not have legal resources readily available—we have heard much already today, if not in previous debates in Committee and on Report, about that issue. Additionally, the introduction of legal expertise at these hearings may limit the ability of ACAS to mediate an ongoing dispute, as legal arguments may already have been heard during an internal hearing. It is worth noting that an amicable solution between the parties is the fastest way to deliver justice and the amendment may have the inadvertent effect of increasing the likelihood of tribunal claims being made, although of course that is not its intention.
Of course I understand that certain organisations, including those that provide legal services, would benefit. However, as previously noted when discussing similar amendments, an employer already has the existing ability to nominate an organisation to accompany their workers if they set this out in the workers’ terms and conditions. This is a solution in search of a problem. ACAS estimates that there are 1.7 million formal disciplinary cases in UK organisations each year.
It is rare that I ever say this, let alone from the Dispatch Box, but I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, in that the approach taken by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in his amendment would be unduly cumbersome. It would complicate a law that has been in place for over 20 years and, if accepted, will require that the employer checks secondary legislation for every case to see who is a responsible body and whether the individual has been certified as having been trained. These are additional administrative burdens that the Government are keen to avoid. Indeed, the Opposition Front Bench has been keen to point out when they see fault in our proposals in other places—erroneously, I should add.
On Amendment 99, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, the Government believe that strong trade unions are essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. If Amendment 98 was a solution in search of a problem, Amendment 99 is an opportunity for the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, to bash a problem, in her view—namely, trade unions.
I am a former trade union official. I have also worked in a number of private sector roles as a manager. Unions are a good part of our industrial landscape, as we have heard across the House. I join with others across the House in saying that it would better if more people were members of trade unions. They are far from perfect, but although the cases that the noble Baroness raises undeniably raise issues about the trade unions she talked about, they do not undermine the day-to-day work of many trade unions and, in particular, of trade union reps. In the workplace, day in, day out and across the country, they work with employees and businesses to make workplaces safer, to ensure that employees are properly educated and skilled, and to help those employees access their rights at work, which we deem fair and necessary.
Trade unions have an important role to play in supporting workers during the process of a disciplinary or grievance hearing. Union officials allowed to accompany a worker, as prescribed in the existing framework, must be certified as having received training in acting as a worker’s companion at disciplinary and grievance hearings. By opening this role up to anyone the worker chooses, the amendment risks introducing individuals into the disciplinary and grievance hearings process who are not familiar with the workplace in question or, indeed, with the employment rights framework.
As I noted when speaking to the previous amendment, this is again likely to lead to a reduced likelihood of successful mediation of these disputes. The role of the recognised union representative allows the relationship between the employer and representative to be developed over time, thus increasing the likelihood of an amicable solution that does not go to a full legal process. This amendment could lead to the involvement of a family member or friend in disciplinary grievance proceedings, which may, in practice, cause more problems than solutions, given the sensitive nature of such a personal relationship.
In closing, it is unclear to the Government where the demand for expanding this right is coming from and which workplaces specifically would benefit. In the consultations we have undertaken in government and prior to being elected, with both businesses and trade unions, the need to expand this right has not featured from either side in the workplace.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
I think the Minister may have answered his own question there, because if the consultation was with trade unionists about whether there was any need for non-trade unionists to go in, then they would give you one answer. I want to clarify one thing: it is true that I have never been a trade union official, but I have been a rank and file trade union member for decades. I am not anti-trade union, but I do not think the world stops and starts at trade unions.
I want to ask the Minister whether he understands that, at the moment, the statutory right to be accompanied by a trade union official is not in-house. The way the law is phrased is that any trade union official, even one from a union that you have never joined and from a completely unrelated sector, can accompany you—that is the way the law is. I wanted to know whether that is fair or whether that wording could change. What is wrong with, say, a Citizens Advice caseworker or what have you? The numbers of people who are in the trade unions just do not tally for people to be accompanied fairly at the moment. Unless there is an 80% increase in trade union membership, it is obviously two-tier and discriminatory at present.
Lord Katz (Lab)
To respond to the first point the noble Baroness made, perhaps I did not enunciate clearly enough, but I said that in the consultation the demand for change did not come from either trade unions or employers.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
This is the final word. This is not a trade union rights Bill; this is the Employment Rights Bill. It is casually known as the workers’ rights Bill. There are millions of workers who are not in trade unions for a variety of reasons, including your own Minister Angela Rayner, as I just noted. I simply suggest that when you ask employers or trade unionists whether there is a demand for this then rank and file workers are being ignored. I suggest that you acknowledge and empower them.
Baroness Nichols of Selby (Lab)
My Lords, I just want to put the record straight, because we have heard much about the Deputy Prime Minister not being in a union. She is in a union. She is in the union called UNISON and has been for a number of years. I did not want noble Lords to go home tonight thinking that no one would represent the Deputy Prime Minister.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lady of Nichols of Selby for that helpful clarification. I thought that was the case, but I am glad that she made it. She is in a far better position than I am to talk about UNISON and its membership.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I want to be clear that this issue has not come up in all the consultations we have undertaken, with a wide variety of stakeholders. It is not that I am saying, “We talked to some trade unions and, guess what, they’re quite happy with the status quo”. Genuinely, this issue has not come up. Simply, this is not an issue for workplaces. That is why I described it—
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
Does the Minister understand that there is a two-tier system here? If you are a trade unionist you can have somewhat more professional attendance than somebody who is not a trade unionist. That is what is important.
Lord Katz (Lab)
To be clear, if there is a recognised trade union or you are a member of a trade union then you can take a trade union representative, but you also have the right to be accompanied by a workmate. If you are a member of a trade union, you do not need to take that trade union representative along; you could have a workmate come along. If responsible employers want to have more flexibility, they can write this into their terms and conditions. There is nothing to stop people doing that. That is why I suggested, to again use the phrase, that the solution to such a problem is not something we really need to respond to in the legislation because it might create unintended consequences and, in terms of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, unfair administrative burdens on employers. Therefore, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 98.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, we have had some very interesting comments here from various people. I remind noble Lords that all we are saying is that people should have a choice. They could have a trade union representative, fine, but 77.7% of people are in firms that do not have a trade union. But if there was a trade union, that is fine.
The alternative is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, said, you could have a fellow worker. But the point of the amendment is that we are saying that the workers need to have a trained person to represent them. It can be a trade unionist—that is fine—but, if it is not, it will be like when a person goes to the solicitor at the end of the road and gets him to represent them on a complicated issue: he is the wrong person to represent them on that issue. You have to have someone who has some training. The trade unionists have the training, but they do not represent everybody. We are saying that the person who is seeking help should have someone who is trained.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for what she said; I gather, from having spoken to her, that she will support the amendment in my name. Bearing in mind the lateness of the hour, I would like to test the feelings of the House.
Baroness Penn
“Statutory parental leave: length and pay(1) The Secretary of State must lay a comprehensive review of all statutory parental leave before Parliament by no later than 1 January 2027.(2) Within six months of the publication of the review set out in subsection (1),the Secretary of State must by regulations increase the rate of pay for statutory parental leave and pay available to fathers and second parents in the first year after their child is born.(3) By 1 January 2030, the Secretary of State must by further regulations provide for at least six weeks of non-transferable paid leave to be paid to fathers and second parents in the first year after their child is born. (4) Regulations under subsection (3) must be set as a minimum at the level of—(a) 90% of a father’s salary, or(b) the level of median gross full-time employee earnings in the United Kingdom, defined by the ONS Annual Survey for Hours and Earnings,whichever is lower.(5) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to improve the length and pay of leave for fathers in line with recommendations from the Women and Equalities Select Committee report ‘Equality at Work: Paternity and Shared Parental Leave’.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Hampton, for their support, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this Chamber or outside of it in favour of improving leave for new fathers. I also have Amendments 101 and 102 in this group, the arguments in favour of which have not changed since Committee, but for reasons of time I shall focus on Amendment 100.
Since Committee, the Government have launched their review into parental leave. At the launch, the Business Secretary acknowledged the arguments that I am making today, saying that only about one in three new dads takes paternity leave, mainly for financial reasons, and committed:
“This review is our chance to reset the system and build something that works for modern families and businesses”.
The Government say that they want to fix the system and that part of what is broken is the low level of paternity pay available. It is logical, therefore, that any solution would address this. That is all that my amendment seeks to do.
First, my amendment would ensure that there are no further delays to this work. Given that it was meant to be completed within the Government’s first year, it is reasonable for the amendment to commit the Government to its new timeline of completing the work 18 months from now. However, for a review to be of any value, it must lead to action, so this amendment commits the Government to improving paternity leave once the review is completed, reaching a minimum of six weeks at 90% of pay, with a cap, by the end of this Parliament, in line with the key recommendation of the Labour-chaired Women and Equalities Committee, which has considered this issue carefully and in detail.
Such a commitment does not pre-empt the review. If the purpose of the review is to improve the system that we have, then this is the number one way in which it needs to change. It leaves open the question of how to do this, whether through increasing paternity leave or changing shared parental leave, so that it actually works for families. However, there is no point to a review if it does not lead to change.
The reason I am pressing the Government so hard for action—not just warm words—is that, each year we delay, more than half a million fathers and second parents are welcoming a new baby into their family without the ability to properly bond with their child or support their partner. Working on this amendment, I have spoken to too many fathers who have been heartbroken at having to return to work when they could see their partner struggling, physically after a c-section or traumatic birth or mentally with the brutality of postnatal depression. I have also spoken to fathers whose own mental health has suffered, leaving them struggling to meet their obligations to their family and to their employer, as well as safeguard their own well- being. The first year of a child’s life is one of the highest risks to relationship breakdown, and yet we give families just two weeks to adjust to the arrival of a new baby.
The social policy reasons for improving paternity leave go on and on. More engaged fathers in the early weeks and years lead to more engaged parenting in the long term, affecting children’s outcomes socially and academically.
I acknowledge the concern at the heart of the Bill about its impact on employers and growth. I have spent the weeks since Committee engaging with businesses and business organisations. I will not pretend that all businesses welcome this proposal without any reservations. They have to think about the impact it will have on covering absences, their productivity, their other staff and their bottom line. But despite these concerns, they have all seen the value in improving paternity leave for their employees, who are able to make the transition to parenthood more successfully, but also for their business in terms of recruitment, retention and productivity of employees.
That is why those who can afford to already offer enhanced leave to fathers. More than 180 organisations in the UK already offer at least six weeks at 100% of pay. Smaller businesses, reliant on a government rebate from the statutory scheme to cover the costs, cannot afford to expand their offer without that support. That means the cost of any expansion to paternity leave must be covered by the Government and therefore the taxpayer. In the current fiscal context, that is not something I take lightly, but we have overwhelming evidence that the benefits will outweigh the costs. Increasing paternity leave to just six weeks at an adequate rate of pay leads to a significant change in caring dynamics within a couple when they have children. That shift enables more women to make the choice to return to work or to work more hours.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, for building on the amendments that she and I tabled in Committee. I will speak to Amendment 100, to which I have added my name, but will not repeat the case I made in Committee. No doubt my noble friend the Minister will say that the amendment is unnecessary now that the Government have published their review of parental leave and pay, and that we should not pre-empt that review. I understand that and preface my remarks by saying how much I welcome that review, which I think will meet the warning of the Women and Equalities Committee that it must not lead
“only to tinkering around the edges”.
We are promised a comprehensive review, and comprehensive and fundamental it needs to be if it is to live up to the Prime Minister’s claim that it represents a landmark moment.
This amendment serves a purpose in holding the Government’s feet to the fire by putting their own timeline into legislation. Really, six weeks of paid leave for fathers at the same rate as statutory maternity pay is the minimum we should expect. A recent policy briefing from the Institute for Policy Research at the University of Bath concluded that this change would represent an
“important first step in delivering change”
and would be crucial to improving fathers’ take-up of the leave. It suggested that
“based on evidence from other countries the labour market benefits are judged to be most likely to materialise in case of sequential rather than simultaneous take-up of some of the leave by fathers”—
in other words, allowing the mother to return to work if she so wishes while giving the father the chance to take sole responsibility for the care of their child while she is at work. The amendment leaves open whether the additional four weeks would be part of paternity or parental leave. Personally I prefer the latter as it is more likely to encourage sequential take-up by separating out the caregiving function of parental leave from the health and safety function of maternity/paternity leave.
One of the very encouraging aspects of our debate in Committee was the dads’ army from around the House supporting a better deal for fathers. While the prospectus for the government review is very positive, I thought it could have gone further to include greater gender equality as one of its objectives, reflecting the clear messages from your Lordships’ House that a better deal for fathers would help fathers to be fathers and improve mothers’ labour market position. I was pleased to read that the Secretary of State, Jonathan Reynolds, told the Times:
“I would like it to be culturally very much accepted, that as a new dad you would be wanting to spend some proper time at home. I think that would be really positive for society as well”.
His reference to culture was important. Indeed, in the debate on the Statement, Minister Mather talked about the cultural shift that we need to see. It is important that the review looks at how the Government and others can encourage such a cultural shift. One of the lessons from the Nordic experience is that for changes in parental leave to have their full effect, there needs to be cultural change in the workplace, among employers in particular.
I welcome the fact that the call for evidence states that the Government would like to test whether the objectives set for the review are the right ones. This suggests an admirable open-mindedness, and I hope therefore that the Government will be open to adding the objective of greater gender equality to the benefit of both women and men.
There is a practical question about the review. We have heard that it will take 18 months followed by the publication of a set of findings and a road map, including the next steps of taking forward any potential reforms to implementation. It is not clear to me whether there will be further consultation on the proposals at this stage. Can my noble friend please clarify that? If there is to be a further round of consultation, when do the Government envisage any reforms finally being implemented? I hope it will be possible for the Government to make a practical commitment so that it will not be necessary for the noble Baroness to call a vote.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Hampton, who added his name to this amendment but is unable to be here, I will speak in support of Amendment 100. I will be brief as the noble Baronesses, Lady Penn and Lady Lister, have already set out the case for the amendment so comprehensively and so powerfully. I am more than likely to get parental and paternal confused at some point in my speech, but I will try to avoid that. Sadly, I am well beyond the age when increased paternal leave might be relevant to me, and even grandpaternal leave would be unlikely to help.
The amendment addresses an important issue, not least when the UK has the least generous paternity leave in Europe. Many men currently lack either the option or the financial resources to take an adequate period of leave to learn parenting skills, support their partners and bond with their new children. There is no point at all in making leave available if many families cannot afford to take it.
The Government’s review into parental leave and their desire to improve the system are welcome but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, has said, the review must lead to action. We have heard evidence of the financial benefits for businesses, as well as the economy as a whole, and I will not repeat those, but in addition there are significant social benefits, including better mental health outcomes, better relationships between family members and more engaged and loyal workers. All those benefits would come at a relatively modest net cost.
The amendment starts from the Government’s own aims and sets out the action needed to achieve them through regulations to deliver a new paternal leave regime in terms of the length and rate of pay for statutory paternal leave, in line with the recommendations of the Women and Equalities Select Committee and within a clear timescale consistent with stated government goals. As we have heard, that does not pre-empt the findings of the very welcome review.
The amendment seems to represent a win for the Government, for the economy, for society and, above all, for individual families—mothers as much as fathers, and their children. I very much hope to hear a positive response from the Minister.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 100, 101 and 102 in the name of my noble friend Lady Penn and I declare my interest as the father of a six-month old son. This package of amendments has the potential to transform the lives of families, children and fathers. Polling this year by the charities Dad Shift and Movember found that 45% of new fathers experienced multiple symptoms of depression in their child’s first year. We do not speak of this as a national mental health emergency, but it is. Fathers are not just facing financial pressure; they are being denied time to bond with their children, to adjust to fatherhood and to share care equally with their partners. It can be deeply isolating.
I think of my own experiences as a new father. Mother and child should rightly be the priority for healthcare professionals. I am not saying that fathers should be the priority, but they should not be seen as the enemy either. Not once on any visits to or from midwives or community caregivers did anyone ask how I was coping. What do fathers say would make the biggest difference? Not counselling, not hotlines, but time. Some 82% of surveyed fathers say the single most effective thing the Government could do to improve their mental health is to increase paid and protected paternity leave.
Longer paternity leave is associated with better mental health in fathers. Studies show that fathers who are present from the earliest days develop deeper emotional bonds with their children and become more engaged parents over the long term. As we have heard, this disparity does not hurt just fathers; it hurts mothers too. Evidence confirms that countries with higher levels of paternity leave experience lower levels of maternal postnatal depression. When fathers share the load, mothers recover more fully, return to work more easily and experience fewer long-term career penalties. The current disparity hurts children. A 2025 study in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine found that children of fathers with poor mental health are more likely to develop behavioural problems at school. So, this is a childhood developmental issue, a school issue, and ultimately a public spending issue.
We have heard the arguments that this is pro-business, so I will not repeat them now in the interest of time, but the mental health crisis among men is real. Suicide remains the leading cause of death for men under 50 in the UK. We do not know how many of those male deaths by suicide involve fathers, because the ONS does not collect that data. My question for the Minister is: will this data be collected as part of the review? If we are serious about tackling the male suicide epidemic—not just treating it but preventing it—this is one of the most direct and evidence-based tools at our disposal. Fatherhood should not begin in burnout and guilt; it should begin with time, presence and love. I urge noble Lords to support these amendments.
Lord Jones of Penybont (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 100. I was born in 1967. My mother received a less than generous 12 weeks of paid maternity leave. I was born with a condition that required me to have physiotherapy twice a day every day for the first two years of my life. To save me having to go to the hospital every single day, my father volunteered to be trained in that physiotherapy, and he was not entitled to time off to do that. He did it anyway and he is the reason why I am able to stand straight in this Chamber today. Paternity leave would have been thought of as some kind of dangerous idea in those days, no doubt.
When our children arrived at the beginning of this century, my wife got extended leave—paid leave of course. I was a young and ambitious Minister at the time, keen to please my then boss, the First Minister, so I took no leave at all. Even then, there was no talk of paternity leave; you were expected to get on with it. I missed out on the early months of my children’s life in our family—something they, as teenagers, often reminded me of, usually asking for money at the same time.
I cannot support the amendment because it is too prescriptive, in my view, but it seeks to address important issues. I ask my noble friend the Minister to consider these three questions in her response. I very much welcome the review the Government have announced, and we know that its timescale will be some 18 months. When is the review due to start? Will any documentation be published beforehand so we are able to see the remit and terms of reference of that review? Will those documents be laid before Parliament? We are a long way behind the European norm when it comes to paternity leave. We owe it to so many families up and down the length and breadth of this land to continue to address this issue, and I look forward to the response from my noble friend the Minister.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to support Amendment 100. My noble friend Lady Penn and other noble Lords have made the case for this amendment clearly and compellingly. We have heard that better paternity leave can help increase women’s labour force participation and about the other benefits to the economy, and I would just like to add one more. It would also help to narrow the stubborn gender pay gap, which was still at 13.1% in 2024. I hope that all noble Lords would support narrowing that, but at our trajectory we will not reach gender parity for several decades without systemic change. If this amendment passes, it can be part of that change. Analysis of OECD data shows that countries that have more than six weeks paternity leave have a four percentage point smaller gender wage gap than those that do not. I hope that noble Lords from all sides will support this amendment.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I add my support for Amendment 100 from my noble friend Lady Penn. I will be brief. The thing that struck me most about my noble friend Lord Harlech’s comments is that when I first returned to work after the birth of my first child, having taken two weeks’ paternity leave, I went back with a feeling of guilt. If this amendment does anything, it takes away that guilt that many new fathers feel after the birth of their first child and their return to work.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 100 from my noble friend Lady Penn. I want to focus on the societal and class element of this. I come from a community that has some of the poorest social outcomes in the whole of Europe. One of the features of my community is the lack of a father in the home. I have watched my community struggle for multiple generations with the reality of that—poor educational outcomes and lots of prison attendance by fathers and by children who are unattended. This is an opportunity to reverse many of the social challenges that we face, in one fell swoop. If the Government are serious about addressing child poverty and helping the poorest working communities in this country, levelling up paternal leave would be such a profound thing to do.
I have been a youth worker for over 38 years and one of the things that I ran was a single parent group with over 200 members. When you spoke to the young men involved, they all talked about a lack of connection to their family. If we can help to repair that, we can start to get into why our children fail so badly in school, why they spend so much time in prison and why their behaviour is so challenging in a school environment. The Government have a real opportunity to do this here. The economic impact of not doing this is significantly more than the tiny difference it will make economically to do it. This is a real opportunity for the Government to make a real impact for the poorest communities in this country. I beg that it happens.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support my noble friend. In my view, these proposals are long overdue. When my children were born in the 1990s, paternity leave was not even part of the conversation. Much has changed but the statutory provision for paternity leave, currently just two weeks, still reflects a significant imbalance in the pursuit of gender equality. I am fortunate to work for the same employer— Marsh Ltd, the insurance broker—as I did at that time. It now offers 16 weeks’ paternity leave, to be taken within the first year after the child’s birth.
We have heard that the UK ranking in international standards is low. For many fathers, especially as household costs rise, taking time off is simply not financially viable, even if permitted. Better paternity leave benefits everyone: fathers; mothers; the child; the other children, if there are any; and, in the long term, the economy, as we have heard.
Although I recognise that the four months offered by my company may not be realistic for all, particularly SMEs, we must aim for a fair balance between the business realities and family needs. Research shows that around six weeks of leave is the point at which the broadest benefits are achieved, as proposed in Amendment 100. I believe that this is a reasonable balance and would make paternity leave viable for most fathers.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I have signed this amendment in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. I will not add to what many noble Lords have said, but I want to deal with one point.
The noble Lord, Lord Jones, talked about being too prescriptive. We need such prescription to help new fathers. The idea that this is mind-boggling is ridiculous. It would extend paternity leave from two weeks to six weeks, at 90% of pay. We are not talking about a revolution. We are talking about a modest increase to make some connection between fathers and their children in their very early years. It is needed, because the UK has the least generous paternity leave in Europe. It is good for fathers, bonding and mental health. It supports mothers, with a more equal division of care, and it is good for children’s development. It supports business, because employees will be happier, more contented and not stressed with trying to get back to the family home and their young children. This is not revolutionary. This is a modest step forward. I was delighted to be able to sign the amendment of the noble Baroness Penn, which we on these Benches support.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Penn for bringing forward this amendment, which raises matters of genuine importance to families, working parents and, frankly, society as a whole.
The arguments that my noble friend has made for extending non-transferable paid leave for fathers and second parents is a serious and well-intentioned one. A more balanced system of leave can play a role in promoting gender equality, increasing participation in the labour market and supporting children in their earliest years. As my noble friend explained, it is therefore good for fathers, mothers and children.
I wholeheartedly agree that we should continue to review and refine our parental leave system so that it remains fit for the realities of modern working life. The commitment in proposed new subsection (1) to a comprehensive review is, in itself, a sensible and comprehensive step. I note that this was a manifesto commitment that should have been completed by now, yet the Government are only just starting it. Given the Government’s enthusiasm for consultation, that seems curious to say the least.
We must recognise and acknowledge the broader context in which we find ourselves. The Employment Rights Bill, as it stands, already promises to impose significant new obligations on businesses, at a time when many are still struggling with the increase to employer national insurance contributions, the Government’s constant U-turns, inflation and ongoing global economic uncertainty. Frankly, the Government have asked a great deal of British businesses in the last year—too much, in the view of many—and the effect of these measures has been entirely negative, undermining growth, reducing our competitiveness and rapidly stifling job creation, especially at the margins. If the Government were to think again and accept some of our perfectly reasonable amendments—on the right to request an unfair dismissal, for example—it would be easier to argue in favour of amendments such as this, which could be implemented after careful consultation with business.
While the intentions behind this amendment are commendable and there is certainly room for discussion about the long-term evolution of paternity and shared parental leave, without wider changes from the Government to their most damning plans, this is not the time, nor the Bill, in which to make these commitments. However, I hope the Government will continue to engage seriously with the questions and the comprehensive arguments advanced by my noble friend, and that we will revisit them in a context that allows for a comprehensive economic and perhaps demographic evaluation, along with genuine and meaningful consultation with businesses of all sizes and shapes, and indeed wider society as a whole.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, this has been an important debate on the issue of parental leave and pay. It has been wonderful to hear consensus on how important some of these fundamental issues are to individuals and to our society. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and my noble friend Lady Lister for their prior engagement on these important issues. The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, spoke eloquently and with conviction on these matters. I assure her that it is a conviction that I and the Government share.
We need to reform our confusing patchwork of parental leave and pay rights so that they are fit for a modern economy and deliver the wider societal benefits that noble Lords have raised in this debate. The Government are committed to making life better for families and we know that the current system needs improvement. This is why, through this Bill, we are making paternity leave and parental leave day-one rights, meaning that employees will be eligible to give notice of their intent to take leave from the first day of their employment. This brings these entitlements in line with maternity leave and adoption leave, simplifying the system. We are removing restriction preventing paternity leave and pay being taken after shared parental leave and pay to further support working parents in accessing these entitlements. Crucially, the changes in this Bill are not the limit of our ambitions.
Moving specifically to the amendments, Amendment 100 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. While I appreciate what the noble Baroness is attempting in her amendment, I regret that the Government cannot accept it. Let me reassure her that work is already under way to deliver on the spirit of her amendment. Since Committee, the Government have delivered on their manifesto commitment to launch their parental leave review. In doing so, they have listened carefully to concerns raised by noble Lords and stakeholders as to the details and scope of that review.
To answer the questions from a number of noble Lords, the published terms of reference make it clear that all current and upcoming parental leave and pay entitlements will be in scope of the review. The review gives us a chance to consider what we want the system to achieve, while giving due consideration to balancing costs and benefits to families, businesses and the Exchequer. As stated in the published terms of reference, we expect the review to run for 18 months. This will conclude with the Government producing a set of findings and a road map, including next steps for taking the reforms forward to implementation.
In response to my noble friend Lady Lister, we will want to engage and consult with stakeholders throughout that process to inform the conclusions of our work. In response to my noble friend Lord Jones, the call for evidence is already live; it began on 1 July.
I stress that the fact that the review is a manifesto commitment underlines the seriousness with which we are taking it and our obligation to act on its conclusions. However, we cannot predetermine the outcome of the review, nor can we justify the proposed cost increase without a thorough evidence-based assessment. This is why we cannot accept an amendment that would place a duty on the Secretary of State to lay regulations that would almost quadruple the rate and triple the length of paternity pay from current levels.
Amendment 102 seeks to make paternity pay a day-one right for all employees by removing the current continuity of working requirements. I reassure all noble Lords that we understand the importance of fathers and partners having time away from work to support their partner and to be with their developing family. As we have heard, the Secretary of State at the Department of Business and Trade recently met with Dad Shift and others at the launch of the review to hear first hand about their campaign. We are determined to do everything we can to encourage proper shared parenting for the improved well-being of both the parents and the children involved.
While we are removing the qualifying period for paternity leave to make it a day-one right, statutory pay remains conditional on an average earnings test and a requirement to work for the same employer for 26 continuous weeks. This is standard across all statutory parental pay work entitlements, including maternity pay. The only exception is maternity allowance, which is a benefit, not a work entitlement. Maternity allowance is designed to support health and recovery following childbirth for those who do not qualify for maternity pay.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, given the hour, I shall be brief. The Minister said that the Government have delivered on a manifesto commitment to launch a review, but the manifesto commitment was to complete a review by now. We should have seen the outcomes and be taking action, which is what my amendment seeks to do.
The challenge is that this change is long overdue and there are hundreds of thousands of new fathers who need a firm commitment that change will happen in this Parliament. Not only that, but the Minister seemed to cast doubt on the fact that six weeks at 90% of pay is a reasonable and incremental change, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out. On that basis, I am afraid that the Minister’s commitments were not sufficiently reassuring, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“Prohibition of unpaid work experience for a period exceeding four weeks(1) The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is amended as follows.(2) After section 3(3) (exclusion of, and modifications for, certain classes of person) insert—“(3A) “No provision shall be made under subsection (2)(a) in respect of persons participating in a scheme designed to provide work experience for a continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks.””(3) After section 41 (power to apply Act to individuals who are not otherwise “workers”) insert—“41A Application of this Act to persons undertaking work experience (1) The Secretary of State must, in exercising the powers under section 41, provide that this Act applies to a person undertaking work experience with the same employer for a continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks.(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations in accordance with subsection (1) within a period of six months, beginning with the day on which the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed.(3) Such regulations must provide that a person undertaking such work experience who has ceased to be of compulsory school age, but has not attained the age of 26, is eligible to receive the national minimum wage at the rate specified for workers of the person’s age.(4) In this section—“employer” has the meaning given to it by subsection 54(4) of this Act (Meaning of “worker”, “employee” etc.), and also includes any organisation which provides an individual with work experience;“work experience” means observing, replicating, assisting with and carrying out any task with the aim of gaining experience of a particular workplace, organisation, industry or work-related activity.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that unpaid work experience cannot be used to avoid National Minimum Wage regulations.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to move Amendment 103 in my name. As this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill on Report, I declare my relevant interests as set out in the register as a member of the global advisory board of Endeavour plc and of the science and technology advisory committee of the Crown Estate, and I had a speaking engagement with the FCSA earlier this year.
Amendment 103 is incredibly simple and extraordinarily important for all those young people who have the most appalling start to their career through finding themselves on the wrong end of an unpaid internship. This has been going for decades and it goes on in some of our smartest industries in the 21st century.
The amendment is a reincarnation of a Private Member’s Bill that I brought forward in 2017. I am delighted to say that when I brought that Bill, which is now Amendment 103 to this Bill, it received full-throated support from the Labour Opposition, whom I thank. It also received full-throated support from the TUC and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, whom I thank.
The amendment simply seeks to give young people the right to have a positive experience—often their first—of entering the labour market. Unpaid internships are already illegal under the National Minimum Wage Regulations, but this amendment further clarifies and specifies what work experience is and, crucially, what it is not. It stops work experience being used as a cover for unpaid internships.
When I drafted the amendment, my first inclination was to have work experience paid from day one. But after wide consultation with businesses and trade unions and across civil society, it was clear that four weeks was the right point to suggest that young people—indeed, any person—could do genuine work experience, overseeing, learning and replicating tasks. If that person is brought on board and is doing work from day one, they are protected by the National Minimum Wage Regulations and are entitled to pay. Work experience has a vital role to play in our society and, as the results of my consultation underpin, four weeks is the right point at which to set the limit.
When the amendment was debated in Committee, when sadly I could not be present, a number of views were put forward that suggested there were difficulties with it because unscrupulous employers could simply have numerous rounds of four-week or part-of-four-week periods, but that is not accurate. The wording describes it as a
“continuous or non-continuous period which exceeds four weeks”,
so the drafting already caters for employers who might seek to get around it by having continuous periods of unpaid work experience.
As one young person put it to me, you cannot pay the rent or pay for food with a glowing CV. Ultimately, it is just a question of talent. Why would we want businesses and organisations not to be able to take from the widest, broadest and most diverse talent pool to go into these roles? Some of these roles are at the classier end of the labour market, but it goes through all strata of the labour market. Surely these positions should be open to all on a fair and equitable basis. That is what this amendment would allow for.
We have the ideal opportunity with this Bill to put this right. It seems more than extraordinary, with so many of the other issues that are covered in this not unsizeable Bill, that there is nothing on unpaid internships, nothing to protect those people who find themselves being exploited at the beginning of their career. I ask the Minister: if not this Bill, what Bill? If not this amendment, will the Government not bring forward some wording to end this pernicious practice, which still prevails in 21st-century Britain—a desperate, dispiriting, Dickensian practice that still goes on across our labour market? Why would the Government, alongside all their other measures, not take this opportunity to close this loophole? It would allow young people, or any person seeking to get their first foothold in the labour market, to have a positive, supportive work experience into paid employment. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I thank my noble friend for introducing this important debate. As he has pointed out, the challenge is to strike the right balance. We must protect individuals from being exploited or drawn into extended unpaid roles that are in effect jobs by another name, but we also must avoid placing undue burdens on organisations whose motives are benign and whose placements offer genuine social and developmental value. I welcome the debate that the amendment has prompted, and I hope that as the Bill progresses, the Government will engage closely with stakeholders to ensure that any future regulations achieve the twin goals of fairness for individuals and viability for those offering valuable early opportunities.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for this short but interesting debate around Amendment 103 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, which seeks to prohibit work experience for a period exceeding four weeks. With regret, as he said, the noble Lord was unable to join us in the Chamber in Committee when we debated this amendment, which was moved on his behalf very ably by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who I do not believe is in his place at the moment.
The Government have always been clear that a fair day’s work deserves a fair day’s pay. You need only look at the Government’s track record on the national minimum wage and the provisions in this Bill to see how the Government are delivering on this commitment. I will reiterate what I have said on this issue previously because it is worth emphasising: the existing legislation is clear that aside from a very small number of exemptions, workers who are entitled to the national minimum wage should be paid accordingly. No ifs, no buts. These are the rules that our enforcement body enforces, and these are the rules that we expect businesses to abide by. Of course, the vast majority do, but those that do not undercut the responsible businesses unfairly, and we should all be agreed that this is not behaviour that we should tolerate. This means that an employer cannot call a worker an intern to avoid paying them. I want to repeat this very important point, not only for your Lordships’ House but for those who are listening to this debate outside: an employer cannot call a worker an intern to avoid paying them.
If workers who are entitled to the national minimum wage are not being paid what they are due, there are protections in place so that they can receive what they are owed. The Government and His Majesty’s Revenue & Customs have raised and continue to raise awareness on workers’ rights, so that no one is left out of pocket. I have previously stated that the Government will be consulting on this issue soon. In fact, and in response to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, I am pleased to be able to tell your Lordships’ House that this consultation will indeed begin tomorrow with a call for evidence. I do not believe that I am overstating the case when I say that all of us in this House care about this issue, in particular, ensuring that our young people have access to opportunities, regardless of their background, whether they can afford to work for free or where they are based in the country. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, spoke powerfully on that basic right and I think that we are all in agreement with the principle.
This amendment, while well-intentioned, risks creating loopholes, where existing workers who are entitled to the national minimum wage from day one could find themselves working for free for up to four weeks. I am sure that we would all agree that this is not right and not what any of us wants to see. Adopting this amendment could well lead to an influx of four-week roles appearing, with only those who can afford to work for free accessing them. We do not want to lock away valuable opportunities and create unintended consequences by rushing through this amendment. These issues are complex, which is why I reiterate that it is important that the Government consult on this issue first. To make clear, we are standing by our words in Committee. When we said that we would be starting the consultation “soon”, in this case, that means tomorrow. As I stated in our debate in Committee, the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, wishes to address can be dealt with most effectively outside of this Bill. I therefore ask him to withdraw Amendment 103.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, does he have to hand the number of prosecutions that HMRC has taken under the NMW regulations in this instance? If he does not have that to hand, I would be very happy for him to write.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I do not have that information to hand. I am happy to write to the noble Lord with the detail. I take the opportunity to point out that the fair work agency that we are creating in this legislation will be responsible for enforcing this aspect of employment rights regulation as well as others. We would expect that work to be taken forward by the fair work agency. I undertake to write to the noble Lord with that detail.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. As the hour is late, I will not run through them all by name. I am thankful to the Minister for his response. I very much look forward to the consultation tomorrow and, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
“Statutory carer’s leave pay(1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.(2) After Part 12ZE insert—“Part 12ZFStatutory carer’s leave pay171ZZ25 Entitlement(1) Any person who satisfies the conditions in subsection (2) and any condition prescribed under subsection (3) is entitled in accordance with the following provisions of this Part to payments to be known as “carer’s leave pay”.(2) The pay conditions are—(a) that the person satisfies prescribed conditions as to carer’s leave;(b) that the person has been in employed earner’s employment with an employer.(3) Regulations may provide that a person is not entitled to pay in respect of carer’s leave unless, at the beginning of that period of leave, the person is in employed earner’s employment with the employer by reference to whom the condition in subsection (2)(b) is satisfied.(4) For the purposes of this Part “carer’s leave” means carer’s leave under section 80J of the Employment Rights Act 1996.171ZZ26 Entitlement supplementary(1) A person is entitled to payments of statutory carer’s leave pay in respect of any relevant period only if the person gives notice to whoever is liable to make the payments stating the days or half days in respect of which they are to be made.(2) Regulations may provide for the time by which notice under subsection (1) must be given.(3) The notice must be in writing if the person who is liable to pay the statutory carer’s leave pay so requests.(4) Regulations may set out the definition, type and manner of leave to be taken. (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations—(a) provide for amounts earned by a person under separate contracts of service with the same employer to be aggregated for the purposes of section 171ZZ25;(b) provide that—(i) the amount of a person’s earnings for any period, or(ii) the amount of the person’s earnings to be treated as comprised in any payment made to the person for the person’s benefit,is to be calculated or estimated for the purposes of section 171ZZ25 in such a manner and on such a basis as may be prescribed, and that for that purpose payments of a particular class or description made or falling to be made to or by a person shall, to such extent as may be prescribed, be disregarded or, as the case may be, deducted from the amount of a person’s earnings.(6) Where an employee is entitled to leave under this section the employee is entitled to leave during any period within 12 months, for which statutory carer’s leave pay is payable.171ZZ27 Liability to make payments(1) The liability to make payments of statutory carer’s leave pay under section 171ZZ25 is a liability of any person of whom the person entitled to the payments has been an employee as mentioned in subsections (2)(b) and (3) of that section.(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision as to a former employer’s liability to pay statutory carer’s leave pay to a former employee in any case where the employee’s contract of service with the employer has been brought to an end by the employer solely, or mainly, for the purpose of avoiding liability for carer’s leave pay.(3) The Secretary of State may, with the concurrence of the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, by regulations specify circumstances in which, notwithstanding this section, liability to make payments of statutory carer’s leave pay is to be a liability of the Commissioners.171ZZ28 Rates and periods of pay(1) Statutory carer’s leave pay is payable at such a fixed or earnings-related rate as may be prescribed by regulations.(2) The Secretary of State may, by order, amend the fixed or earnings-related rate of pay as prescribed by regulations in subsection (1) above.(3) Statutory carer’s leave pay is payable in respect of—(a) such a day or half day within the qualifying period, or(b) such number of days or half days not exceeding the prescribed number of days or half days,as the person entitled may choose in accordance with regulations.(4) Provision under subsection (3)(b) must secure that the prescribed number of days is not less than half a day.(5) Regulations under subsection (3)(b) may permit a person entitled to receive statutory carer’s leave pay to choose to receive such pay in respect of non-consecutive periods.(6) Regulations may make provision where, for any purpose of this Part or of regulations, it is necessary to calculate the daily rate or half-daily rate of statutory carer’s leave pay.171ZZ29 Restrictions on contracting out(1) An agreement is void to the extent that it purports— (a) to exclude, limit or otherwise modify any provision of this Part, or(b) to require a person to contribute (whether directly or indirectly) towards any costs incurred by that person’s employer or former employer under this Part.(2) An agreement between an employer and an employee authorising any deductions from statutory carer’s leave pay which the employer is liable to pay to the employee in respect of any period is not void by virtue of subsection (1)(a) if the employer—(a) is authorised by that or another agreement to make the same deductions from any contractual remuneration which the employer is liable to pay in respect of the same period, or(b) would be so authorised if the employer were liable to pay contractual remuneration in respect of that period.171ZZ30 Relationship with contractual remuneration(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), any entitlement to statutory carer’s leave pay does not affect any right of a person in relation to remuneration under any contract of service (“contractual remuneration”).(2) Subject to subsection (3)—(a) any contractual remuneration paid to a person by an employer of that person in respect of any period is to go towards discharging any liability of that employer to pay statutory carer’s leave pay to that person in respect of that period, and(b) any statutory carer’s leave pay paid by an employer to a person who is an employee of that employer in respect of any period is to go towards discharging any liability of that employer to pay contractual remuneration to that person in respect of that period.(3) Regulations may make provision as to payments which are, and those which are not, to be treated as contractual remuneration for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2).171ZZ31 SupplementaryIn this Part—“employer” in relation to a person who is an employee, means a person who—(a) under section 6 is liable to pay secondary Class 1 contributions in relation to any of the earnings of the person who is an employee, or(b) would be liable to pay such contributions but for(i) the condition in section 6(1)(b), or(ii) the employee being under the age of 16;“employee” means a person who is gainfully employed in Great Britain either under a contract of service or in an office (including elective office) with earnings;“earnings” and “relevant period” have the meanings given to them by regulations;“carer’s leave” has the meaning given by the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 and the Carer’s Leave 2024 regulations.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision for a statutory entitlement to carer’s leave pay, including eligibility, rates of pay, employer liability, and the relationship with contractual pay. It seeks to make the length of paid entitlement equivalent to the unpaid entitlement provided for by the Carer’s Leave Act 2023.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, many noble Lords get up and say that they will make a short speech; mine will indeed be very short, because all I wish to say is that we debated this matter at length on a previous day. The amendment would establish paid carer’s leave as a statutory entitlement. I hope that this support for carers will have the support of this House, as these Benches will indeed be supporting Amendment 105, which talks about seasonal workers. They should both be supported. I would like to test the feeling of the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Definition of seasonal work(1) In making regulations under Part 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must have regard to the specific characteristics and requirements of seasonal work as defined in subsection (2).(2) “Seasonal work” means work that—(a) is performed during a particular period or periods of the year,(b) recurs substantially in the same periods each year,(c) is directly linked to a predictable and temporary increase in demand for labour during those periods,(d) includes work in sectors where such patterns are common, including but not limited to—(i) agriculture and horticulture,(ii) the creative industries, including theatre and live performance,(iii) retail,(iv) hospitality, and(v) tourism and events, and(e) is entered into for a fixed duration not exceeding 26 weeks to meet the temporary demand.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment introduces a baseline definition of “seasonal work” to clarify its recurring and time-limited nature for the purposes of the Act.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
“Consultation on Part 1(1) The Secretary of State must initiate a consultation on the effects of the provisions in Part 1 of this Act.(2) As part of the consultation under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must ensure that views are specifically sought from at least 500 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).(3) The Secretary of State must lay before each House of Parliament, within 18 weeks of the initiation referred to in subsection (1), a report on the outcome of that consultation, including a summary of responses received from SMEs.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to undertake a consultation on the effects of the provisions in Part 1 and to ensure that at least 500 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are consulted as part of that process.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, the Labour Party manifesto promised consultation; it has not happened. The Minister, when batting away amendments promises consultation, and it has not happened. The SME community of this country is petrified about provisions in Part 1 of the Bill. They want to be heard, and I think noble Lords do as well. I wish to test the opinion of this House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
“Exemptions for individuals employed by a farm business(1) Sections 1 to 13, 23, and 26 of this Act do not apply to employment by a farm business.(2) For the purposes of this section— “farm business” means any business, undertaking or activity carried on wholly or mainly for the purposes of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, and includes—(a) the growing of crops, including cereals, fruits, vegetables and flowers;(b) the rearing or fattening of livestock or poultry;(c) dairy farming;(d) the management of woodlands where ancillary to agricultural operations;(e) land used for grazing, mowing or market gardening;(f) any business conducted on land that is occupied under a farm business tenancy within the meaning of section 1 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995 or section 109(3) of the Agriculture Act 1947.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment exempts all individuals employed by a farm business from the application of Sections 1 to 13, 23, and 26 of the Act.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, British farmers have been hammered by this Government. Requiring farmers to give guaranteed hours and day one rights on sick pay and unfair dismissal, as well as to make payments for cancelled shifts, is unworkable, so I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea
“(A2) Subsection (A1)(a) shall not apply where the employer is undergoing relevant insolvency proceedings.(A3) Where the employer is undergoing relevant insolvency proceedings, the duty to consult under this section shall not arise.(A4) For the purposes of this section, “relevant insolvency proceedings” means any formal insolvency process under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner, including but not limited to—(a) administration;(b) administrative receivership;(c) Company Voluntary Arrangement (CVA); (d) Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation (CVL);(e) compulsory liquidation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that employers undergoing formal insolvency proceedings under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner are not subject to the collective consultation duties ordinarily required under subsection (A1)(a).
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 108, I will speak to Amendment 109, also in my name. My declaration of interest is that I have worked in my career with hundreds of companies, many of which had to create redundancies at one time or another and a few of which had to go into liquidation. I am not an insolvency practitioner.
The first of these amendments, Amendment 108, is a small but very important proposal. First, a disclaimer: I am not seeking to alter the vast majority of what is proposed under Clause 27, only that small minority of redundancy cases that occur when a company goes into insolvency. Also, I am not proposing any override of TUPE legislation, in particular in so-called pre-packs. I am proposing that on a non-partisan basis, we take advantage of the passing of this Bill to rectify a long-standing conflict between two separate laws—a conflict that often places insolvency practitioners in an impossible position.
What is this conflict? It is between the provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 versus the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, the latter of which, as your Lordships know, today’s Bill seeks. The conflict has long existed; it is not a function primarily of the Bill we are discussing today. Let me explain briefly what it is. Insolvency practitioners are required to act quickly, so that value is not eroded. The 1992 Act, however, requires consultation of between 30 to 45 days, which would utterly frustrate the imperative to move swiftly. The liquidator is basically required to break one or the other laws, and always chooses to break the 1992 law—and will choose to break it as amended by this Bill, because the liquidator has to act speedily. A long consultation, whether 30 or 45 days, is always found to be impossible.
As a result, ambulance chasers write offering “free money” to all employees because the law has been broken and therefore the provision comes in that penalty money should be paid to these workers. This does not happen in all cases—only when trade unions are involved or the insolvency is large enough for the no-win no-fee crowd to move in. Much of the money in bankruptcies then ends up in the hands of lawyers rather than any of the creditors. We should note that in most non-liquidation situations these stringent provisions make such penalty awards rare. An employer would be foolish to flout the requirements. It happens only in liquidation, where the liquidator is essentially forced to choose to flout one law or another.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches do not support these amendments. The obligation to consult collectively in redundancy situations is a vital safeguard for workers, providing them with a voice and an opportunity to understand and respond to proposed job losses. Reducing consultation rights, especially during the turmoil of insolvency, would leave employees even more vulnerable at a time of significant uncertainty. Similarly, cutting the notice period would deny workers essential time to plan, seek advice and make necessary financial and personal arrangements. We believe strongly that these protections must be preserved and not weakened.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we are very grateful to my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea for his amendments. I thank the Minister and her team for the way in which they have entertained and thought through some of the key points made by my noble friend. As he rightly pointed out, collective redundancies are, sadly, not uncommon in cases of employer insolvency. In such circumstances, the role of the insolvency practitioner, which my noble friend has outlined so clearly, is both time-critical and highly constrained. The legal duties placed upon practitioners can come into direct tension with the obligation to consult collectively with employees, a tension that is not merely theoretical but is borne out time and again in practice.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, that the amendment does not seek gratuitously to diminish the rights of employees. My noble friend has drawn the Government’s attention to a genuine gap in the law, one that has become more acute in the light of the changes that the Bill introduces. As it stands, the duty to consult can place insolvency practitioners in an impossible position, bound by law to take urgent decisions to preserve value or manage a collapse while also facing legal jeopardy for failing to comply with collective consultation obligations that were not, and never were, designed with insolvency in mind.
We have to be realistic. Where a company is collapsing, consultation—however desirable—cannot always be carried out in the prescribed way. It is in nobody’s interests, least of all that of employees, to put insolvency practitioners in a position where they are forced to choose between compliance with employment law and their fiduciary responsibilities.
I believe that the Government should take my noble friend’s arguments seriously. This is not a theoretical concern; it is a matter of practical urgency. I therefore urge the Minister to reflect carefully on the implications of the clause and to engage with my noble friend’s proposal in the constructive spirit in which it is offered.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Amendments 108 and 109, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, would amend Clause 27. I thank the noble Lord, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, for their engagement in this matter when we met.
On Amendment 108, the clause as drafted does not alter how collective redundancy obligations apply to insolvent employers. It is right that, when employers know that their business is in trouble and redundancies will be necessary, they should be required to do as much as possible to collectively consult on those redundancies. That was the case before and it will be the case after this legislation comes into force, so nothing has changed.
Employers should consult when they propose to make a qualifying number of redundancies, and they will face penalties if they do not. However, crucially, as my officials and I have discussed with noble Lords, those penalties are set by a tribunal, which will take into consideration the seriousness of the employer’s default, as well as any mitigating factors. The amount set out in legislation is a maximum award, but tribunals may award less where the employer or insolvency practitioner has taken all reasonable steps to consult for as long as possible in the circumstances.
Section 188(7) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 already affords flexibility for employers who cannot fulfil their collective consultation obligations. It allows employment tribunals to assess on a case-by-case basis whether there are special circumstances which make it not reasonably practicable for an employer to comply with their collective consultation obligations.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I apologise for intervening, but is the Minister saying that R3 stated that it was against this amendment?
Lord Leong (Lab)
The R3 website said that it was concerned about the amendment because it may devalue a company’s valuation on an ongoing basis because of the day-one rights accorded to employees. That is what it said on the website.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I do not want to detain the House, but I am in ongoing discussions with R3, and it has never said this. Is the Minister quite sure that it is not saying that it is concerned about the clause, rather than the amendment?
Lord Leong (Lab)
I may be wrong. Sorry: it is not the noble Lord’s amendment; it is the clause. I apologise for that. But it is the same thing: if it is against the clause, it is because it is concerned about the valuation of the business. My point is, why should the employees suffer because of the taking into account of day-one rights?
On Amendment 109, I inform the noble Lord that the notification period in the current law aligns with the consultation period. This means in practice that whenever an employer begins a collective consultation, they must also notify the Secretary of State at that point. Setting these periods at different times could cause confusion for employers and increase the risk of non-compliance. The objective of the notification provision is that such notifications may be distributed to appropriate government departments and agencies that are best placed to support affected employees. This amendment would mean that those agencies would be less prepared to support large volumes of individuals who have been made redundant. We have had extensive engagement with employers throughout the passage of the Bill, and the notification timeline has not been raised as a concern. Therefore, this amendment is unnecessary.
I take this opportunity to say to the noble Lord that we will engage with the Insolvency Practitioners Association, raise and discuss the issues that noble Lords have raised, and listen to what it has to say. With that in mind, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 108.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their patience in enduring at this late hour this somewhat arcane discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, emphasised the importance of consultation and, indeed, the essential nature of it, and said how vulnerable employees are. But they are not vulnerable in this particular circumstance; they have priority as creditors above all other creditors. If there is money, they will get it. If there is no money, they will get it from the Redundancy Payments Service. But why, having got their full amount of redundancy money, should they then scoop the pot and get three times as much because of a flaw in the law that will leave, for example, small trade creditors not receiving anything and possibly facing bankruptcy? That is not to mention the fact that a lot of this money will usually come from the taxpayer—ultimately, the source of funds for these penalty payments—via HMRC, where the Redundancy Payments Service is, thus increasing the deficit. It would create a mini black hole, if I could be so foolish as to mention that.
My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral ably reinforced the need for this amendment. The Minister emphasised the importance of consultation. I understand that, but I believe Hansard will show that I have already dealt with most of the items in his response. I will not delay noble Lords any longer by going over that ground again, except to say once again that when he asks why employees should suffer, the answer is that they will not suffer. I hoped I had explained that. I am chagrined to understand that I have not. They have total priority above all other creditors in receiving their full redundancy payments.
All I ask is, why should they, as a result of a glitch in the law, receive in total three times that much as a so-called penalty payment? They will not be paid by the employer because the employer will be long gone. They will not be paid by the insolvency practitioner, in facing the impossible task of obeying both laws at the same time. They will be paid mostly by us, first through HMRC and through it the taxpayer.
The hour is late and so, if only on compassionate grounds, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
“(A1) After section 5(1)(ec) of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 (general regulations), insert—“(f) requiring the Secretary of State to introduce regulations for employment businesses participating in employment arrangements to underpin recognised certifications and industry standards, particularly for businesses acting as payment intermediaries.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the regulations the Government intend to bring forward for Payment Intermediaries (also known as umbrella companies) make use of the compliant part of the market's existing industry led codes and accreditations. It does not involve the creation of a new body or the creation of a new framework.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I will be blessedly brief. I tabled a similar amendment on this issue in Committee to ask the Government, through the Bill, to introduce regulations to designate a body to bring clarity, consistency and fairness and, in effect, to level the playing field in this area of umbrella businesses, on which the Bill is curiously silent. These entities differ dramatically from other sectors of the employment market, the recruiter market and many other sectors of the economy in not having consistency and clarity of approach in how they are treated.
My amendment in Committee suggested the designation of a body to address this issue. At that stage, it was taken by the Government and others around the Committee that I was suggesting the creation of an additional body. Not a bit of it. It was about the designation of an existing body rather than the creation of a new one. With this amendment on Report, I have moved that on and seek to ask the Government to introduce regulations to ensure that existing codes of practice in good standing—ways of operating that all bona fide businesses in this sector of the market already adhere to—apply to all umbrella businesses.
This extraordinarily moderate amendment would bring fairness, clarity, consistency and a levelling of the playing field. I very much hope the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for his Amendment 110. What this amendment does is simple but important. It encourages the Secretary of State to ensure that in bringing forward regulations under the Employment Agencies Act 1973, they draw upon existing recognised certifications and industry standards. These standards, developed and refined by responsible actors within the market, offer a ready-made baseline for compliance which the Government can and should use.
There is consensus that regulation of umbrella companies is overdue, but as we take this opportunity, let us ensure that the regulation is done well and in a way that is pragmatic, proportionate and effective. This amendment helps point us in that direction, so I hope the Minister can offer some reassurance that the spirit of the amendment will be reflected in the Government’s approach to umbrella companies.
Lord Katz (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, for tabling Amendment 110, which covers the regulation of umbrella companies. The amendment seeks to place an obligation on the Secretary of State to utilise pre-existing industry codes and accreditations as a basis for the regulation of umbrella companies.
We recognise the important role accreditation and trade bodies play in sharing information and best practice with their customers and members. The work of these bodies in the umbrella company industry has had some success in driving up standards. However, this success has been fairly limited, and we would not want to assume that an organisation that is a member of an accreditation or trade body is necessarily compliant with everything. We therefore believe that now is the right time for the Government to step in to protect businesses that already do the right thing and also protect workers.
Many in the umbrella company industry, and those who use umbrella companies, welcome regulation, especially as it will help to level the playing field. This includes public positions taken by the Freelancer & Contractor Services Association, Contractor Calculator, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation and several other bodies’ responses to the consultation run under the previous Government.
We have been clear since Clause 34 was introduced to the Bill that the Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Business Regulations 2003 will be amended to apply to umbrella companies. The Government recognise that the regulations in their current form are not appropriate to regulate the activities of umbrella companies. That is because the regulations predominantly focus on entities providing work-finding services or supplying individuals to end clients, which, generally, umbrella companies do not do. Where umbrella companies do provide such services, they would indeed already be covered under the regulations.
The Government have a statutory requirement to consult before any changes are made to these regulations, and as referenced in the recent roadmap publication, the consultation on umbrella companies regulation will be published this autumn. As part of the consultation process, the Government are keen to get views from trade unions, workers and industry bodies in the umbrella company sector. This will enable the Government to better shape policy development. Following consultation, an appropriate and proportionate umbrella company regulatory regime will be introduced in 2027. Once those regulations come into force, they will be enforced by the Fair Work Agency, which will take a risk-led and intelligence-led approach to its compliance regime.
I hope this provides some of the reassurance that the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, were seeking, and for that reason I ask the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, to withdraw his Amendment 110.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response. It is good to hear that the consultation is coming in the autumn, and we can only hope that is the early autumn and that following that, perhaps there can be some more pace, and it will not be put out to 2027. We also hope the Minister will consider what happens in the interim for all those businesses currently doing the right thing that are disadvantaged by being in a market where some others are perhaps not operating to the same standards and codes of practice. But for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goddard of Stockport
“Employment law code of practice(1) Within 30 months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a code of practice containing guidance for small and medium-sized enterprises on their legal obligations under this Act.(2) It is the purpose of the document to provide clarity for smaller and medium sized enterprises on compliance with the provisions contained in this Act.(3) The document must include, in particular—(a) an overview of the relevant legal duties placed on employers under this Act;(b) a practical framework outlining how such businesses can meet those duties;(c) guidance on best practice suitable to businesses of this size.(4) The Code of Practice may be updated by the Secretary of State as they see fit.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a statutory code of practice for small businesses in adhering to the employment and legal requirements of this Act.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, this is a small group of amendments—only three—dealing with small businesses. I will briefly address my Amendment 111 and the other two. Simply put, we would require the publication of a code of practice applicable to small and medium-sized enterprises with the express intention of ensuring that the code must simplify employment law and the regime that the Bill will create, thereby enhancing the ability of SMEs with limited capacity to adhere to the principles of the Bill.
Amendment 166 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the impact on small businesses. We support this amendment, as we believe that SMEs are suffering excessively from the consequences of some of the proposed legislation. However, we cannot support Amendment 194, which would repeal Parts 4 and 5 and Clauses 149 and 150 of the Bill at the end of the Parliament in which it passes. Quite frankly, we feel that this is nothing more than a wrecking amendment that would create provisions to be adhered to only for a short period of time before reverting back to pre-employment framework, thus causing real havoc in legislation.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, for his important words when he talks about the impact of the Bill on small and medium-sized enterprises. The fact is that while the Government recognise the impact, they have not really taken enough time and trouble to identify the extent of that impact. The Government may argue that they cannot predict the future. We are not asking them to, but we are asking for greater effort in understanding the likely incentives that their policies will create and for a thorough, transparent review of the impact on small businesses. Only then can this House exercise proper scrutiny and ensure accountability.
I will now deal primarily with Amendment 166 in the names of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. The Regulatory Policy Committee has given the Government’s existing impact assessment a red rating. We have referred to this before, and the Government have never denied that rating. The rating means that they have failed to provide an adequate analysis of most of the Bill’s provisions. The Government talk about the Bill representing the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in decades, and one that is long overdue. If that is indeed the case, we should expect a comprehensive, evidence-based analysis of its effect, in particular on small businesses, which make up 99% of all businesses in the UK.
Amendment 194 is not a wrecking amendment. The fact is that the Government have provided no evidence of any tangible benefit from their proposed trade union reforms—we will deal with those in much more detail on our next day on Report. The Government optimistically suggest that the changes might improve industrial relations, but no one seriously believes that—I doubt that even the trade unions do. We have seen the chaos that these types of measures have caused in the public sector. Our worry is that the Government now want to import that chaos into the private sector. Even if strike days are reduced, it will come at a high price: unaffordable pay rises and extreme regulatory burdens designed to placate union demands. That will ultimately harm hiring, weaken competitiveness and make the UK a far less attractive place in which to invest.
As for Part 5 of the Bill, the Government are proposing to hand sweeping powers to the new fair work agency without any meaningful safeguards. Will a minor accounting error mean that family-run businesses face raids from civil servants and property seizures? Will everyday employees with small workplace grievances, who simply want to resolve them informally, find themselves sidelined as the Secretary of State pushes their case to a tribunal, without their knowledge or consent?
Let us be clear: when the Conservative Party wins the next general election, we will repeal these sections and restore a labour market rooted in growth and prosperity.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his contribution and to the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for speaking to his amendment.
Amendment 194, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, seeks to repeal Parts 4 and 5 of this Bill, as well as Sections 149 and 150 at the end of this Parliament. In Committee, we debated at length the merits of Part 4 and 5 of the Bill, as I am sure we will again next week, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned. Parts 4 and 5 are key to delivering the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation, so I do not wish to repeat myself to your Lordships’ House tonight.
Amendment 166, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, proposes a review process that effectively duplicates what we are already doing. As I have outlined previously, the Government already have robust monitoring and evaluation plans in place. The Government’s impact assessment sets out how we will review the Bill and any secondary legislation that follows, including effects on small businesses, which we know are vital to the economy. The recently published road map shows that implementing this Bill will take several years and its full effects will not be realised until long after Royal Assent. Significantly advancing a post-implementation review would not allow for an effective assessment of its impact, including on small businesses.
On Amendment 111, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard of Stockport, this Government know the importance of making sure that employers of all sizes are supported in preparing for employment rights reforms. As set out in our road map, the Government are committed to ensuring there is sufficient support and guidance for employers of all sizes. As set out in paragraph 24 on page 8 of the road map, we will be working closely with ACAS and others to develop codes of practice and guidance on measures where these are needed. We have committed to ensuring time is built into our implementation plans to allow stakeholders, including many small businesses, to familiarise themselves with changes in law, codes of practice and guidance. Many of the measures in the Bill build on existing legislative provisions which already have guidance and codes of practice. When we make changes to regulations, we will also work to update relevant guidance and codes of practice as a result.
We know one of the main places that people turn to for reliable, accurate information on legal requirements is GOV.UK. Work is currently under way to ensure that our digital content is usable, easy to navigate and accessible for all stakeholders. In addition, we have engaged, and will continue to do so, with stakeholders of all sizes to understand what support will be useful for them in implementing these changes.
The noble Lord’s amendment is unnecessary and duplicative. An additional code of practice on top of the guidance and support that the Government have already planned risks causing confusion among stakeholders as to where they should turn for clarity and certainty. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, to withdraw Amendment 111.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I thank the Minister and the other speakers in this small group. Although it is three minor amendments and it is 11 o’clock at night, for us, and, I think, for the Conservatives, small businesses are the heartbeat of the economy in this country. We will keep nagging about small businesses, and we want clarity and certainty.
Yes, codes of practice are great. I have read the road map; it is very interesting. I understand the direction of travel with the road map. It requires patience, trust and a little bit of honesty about what is deliverable in time periods. The road map is a good thing, and I recommend people to read that road map.
Small businesses need to know now the impact of this proposed legislation. Asking for reviews of that, after a period of time, does not seem unreasonable to this group. We are not being awkward for the sake of being awkward, we are just trying to protect small businesses and small companies that are, quite frankly, bewildered. They do not have a political view on the Employment Rights Bill. They are bewildered as to how someone can come in and affect how they try to make a small profit and a small living.
We will continue to probe, not forcing votes for the sake of votes. I speak to Ministers regularly, probably more with these Ministers than on any other Bill—apart from the football Bill, perhaps, with the Minister who is sat next to the noble Lord. The Ministers have been really helpful and supportive, and I appreciate that. I think they understand where we are coming from on this—we are not trying to be obstructive, but we are just trying to tease out a little bit more detail and promise of certainty for people. At the moment, life is difficult, and to put more uncertainty in front of people who are trying to do the things the Government want them to do—grow their business, employ more people and create GVA—those things have to be compatible with the things they are trying to do for the employees. On that basis, I will stop wittering on, and I withdraw my amendment.
Resident Doctors: Industrial Action
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to those conscientious resident doctors who have decided not to take industrial action so that they can continue their vital work and care of their patients. From these Benches, we find it deeply regrettable that a minority has decided to take this unjustifiable action of launching another round of industrial action. This action will undoubtably lead to greater waiting lists, more cancellations of appointments and a worse outcome for patients. Even the pro-government Independent newspaper has predicted that tens of thousands of patients face cancellations. Can the Minister tell the House what remedial action the Government will take to protect patients and offset as far as possible the negative impacts of these strikes and their impact on patients?
I hope the Minister will recognise that I try as much as possible to be constructive in these debates. Unfortunately, when the Government last year offered resident doctors a 28.9% pay rise to end the last round of strikes without attaching any conditions on productivity or on future promises on industrial action, many of those who have studied—and those who have not studied—behavioural economics, game theory or negotiation strategy predicted that the BMA would again call for strikes to extract even more money from taxpayers without improvements in patient care.
It reminds me of a conversation I had with the Secretary of State for Health when we were in government. He had what he thought was a very constructive conversation with a BMA committee, which agreed that some of the working practices needed to be modernised—we were still working on 1948 models. When he asked a BMA representative for advice on implementing the agreed changes, the response was, “How much more are you going to pay us?” The then Health Secretary said, “But I thought you agreed that these practices need to be changed”. “Yes”, the BMA representative replied, “but how much more money are you going to pay us?”
I have huge respect for trade unions and, along with friendly societies and mutuals, their wonderful history in civil society. Thanks to my father’s membership of the Transport and General Workers’ Union—I told the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, about this earlier on—my mother was able to get an appointment at the independent Manor House Hospital. The trade unions had a wonderful history in civil society of helping working people. But in this case it is clear that those who are on strike are more interested in producer interests than in improving patient care. It reminds me of the doctor who tweeted that the NHS is about doctors and nurses but was then asked, “What about patients?”
The current Secretary of State was warned about the risk of incentivising the BMA to call more strikes when he agreed the pay rise last year. My right honourable friend the shadow Secretary of State for Health was very clear when he said that simply caving in to the BMA was the wrong course of action, especially given that there were no conditions attached to that last pay rise. Unfortunately, that prediction came true.
We on these Benches welcome the Government’s indication that they will stand firm on the current dispute; this is surely the right course of action. Since 2022, the BMA has spearheaded more than 11 strikes in the current industrial action. One of the BMA’s leaders even went as far as saying that resident doctors are “excited to go again”. However, we should not tar all BMA members with the same brush; we should recognise that less than 50% of those eligible to vote did so. We should recognise that most doctors realise that further industrial action is not fair on patients or taxpayers, as indicated by the brave decision of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, to resign from the BMA.
Can the Minister tell us whether there has been any impact study on the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill, which we debated earlier and which will lower the strike ballot threshold? Do the Government recognise that this might make even more strikes by the BMA more likely? After resident doctors were awarded a 28.9% pay rise last year, they were offered another 5.4% pay rise this year. This is not only above inflation; it is also the largest pay rise in the public sector. As the Health Secretary himself has said, these are most certainly not the conditions for industrial action. I applaud the Secretary of State for indicating his intention to remain firm in the face of this action. We on these Benches will support him in that endeavour, but I hope that he will stick to his thus far tough stance and not allow the BMA to get the better of the Government.
However, there have been some reports that the Secretary of State is considering asking for the action to end now, with the promise of more pay rises in future. It would be unfair of me to ask the Minister to comment on reports in the press but, if this does turn out to be the case, can we implore the Government both to avoid the temptation of unconditional pay rises and to ensure that any future pay rises are tied to modernising the way in which doctors work, so that all patients can get a better service?
I would welcome any assurances that the Minister can give at this stage.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, in the interests of her husband’s care, my noble friend Lady Walmsley has not been able to stay until this late hour; she sends her apologies to the House. I will speak on behalf of these Benches.
We are disappointed that the BMA is planning to call a five-day strike on the votes of a minority of its members. We welcome the constructive approach of the Secretary of State. We believe that more attention should be paid by the BMA to the effect on patients and on other NHS staff, some of whom are paid much less well than resident doctors but will have to do their best to minimise the damage.
Resident doctors had a 29% pay increase last year. Another increase of that size, if it were granted, would be extremely damaging for the national economy. Many other public service workers who are less well paid than resident doctors have not received such pay rises. Under these circumstances, we believe the BMA’s demand to be unreasonable, unfair to patients and other workers, and, potentially, hugely damaging to the important work of the Government to restore the standards of care in the NHS. Public sympathy is not with the residents doctors at this time. Nor do they have the support of consultants, who will, of course, do their duty and step up to the mark to protect patients even though they are not in support of this strike. Like all public sector workers, doctors need—and normally deserve—the support and trust of the public. It is unwise for them to jeopardise that support and trust by taking unnecessary action.
A strike is unnecessary because the Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that he accepts that there is a good deal more to be done to improve the lives and working conditions of resident doctors. He has shown many times that he is eager to meet them in order to work out how to make those improvements. I urge the BMA leadership to take him up on that offer. We on these Benches accept that many NHS staff have worked under unbearable strain for too long. There are issues around placements, rotations, lack of team support, backlogs preventing specialist training, the physical state of hospitals, and the stresses of not being able to deliver good care.
In that context, I have a particular question for the Minister. One of the areas that the Secretary of State mentioned in his response to a question in another place from my honourable friend Alison Bennett MP, about the reality of working conditions, was this issue of corridor care. We know that this is a result of the effect on the flow of patients through the hospital caused by delayed discharge from the wards of patients who are fit to go home but for whom the appropriate social care or physical adaptations are not available. While we wait impatiently for the Casey review on social care, what are the Government doing about delayed discharges? Will the Minister ensure that local authorities have the resources to fund necessary adaptations to help people live safely at home?
If I was a doctor or nurse in A&E, committed to delivering good-quality care, I would find having to deliver poor-quality care extremely distressing. This is surely critical to the morale of the NHS, affecting recruitment and retention even more than the pay issue. I can assure the Minister of our support if something effective were to be done about it.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank those noble Lords who have stayed for this very important debate at this late hour. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Stoneham, for their comments and their support for the approach that our Secretary of State has taken.
I emphasise that, since taking office, this Government have prioritised improving industrial relations with resident doctors. The Secretary of State met with them in the first week of taking office and agreed a fair pay deal, which sought to reset the relationship between government and the profession. While the majority of resident doctors did not vote for strikes, it is disappointing that the British Medical Association’s resident doctors committee has rushed to announce strike action that will significantly impact patients and set back the progress that we are making with the NHS. Resident doctors will receive the highest pay award of the entire public sector this year and will have received an average 28.9% pay rise compared with three years ago. Increasing this further would be unfair, not least to other public servants.
The Secretary of State met the BMA on 8 July and wrote to it on 9 July, and expects to meet it this week to discuss how strike action can be avoided. He has made clear to the BMA that while we cannot go further on headline pay than we already have this year, he remains committed to his offer to work with it, including meeting its entire committee, to resolve the legitimate issues that resident doctors face around their working conditions. I have not heard the rumours that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, mentioned. They certainly have not come up in any conversations that I have been involved in.
As the Secretary of State explained in the other place, significant progress has been made to start to rebuild the NHS. Waiting lists have been cut by 260,000. We promised to deliver an extra 2 million appointments in our first year and have more than doubled that figure, delivering 4.6 million more appointments. For the first time in 17 years, waiting lists fell in the month of May and now stand at their lowest level for more than two years. This is what can happen when NHS staff and a Labour Government work together. We have put the NHS on the road to recovery, but we have to be honest: the BMA is threatening this progress.
Strike action can, of course, have serious consequences for patients and should only ever be a last resort. The Secretary of State spoke in the other place of the case of Phoebe, who suffers from a genetic condition. Her operation at Great Ormond Street Hospital was cancelled twice, first due to strikes and then because there was not the capacity to treat her. Strikes are unfair on patients, unfair on other NHS staff and unfair to the future of the NHS, which we know is in jeopardy.
Following a 28.9% pay rise, thanks to the action of this Government, the BMA’s threatened industrial action is entirely unreasonable; I put that on record here tonight. Along with the other noble Lords, we are of course urging the British Medical Association resident doctors committee to abandon this rush to strike and, instead, to work constructively with this Government to improve their working conditions and rebuild the NHS. We believe there is a lot of scope, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, said. Their working conditions have been appalling over the last decade. There has been enormous sympathy for the conditions that they have been in.
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, quite rightly raised the issue of how patients will be protected and how negative impacts will be offset. We want to work constructively with all the unions to avoid disrupting services for patients. We acknowledge that unions have the right to go on strike, but there will be robust contingency plans in place to minimise disruption. Employers will seek, across the board, to mitigate impact and to look at ways of rearranging elective care and maintaining, in particular, urgent action.
I have every confidence that the Secretary of State will stay firm and will work towards establishing better relationships and better conditions. I cannot possibly comment, as the noble Lord suggested, on rumours and speculation. It would just not be the right thing to do at this point in time.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for his support and his recognition of the work that has been undertaken. On corridor care, I think every single Member in the Chamber who I have heard speak on this issue recognises the dire situation that we have with social care at this moment in time. To fix the NHS would be impossible without fixing social care; it is absolutely imperative that we move forward. We have confidence in the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and her review—in particular, her ability to reach out and work cross-party with all the different agencies, pulling them together.
We need to take action immediately—the noble Lord is absolutely right—so over the next three years we will focus on the neighbourhood approach, which is one of the three pillars of the 10-year plan. We will target, particularly, those who have been most let down by the current system. That, of course, includes older people with frailties and those in care homes. Social care professionals will work alongside NHS staff in local teams, supporting recovery, rehabilitation and independence—that is absolutely critical to their ability to move out of the acute sector.
We will enable professionals to take on more health-related responsibilities—for example, taking blood pressure checks, around rehabilitation and, again, working on prevention to reduce avoidable hospital admissions. We are looking, importantly, to improve pay, terms and conditions through the fair pay agreement. In the longer term, the creation of a national care service, guided by the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will support deeper integration between health and care. This will build on the whole theme of moving services out of hospital into the community. Importantly, those closer links—and even integration—of health and social care will work with local authorities and the voluntary and community sector.
I think we all know examples of excellent practice in this space. The issue we have is that there is no consistency, and that is where we see problems. Those areas that have built supportive networks in their communities have done a tremendous job in making sure that patients do not end up in hospital unnecessarily, but also by introducing step-up and step-down facilities that will make a difference.
There are many aspects of this to consider, but I hope the Government’s strength of feeling and dismay at the decision to strike has come across loud and clear. I know we will all be looking to the Secretary of State, with his calm and clear exposition of his intention to meet the union and work out a way of getting through this situation to protect patients and the future of the NHS, and to make sure that we can get on with the reforms we have promised through the 10-year plan, which offer an exciting future for health in this country—when we are allowed to get on with it.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Kamall about recognition of those doctors who have decided not to take action. There can be no way that doctors abandoning patients is compatible with the Hippocratic oath they have taken. For 17 years as chancellor of a university, I have listened to doctors on qualification saying that they are taking their Hippocratic oath and that they will give priority to patients and do no harm. Taking five days of industrial action does a great deal of harm to the patients and, of course, to others in the profession who have to pick up the load—the nurses, the consultants and others.
I endorse the great disappointment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, that the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is going to be so slow in arriving, given that it is so essential to the next steps in the health service.
I wonder whether the Minister could come back on the point I made to her last week about resident doctors taking industrial action and then signing on as locums at a premium rate in another health authority or hospital, whether in the NHS or otherwise. Resident doctors are doing the profession enormous harm. Extraordinarily, we still have incredibly high entry standards for doctors. It remains one of the most popular and sought-after professions for school leavers. I take with a pinch of salt this idea that they are all leaving. Lots of doctors go on rotation to America or Australia and to get experience around the world, but I still think that, thank goodness, they regard working in Britain as a worthwhile activity and profession. But the damage these resident doctors are going to do to that trust and respect is enormous.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments and the background. I shall particularly pick up on the issue of moonlighting, which she has raised before. As a point of reference, during the industrial action in 2022-24, it was picked up. There were isolated and anecdotal incidents of this behaviour. It is difficult to get accurate information, and with the current systems in place there is no clear or easy way to monitor the practice. However, resident doctors moonlighting while on strike is clearly unacceptable and in clear breach of the GMC code of practice. As I have said before, it is up to the employers to take any reports of this very seriously, and I am sure they will.
I echo the noble Baroness’s comments about the medical profession in this country. We have some extraordinary people working in the whole of the NHS, not just the doctors. It is a phenomenal organisation, and we believe it is our absolute duty to do everything we can to protect it and preserve it for the future, and to keep it true to its principles of delivering care free at the point of delivery and reaching everyone that needs it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I gave prior notice to the Minister that I want to ask a couple of questions about the Leng review into physician and anaesthetist associates which was published today, dealing with issues of high relevance to the concerns and the levels of dissatisfaction among resident doctors. Indeed, the review directly addresses some of the training issues for resident doctors which are set out in this Statement and which the Government say they are seeking to tackle, particularly rotational training and the lack of training places.
I have two questions. First, when and by what mechanism will Parliament, and particularly your Lordships’ House, have the chance to discuss the Leng report, given the high level of engagement on the statutory instrument that created the GMC registration of PAs and AAs in February 2024 and the level of expertise in your Lordships’ House?
Secondly, and this reflects many questions with which I am being bombarded by those concerned with these issues, some of the main recommendations of Professor Leng include the renaming of physician associates and anaesthetist associates as assistants. Professor Leng says they should not be seeing undifferentiated patients except within clearly defined national clinical protocols; they should get at least two years’ experience in secondary care when newly qualified before taking roles in primary care or mental health trusts; and there should be a named doctor as a line manager, which puts into question people operating as so-called locum physician associates.
Presumably, at least the first of these, the naming question, would require a new statutory instrument. Others may or may not. Can the Minister give me and all the other interested people some idea of how the Government are planning to take this forward?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The noble Baroness is certainly up to date as the report was published only this morning. If I am honest, asking such detailed questions at this stage is possibly slightly premature. We have committed to bringing in an implementation plan, which will be published in the autumn. The government-commissioned work has been very detailed. Professor Gillian Leng led the review, and the report sets out 18 recommendations that will give much-needed certainty and clarity to staff and patients. The Government are accepting these recommendations in full. By doing this, the Government have demonstrated their commitment to evidence-based policy informed by expert clinical advice, listening to patients and professionals.
I look forward to the implementation plan coming forward to make sure that we get some clarity. One of the most dangerous things is the lack of clarity that has surrounded these positions. The debate had, quite frankly, become polarised and in some cases toxic. That is not in anyone’s interest. Of course, there will be conversations between all interested parties following the report’s publication today and I look forward to discussions. I am sure it will come back to this place at the appropriate time.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the Secretary of State said that resident doctors
“should start to experience an improvement in their working conditions on everything from the availability of nutritious food and drink”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/7/25; col. 1150.]
to other items. I would be interested to know: how exactly are the Government intending to achieve nutritious food and drink for these resident doctors?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I do not want to take that lightly, but resident doctors work extraordinary hours and put themselves on the line every time they go into work. Making sure that their employers provide them with the support they need is a fundamental job that they should all do, and I suspect that in some cases that has not been the case. There are so many other ways that all medical staff need supporting. Unfortunately, many medical staff meet violence in the workplace and meet discrimination and all sorts of challenges, and they need to feel that they have support. Making sure that they have access to nutritious food is fundamental and important, and I think we all know, looking back over the last decade, that the conditions that we have expected those wonderful professionals to work in have simply not been good enough. We will do everything we can to ensure that whatever aspect is causing concern is picked up and taken very seriously.